laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on National Health and Population Development, dated 3 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the Minister of Justice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, it is with something of a feeling of unreality that one finds in June 1986 that one has to get to one’s feet in this House to fight against a Bill to give this Government and this hon Minister of Law and Order more power in addition to the ferocious battery of powers that he already has in terms of legislation by this House. That once again this House should have to be subjected to legislation of this kind I find sad and tragic for all of us as South Africans. I find it sad for hon members of the Official Opposition in this House that this should be occurring, but I also find it sad for hon members of that hon Minister’s own party in this House, because I am not satisfied that that hon Minister’s party is completely at one with him on the issue. For some considerable time we have seen reports in the press about the so-called “New Nats”, and without doubt this legislation before us must cause tension. Were I a “New Nat”, I would be desperately worried about a division called on Bills of this nature where I would have to vote with the Government on repressive laws of detention without trial and unrest areas.

At the same time there are other tensions within that party, because I am quite certain that there are hon members within the NP who are distressed with the hon the Minister because of the amendments that he has on the Order Paper which do have the effect of lessening somewhat the onerousness of these provisions—not nearly enough, but they do lessen the onerousness of those provisions. So I am sure there are hon members among the NP who are annoyed with the hon the Minister for the amendments he has on the Order Paper.

I have said that I would have thought that one had enough laws on the Statute Book in order to be able to control the unrest situation. When one looks at the unrest situation, one of the first questions one has to ask oneself is: Why is it so bad? What has happened to our South African society to create a situation where we need more laws of this nature?

The answer is relatively simple. One can see from the date on which the unrest started escalating, which was September 1984, that all this figuring of death and detention without trial has been done from that day to today. I do not remember what the figures are, but it is something like 1 400 to 1 500 people killed since that date. The significant thing about that date is that it is the date of the institution of this tricameral Parliament in South Africa. This unrest is caused by the plans and constitution of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because he was warned repeatedly that this system was going to create more tension and strife than it would solve differences.

However, they went on their own course. There was no proper consultation with all the race groups and all the people who go to make up this South Africa of ours, in order to arrive at this constitution. Consequently it has been massively rejected, hence the unrest and hence the situation we are faced with today.

One must ask whether it is really so necessary to depart further from the rule of law. We have heard the State President pleading for the judicial system in this country, but here we are departing from it! We are departing from a proper judicial system in which decisions can be weighed properly, evidence given properly, and the right decisions reached. I am quite certain that any country in the civilised world—whatever its background—would think long and hard before departing from the rule of law or from due process of law, as the Americans would say. I wonder whether we are in fact going to be able to do what must be done in our society to overcome the need for this sort of legislation. The obvious alternative is that we must sit down to discuss with all the people of South Africa—let me stress again, all the people of South Africa—the situation that we need to create in the country so that everybody will properly respect the law, support it and attempt to see that it is properly and fully enforced.

In this regard, I was very sad the other day to learn that the State President had said in a speech that he was not prepared to move unless he could take his people—and by that he meant the Afrikaner people—with him. I therefore despair of being able to bring about reasonable change if the State President has to take the Afrikaner people with him. I listened to the hon member for the HNP speak on this Bill yesterday and the point that he made—he said it loud and clear in this House—was the following. He said: “Die AWB is goeie Afrikaners”. That was the point that he made, and if that is the definition of a good Afrikaner, then I despair of bringing about change in this country. [Interjections.]

He also stated very clearly that the Afrikaner is apartheid and apartheid is the Afrikaner. I disagree with him totally. Heaven knows, we have enough hon members on these benches and enough supporters of this party who are Afrikaners to know that that is not true. However, I believe that in bringing about this constitutional change the State President must do more than simply consider his own people. He must consider the best interests of all South Africans, regardless of their colour or their race. That is what is important and, if in so doing, he is rejected by a section—albeit a large section—of the Afrikaner people, just as he is being rejected by the HNP, the CP and the AWB, then he must bite the bullet and say that he is prepared to put up with it because it is in the best interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

When I was young …

When was that? [Interjections.]

Regrettably, longer ago than I would like it to have been.

Before Union!

… there was a book that I read called The Water Babies and in that book there was a character called Mrs Do-as-you-would-be-done-by. I wonder whether that book has ever been translated into Afrikaans because I think it would have been a very good thing if it had. The moral which that book spelt out was that one should do unto others as one would have them do to oneself. [Interjections.] I think that when one looks at that moral principle in relation to the Bill before the House today, it conjures up a very frightening picture about what we in South Africa are bequeathing on our Statute Book to our successors in government. There are certainly going to be successors to the NP on the governing benches in this House. People other than NP members will be sitting on those green benches, and in considering this legislation, we have to ask ourselves whether we would be happy to see them have this legislation handed to them on a plate. I need not point to the parallel of the Rhodesian-Zimbabwean situation.

I ask hon members on that side of the House to imagine a government of this country with Joe Slovo as the Minister of Law and Order and with the top echelons of the Police Force drawn from the ranks of the ANC. Picture that situation with this Bill as it stands today and then weep for yourselves and for your children.

The reality is that once this legislation has been passed it is highly unlikely that the Government is going to remove it from the Statute Book at any stage in the future. We are therefore in the future going to end up with this legislation on a Statute Book of a government which might be and probably will be the total opposite of the Government we now have. I think hon members on that side of the House have to be very careful before they institute this sort of Draconian legislation. We have Had something similar in the past, and one has to ask oneself how it has helped. How has the legislation we already have helped to bring about a peaceful solution to South Africa’s problems and to fight unrest?

I represent a constituency where we had a state of emergency for a long period of time. From where we sat in Port Elizabeth it did not appear to us that things were improving as a result of the declaration of a state of emergency or because of all the things that were done and the regulations which were promulgated during that period. It did not appear as if the state of emergency had solved any problems at all.

I submit that it is highly unlikely that this new legislation is going to help at all. Let us have a look at the pattern of what has happened over the past ten years. Ten years ago, on 16 June, the Soweto riots started. Can we say that the unrest situation has improved in South Africa over the past ten years? Can we honestly say that the Government is bringing about a solution with this panoply of powers which it gives itself? Of course we cannot say that! Yet we continue choosing the road of war rather than the road of peace in South Africa. When we are faced with choices, we take the hard option every time. We take the military or the police option. [Interjections.]

I think the raids into our neighbouring countries a short time ago were a classic example of this. There we had a situation where the Eminent Persons’ Group had approached South Africa with various proposals for a peaceful solution to our problems. If we had been able to go ahead with that solution, it would have meant the ending of a considerable amount of violence within our community. The common talk at that stage was that what we had to do was to release Mandela, unban the ANC, take the troops out of the townships and start negotiating. These four things were mentioned. If we did those things, it was believed that we could get an undertaking from the ANC not to proceed with violence …

For how long?

… for the duration of the negotiations. We were thus apparently faced with a clear option as to how we could stop violence in the South African society by getting around the negotiating table.

What was our response to that, Sir? We elected to go for the short-term objective, the small objective, within Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. I concede that it might have prevented some raids and terrorist actions from taking place in South Africa but I have no doubt at all that if the peaceful option had been acceded to …

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

In a moment. If the peaceful option had been acceded to, I believe we would have had a good chance of solving our problems of violence in the much longer term.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member whether he had access to the document which the EPG handed to us, and if so, on which occasion.

No, Sir, I thought I had made it fairly clear in my discussion of this subject that I was reporting the things which had been reported in the press at the time. I certainly did not see the document of the EPG. I would very much like to have seen it. Perhaps the hon the Minister would care to inform this House at some stage later during the debate what the situation is, because this could be one of the most important things that is happening in South Africa today. If in fact we can reach an accommodation with the EPG then I think we will have gone a long way towards going down the road of negotiation rather than the road of violence.

The next thing hon members have to understand with this Bill is if we—as in terms of clause 4—give the hon the Minister the right to proclaim an area an unrest area then it is going to be based on information from the Police and the Security Police. That is where the hon the Minister will get his information which causes him to declare an area an unrest area. The second thing one has to realise is that once that unrest area has been declared and while action is being taken in that area, all the information that the hon the Minister gets on which he bases his decisions is going to be information obtained by the Police.

We have few enough commissions into the activities of the Police in this country so that the ones that we do have we perhaps have to use fairly frequently. In this regard I want to refer to The Report of the Kannemeyer Commission in the light of the danger, I believe, of allowing these unrest areas to be declared by Police information and action. I refer to page 37 of the report in which the judge—Judge Kannemeyer—is referring to Fouché, who was the man in charge of the Casspirs on that dreadful day of 21 March 1985. I quote the judge on page 37 of the report:

As clearly then as can be said by a judge this man was not telling the truth in court. I quote again from the same page, paragraph 4.2:

Once again a clear indication that the truth had not been told; and thirdly, I should like to quote par 4.3:

There we have a clear indication from Mr Justice Kannemeyer that the Police do not always give the hon the Minister the correct information, but let us take that further, because the hon the Minister made a statement in this House, I think on the same day the shooting occurred. I want to quote two passages on page 45 of the report. The first passage reads:

The second passage reads:

I quote the judge’s comment:

This is a statement made on information by the Police by the hon the Minister of Law and Order to this House which has been said by a judge to be inaccurate. If that does not give hon members on the other side of the House a certain degree of concern as to what this legislation before us is going to be used for, then I believe nothing will.

I quote the judge again on page 49 of the report:

Then we all know, to leave the ordinary arm of the Police for the moment, of the powers and the actions of the Security Police. I also want to point to what Mr Justice Kannemeyer had to say about the Security Police and the actions of a particular security policeman on that day, and I quote from page 161 of the report:

He then goes on to say:

Now, here we have clear evidence from a judge, taken by that commission, that the Police are not always correct in the statements they give the hon the Minister and on which he bases his actions and also his statements in this House. That, Sir, I believe, is one aspect of the Police situation which is bad.

There is, however, another one, I am afraid. That one, Sir, relates to something I have talked about in this House before. That was the action of the Police against people on the UCT campus when they were holding a demonstration last year. I invited hon members of the National Party to come to any venue they named where I would show them videos of that Police action in progress. Not one of them accepted that invitation. They did not accept because they were not interested. They were also too frightened that…

Whom did you invite?

I invited them publicly, in this House, and it is recorded in Hansard. It stand in Hansard, and if the hon member would care to go and look, I will give him the reference.

Invite them again!

Sir, I am going to invite them again. I am going to do that because, as you see, Sir, today I also went to another video showing, together with some hon colleagues of mine. There were quite a lot of people at that showing, and I believe that all the political parties in this House were invited to that showing. At the same time, however, there was not one single National Party member there. Not one! Had they been there, it would have been food for thought for them.

Who invited you?

The British Embassy!

What bothers me, Sir, is that the Police often use these occasions not to prevent crime but to administer punishment. When one sees a picture of a policeman beating with his sjambok a young girl lying on the street, one cannot think that he is in fact preventing a crime. I have a picture here which appeared only last Saturday—Saturday, 31 May—on the front page of the Cape Times. It was also, I see, on the front page of the Eastern Province Herald. The caption underneath it reads: “Police sjambok University of the Witswatersrand students who marched to the Hillbrow police station yesterday to demand the release of fellow student Mr Ronnie Makgosi who was detained on Thursday”. The picture itself is interesting.

Did they sjambok the AWB?

When one looks at this picture one sees a number of people lying on the ground, many of them seeking to protect themselves with their arms and their hands. I cannot think for half a moment that those people were presenting a threat to anyone. Alright, Sir, they were part of an illegal gathering, and it is the duty of the Police to break up such gathering. Is it, however, the duty of the Police then to whip the people concerned when they are lying on the ground? Here, Sir, in this picture, clear as anything, are depicted a policeman and three people lying on the ground, while the policeman has his sjambok raised above his head, patently in the action of beating them.

You condone that! Do you, Louis?

Sir, I want to ask the hon the Minister … [Interjections.] I have the photograph in question right here in my hand, if the hon the Minister has not seen it yet. I can show it to him. [Interjections.]

