Before the debate commences, I want to announce that Mr. J. W. H. Meiring and Mr. D. P. A. Schutte have been discharged from service on the Standing Committee and that Mr. N. J. Pretorius and Mr. A. P. Wright have been appointed members of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before the debate commences, I am sure hon. members will permit me to make a few remarks about the fact that the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Geldenhuys, is retiring from the Force on pension on 31 May, and is being followed up by Gen. Coetzee who will be the next Commissioner of Police.

Gen. M. C. W. Geldenhuys was born in the Malmesbury district and joined the South African Police on 8 November 1943. Subsequently he was stationed in all the various provinces, except the Orange Free State—I do not know how he managed that! The Commissioner has four sons, two of whom are serving with him in the South African Police at the moment. He passed all the police examinations, including the national police diploma, and the last examination he passed with particular distinction. During 1963 he was transferred to the Security Branch of the South African Police in the Eastern Cape where more than one hundred acts of sabotage were being committed at the time, and during Gen. Geldenhuys’s period of service in that capacity all the relevant cases were solved by him and the team in which he served.

In 1962 he became Chief of the newly established Republican Intelligence Service with, amongst other things, the job of leading the investigation into Mr. Bram Fischer. At the time this was an undercover unit which was also responsible for the fact that many communists in South Africa were rounded up and brought before our courts.

In 1969 he was one of the founder members of the erstwhile Bureau for State Security, where he advanced to the position of Duty Head. During 1974 he was transferred back to the South African Police as Head of the Security Branch, until in 1977 he was appointed Chief Deputy, with the rank of lieutenant-general, and Commissioner in 1978.

Gen. Geldenhuys is the most highly decorated of police officers. He received, amongst other things, two decorations from China and also the Grand Cross of Chile. He was also honoured by the South African Defence Force recently, when the Southern Cross decoration was awarded to him.

Mr. Chairman, Gen. Geldenhuys rendered a lifetime of unique and outstanding service as a member of the South African Police. He rendered many years of outstanding service as Commissioner, thereby also serving this institution of which we are all members, the highest authority in the land. He did so with distinction. Gen. Geldenhuys distinguished himself as a government adviser of his country. He served the Government of his country and, knowing him as I do, I know that he would have been an equally loyal and enthusiastic adviser to any government of his country under which he had to serve. He would have done so to the best of his ability.

Gen. Geldenhuys left his very distinct imprint on the South African Police. His service will remain in living memory for many years to come, for he will particularly be remembered by us, as members of Parliament, and by all members of the South African Police, and I should like to take this opportunity of telling him that we all have the utmost appreciation for that fact, and we pray for his very good health, especially since in the past year or two he has not always enjoyed such good health. We want to wish him and Mrs. Geldenhuys a very pleasant period of retirement. We regret the fact that he is no longer serving as Commissioner of the South African Police, but circumstances persuaded him that this was a fitting time to retire.

As I have previously announced, Gen. Geldenhuys will be succeeded by lieutenant-colonel P. J. Coetzee. Gen. Coetzee was born in Smithfield in the Free State. He joined the South African Police on 10 May 1946. In 1948 he was transferred to the Detective Branch, and for many years he served chiefly in the Rand area. In 1954 he was transferred to the Security Branch of the South African Police. He later became Chief of the Security Branch in Johannesburg and on 1 January 1979, Chief of Security of the Republic of South Africa, with the rank of brigadier and Deputy Commissioner. On 1 September 1981 he became lieutenant-general.

Gen. Coetzee also passed all police promotion exams, and also obtained further academic qualifications by obtaining the degrees B.A., B.A. Hons, and M.A. (Lit. et Phil.) at the Rand Afrikaans University. As in the case of Gen. Geldenhuys, Gen. Coetzee’s exceptional services have been acknowledged by the special medals and decorations awarded to him. Over many years Gen. Coetzee has proved himself to be a first-rate, well-equipped officer with the necessary experience of life to hold down this new position, and I am convinced of the fact that he will give unstinting service to this Parliament and the Government he serves, that he will serve them to the best of his ability and that he will give us nothing but outstanding service. From 1 June Gen. Coetzee will be Commissioner of the South African Police.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour.

At the outset, let me take this opportunity, on behalf of the official Opposition, of congratulating Gen. Geldenhuys, at the end of his illustrious career, and of wishing him and his wife a happy retirement from the end of May. We wish him good health, or at least better health, and many years of happy retirement. To Gen. Coetzee, the Commissioner-designate, who will be taking over, may we say that we in this party congratulate him on becoming Commissioner-designate. In some ways we sympathize with him, because I think it will be a difficult time ahead. I think times will not be easy in the future. May we just good-naturedly suggest to him that some easy tolerance is very often a very good substitute for very tough actions—not that he necessarily needs that advice, but we tender that advice. We wish him leadership with wisdom and with mature responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, today, in effect, Parliament is asked to approve the allocation of funds to this department—to approve of the way this hon. Minister’s department addresses itself to the problem of law and order in South Africa. This, for the Opposition, means more than merely criticizing the department. When we criticize the department we ought also to set out what different approach, what alternative approach, we in the PFP would adopt.