Why do you not take them to court then?

Sir, the hon the Minister says I must take them to court! Why does he not do it? Why does he not have this matter investigated? He is the Minister in charge of the Police. I will send him this picture. Let him investigate the actions of these policemen. Here is physical proof, in a photograph, of what they were doing. Here is physical proof of the fact that they were administering punishment and not preventing crime. I would ask the hon the Minister to consider doing that. Talking about sjamboks, Sir, I really do believe that it is time that in this society, which we hope is civilised, this type of weapon should not be given to the Police. [Interjections.] I believe that the panoply of weapons they already have … [Interjections.] They have loud-hailers, teargas, rubber bullets, water cannons, shotguns, revolvers etc. Is it necessary that they should have these quirts issued to them on a regular basis in order …

The quirt is the least dangerous of all that equipment.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member whether he considers the behaviour of a lot of the students and also of those who put “necklaces” around people to be civilised behaviour.

Of course I do not. I would like to see every single person who has put a burning “necklace” around anybody else’s head brought before a court of law and tried. If that person is found guilty then the full punishment that can be administered by the law must be meted out. What I am objecting to here, however, is the fact that people who practise this type of behaviour are not brought before a court of law and heard by the judges of our land. The members of the Security Forces are administering this punishment. If the law of the land provides that the State is entitled to whip people if they are found guilty—which the law of this land does say, much to the distress of the hon member for Houghton—then let these people be taken to court and charged and, if they are found guilty, let them be punished. Why, however, should the Police themselves do it? Why should the Police—I have seen them with their quirts, although, thank goodness, I have not seen them in action but have seen them standing with their quirts—administer punishment? I do believe South African society would …

They should use them on you!

Mr Chairman, may I ask who said the quirts should be used on me?

I did.

The hon member for Krugersdorp admits that he said so; in other words, the hon member for Krugersdorp believes that a member of Parliament should be whipped for expressing his opinion in this House. [Interjections.] I want to tell that hon member that he is featured on the video tape I saw today. He was interviewed on that video tape. That hon member is supposed to be one of the so-called “New Nats”. I know, as his party’s group chairman on law and order, that he is in a difficult position.

He said he does not condone violence.

Yes, that is right. On that particular video tape that hon member contended that he did not condone violence of any kind, whether it be violence on the part of the Police or from the Blacks.

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

The hon member must first let me finish what I am saying.

Now the hon member stands up and, because he does not have the glare of international publicity on him, changes his story. He thinks that the hon members on his side of the House will enjoy it a lot more if he suggests that other people should be whipped.

You asked for it.

I think that hon member would do a lot better to keep his mouth firmly closed on this issue. [Interjections.]

What we need, in my view, more than anything else in this country is what they in effect have in Canada, namely an ombudsman who can judge and who can even take the government to court if necessary in defence of individual liberties and individual freedoms in this country. We do not need Bills of the sort we have before us here today. We need this type of Bill like we need a hole in the head. What we need is somebody to whom one can go if one is nursing this type of grievance. We do not have that, however.

The hon the Minister says that someone nursing grievances should lay a charge with the Police. We have done that. It took me nearly two years—I supported my case with affidavits which I personally handed to the hon the Minister—before we succeeded in having one person charged with culpable homicide. I refer to the death of Thosi Skweyiya in Cradock. The hon the Minister knows about that. I have been writing to him consistently.

Every complaint I received from you has been properly investigated and reported on.

Let me say then that that particular complaint I recorded in February 1985, and the case is only due to be heard on 30 June 1986. I am glad it has proceeded that far. Nevertheless, I believe we need someone who operates independently from the Police. He must be a respected jurist who can act as an ombudsman in instances of this nature to ensure that all South Africans get a fair deal.

In closing, I support the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Chairman, I do not find it difficult to follow the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who has just resumed his seat. The PFP’s stereotyped attacks on the Police and the security of our country are terrifying. I want to ask the hon member whether he believes in the prevention of violence. Does he believe in the prevention of riots?

Of course he does.

No, they do not believe in the prevention of violence.

Do not talk rubbish!

That is why the hon member said we should not use quirts. What is to be used if violence is to be curbed? Why does the hon member not tell the House what we should use if we want to combat violence?

Teargas, rubber bullets and water cannon.

The hon member has not seen what someone looks like who has been hit by a rubber bullet. The quirt remains one of the best countermeasures to use in the case of children in particular.

Does the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central prefer rubber bullets to quirts?

The hon member wants us to shoot children with rubber bullets. This shows us how little he knows about preventing violence. Hon members of the PFP are acting as ANC spokesmen here; they are also acting as spokesmen for that wing of the ANC which preaches violence. Why does the hon member not also mention the Black policeman buried alive over the weekend while he was attending the peaceful funeral of a friend? [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member for Sandton made a disgraceful remark in this House which cannot be allowed to pass without our referring to it. He referred to the Act and said:

He then continued:

I think this as disgraceful as a person may act and as disloyal as a person may be toward violence occurring in one’s country. I want to ask the hon member for Bryanston whether he agrees.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can one hon member accuse another hon member in this House—he referred to the hon member for Sandton—of being disloyal?

I did not quite hear his exact words but I thought he said the hon member was disloyal to the curbing of violence. The word “disloyal” was used but it was used in a different context. Would the hon member for Parys please repeat what he said?

Mr Chairman, I said he had made a disgraceful remark.

The hon member also mentioned disloyalty. In what sense did he use the word?

I spoke about disloyalty toward the prevention of violence. I wish to ask the hon member who objected to what I said, however, whether he agrees with his hon colleague’s comment. [Interjections.] We have to be consistent in dealing with communist violence in our country. We should not attempt to disguise where we really stand.

I wish to allege that violence is acceptable to those hon members. That is why they do not express themselves against violence but against the action of the Police which has to suppress violence.

That is untrue.

I have very little time at my disposal because the hon members of the PFP all use their full 30 minutes whereas I did not even get 10 minutes to reply.

I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the chairman of our standing committee and congratulating him on his handling of this exceptional case when it served before the standing committee. Our chairman had to act very fairly and display a great deal of understanding of the feelings of other people but then he could not be popular because he had to act responsibly. I greatly appreciate that, in spite of all the humanity exhibited in the discussion of this Bill, he always remained responsible. If this legislation is passed, it will be in the interests of South Africa that people should know what process it had to pass through to arrive where it is.

What does this Bill contain? Not one of the hon PFP members actually deals with what stands in the Bill. I quote from the long title of the Bill:

Do hon PFP members want preventive measures against this or not? What is experienced in practice? Why is it necessary that we should pilot this Bill through? The reply is that in cases in which one wants to prosecute persons legally, people who have to act as witnesses are intimidated. Initially witnesses come forward but are then intimidated and subsequently disappear.

If we do not have this type of legislation in the Statute Book, we can forget about combating inciters of violence which ultimately ends in murders. We shall not succeed in it because witnesses are intimidated to such an extent that they do not reach a court to give actual evidence.

I shall quote further from the proposed section 5A for which clause 4 of the Bill provides inter alia:

What is wrong with this? Why do hon members not recognise these aspects of the legislation which are necessary in this country?

How many ANC members advocating violence have joined the PFP since it threw its party open to all population groups?

Not one!

Not one!

We are not looking for them!

The hon member for Sandton says they are not looking for them! They would therefore like to have perpetrators of violence kept apart but then they do not want legislation to curb their violence. [Interjections.]

I request the loyalty of those hon members toward South Africa to bring about peace and prosperity in this country and to help us to inscribe measures in the Statute Book so that we may do this in an orderly way and murders may cease. In this way intimidators may be isolated peacefully so that they cannot preach their intimidation and violence.

I therefore appeal in the House today that understanding be created outwards of the fact that South Africa is not the violent country these hon members would like it to be. Surely we are peace-loving people. Surely an invitation has been extended to people to come to the conference table but then they have to renounce violence. If they renounce violence, the invitation to them stands every day that they may still participate in the process of the recreation of South Africa so that all population groups may live here in happiness and contentment.

Mr Chairman, during this debate we have seen evidence of three distinct streams of thought about the unrest situation from different sides of the House. I would describe the position of the CP and the HNP as one of advocating the forceful suppression of unrest. They see no subtleties or shades of grey in the situation. They think one should use maximum force to bring the unrest to a halt. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Sasolburg says we must ban the UDF break the ANC and force our will on those people. [Interjections.]

†That kind of talk is evidence of one stream of thought which is simplistic and is not going to solve any problems in this country.

It would be very effective!

That is Fascist talk.

It is like the French in Indo-China. [Interjections.]

There are plenty of examples in the history of the world and of this country, including the history of the Afrikaner when the British Empire tried to force its will on them that that approach does not work.

The second line of thinking that has emerged in this debate is the position of the NP which I would describe as one advocating forceful coercion.

Do you want to compare the position of the ANC with that of the Afrikaner?

There are some parallels, but the hon member is blind to them and will not understand them.

That is a scandalous remark! [Interjections.]

The NP wants to force the rest of South Africa into its particular mould. It has set up an apartheid framework in which politics is structured on the basis of the group and of forced group membership. The NP wants to enforce its will absolutely within the basis of that framework, but that approach is also not going to work.

The third approach, that of this side of the House, is one of forceful political action. We in the PFP are also very seriously and deeply concerned about the unrest. We reflect this in what we say and do. We too want it to end, but we are convinced that it can end without this measure on the Statute Book—indeed without a whole range of the measures which the hon the Minister of Law and Order has had placed on the Statute Book.

We believe that if we were the Government we could cause the unrest to end in a matter of days or weeks.

Oh, please! How naive can you be? [Interjections.]

You would hand over to the ANC! [Interjections.]

We believe we could cause it to end because we would adopt the right approach. [Interjections.] We would adopt a political approach. [Interjections.] We would succeed for two reasons. Firstly, we recognise what the unrest is really about.

What is it about? Tell us!

It is not mainly about communist-inspired agitation, although I am the first to concede that there are some Stalinists actively trying to gain control of the unrest.

And the Government is playing into their hands!

They are using the unrest for their own ends and the Government is playing into their hands. The unrest is fundamentally a civil rights liberation struggle by nationalists for freedom in the country of their birth. That is the kind of struggle that was engaged in by the Afrikaner at an earlier stage of our history.

You are naive; that is all I can say.

Open your other eye as well!

There is a second important principle we recognise which would enable us to end the unrest. We are the only White political party at this stage prepared to grant this principle, although I believe there are some “New Nats” who are coming to the same conclusion. We are prepared in principle to grant Blacks their full civil rights on an equal basis, and to negotiate the implementation of those rights in a new constitution based on free association.

The Police do not need any more power. They have all the power they can possibly use. They need a better political climate, and that is what this Government is failing to provide.

We say that there is a genuine and profound distinction between civil rights activists who make up the majority of the Blacks who are caught up in these unrest confrontations, and deliberate revolutionary provocateurs who represent a hard-core activist element. We will back the Government in respect of positive political action which leads away from statutory race discrimination. We will back them every time. We have done so in the past and we will do so in the future. We will also back them in respect of tough action within due process of the law against those who deliberately perpetrate violence and sabotage, provided that such action accords with due process and for which there already are more than adequate laws. However, we will not back the Government in respect of coercive action in support of an apartheid-based programme which has no legitimacy, and we will not back them in applying undue force to civil rights activists.

In this respect I want to make reference to the way in which some of these powers which have been granted to the hon the Minister—he has arrogated them in the past—have been abused. What actually happened in the previous state of emergency? The previous state of emergency had two characteristics. There was first of all the lifting of normal restraints on the Security Forces; and secondly, there was an excessive clampdown on the media and access by the Press to what was going on. In both these respects I believe this hon Minister and his department and the Government in general abused the powers which they arrogated during the last state of emergency.

My experiences as a member of the PFP’s Unrest Monitoring Committee have led me to the conclusion that the Riot Police actions have contributed significantly to the vicious cycle of unrest which has plagued the Western Cape and other parts of the country during the past nine months. Our committee has had the benefit of some personal experience of unrest confrontation. We have talked extensively to the victims and witnesses of such events. We have viewed relevant video material which has come into our hands and, on the basis of all that evidence, I believe that the heavy-handed tactics employed in terms of the powers granted during the previous state of emergency and which the hon the Minister is proposing to assume in terms of this legislation, contributed greatly to the unhappy deterioration in race relationships here in the Western Cape and elsewhere in South Africa.

I must emphasise that I am not talking about the regular Police carrying on normal crime prevention duties because I have a high regard for those people.

Oh sure, sure!

I also want to make it very clear … [Interjections.]

Now he is pontificating.

Will the hon the Minister not accept my word?

I am listening. Carry on. [Interjections.]

I also want to make it very clear that this conclusion does not mean that we approve in any way of political activities in the form of stone-throwing, the throwing of half-bricks and petrol bombs, intimidation, necklaces or other violent methods. We disapprove of such conduct, but I stand by my general statement that if certain elements of the Security Forces had behaved more carefully and more civilly during the past few months, we would not have had this very unfortunate deterioration in relations.

†This conclusion may well offend some hon members on the other side of the House, because they have been largely sheltered from what has actually been happening out there in the townships in these confrontation situations. They have been sheltered because they live in separate areas according to the Group Areas Act …

Where do you live?

They have been protected from exposure to what goes on there because of the limitations imposed on Press coverage. They have also been sheltered by a conspiracy of reticence on the part of the SABC-TV. [Interjections.] SABC-TV has shown very limited and favourably edited versions of what has been happening in the townships. Let us take an example. The CBS video of the “jack-in-the-box” shootings, otherwise known as the “Trojan Horse” ambush has been screened throughout the Western World and, although this particular incident has had a devastating effect on South Africa’s position in the world and has been seen by millions of people around the world, the SABC has failed to allow South Africans themselves to see that event—and a range of other events. However, I want to use just that one example. They have failed to allow South Africans to judge that tactic or the effect it is likely to have had on the people who were affected by that for themselves. In this way many South Africans have been lulled into thinking that the problem is indeed caused merely by an ill-defined assortment of agitators, hooligans and communists. The problem is far more complex and multifaceted than the Government or the SABC would have us believe and have sought to convey. I think it is a disgrace that the SABC have been keeping South Africans in the dark in this way. I have a copy of the video of that event that was shown overseas, and I repeat the offer which has already been made: If there is any hon member in this House who wants to see something that the rest of the world has seen but he has not, he just has to approach us and we will arrange a showing in the amphitheatre. We will show hon members a whole lot of other videos as well. Then hon members will be in a position to judge what Black South Africans are living with almost every day of their lives.

Do you also have films of any of the other events?

We have seen the full spectrum. We have a balanced view. A moment ago I took issue with the brutal activities on the other side of the scale. [Interjections.] However, one does not solve that by brutalising activities of one’s own kind.

[Inaudible.]

Do you really think that is a good answer to what he said?

I despair of the hon the Minister! He is the man who is in control of the whole situation and he cannot see it!

Yes, I am listening to you, you can proceed.

That film should be shown; the tactic should be publicly debated; South Africans should see what is going on in the streets and what is going on in their own cities down the street about which the rest of the world is in any case better informed.

Let me touch on some other examples of where the unrest powers taken under the state of emergency legislation have been abused by certain elements in the Police Force.

Firstly, members of our committee visited the suburb of Valhalla Park on 19 September of last year in order to speak to people who had approached us who had been stormed by a Police squad. It was a squad of men in uniform who spilled out of a yellow bakkie at the end of the one street who then rampaged through this little suburb. What we found was a community enraged by the behaviour of what can only be described as that of hooligans in police uniform. We heard detailed accounts of ordinary people—men, women and children—being sjambokked viciously for no other reason than being outside on the street. We heard an account of a young woman being seriously wounded by a shot while trying to get into her own yard; of a youth shot dead at pointblank range for no conceivable reason; of a schoolgirl who was just chatting to her boyfriend in her yard being whipped repeatedly by these uniformed men; and of a pregnant woman being whipped and chased into her own house where she and her elderly father had to barricade the door to keep these pursuers at bay. I spoke to those people and I saw the marks on their backs.

Secondly, during the period 1 to 3 October we collected a number of statements in the Guguletu, Nyanga and Crossroads areas from people who claimed to be innocent bystanders who had been whipped, kicked and punched by uniformed men and of youngsters having been thrown into official vans and later dumped some distance away in varying degrees of consciousness.

Have you investigated these charges?

We have! We have submitted these documents, but we have heard no conclusion. We heard of a youth being shut in a closed van together with a teargas canister, of doors of homes being kicked in and of a 69 year old grandmother being whipped inside her own home.

How many affidavits of the necklacings do you have?

It does not detract one iota from what I am saying here. Hon members on that side cannot see that.

Those incidents are being investigated. The other incidents are not being investigated. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, we had firsthand experience of a confrontation which occurred just after the “jack-in-the-box” shootings had taken place. We went there to investigate. It happened in Thornton Road, Athlone on 17 October. We went there to investigate and to talk to the people—to see what had happened and what they had to say about it. We also spoke to some Police officers at the time.

Did you personally talk to all those people?

We talked to a lot of people.

Did you personally talk to all of them?

I was there and I talked to many of them. I saw the bullet marks on the house and the spot where the children had been killed. [Interjections.] I have also seen the video of the action which led up to the killings.

Did you report any of this?

Yes.

Not a single word!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is now suggesting that our Unrest Monitoring Committee has not reported a single word about these incidents.

I am talking about you.

Our committee has reported it, and I am a member of that committee. Moreover, the events I am talking about, have all been reported.

We discussed that in the House during a previous debate. The hon member knows what the result of that was. He should go and read the Hansard.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Does the hon the Minister know how easy it was to get through to Brig Swart?

You just keep out of this, Uncle! [Interjections.]

Let us just look at that particular confrontation. The hon the Minister is looking so pleased with himself; he should just listen to this particular incident.

At about llh30 on that day our committee was right there, and the hon member for Green Point was with me. We went to the house where the shootings had taken place. We went inside and talked to the family and neighbours. Upon our arrival, we were very well received by the family and bystanders and while we were there a fairly large crowd developed around us. After about half an hour this crowd attracted Police attention. A large mesh-protected public address vehicle started moving up and down the road, broadcasting that the crowd should disperse or action would be taken. This broadcasting continued until the crowd was given a final five minutes warning. At that stage I went up to the van and explained to the warrant officer in the van that we were the monitoring committee, that we had gone there merely to investigate and to talk to the people, and that the gathering was entirely peaceful. The people present were mainly curious onlookers and I told the man that it would be better for the Police not to attempt to disperse the crowd forcibly but rather to allow them to disperse naturally once we had completed our visit. This was agreed and, after the officer had spoken into his radio, the van withdrew and the proceedings carried on perfectly peacefully.

Within the hour, the van reappeared and repeated the warnings. We were still there. We were still engaged in our activities, perfectly peacefully. However, they came back and repeated the warnings. [Interjections.]

How long does the hon the Minister think it takes to take an affidavit—five seconds? [Interjections.]

We again approached the Police and requested them not to act hastily but, before we could resolve the matter, a further police van entered the area and was trapped in a traffic jam. Once it was there, this van became the focus of attention and certain of the scholars started shouting slogans and pounding the sides of the van with their fists.

Scholars or skollies?

Some of the adults—some of the parents present in the street—tried to calm the children down, but before the Police could free the van and leave the area some stones flew.

[Inaudible.]

I am telling the story exactly as it happened. Some stones flew and they hit the van. The Police reacted immeditely by firing off teargas and birdshot. This caused the crowd to flee. I was within three metres of the trapped van when the shooting began and so I caught a dose of the teargas myself. [Interjections.] I can assure hon members that it is not such a serious problem and I do not know why the AWB, who are supposed to be so tough, are crying about a bit of teargas! [Interjections.] I witnessed this whole drama unfolding.

The point I want to make, is that the Police immediately spread out from the van in a kind of battle formation and continued firing in the direction of the fleeing crowd at what seemed to me to be body level. I must say that my impression was that it was a complete overreaction on the part of those Police officers. The crowd started running at the first sign of teargas. They therefore did not need to use birdshot. Thank heavens no one was injured in that particular incident, but it could have been a very serious matter.

My reason for describing this incident is that my overall impression as a first-hand witness of that incident is that if the Police had not been present for the entire duration of our visit, there would have been no focus for the hostility of the crowd which led directly to the skirmish. Furthermore, my impression was that once the stones flew, the Police did not need to use birdshot where teargas alone would have been sufficient to clear the road.

My overall impression is that actions such as the “Trojan Horse” ambush, the shootings of children, the indiscriminate and unrestrained whippings and beatings, the interference at funerals, gratuitous displays of force and sweeping detentions have served only to stiffen resistance and inflame hostility. Furthermore, the detention of leaders means that a leadership vacuum is created which is increasingly being filled at the level of gangs in the streets.

To me, the declaration of states of emergency and the widespread locking up of leaders is unwarranted and a panicky overreaction. The Government seems to be sliding deeper and deeper into a “jackboot” type of mentality and approach. When will the message penetrate that one cannot enforce acceptance of apartheid by means of bludgeons? The long-term effect of the use of bludgeons will be a deepening of the hatred of the system and the spawning of a fresh wave of clandestine activities which could rebound later in even fiercer violence. [Interjections.]

The only emergency here in South Africa is apartheid itself! We do not need a bigger and bigger stick against schoolchildren. What we need is discussion and negotiation. The only durable solutions to the crisis in South Africa will be the solutions which credible leaders can find together at a conference table.

Another thing I want to mention is that the introduction of this Bill reminds me in so many ways of the Smith regime’s approach in Rhodesia.

Oh, here it comes again.

They also believed they could maintain their position and repulse the revolutionary challenge by relaying heavily on security laws. In Rhodesia they had a full range of security laws at their disposal, and they made use of them! [Interjections.] There were, for example, the following laws on their Statute Book, and I believe that most of them have remained on the Statute Book in the hands of the Mugabe government today: The Subversive Activities Act which authorised the government to ban meetings and literature; the Public Order Act which gave the government the power to detain and restrict anyone without charge or trial; the Unlawful Organisations Act; the Preventative Detentions Act; the Law and Order Maintenance Act which so appalled the Federal Chief Justice, Sir Robert Tredgold, that he resigned because, he said: “This Bill outrages every basic human right.” There was also the Emergency Powers Act in terms of which all rights could be suspended by the declaration of a state of emergency. This included the power to curb freedom of speech, movement, privacy, assembly and association, to arrest and detain persons without trial and to control businesses and employees.

Surely this Government can see that all these powers did not help the Rhodesians at all? It will also in no way help this Government to take more coercive power into its hands by passing this Bill. Cannot the Government learn the lessons of history? This is recent history which took place on our borders. Is this Government going to be as stupid as the Smith regime was? The Smith regime received good advice from many people who were in the same position as we in the PFP are today. [Interjections.]

In February 1974 a former successful army commander of Rhodesian forces in the Zambesi Valley in the 1960s, General Sam Putterill, suggested that the Rhodesian government was not doing enough to win the trust of the African population. He said:

He went on to criticise the government for wasting its time in the lull period between 1968 and 1972, ie between the initial skirmishes and the start of the real war in 1972. He said that they were wasting their time. Instead of using that lull period to win African support through an imaginative, inclusive political initiative, the Rhodesian government introduced a racist constitution in 1969 with leanings to apartheid and White supremacy. However, instead of listening to General Putterill, Mr Smith denounced him as a communist and a traitor. This Government is making the same mistake, because during the lull in unrest between 1976 and 1984 they did not use that time constructively. This Government introduced the racist Constitution of 1983, which gave the similar message to Blacks that in their own country, the country of their birth, they are excluded from government.