A police force is by definition at the centre of the maintenance of law and order in a society, and particularly is that so in South Africa. Some people, particularly foreigners, have unkindly spoken of police actions in South Africa as the “ugly face” of apartheid. I do not agree with that. We in this party do not agree with that, because we say that there is no “pretty face” of apartheid. We say apartheid is per se ugly; apartheid is by definition ugly. But what is true, however, is that the Police have to be at the rock-face of apartheid. Other people pass the laws, but when they have to be carried out, that is where the Police have to be.

Mr. Chairman, our Police do not ask to be responsible for enforcing the tearing down of the shelters of poor unfortunate people on the Cape Flats—and if you look at their faces when they are present on such occasions, that is evident. It is quite evident from their faces that they do not like to be present at those things. They do not ask to be responsible for the enforced removals of hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working citizens at the point of a bulldozer or at the point of a gun. They do not want to spy on couples to see whether section 16 of the Immorality Act is being contravened. They do not want to set dogs on people in public parks—Pretoria public parks, for example. They do not ask to be responsible for chasing around hundreds of thousands of poor, unfortunate Black people, locking them up and prosecuting them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Police do not enjoy being criticized and censured for these things. But when these laws exist, it is the Police who have to enforce them. And so, Mr. Chairman, the first major difference between this Government and my party is that we would not allow that to happen to our Police Force.

We would not squander the funds and the manpower of this department on such wasteful practices, nor would we demean our Police Force by involving it in the enforcement of laws abhorred by the entire human race. In fact, we would elevate our Police Force. We would raise its status in South Africa. We would take the human material available to us in the Police Force, the good, the bad and the average, and we would encourage it. We would train it for service in sensitive fields—and they have to work in very sensitive fields in South Africa. We would encourage the tactful handling of delicate situations, but we would stamp on gross and violent behaviour. We would not, like the hon. the Minister, when members of the Force had, prima facie—because that is what the Attorney-General has found—recklessly killed innocent citizens, praise them for that. We would not persistently jump to their defence and say—and I quote the hon. the Minster—that they had “acted according to their best judgment, bona fide and correctly”, and we would not always be seen as the consistent proponents of the lowest and grossest standards of police conduct, because in this way the hon. the Minister continually smears the greater majority of the Police with the gross standards of behaviour of the renegade few.

On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, we would concentrate on being seen continually to be encouraging the best examples of police conduct. And when examples of gross conduct, with tragic results, occurred, we would publicly assured the country that we intended to do everything in our power to see that such conduct never occurred again and we would act to ensure this. We would not cry out in self-pity: “I have a very sensitive portfolio. Why does nobody understand?” That we would not do. [Interjections.] I think the public of South Africa, funnily enough, have a fairly clear idea of the extent of the sensitivity shown by this hon. Minister. We would not, like the hon. the Minister, when a civil leader of quite unbelievable humility, such as Saul Mkhize, was blasted to death by a police shotgun, state tersely that we did not want to add anything to the official Police statement. We would have a more human attitude than that, and more human than some of the attitudes that are being displayed on that side of the House now, and we would express that attitude in appropriately sensitive terms.

Do you want the Police Force to operate with their hands tied behind their backs?

If you have no argument, then of course you have to try to make up some argument that meets one that has not been presented. That is what that hon. member is doing at this moment. We would not, like the hon. the Minister, take the attitude, and publicly expound it, that the attempted military coup of a foreign country by an armed force from South Africa and the hijacking of an international aircraft, were not offences of any sort, but merely a playful running around in the bush and a breaking of windows. That kind of attitude is appropriate to schoolboys at primary school, and not to the Minister of Law and Order. If the British Home Secretary had made a remark like that, I assure you that that single remark alone would have caused the Prime Minister to dismiss him instantly from his Cabinet.

If we in this party were the Government we would no doubt also have a Security Branch. But what we would not have is a Security Branch with powers denied even to our judges, powers that place the Security Branch above our judges and above the law. We would not have a Security Branch which operated outside the procedures of the law, procedures developed and designed over centuries out of respect for people, respect for human rights, respect for liberty and respect for freedom.

A policeman, in the continual fight against crime, is in the normal course trained to observe the time-honoured procedures of civilized countries. He cannot arrest people without certain legal prerequisites. He has no power to imprison a suspect for more than 48 hours. When he arrests a person he must give the suspect the time-honoured warning, and he may not question detainees. All these are civilized procedures designed to prevent the abuse of the great powers that a policeman has in society.