Another authoratitive warning was given in Rhodesia by another prominent leader, Mr Alan Savory. This is also pertinent to our situation today as we look at this Bill. In the early 1970’s Mr Savory said, and I quote:

And he was a Selous Scout!

Mr Smith ignored that warning as well. He was convinced that firm government action would motivate the local population to support the government. He discounted any possibility that the guerrillas in Rhodesia were fighting for a cause which Africans might consider just and he proceded to denounce them in contemptuous terms. This Bill is in the same spirit. It is an example of the use of brawn instead of brains in dealing with the situation. This Bill is an admission of political failure on the part of the Government and it smacks of panic. The mere fact that it is being rushed through in a great hurry, upsetting the parliamentary programme in the process.

You are in no hurry.

Of course we are not because we think it is counter-productive. We think political action is what is needed. [Interjections.] We will back the hon the Minister on positive political action; we are not going to back him on a thing which we see as counter-productive and which will worsen the situation.

The hon the Minister says they are not in a hurry, which is not true.

I said he is not in a hurry.

You are in a hurry to nowhere.

What the hon the Minister is doing with this Bill—the panicky reaction to get it through the House—is evidence of the very thing he claimed—I think it was yesterday or very recently—was not correct. One of the hon members of the NP challenged me because I had said in this House that the Government was loosing control of township areas of the country. I stand by that. The Government has lost control of some township areas and they will not get it back.

You talked about no-go areas.

The hon the Minister was very upset with me for that statement, but why does he need this Bill if he is in control? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and the Government make the mistake of thinking that tough, strong forceful action is going to bring these people into fine. It will not achieve that; it will have the opposite result.

It would like to refer the hon the Minister and other hon members to another document on the Rhodesian situation, titled None but Ourselves. The Masses vs Media in the making of Zimbabwe by Julie Frederikse. The Rhodesian government also believed in tough measures in forcing their will upon the population. For example P K van der Byl, the Rhodesian Minister of Information, is quoted as follows by Julie Frederikse:

It sounds like Sasolburg.

Johan Meiring of the Psychological Operations Unit was quoted as follows:

Bob North of the Rhodesian Intelligence Corps was also quoted in this book to have said:

Johan Meiring was quoted again, saying:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as is so typical of his party, the hon member for Constantia—and he is one of the younger members of that party and also someone who participated very actively in politics in his student days—again stated the standpoints of the PFP in a very interesting way here. Like the hon member for Sandton, the hon member for Constantia also used very strong and very sharp terminology regarding the Police. He referred to them inter alia as “hooligans in uniform”.

Certain elements!

Yes, certain elements. I wish to say, however, in every…

The Minister is just not wearing the uniform!

In every facet of society … If some people were perhaps to view us quite objectively—we in this House—they would sometimes also probably be able to refer to us as “hooligans under the privilege of the House”. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I believe we should…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Greytown implied that the hon Minister was a hooligan. Is he permitted to make such a comment?

Order! What did the hon member for Greytown say?

Mr Chairman, I said the hon the Minister was a policeman. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman,… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Greytown said the hon Minister was just not wearing the uniform.

Order! The fact of the matter is I have accepted the word of the hon member for Greytown. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to contend that all of us in this House are deeply concerned about the security situation in South Africa just as each of us also has his standpoint and is anxious about the future of our country. I want to remind the hon member for Constantia of a question put to the hon member for Durban Central here in the House earlier this year, which was whether there would be no riots, revolts and disturbances under a PFP government in South Africa. The hon member for Durban Central himself replied that under a PFP government in South Africa those events would still occur.

Yes, but we would then act on a moral basis.

No, we differ on that. We differ regarding the question of a moral basis. The fact is only—and I am also speaking as a member of an Opposition party now—that the hon member for Durban Central himself conceded that there would still be riots and disturbance in South Africa under a PFP government.

That might well be.

All right. I accept what the hon member said there. I further wish to put it to the hon member that hon members of the PFP are always so inclined to compare South Africa with the rest of the world. The hon member should bear in mind that we do travel in the rest of the world. One could carry out a comparative analysis of the history of South Africa with that of all the other parts of the world and, granted the problematical aspects of Southern Africa, I believe there is relatively still more peace in South Africa than in other parts of the world. We should not be led to believe here that problems and disturbance and riots occur only in South Africa. If South Africa were in a position to place its television cameras in every other country of the world wherever it wished and had as much time for propaganda at its disposal as is the case with so many other countries of the world, I believe conditions in South Africa would look far better than those in many other parts of the world.

Let us confine our discussion to our lands of origin. Europe, which accommodates the civilised peoples of the Western World, has experienced two of the worst wars in history during this century. Let no one tell me now that the Second World War was entirely Hitler’s fault. Wars have more than one cause. I wish to point out to the hon member for Constantia that—if I may say something like this on behalf of my party—we shall not have heavenly peace on earth even when the Conservative Party comes to power. I think we should understand one another clearly on this.

There is yet another point I want to put clearly to the hon member for Constantia. He should not think that, before the White came to South Africa, there was a perpetual situation of peace in this part of the world. The greatest tribal wars and annihilation of people occurred here even before the arrival of the White man in South Africa. Consequently we should not think that only the presence of Whites and the presence of an acceptance of an ethnic diversity caused the problems of the world.

Although we are sitting on this side of the House, we sat on the other side for a long time and over the past three years or so the PFP voted with the Government regarding the most fundamental questions on which there were differences in this House. We on this side of the House differed with the NP on the most cardinal points.

The hon member for Constantia spoke about Rhodesia. I can give him a different opinion on Rhodesia. My standpoint on Rhodesia is that it consisted of three principal ethnic groups as we knew it in Mr Ian Smith’s time; and if the government in Rhodesia at that time had recognised those three ethnic groups and not forced them into one integrated constitutional dispensation, the chances of peace in Rhodesia would have been far better than they were under Mr Ian Smith’s government—and certainly than they are now under the leadership of Mr Mugabe. [Interjections.] The hon member criticised the NP but the NP—and it is in this regard we differ with him—is moving increasingly close to the PFP. The hon member is therefore sitting in the House today and viewing the situation under a Government which is halfway along the road to PFP policy. He may therefore realise what it will look like when ethnic diversity is no longer recognised. The PFP certainly does not recognise ethnic diversity—or rather its members recognise it as an obstacle in the way which has to be removed. I shall get to the hon member for Walmer in a little while.

That is untrue.

The hon member in front of me here had better calm down a bit. I want to tell hon members of the PFP that we have the responsibility in this House, in spite of differing fundamentally and in principle from one another, of contributing to order and peace and calm.

When we institute our policy of partition, the CP would also like peace. We should like to see a situation in South Africa in which we may debate with the leaders of other population groups on the basis of our principles. I can therefore understand the hon the Minister and his hon colleagues saying that they would like order and peace and calm in South Africa for the implementation of their policy.

There is a further matter I wish to raise, however. There is an expression in legal circles, audi alteram partem—one listens to the other side of the case. The Police in South Africa do not work only with a number of naughty Sunday school children. We have to accept that the elements with which policemen work keep them busy 24 hours a day. This is different from going to a Black or Brown residential area for one to three hours a week and taking statements under those specific circumstances. I think it very easy for the so-called leftist intellectuals to sit calmly in a university atmosphere or for newspapermen behind their desks or even politicians to form a mental concept of what policemen have to do 24 hours a day. I want to tell hon members I think the SA Police Force sometimes has to attempt maintaining peace and order under the greatest provocation.

In saying this, I am also referring to White children. I remember an incident in which I was involved in my student days. It was one of those occasions when Wits and Tukkies were holding an intervarsity. A day or two before every intervarsity conditions were sometimes rough. On one occasion—I was the Chairman of the Student Representative Council at the time—I had to attempt making peace between the two groups. There was a great commotion in one of the streets of Arcadia and when I arrived there and attempted making peace, one of the policemen walked up to me and said: “What are you doing here?” I then said: “I have a responsibility here.” Whereupon he added: “Oh, you are the little chap.” [Interjections.] So he dragged me off to the Black Maria as well. [Interjections.]

I want to cite another example—and I am still speaking of Whites. If often happens at large rugby matches that people throw things like a naartjie at a policeman. Throughout the world liberalists make attacks on these people who have to represent authority in the community. This is a phenomenon which we have imported here from the leftist world of America in particular. I say to hon members that we as responsible people have to accept that within the Police Force, as is the case in every other facet of society, we shall have people who do not always act correctly at a moment of crisis. We often speak in these calm circumstances but we still stumble over our words. How then is a policeman who is faced with a crisis situation and who has perhaps been on his feet for many hours and who also has to spare a thought for his personal domestic conditions to act swiftly in that situation of crisis? That rapid action may certain mean his own life, the lives of his fellows and the lives of the people he is attempting to protect. On the other hand, there are not only White policemen; there are policemen from each of our population groups. Surely the hon member for Constantia is an intelligent person. [Interjections.] When he speaks here of “hooligans in uniform”, it is an attack on the authorities in a civilised and even in a primitive community as well. One should therefore be very careful of what one says.

Daan, do you think the Police are beyond criticism?

No. I said it was not right to use words like “hooligans in uniform” in evaluating Police action. I shall revert later to what other hon PFP members said.

I think that, if one wishes to utter criticism, one should tackle one’s political opponents but the Police are people protecting us all. We all sleep peacefully for the very reason that there are policemen. One is not eager to drag party politics in here but I know very few or, to tell the truth, no leftist liberals who are members of the Defence Force or the SA Police. I shall leave it at that for a while, however.

Since 1948 the debates in this House have been dominated by two important factors. There is always a fiery debate when the population question is discussed. That is the debate which has been in progress between the CP and the Government in the recent past. The other question which always ellicits intense debate is the security situation in our country. The hon the Minister of Law and Order sometimes makes me very unhappy—his replies on Police action at elections are an example of this. In spite of the fact that he does not play the game against us altogether according to the rules in quite a few respects, I want to tell him I gain the impression that within his party he is a solitary fighter on these matters. I obtain the impression that the hon the Minister stands reasonably cold and alone and I shall refer to that in my arguments in a while.

He and I do not owe each other anything but jointly we have a responsibility toward South Africa and all the peoples as ethnic groups as well as towards all individuals. In that respect the CP has never hesitated to support the hon the Minister in this House. It is not because we wish to isolate him from his hon colleagues but because we stand by him in principle.

We are now discussing security legislation within a specific political milieu and climate, however. In the 1983 referendum it was proclaimed from one platform after another that peace would descend on South Africa if people would only vote “yes”. The CP, on the other hand, warned and said the more the Government in a country like South Africa forced people who differed from one another—not only physically, biologically, psychologically, culturally and historically but also as regards ideals—into the same constitutional system, the more intense the struggle would become.

The hon the Minister will recall he was one of the few members who said in the NP caucus in 1977 that we were dealing with power-sharing. I shall always give him credit for that. Nevertheless my leader, the hon member for Waterberg, rose in that caucus and said it was becoming a struggle for central control, if I am quoting him correctly. [Interjections.] It was becoming a storm centre. Now, scarcely a year after the “yes” vote, the hon the Minister comes and says in his Second Reading speech that every responsible citizen took note with concern of incidents of unrest which had occurred since September 1984 and were still occurring.

The hon the Minister should therefore also examine his own conscience and ask himself to what extent the policy of his party is responsible for those matters against which the CP warned him and his party.

The Government South Africa has today is a weakened government because a coalition government is always weaker than one comprising members of only a single party. We have been watching recent events here and we know what is happening today. Supporters of the hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives—these are the people sitting with the hon the Minister in the Cabinet—have serious reservations on these matters. The standpoints of the Government’s coalition partners are also recognised by the PFP.

The situation is becoming untenable. We warned the Government initially and said the further members of a coalition government were removed from one another in principle, the weaker that government would become and its action in the community increasingly difficult.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates was sitting here yesterday while a very strong stand was being adopted and questions put to the hon the Minister by the PFP but the hon Chairman maintained silence.

I found it very interesting that, in each of the Bills in which apartheid or separate development was dismantled, NP members exhibited fervour. The hon member for Innesdal was not even present yesterday but he and other hon members who are New Nats can become so excited about “reform” and the so-called “new” South Africa but they were very quiet in this debate. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates who came to make a speech here earlier on opening the Free State to Indians has not said anything either so far.

The constitutional structure we have in South Africa today is inherently weak and will become increasingly weaker as South African problems become more acute. Now the prospect is also presented that Black people are to be involved in it. How strong can a Government be which has to accommodate such a variety of people in its daily action? [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister as well as the PFP that they contend all within these borders laid down by the English Government form one nation. There will be extreme rightists within that nation for whom they want love and peace in South Africa. The Van der Merwes are going to be there and now I am referring to everything said about me and people who feel as I do. Winnie Mandela will also be there, however. Now I want to ask the New Nats over there and those sitting on this side of the House what they are going to do in such a state in which a diversity of ethnic groups, which do not want to be together, have been forced into a constitutional unit.

I want to revert to what the hon member for Walmer said about the Afrikaners yesterday. I wish to say the majority of the Afrikaners and the Whites do not want to be forced into a state in which they will not only be in the minority but in which they will also be ruled by a Third World.

It is easy for the New Nats to talk while Mr Le Grange is the hon Minister of Law and Order but his post is certainly not reserved for an NP member. [Interjections.] We warned the NP about these circumstances but I say again: As the NP proceeds on the road of power-sharing, its problems will become increasingly great in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Unfortunately, I have only half an hour and a great deal to say. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the PFP. When one sees hon PFP members outside the House, one realises they are cultivated, educated and elegant people. The moment they speak on security, however, the hon member for Sandton passes remarks like:

I do not wish to become angry with the hon member for Sandton in saying certain things to him but he is overkilling. No one really listens to him when he uses this type of language. All he does is offer ignorant people in the outside world the opportunity of being able to say that we who live in South Africa are the cruellest and wildest people the world has every seen.

That is his aim!

The hon member for Sandton is making himself ineffectual with this type of debating. I am telling him this now as a friend from Opposition benches.

You are certainly laying on the flattery!

No, I have to tell him. The hon the Minister will agree with me that this type of terminology does us no good at all.

I do not agree that he is such an exceptionally good member!

Perhaps I know him in another sphere. [Interjections.]

I now want to get back to the hon member for Walmer. The hon member for Sasolburg had a great deal to say on this. In reply to the hon member for Brakpan, the hon member for Walmer said yesterday and I quote:

He then proceded with his comments. I want to tell the hon member for Walmer that, with all his knowledge and everything fine I can ascribe to them, they have no concept of the history of this country. He has no concept of what goes on in Afrikaner hearts. I cannot rectify this in a ten-minute speech here but hon PFP members should go out calmly and read up the history of the Afrikaner in this country, not only through the eyes of the leftist historian but also according to the interpretation of the Afrikaner himself. The hon member is an extension of British imperialism, like so many of his hon colleagues, and I want to read something to him:

Listen to what people were already saying about us Afrikaners 80 years ago!—

That was the chairman’s standpoint …

That is exactly the way you are talking about the ANC today!

That was the hon member who referred to 1902-1903. He compares the Afrikaner with the ANC and so insults my people.

No, I am not insulting anyone!

Just let him listen to me for a moment. I request this most amicably. I shall quote what his predecessors in spirit and philosophy said 80 years ago.

No! He is not responsible for those people. That is nonsense!

Hon PFP members cannot extricate themselves so easily from the past. That hon member cannot simply talk like that.

The hon member for Walmer said in his speech that ethnicity had to disappear in South Africa. After a three-year war 80 years ago, in which the hon member’s people wanted to destroy us, we are standing here today more strongly than we were 80 years ago. [Interjections.]

No, you have it wrong. We did not want to destroy you. That was the British.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is an extension of British imperialism.

That is another matter.

I should like to quote further. Milner is speaking again:

That is the problem with the PFP.

Read ’n Eeu van Onreg, by General Smuts.

They ignore the reality of the existence of an Afrikaner people and under the word “Afrikaner” I include those Whites who identify themselves with our struggle and co-operate with us. Those hon members want to turn all South Africans—White, Black, Brown and Indian—merely into a type of English-speaking people or half-baked Americans.

Never! You are talking nonsense!

That is their dilemma. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bezuidenhout must kindly contain himself. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

He is joining in the chorus.

He hates Boers! [Interjections.]

I now wish to return to the hon member Prof Olivier. In the Anglo-Boer war there was a Jew who fought on the Boers’ side.

Yes, I know. There were many of them.

Of course, there are many good Jews.

What about Moses?

In my constituency there are Jews who support me; who support the CP. [Interjections.]

One should not permit oneself to be misled by the fine terminology of the PFP and the way in which they speak. It is difficult to explain why their political philosophy is so inconsistent. In this regard I want to quote the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech of yesterday:

I am also a member of an Opposition party which the Government wants to take over but I am not going to use means outside the law.

But you have the vote. [Interjections.]

Surely everyone in the RS A has a vote.

The day I come to power, I shall not permit people to make use of those methods.

I want to tell the PFP now that Winnie Mandela, the ANC and the UDF do not agree with PFP policy; they differ with the PFP. Do hon members now want to tell me that they will be satisfied with the PFP? If they are not going to be satisfied with the PFP, will the hon member Prof Olivier say that as the ANC and the UDF are not satisfied with the PFP, so they can use these same measures? The hon member Prof Olivier is creating a situation in which any person, White, Brown, Black or Indian, will make use of revolutionary means because he does not agree with the political system.

No, no.

Daan, but you are in Parliament with the Nats and you do not agree with them.

Of course, I do not go outside the law. The standpoints I recognise here are that the policy of the acceptance of ethnic diversity will bring a greater degree of peace to South Africa than this forcing of a diversity of ethnic and racial groups into the same state structure.

I wish to say further that the hon member Prof Olivier also referred yesterday to the AWB on the extreme right and the ANC on the extreme left and said AWB members should ask themselves—I am not here to speak on their behalf … [Interjections.] I find it the strangest phenomenon that, when we trounce the PFP here, the NP reacts. [Interjections.] It happened quite a few times yesterday, when the hon member for Sasolburg and other members were speaking and we carried the fight to the PFP’s side, that the NP shouted on the other side. [Interjections.]

Never in its entire struggle for self-determination has the Afrikaner people destroyed the self-determination, territory and sovereignty of other peoples. When we speak of White self-determination, therefore, it does not mean we wish to dominate Black, Brown or Indian. Consequently we say we want a policy of partition. The ANC is different, however, because it wants the whole of South Africa, inch by inch, for the ANC. We are opposed to this. We do not want this and that is why we advocate a policy of partition with all the problematical aspects attached to it. Theoretically it is the only policy which is ethnically, historically and scientifically correct.

Yes, theoretically! [Interjections.]

I want to leave the PFP at that for a while and get to the NP. The hon member for Helderkruin like the hon member for Krugersdorp made a very peculiar type of speech yesterday. I listened to them and fetched their speeches again today and re-read them. I tried to interpret them…

You are rather stupid.

Yes, the hon member can say I am rather stupid but then he should remember that the majority of South Africa may perhaps also be stupid. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Krugersdorp is a New Nat and he knows it. He is one of the small group which most probably spoke to Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and so too the hon member for Helderkruin. The hon member knows they are not happy with this legislation. His entire speech is proof of it.

He spoke for only 11 minutes.

Yes, he spoke for only 11 minutes. [Interjections.]

The hon member has his eyes fixed on the Brown people, the Indians and the Black people sitting outside. He is talking in their direction because he is one of the members who is afraid. He is afraid of the future, he is afraid of Black numbers and is one of the hon members with a frightening feeling of injustice toward Black people. [Interjections.]

I now wish to revert to what the hon member for Helderkruin said. He said democracy had to be broadened and the NP was in the process of broadening democracy. I want to tell hon members of the PFP next to me that, if a person says South Africa is a unitary state with one nation and one wants to broaden democracy, the Progs are certainly right and they certainly have a better answer to the broadening of democracy because they include all Black people. Now the hon member for Helderkruin comes and says the NP is in the process of broadening democracy.

All that is occurring in South Africa is that the NP has deviated from the principles of the old National Party but the problem is that its members cannot tell this to the public out there because they know that would mean losing. Now they have to use other terminology and then say they are broadening democracy. [Interjections.] Surely one cannot broaden democracy and stop halfway. The hon member for Helderkruin …

Where does that come into the amending Bill?

I am replying to the hon member’s colleague, the hon member for Helderkruin. Why did the hon member Mr Schutte not make an interjection yesterday when his colleague was speaking? What is his argument? [Time expired.]

Personal explanation during debate

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Pinetown to speak, I want to point out that the hon member for Greytown asked my permission to raise a point of personal explanation. I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, I have given the interjection I made with reference to the hon the Minister some thought, and as far as the description of certain elements in the Police Force as “hooligans in uniform” is concerned, it was possible to attribute a dual connotation to my interjection, and for that reason I withdraw it.

Debate resumed

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to follow the hon member for Rissik, and I particularly agree with him that we do have an inherently weak Constitution. We happen to agree with his party that it is a weak Constitution. However, we view it from the other side.

I would like to pick up one or two of the points made by the hon member for Rissik, particularly concerning his attack on the hon member for Walmer whom he accorded the dubious right of being one of the people who followed up on Lord Milner and the British imperialist government. I have a particular problem with that view because I actually do not believe that members of this party are the “voortsetting van die Britse Ryk”. I do not think that is possible at all. As I have indicated previously, there are elements within this political party which certainly during the time of the war between the South African republics and the British Empire would have supported those people in the republics themselves and who would have been involved, like Emily Hobhouse, in caring for the people in the concentration camps and elsewhere. It is that true liberal tradition, rather than an imperialist tradition, that this party is convinced must be followed in this country.

Again responding to the hon member for Rissik, may I also make the point that my colleague, the hon member for Walmer, did not say that ethnicity must go. He said that ethnicity as a basis of the political dispensation must go. That is a different thing entirely. We do believe that in this country it is important to recognise that ethnicity and the cultural basis of people need to survive.

I would like to turn from that to the Bill itself. I would like to approach it from a slightly different angle to that from which my colleagues have approached it in this House. As a member from Natal, I wish to point out that we Natalians were in an area which was not covered by the emergency regulations of last year. I happen to come from Durban itself, a big city with the dubious title of the “bomb city” of South Africa. It is a city which has had the highest number of bomb and limpet mine accidents. Just last week, for example, a 15 kg bomb was discovered in Pine Parkade in the centre of the city. The PFP regional office, which is directly opposite, was evacuated. We in this party have nothing but praise for the South African Police for the work that they are doing in relieving Durban of the dubious pleasure of being called a “bomb city”. Certainly the individuals who are concerned and those who have been hurt or killed in that kind of action, we have the greatest regard for.

With regard to the challenge which was issued across the floor by the hon the Minister, may I also make a remark about the PFP and my own personal contacts with the Police. A moment ago the hon the Minister pooh-poohed my colleague—the hon member for Constantia’s statement regarding the Police as individuals and the fact that we do believe that there are people within the Police Force who are overstepping the mark. We have often said so. However, there are others in the Police Force who are doing very good work. I had the ironic experience during the Christmas period of having to aid two of my past pupils who were in Pollsmoor Prison, having been detained there. One was from the Athlone area, a minister of religion, and another a school teacher from a Coloured school. Both were persons I had taught in Natal. The irony is that there were two pupils from that very same class of mine in the riot control unit in the Durban area at the time. That is the irony, and the hon the Minister must accept that we in these benches have some difficulty regarding the exact position in respect of the use the Police in maintaining a political system in this country that we do not believe in.