None of those procedures that I have mentioned—not one of them—applies to the Security Branch. It works, in terms of legislation, entirely outside those procedures. Nobody can question the detention of a person by the Security Branch. It does not have to bring a person to court within 48 hours, or even a year, or within any time limit at all. It does not have to give any warnings to detainees, and detainees may be interrogated indefinitely. Security Branch policemen, all their working lives, in terms of legislation, work outside the confines of the civilized standards I have set out.

And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister here what purpose was served, and why so much taxpayers’ money was wasted, on sending five Security Branch officers to search Mr. Allister Sparks’ house? What purpose did that serve? Have all those productive men got nothing better to do? Did they think they might get beaten up single-handed by Mr. Sparks if only, say, three went? Would a search by two men be too tiring for them? Or is the truth, Sir, that the whole purpose of the exercise was to intimidate? Was it simply bully-boy tactics?

Mr. Chairman, if this party of which I am a member were the Government, we would not have an annual Police Report with a cover like this one—a policeman holding a rampant, brute of an animal, fangs bared and attacking. Is that to be the symbol of law and order in society in South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister want law and order in South Africa to depend upon that kind of savage animal? If he and that party opposite do, then I say to them that they want a very different South Africa from the one that we in this party want. Mr. Chairman, I have here the ten Annual Reports preceding the one I have just held up. Never before, that I can find, has such a symbol been projected by the police in their Annual Report. And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the Annual Reports no longer give the information they used to give. Whole categories of statistics are now excluded, useful statistics. I hope that by next year this will not still be the case.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to come back more directly to the hon. the Minister and, among other things, to the way he treats detainees, which is the single most important aspect of the function of this department. Since the last session the hon. the Minister has come out with his ministerial directives for the treatment of detainees. Expressed quite simply, those directives are almost useless. They are only internal regulations and they are not subject to judicial or independent scrutiny from outside. The Association of Law Societies of South Africa has published its serious criticisms of these directives, and it has submitted a memorandum to the hon. the Minister, but there is little doubt, I suggest, that he will take no notice of that memorandum at all.

In any event, what is the need for internal directives? Two days before Dr. Aggett committed suicide the hon. the Minister told the House, of which this is a Committee, that detainees were detained—and I quote him—under “the most favourable conditions”. “All reasonable precautions were taken” to prevent harm to them. In fact, he said, “everything possible is done” to prevent harm to them. If that is the case, what is the need for the police to watch themselves, if they are doing that anyway? This was the assurance given to us by the hon. the Minister on 3 February 1982.

Let us just look at some of the facts which emerged. I am not talking about disputed facts. I am talking about facts which, at the inquest court, were common cause, and facts which were not in dispute. Firstly, the hon. the Minister on 16 February 1982 told Parliament that Dr. Aggett had no injuries apart from those which caused his death. In fact the district surgeon, Dr. Kemp, told the inquest court that there were scabs, marks and scratches on Dr. Aggett which Dr. Aggett had said, in a statement before his death, were caused by police torture.

May I just interrupt the hon. member? I am not sure of his last sentence. Would he care to repeat that, please?

In fact Dr. Kemp, the district surgeon, told the inquest court that there were scabs, marks and scratches on Dr. Aggett—that is all he said—which Dr. Aggett had said, in a statement before his death, were caused by police torture. The point I am making, though, is that the Minister told Parliament that there were no injuries apart from those which caused his death, and the district surgeon found that there were injuries. The point I go on to make from that—that is the main point—is that in any case those injuries were consistent with the statement which Dr. Aggett had made before his death.

The second point I want to make is this: On 15 February the hon. member for Houghton read in Parliament from a note which contained an eyewitness account of torture on Dr. Aggett. The hon. the Minister, outraged, demanded that the hon. member for Houghton produce the evidence of—I quote his words—“these disgraceful allegations” before the magistrate. He demanded that. When the witness was produced before the magistrate, the hon. the Minister’s own counsel vehemently opposed the witness’s right to give evidence. Can you believe that, Mr. Chairman?

What cynicism!

He demands the evidence, but when it is produced, he demands its exclusion. And just to show what sort of person the hon. the Minister is, two hours after the name of that witness was announced—Mr. Morris Smithers—the Minister caused a banning order, a restriction order, to be served upon him.

That will be the day! I was not the Minister concerned then.

The Minister of Justice did it, so what!

I was not the Minister of Justice. [Interjections.]

There is joint responsibility, in any event, for those actions.