Allow me to quote an example of the confused thinking that issues from those benches. The hon member for Amanzimtoti asked a question of my colleague the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central regarding the action taken against students and those people who place “necklaces” around the necks of others. That is the confusion! How anyone in his right mind can confuse a group of demonstrating students with people placing “necklaces” around the necks of others, I fail to understand. [Interjections.] They are two totally and absolutely diametrically opposed groupings of people, and I shall tell the hon member why they are diametrically opposed. It is because those groupings of students, and to a certain extent those who come to their aid—including lecturers and vice rectors of universities—are protecting one of the basic rights of democracy. That is what those hon members fail to understand. [Interjections.] The basic rights of democracy include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Therefore, the students who are protesting against the action of the Police should in fact be protected in their demonstration—not attacked—because otherwise one is violating democracy. [Interjections.] As for this confusion regarding demonstrating students on the one hand and “necklacing” mobsters on the other, I think that party really has to set its thinking straight. We have no hesitation—my colleague the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made that absolutely clear—in condemning those people who take violence into their own hands. Whether they are kangaroo courts, people’s courts, “necklacing” mobs or bomb planters, we condemn them unreservedly and they should get the punishment they deserve if they are found guilty in a court of law. Of that we have no doubt. However, to use the same tactics against students and others who are legitimately aspiring to a democratic South Africa, is to be totally mistaken about the method of dealing with these matters. [Interjections.]

It appears to us in these benches that the Government is following a two-handed policy. It has been doing so for the past year or two. On the left hand is its reform policy and on the right hand is the hon the Minister of Law and Order. The left hand is saying: “We will make concessions” and the right hand is saying: “Just you behave yourselves while we are making those concessions; otherwise we are going to hit you.” Those are the left and the right hands.

Can anybody explain to us why these pieces of legislation should appear on the very day that the Statutory Council is announced? It is the right and the left hand coming into play and one can follow this through in events over the past year. Exactly the same thing has happened, and I am quite certain that it is the policy of the Government to follow that principle. [Interjections.]

I have a particular difficulty. Without wishing to speculate on what they are going to discuss, let us just assume that at their congress in August, the NP will discuss the Group Areas Act. That will be a left-hand measure—a reform measure—because they are going to relax the Group Areas Act. What “kragdadig” instrument will they use on the right-hand side? [Interjections.] It is, after all, a left-and right-handed policy.

It is very interesting that this particular piece of legislation, the Public Safety Amendment Bill, should appear now. I want to refer to the Public Safety Act itself. Why does this Bill appear in this form? Why is it necessary that the Minister has to gain certain powers? Does it stem from the history and effects, as some of my hon colleagues have suggested, of the state of emergency and other events in South Africa from 3 September 1984 up to the present day? I believe it does, Sir, and that it stems from an analysis this Government has made. I believe the Government has come to the conclusion that the events between September 1984 and July 1985, on the one hand, and those between July 1985 and March 1986 should be considered separately. I have no doubt that, as a result of an accurate analysis, the Government actually came to the conclusion that the state of emergency did not succeed at all.

There may have been fluctuating incidents in political activity but I think there are also other reasons why this has been the case. In the Western Cape, for example, it is significant that the pattern of events in the townships decreased in December, when the schools went on holiday. It had nothing to do with the state of emergency or with the sanctions of the Police. Therefore, we ask why this measure is deemed necessary, and why in this particular form.

The province of Natal was not under a state of emergency. I should like to look at some events which took place in that province. I should like to look at the events at Inanda and the later events, in December, at Umbumbulu. I refer to the faction fighting. Those events were “areas of unrest”, so to speak, but—I repeat—those areas were not under the state of emergency. In both incidents there were major losses of life and in both cases peace was restored within one week.

My question to the hon the Minister is, if he had declared those areas “areas of unrest” according to this Bill, would it actually have helped? I actually do not believe that it would have helped. I think it would have exacerbated the situation.

How utterly stupid! That is the worst example you could have chosen! [Interjections.]

I want to talk about Inanda. I was, in fact, going to praise the Police but this hon Minister has a twitch reaction when we mention anything regarding the Police.

I want to praise the Police for the action they carried out in those areas because there is no doubt at all in my mind that it was because of the intervention by the Security Forces in separating the elements in Inanda that peace was actually restored. However, if those areas had been declared areas of unrest and if the Police themselves had become a focus of attack, which they never were in Durban, then it would have exacerbated the situation. That is what I am trying to say.

When we analyse the situation with regard to unrest areas, what has happened in the rest of the country? The Police themselves have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The same goes for the Umbumbulu experience. I happened to be in Isipingo at the time. I went to see the Police at Christmas. I have the greatest regard for what the Police did there. They intervened between two warring factions, Zulu and Pondo, and restored peace in a very short period of time—again without having declared the area an area of unrest. They succeeded in doing that because they themselves were not the focus of the attack of the community. They were thus able to separate the groups.

I believe the situation in the rest of South Africa should be observed in the same way. We have a political dispensation which is extremely unpopular with the majority of almost every population group in the country. That political dispensation will be opposed and the last thing one wants to do is to make one’s Security Forces part of the problem.

I should now like to turn to the Public Safety Act, No 3 of 1953, itself. Prof A S Matthews, in his book Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa had this to say about the Public Safety Act in its use in 1960, but I am sure the same applies to the most recent state of emergency. I quote:

I have no doubt that it will be quite a while before we actually analyse how many of those who were detained under the most recent state of emergency actually were charged or tried, because the state of emergency as prescribed and utilised in 1960 and 1985 effectively was not aimed at those who were involved in crime; it was to stop in many cases legitimate objections to the government of the day.

Similarly Prof J D van der Vyver in his work Die Beskerming van Menseregte in Suid-Afrika says the following on page 184 in regard to the Public Safety Act:

That is the point Prof Van der Vyver makes—that if one attempts to apply emergency regulations outside a particular limited area or if one does not control them by means of court action they are going to in fact exacerbate racial relations in this country.

If hon members look at the Public Safety Amendment Bill carefully they will see the following in clause 4:

What is the hon the Minister doing other than making laws? He is setting himself up in his own person as being the legislator of laws and measures additional to the ordinary law of the land. We must understand what the law of the land is. What are we talking about when we describe the rule of law? The NP and the rightist parties have been fairly deprecatory, fairly critical, of the concept of the rule of law. I should therefore like to examine the concept of the rule of law, particularly as it applies to the hon the Minister being the lawmaker. I should like to quote from an article, again by Prof Matthews, in the South African Law Journal, vol 81 of 1964 in which he says:

I should like to stress this point—

How often have we not heard that from this hon Minister! I quote further:

Prof Matthews’s conclusion is that one cannot expect an unjust government to determine and to maintain its policy by means of emergency measures.

It is interesting to note what Aristotle had to say in relation to this very matter. I am quoting now from an article by Prof F Venter, titled The Withering of the “Rule of Law”. Prof Venter quotes Aristotle saying about the rule of law, and I quote:

Such as the hon the Minister—

We in these benches plead for a return to the rule of law, a return to the due process of law, because one cannot believe that this Government actually thinks that by placing a measure of this nature on the Statute Book it is going to preserve its racial policies much longer.

I quote again, this time from an HSRC report titled The South African Society: Realities and Future Prospects. On page 166 of this report it states:

Mr Chairman, this is not just any wild, liberal, fanatical group talking. This is the HSRC speaking in one of its own reports—a report on group structures.

Louis, you should detain the HSRC chaps!

Mr Chairman, reference has been made again from these benches to the Rhodesian experience, and the hon the Minister has again been reminded by the hon member for Constantia of the Chief Justice of the former Southern Rhodesia who resigned rather than apply certain legislation. Let us, however, hear what he had to say in relation to this matter in an address delivered at the University of Cape Town, and I quote:

The hon the Minister has agreed that this is an extraordinary measure, and I assume he will accept that this is also a repressive measure—

That is the tradition of judicial experience in this country—

The hon the Minister is doing exactly that. I quote further:

That is the situation. We are going to find ourselves with security legislation—the legislation on our Order Paper—that is going to prove difficult, if not impossible, to remove.

I was interested to hear the hon member for Krugersdorp mention that he was torn between his judicial feelings regarding this measure and his political feelings; and he let his political feelings carry him through. [Interjections.] I believe he was wrong. I believe he should have seen clearly that it is actually his political feelings that are the more questionable at a time of crisis such as this.

I should like to turn now to the whole question of the regulations that the Minister can issue in terms of this legislation. These regulations include …

Order! The noise level in the House is too high. Hon members must please lower their voices. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

I shall whisper, Mr Chairman!

In terms of a proclamation under the Public Safety Act as published in the Government Gazette of 21 July these regulations applied to certain magisterial districts, except for regulation 11 which applied to the whole of South Africa. Regulation 11 provided for indemnity. I want to focus on this regulation because it is one with which I have particular difficulty. In this instance again, the hon the Minister is going to have to look very carefully at the reasons for granting such indemnity. One can quote from a number of cases. I can quote Prof Gering of the University of Durban-Westville where he says that the whole question of indemnifying an individual who makes this type of decision is very difficult to accept from a juristic point of view. I quote Prof Gering:

Prof Gering goes on to quote from a decision of an American court:

Prof Gering goes on to say:

He goes on to use the phrase “administrative lawlessness”. I do not want the hon the Minister to latch onto that word and say that I said the Police are lawless. That is not what I am saying. All I am saying is that the granting of a condition of indemnity can lead to such a situation. Allow me, Sir, to ask the hon the Minister directly whether he is prepared to accept, together with the conditions he has accepted in regard to the detention of people—the conditions he announced during his Second Reading speech—that indemnity should not be granted. He will then have to justify his answer. [Interjections.]

In the last minute or two at my disposal, I want to turn back to the question I dealt with at the start of my speech, namely that of what the Police should be doing. I believe the Police have a major and very important role to play in our society. The Police not only have to catch criminals. They also have to protect a society that is in a state of change, and that has moved through a change, in its principal and particular values, such as the values enshrined in the Preamble to our present Constitution which says that people should have the right to life, property and individual freedom. Those are the kind of things the Police should be protecting. However, I have the greatest difficulty in reconciling in one week an action in which the Police attacked and beat students in a school with the Police action at Pietersburg where the right of free speech and the right of free assembly was not protected.

They have TV to make speeches on.

We therefore have this difficulty. The hon the Minister is going to have to reconcile this. Does he believe that the Police will be here in this country to protect democracy?

What democracy …? [Interjections.]

No, I am asking the hon the Minister. If the hon the Minister believes that this country is moving towards democracy does he also believe the Police should protect that democracy? Should they protect the right of freedom of speech? Should they protect the right of freedom of assembly? My problem was exactly put into words by one of the hon members of the CP or the HNP who said the communists wanted one man, one vote. That is exactly the problem. Democracy also wants one man, one vote. One must make a clear distinction between those two elements.

Are you in favour of one man, one vote?

It is the responsibility of the Police and of the hon the Minister to ensure that as we move through the lefthand changes of reform—a movement possibly to a more democratic future—the “kragdadigheid” of the right hand is not exacerbating the situation and is not actually bringing about a situation in which those of the totalitarian left succeed because the hon the Minister has killed liberal democracy in this country. That is exactly what the hon the Minister should be most defending and it is that that he cannot see when it is put in front of him. He does not recognise democracy when he see it.

Mr Chairman, I could hardly believe my ears when listening to the hon member for Pinetown. I cannot believe he belongs to the same party as the hon members for Sandton, Green Point and Constantia; I cannot believe it because the Police were insulted horrendously here yesterday and today. It is a disgrace that hon members of that party in this House cause a headline such as this to appear in a newspaper for overseas publicity: “Public Safety Bill means licence to kill”. They accuse the South African Police of being murderers and the people responsible for the troubles in our country. This is extremely unjust and I think the action of hon members of the Official Opposition is aimed at further incitement of riot in this country with a view to 16 June. [Interjections.] That is what they are doing.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to allege that the action of hon PFP members is aimed at further incitement of riots on 16 June?

Order! What did the hon member for Vryheid say?

I said their action would result in emotional conditions within radical Black ranks being exacerbated to the disadvantage of us all. [Interjections.]

Order! I asked the hon member for Vryheid to repeat what he had said, and I have to accept the hon member’s word. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I request that you study the hon member’s words in Hansard and then hand down a further ruling in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw my words to save time.

Order! Has the hon member for Vryheid withdrawn his words?

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw my words to save time because hon members are trying to waste my time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I want to say today they should count their words regarding their irresponsible utterances. In the rest of Africa the heads of Whites adorned gateposts and this possibility is not excluded in South Africa if parties and certain hon members in this House act irresponsibly. Hon members should not think that what the Black people are experiencing in their residential areas today will not be extended to White areas if the Police do not prevent it. It will definitely spread.

The public and I find the PFP suspect because PFP members act under the Red flag. Some of the members of that party appear at funerals and memorial services and this even includes hon PFP members of this House. They are supporting identified communists.

Those are smear tactics!

The current riot situation has been in progress for two years and I wish to thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the SA Police for the degree of patience they have exercised until today. In spite of people swearing at them and spitting in their faces, Police patience has held and they could contain themselves. [Interjections.] The Police have now reached the point, however, where this situation can no longer continue.

Our action and that of the Police is not aimed at Black people; this legislation is aimed at the conduct of revolutionary radicals in Black ranks. Our action is aimed at murderers who, although they bury people alive or burn them, yet get off scot-free because intimidation is so effective that everyone is afraid of testifying against them. They are the people against whom we should act and they are the people on whose side the Official Opposition is, according to my impressions. [Interjections.] The Police have to act to protect Black people in Black areas against these perpetrators of violence.

When one listens to the hon member for Sandton, it sounds as if the Police enter Black residential areas at any time but they do this only when there is trouble, when people are murdered or property destroyed. Hon PFP members would sing another tune if riots broke out in Houghton or Sandton because they would be personally involved. They should thank the Police today that this has not happened yet. [Interjections.]

We have no intention whatsoever, as the hon member for Sandton said, of solving our situation with might and force. We said in the past we were prepared to negotiate and wished to do so. Why is this not taking place today? Black people are eager to negotiate with us but they are forbidden to do so. Death by burning is horrendous. Black people tell us we have no idea what happens to them.

Today the hon member for Pinetown is singing a different tune from that of his colleague, the hon member for Sandton. That is because he comes from Natal where a responsible Black leader is on the side of the Police. He said the destruction of South Africa dared not continue and he and Inkatha intervened. We owe a debt of gratitude to Inkatha because its members say Black radicals are destroying the country and sending it into the abyss. It is our impression and that of the public, however, that some PFP members are fellow travellers of Black radicals.

I want to say here today that we are not opposed to Black people. No White government in South Africa which does not have a majority of Black allies will have a peaceful future in this country. There are Black moderates in South Africa—they form the majority of Blacks—who tell me we should curb these people otherwise we are all headed for the abyss, hunger and a taste of the misery of Africa.

Someone said here today we were bluffing the outside world. We are not bluffing anyone? The hon member for Pinetown spoke of the left and the right hand. The time has come for us to strike these people with both hands. The unrest has continued for too long and we have to give the Police the power to clamp down on the people responsible for it. We must do this now and not wait any longer. We in South Africa, Whites, Coloureds and Asians, are all tired of unrest; we must support the Police.

The task of the Police is not to murder anyone but to prevent murderers from getting off scot-free. The purpose of this legislation is to safeguard the public and nothing more.

An hon PFP member said that we of the NP did not speak with one voice. I say to him there is not one of us who does not wish to have the unrest stopped.

Yes, but you differ on the methods.

The future of South Africa is at stake here. Even if we were to become unpopular with America, England or the rest of the outside world and had to put up with sanctions, we could not permit the unrest situation to continue.

It is irresponsible…

If the outside world tells us now to stop clamping down on these people, we shall have to become impoverished together with the Black people. [Interjections.]

Just like the Rhodesians!

I can also refer to what happened in Rhodesia. If we cannot curb intimidation in South Africa, we have no future and the hon member for Constantia should also assist us. Every party in the House should assist us in clamping down on intimidation among the Black people because it is an horrendous affair. People are forced to carry out certain acts.

The events we saw in Rhodesia are taking place here too.

Only a weak government allows this. [Interjections.]

I shall get to the hon member for Koedoespoort later this week. He and I attended school together and I know him very well. I shall tackle him a little but I do not want to waste my time on him now.

I was only … [Interjections.]

We cannot exclude the participation of Black people on the highest level in this country in the necessary reform and the broadening of democracy. It has to happen but it cannot occur in a condition lacking peace in South Africa.

Unrest is fomented to prevent us from reaching an agreement or negotiating with Black people.

Hon members had better listen carefully now. I am just as much of an Afrikaner as hon members occupying CP benches. I am a reasonable Afrikaner with good relations with Black people but my party and I are not prepared to accept a Black power take-over in South Africa. We will fight against that. The entire outside world should know that we will fight. [Interjections.] The NP is willing to share power with the other peoples of South Africa, but not to be dominated by them. We must be clearly understood. We are not willing to sell out the White man in this country. We will not start running. We will make a stand here and not one of us will leave. We will stay here and we will fight for our rights. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the matter that we are dealing with at the moment is a very, very serious matter indeed. It is part of the unrest situation in the country and it is part of the situation of instability, violence and bloodshed which has characterised our society for some two years now, because it deals directly with that situation.

I believe that it is unfortunate that the debate has been characterised by a lot of aggression as well as a lack of understanding and a lack of communication across the floor of the House. If we, as the highest authority in the country, are going to make an effective contribution towards bringing about peace and stability in South Africa, our deliberations on matters of this nature should be far more responsible and should be characterised by far more understanding and better communication across the floor of this House, I have been shocked, disappointed and alarmed, sitting here and being able to look directly at the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, to see the extent to which they discard arguments and representations made on this side of the House, apparently without being prepared to consider them seriously.

During the course of the speech of the hon member for Constantia, when he obviously attempted with sincerity to put across to the hon the Minister certain personal experiences in order to illustrate the points he was trying to make, the hon the Minister just as obviously was not prepared to concede either the sincerity or the veracity of what the hon member for Constantia was saying. [Interjections.]

I am prepared to accept the sincerity of the Government that they believe that this legislation is essential to bring about peace in South Africa. However, I think the Government should be equally prepared to accept our bona fides and our sincerity when we argue that this is not the way of bringing about peace in South Africa and that there are many things which are wrong, particulary insofar as this hon Minister’s department is concerned, which need his urgent and immediate attention to prevent further difficulties. I hope when matters of this nature are debated that we will try to accept one another’s sincerity and to communicate with one another to arrive at some sort of solution to the problems facing our country. Those problems are extremely serious and could lead to the destruction or our society and to the loss of everything we all hold dear.

Right at the outset of my speech I want to point out that the hon members on the Government side are very quick to misinterpret what hon members on this side of the House say. [Interjections.] I want to correct just one thing. The hon member for Constantia, referring to a specific incident and to certain members of the Police Force, said that they had behaved like hooligans in uniform. Immediately hon members on the other side of the House attempted to create the impression that the PFP considered the whole Police Force to be hooligans in uniform. That is totally untrue. [Interjections.] It is important for me to say that the PFP believes that in a normal democratic society the Police Force fulfil a vital and important function to maintain law and order.

You call us killers, all of us!

No society can exist and stability cannot be maintained, and progress within the society will be undermined if law and order is not effectively maintained. In order to maintain that law and order, one needs a police force and the police are people who have to do a very difficult job under very difficult circumstances, at risk to their own lives and security. We therefore understand the task and the difficulty which the Police have, and we sympathise with them. By the same token, however, we demand—as is the right of an opposition party in any democratic society—that the Police Force as a whole behave in such a way as to be irreproachable. [Interjections.] They should act strictly within the letter of the law. The Police Force should set an example to society and should be looked up to by society as its protector. It should not be seen at any stage to misbehave, to take the law into its own hands, or to make itself guilty of behaviour such as violence on its own part or anything of that nature.

That, then, is our attitude towards the Police. We are not saying that the Police Force as a whole consists of hooligans in uniform. When policemen misbehave, we bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister and we expect him to take action.

Another issue which hon members of the governing party are constantly trying to lay at our door, is the suggestion that the PFP is in some way sympathetic towards or supportive of those people who perpetrate violence in our society. Let me make it absolutely clear that the PFP as a whole is totally opposed to all forms of violence, irrespective of who the perpetrators of that violence are.

What about your support for the ANC?

Moreover, we believe that the planners and perpetrators of violence—whoever they may be—should be acted against with the full force of the law. They should be charged and, if found guilty, severely dealt with, because a civilised society cannot afford to have violence as part and parcel of its way of life. [Interjections.] Violence is a subtle form of destruction which can in fact undo the fabric of any normal democratic society and it should therefore be removed from society through the means provided by the laws of that society.

When I look at this legislation I accept that the Government believe that they need legislation of this nature in order to bring about peace in our society. The Government apparently believe that they need legislation of this nature to bring about peace and stability in our society. I do not think, however, that the Government have thought it through clearly. In the first place they argue in their memorandum that the legislation providing for a state of emergency and the application of a state of emergency … I am talking to the hon the Minister but he is not listening to me.

I am sorry; I was just interrupted.

The Government apparently believe that the application of states of emergency has certain negative consequences for South Africa both internally and externally. They argue in their memorandum that providing these measures will obviate or avoid those negative consequences internally and externally.

I hope so.

I am glad that the hon the Minister says that he hopes so. I also hope so but I do not think that that is possible because I think that the very same negative consequences that flowed from the other legislation internally and externally are going to flow from this legislation. I therefore do not think that the Government has really addressed the problem or come up with effective means of dealing with the problem. We on this side of the House would like to make suggestions as to how the Government can in fact do that.

There are two simple requirements for the law to be successful and effective in bringing about peace and stability. In the first place the people who are subject to the law, the population and members of our society, must accept the law as being fair and just. They must accept that the law is fair and just and that it does not discriminate against them on any grounds whatsoever. The acceptance of law as being fair and just is vitally important to make that law successful in bringing about peace and stability. Secondly, and directly flowing from that, there must be respect for the law. If a society does not respect the law then that society will not accept that that law is fair and just and in its interests as a whole.

One of the ways in which this Government fails when it comes to the passing of laws is the fact that it does not make sufficient effort to study the attitudes, the cultures and the traditions of the people for whom those laws are intended. If hon members look at the memorandum on the objects of the Public Safety Amendment Bill they will see who the people were who were consulted by the Government. It says, and I quote:

Goodness knows why—

Those were the only organisations that were consulted. Mr Chairman, I have asked the hon the Minister to listen to me, but he keeps on talking to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. I am particularly addressing the hon the Minister. In drafting this legislation the Government consulted with a very limited number of organisations representing a very narrow field of operations, namely the people who apply the law. They did not consult with the society for which the laws are intended or the organisations that represent the society for which these laws are intended. This is one of the fundamental failures of the government.

Who are the people we should have spoken to? Let me have some names.

All the organisations; the various political parties.

Do you include the UDF, the ANC and those organisations?

Why does the hon the Minister not at least attempt to talk to these people?

Well, let me have some names.

Why does the hon the Minister not talk to the trade unions who are the direct representatives? Why not talk to the churches? Why not talk to the community organisations?

To whom in particular must we talk?

I can furnish the hon the Minister, if he so wishes, with the names of a thousand organisations which are …

Let me have five.

He can talk to all the churches to start off with. Then he can talk to all the community organisations.

To the UDF? Come on, I am just helping you.

He can also talk to all the law societies and with the political parties.

Which political parties?

I will provide the hon the Minister with a list containing the names of a thousand organisations he could have consulted. [Interjections.] The point I really want to make, however, is that the Government makes laws for society and for the people without making any effort to talk to the people for whom those laws are intended. The Government has no understanding of the traditions or the cultures of those people. They do not know what those people’s needs or fears are. They just go ahead and make laws pertaining to those people without having communicated with them and without having learned from them. I think that is a very silly thing to do.

Moreover, the Government rejects the efforts of the hon members on this side of the House who have actually gone to the trouble of communicating with a large number of people in the Black communities of South Africa.

Whose efforts did I reject?

I saw an example of it today. When the hon member for Constantia was talking, the hon the Minister rejected his statements out of hand, regardless of what he said.

I ask again, whose efforts did I reject?

The hon the Minister rejected what the hon member for Constantia way saying out of hand.

Most of the hon members on that side of the House are totally uninformed as to the realities of what is happening in South Africa. [Interjections.] I know that is so because there are a few hon members on that side of the House—I will not name them—who have taken the trouble to walk the streets of the Black areas, who have spoken to hundreds of Black people, and who have learned what the realities are. They have changed their attitudes radically. Their attitudes differ very much now from the general attitude on that side of the House.

Since September 1984 I have quietly and individually been walking the streets of virtually all the townships of the PWV area. I did so today, too, in fact. I walked the streets. I went from door to door, and spoke to hundreds of people, to housewives, workers, scholars, ministers of religion, teachers and local leaders. I spoke to everybody I came across, and listened to him. I listened to people’s needs, fears and problems. That is what the governing party should be doing! They should be learning from the people themselves what their problems are. They should establish in this way that the attitudes are and make laws in order to meet those needs and solve the problems. However, the Government does not do that.

When one meets these people, members of the general Black public, one has to do with millions of ordinary, hopeless and defenceless South African people who are caught up in this horrible, violent and bloody confrontation between the security forces on the one hand and the revolutionaries on the other. One meets people who do not want to be part of that. They desire peace and stability; they want to work and they want their children to go to school. They want to be left in peace but they are subjected to this grinding, destructive confrontation between these two forces.

Who is fighting whom at Crossroads?

I wish the hon member for De Kuilen and his colleagues in the NP would personally take the trouble to go and talk to those people and establish what the real situation is. They sit here and talk purely on the strength of what they read in the newspapers. They are prejudiced and ignorant of the real situation. They foster and protect that ignorance against gaining real knowledge and information.

That is untrue!

No, Sir, it is absolutely true. [Interjections.]

If the Government would only take the trouble to establish what the facts are, it would find it far easier to bring about peace and stability because it would then find out that it is not just through laws that that can be achieved. It is not just security or police action which can achieve that. There are many other things which can and have to be done.

In the first place the Government must try to establish what the sources of the problem are. The Government must realise that the violence which we are now experiencing is the culmination of a long process of racial injustice which has affected the Black community in South Africa over decades.

Every Black person in South Africa experiences every day of his life the humiliation and deprivation of the apartheid policies of this Government. Added to that is the deprivation caused by unemployment, the experience of going hungry and not being able to clothe and feed one’s children. There are the economic hardships, overcrowding and the problems of urbanisation such as the problems of readjusting to unknown systems and an unknown type of society. Put together, these things have created a society and a situation which was ripe for revolution.

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

No, Mr Chairman. If I have the time afterwards I will answer it with pleasure.

The Government finally understood that it had to bring about reform. Over the past seven years the Government has introduced a fairly broad programme of reform. These reforms were meant sincerely and have been effective but they came at the eleventh hour. They have come about so late in the day that they have not really been able to address the anger that has been generated over the past decades. These reforms are ignored by our enemies and they are not experienced fully by the communities for which they are intended.

What are the results of this? It has given the revolutionaries the opportunity to hijack the legitimate cause of the vast majority of the Black people in this country. We are now faced with the situation where the Black masses who have legitimate grievances and who are angry, unhappy and frustrated are ripe for the efforts of the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries are ruthless and unscrupulous people. They have effectively managed to hijack the legitimate cause of the vast majority of the Black people in this country, and we are now dealing with a situation in which they have brought about a revolutionary climate throughout South Africa. They have introduced a degree of anger and excitement into the revolutionary situation which is counterproductive and tends to destroy good sense and logic.

We know that their aim is to bring about a society in South Africa which will not be free and democratic and which will not provide for free enterprise, free speech or free courts. That is the aim of the revolutionaries, and because the vast majority of the Black people have become estranged from the Government of South Africa as a result of its policies, they have unfortunately become fair game for the revolutionaries.

I want to discuss briefly the way in which the revolutionaries operate. I have had the opportunity of having two meetings with people who are directly involved in the generation of the revolution in South Africa. I have seen a document which was a handbook for revolution. It was the classic Marxist revolutionary handbook, and there was nothing new in it. The tragedy is that the Government plays into the hands of the revolutionaries and becomes their greatest ally in the promotion of their cause.

The revolutionaries effectively exploit and exaggerate every grievance, whether real or imaginary, but it is the Government in the first instance that provides legitimate grievances which can then be exploited and exaggerated by the revolutionaries. I came across an example of this in October 1984 in the Vaal Triangle area. The people had been told that their rent went directly to Black councillors and the homelands, and that none of the money was used for the services that had to be rendered to those people.

That was disinformation. You know that.

That was false information. It was a lie, but the point is that the Government makes it possible for those lies to succeed because the Government fails to communicate with the people concerned. The Government has failed to evolve a system in which people can be involved and brought into a participatory democracy at that level, and to create a situation in which there are trust and understanding between itself and those people.So, the lie succeeds because the Government has made it possible for it to succeed.

One comes across most disturbing examples of tactics used by the revolutionaries. Children are organised, for instance, to be in the front row during any confrontation and mothers are intimidated into joining a confrontation situation with their babies in their arms. When one asks them why they do this, they say that one baby killed now will save a hundred lives later on. [Interjections.] They also talk about the way in which a free Press should be exploited in such a revolutionary situation. They say, for instance, in the document which I read that revolutionaries must remember that the free Press is the most potent weapon in the armoury of the revolutionary.

We have a situation where journalists who write for certain newspapers are subject to the most terrible intimidation. They have to decide between the disapproval of their management and the wrath of the “comrades” who they know would use a necklace if they were not to write the story as it should be. I am saying this because I am trying to illustrate that there are two sides to the story of this horrible revolutionary situation which we are facing. There is the Government and its incompetence and inability to bring about solutions and work out policies which can address the situation on the one hand, and there are the revolutionaries on the other hand who are adopting policies which are unscrupulous and merciless. In between there are millions of hapless, defenceless people who are the victims of this confrontation and, in particular, of the intimidation of innocent people. This very weekend a Black family came to see me. Their gifted child is in matric this year and he just wants to study and succeed in life. However, he has been threatened that if he goes to school he will be “necklaced”. That child is not attending school because of that threat. The father of this child said that he cannot go to work on 16 June because then he will be “necklaced”. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is this: Intimidation of this nature is so cruel, callous and totally unacceptable in a decent democratic society that I accept that effective action must be taken against it. [Interjections.] I believe that people who perpetrate such intimidation should be identified, charged in a court of law and, if guilty, should be convicted and dealt with in the harshest possible way.

There is a solution to the problem and it can be approached in the following way: Firstly, the Government bears the biggest responsibility. Their reform programme must not be confused; it must be clear and unambiguous. At the moment very few people in this country understand what the Government’s intentions are. The Government’s reform programme must not be reluctant. The Government must learn that it must negotiate and talk to people at every single level, and together, on a basis of consensus, bring about solutions to the problems of the country.

There are so many things that this Government can do. It was this Government that removed habeas corpus from the South African law. If the Government returned habeas corpus to our law, if it was possible for every person detained to be produced in court so that it could be demonstrated that he was not being subjected to torture and ill-treatment, it would relax a great deal of the tension, fear and antipathy which exist within the community. If the Government were to return to the courts the right of the individual to protect himself against the State …

You do not know what you are talking about!

I know exactly what I am talking about. [Interjections.] The Government has undermined the right of the courts to protect the rights of the individual, and in doing so it has brought the law into disrepute and has added to the tensions and the fears of the individual.

I want to turn particularly to the Police, however, and there are so many things that the police can do to improve the situation. The best way to find out what problems the Police are experiencing, is to go and talk to the police themselves. I have spoken to dozens of members of the Police Force from the lowest ranks up to the highest—those people who are directly involved in the problems on the streets—in order to find out what those problems are. Hon members would be surprised at how openly they speak to one. The Police admit that they are often guilty of transgressions. They admit that many of their actions are ill-conceived. The Police also say, however, that many of their actions are the results of Government policies and Government instructions.

For instance, when one asks the Police why they persist in making an appearance at funerals, they will simply say that they have to do so in terms of the laws and the instructions of the Government. They admit that they know it is the wrong thing to do and that it will result in violence.

You are simply an old scandalmonger! [Interjections.]

No, that is the truth. The problem is that when one talks to this hon Minister and gives him facts, he will not listen to them. He is not interested in the facts. I am saying to the hon the Minister that he should go and talk to the Police, and they will tell him that it is his laws and his instructions which often cause the problems that arise.

Policemen are normal human beings. Many of them are very young. They work long hours under the most unpleasant and difficult circumstances imaginable, and they land up in situations of confrontation with the public. It is an unfortunate fact that the are certain elements in the Police Force whose behaviour brings the entire Force into disrepute. I therefore believe that as regards the selection and training of police, we in South Africa have to start taking into consideration the racialistic attitudes which certain people in this country have. [Time expired.]

Order! Did the hon the Minister of Law and Order tell the hon member for Bryanston he was a scandalmonger?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

The hon the Minister must withdraw it.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I want to commence by expressing my regret at not having been in the house yesterday in order to listen to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech and his explanations as to why he considers it necessary to introduce this measure. I am sorry about that: I had commitments which had been arranged long ago, and was overseas at the time.

Was that another doctorate?

Well, I shall tell the hon the Minister all about it. We can have a cosy little chat about that but let us get on with the Bill right now. [Interjections.]

By no stretch of the imagination can this Bill which we are considering today, and its ugly sister Bill which we will be considering in a day or two, be considered as a consensus measure. That is indeed made absolutely clear by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and Order in a report on what had happened on the standing committee. He told us that the committee wished to report as follows:

Those divisions took place without the standing committee members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives being present. As we know, they walked out. The report goes on to say:

There was never any discussion therefore on the actual clauses of the Bill that we are debating this afternoon and, although there was certainly a de jure quorum present, when the vote on the desirability was taken, there was not a de facto quorum in that only the members of the House of Assembly were present. We therefore have a rather unusual set of circumstances which have led to the introduction of this Bill in a very hasty fashion indeed after the very unusual passage of the Bill through the standing committee.

I understand that the walk-out was occasioned by the fact that the members of the House of Representatives and Delegates were uncertain, as to what particular attitude they were going to adopt on these Bills. We understand there have been many discussions with the hon the Minister and indeed even with the State President in order to convince them that they should vote for these Bills. The hon the Minister announced in his Second Reading Speech—and I want to tell him I have read it, so he should not tell me that I do not know what I am talking about…

I did not say anything.

No, but the hon the Minister was getting ready to say it. [Interjections.] I can always tell when the hon the Minister is getting up steam to tell me about something. [Interjections.] I have had lots of experience with the hon the Minister. I have read every deathless word in the Hansard report most carefully and I see the hon the Minister has intimated that he is prepared to move or to accept amendments to this Bill. That means obviously that it has to be committed to the Committees of the various Houses and I would like the hon the Minister to tell me—as it will facilitate my own actions—whether he intends to move that the Bill be committed or whether he is going to leave it to the Official Opposition to do so. Either way it has to be done, of course. The hon the Minister will apparently be moving amendments himself although they do not appear anywhere on the Order Paper. He has been very slow about this; my amendments have been on the Order Paper for days already.

The hon the Minister’s amendments are on the Order Paper.

When, only today?

Yesterday.

Oh well, mine were on last week.