The third point I want to make is that the Minister, this hon. Minister, announced in Parliament that the detained trade unionists would feature in “an important court case”—those were his words. They would come before the courts “as soon as possible”. What was the truth, as opposed to the propaganda? Of the 12 practising trade unionists detained in that swoop, eight were-released from detention without explanation, two had charges against them withdrawn, one was tried before the court, which threw the charges out and found him not guilty, and the twelfth, Dr. Aggett, died in detention. Where is this big case we were going to get? So much for the hon. the Minister’s word!

There are, since the last session of Parliament, two more acts of this hon. Minister that I would like to mention. A few weeks ago the hon. the Minister banned public meetings in South Africa for another year, until 31 March 1984—the right of assembly destroyed by a stroke of the hon. the Minister’s pen! Are we in a state of emergency in South Africa? The answer is “no”, but the real answer is that this Minister and this Government do not care about the right of assembly or any rights whatsoever. Finally, during October last year, the hon. the Minister imposed another three-year restriction order on Dr. Beyers Naudé. In an editorial in a Sunday paper, the Sunday Express, it was said—

This hon. Minister is right at the core of that sickness. He has no understanding of and no feeling for justice or freedom. I cannot find any area in which this Minister has put a foot right.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Why not make it R10 000?

Mr. Chairman, there is one matter about which there is no doubt whatsoever, and that is that one cannot accuse the hon. member for Pinetown of being inconsistent. I want to deal with this statement in more detail in a moment, but before I turn to the hon. member for Pinetown, I should also like to add the appreciation of hon. members on this side of the Committee to that of the Minister for the many years of excellent service Gen. Geldenhuys has given South Africa and the South African Police. It is an art to retire from the service, or from any service for that matter, and we hope that he will enjoy a pleasant, restful period of good health. Having said that, we also want to say a word of sincere welcome to Gen. Coetzee. I do not want to say any more to Gen. Coetzee because at this stage he still has a long career ahead of him and there is also work to be done in this Committee.

Sir, the hon. member for Pinetown’s track record is a consistent one. I think we can accuse him of many things in connection with what he said here today but I want to give him credit for being consistent. It was predictable that in relation to his previous statements the hon. member for Pinetown was bound to criticize the Minister today. In relation to his previous statements the hon. member for Pinetown was compelled in a very refined and subtle manner to attack the way in which the South African Police Force is being administered. When the hon. member for Pinetown addresses the Committee, he is more moderate in his statements than when he is not addressing the Committee and making public statements and announcements. The important difference is that when he puts his standpoints in the Committee, as he did here, he does so in the presence of people who are in a position to to debate the matter with him and take issue with him about it. For that reason he cannot simply make the wild and woolly statements he often does when he makes his public Press announcements. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that his behaviour here today was no more respectable than any of his public Press announcements. Some of the statements made by the hon. member for Pinetown border on the scandalous to say the least. The hon. member for Pinetown is on record as making Press statements outside Parliament that persons in detention are not in detention for a specific offence but that the major charge against them is that they do not agree with the policies of this side of the House. I think anyone who says that is being extremely irresponsible and does not bring honour and dignity to the debate we are holding on law and order in this country and the South African Police Force.

Let us consider another standpoint of the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Pinetown is constantly seeking an opportunity to attack and get at the hon. the Minister. The remark he has just made, namely that he is not aware of a single correct step the hon. the Minister has taken during his term in office, borders on the ridiculous. If this is not the epitome of an exaggerated statement, then I do not know what an exaggerated statement is.

What is the hon. member for Pinetown trying to do? The hon. member poses as and professes to be the champion of the South African Police. The South African Police are that group of people who are misused by the Government and the governing party to enforce its legislation. This sort of thing is injurious to the reputation of the South African Police.

Precisely.

That is not a new standpoint of the hon. member; it is an old one. But what will the function of the South African Police be the day the party of that hon. member comes into power? Does the hon. member want to suggest to the Committee that all the social problems will change as if by magic the moment his party is at the helm? The hon. member has a highly naïve approach to these matters, to say the least.

The duty of the police is to fight crime.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown is muttering something in his beard. I cannot hear him. If he speaks louder, I shall listen to what he has to say, but I just want to point out that he had plenty of time to put his case.

Let us consider the atmosphere in which the South African Police Force have to maintain law and order in South Africa, and to what extent their task is made more difficult by members such as the hon. member for Pinetown and his followers. No one will deny that it is an extremely difficult task to realize two things in South Africa. On the one hand the claims and demands for human rights and civil rights have to be upheld, but on the other hand and on a par with these claims and demands, the effectiveness of the South African Police Force has to be ensured. These things have to be weighed up carefully against each other. In this connection I think I may very gainfully refer the hon. member for Pinetown to a report which appeared recently in The Sunday Times. The report appeared on 14 April and was written by a certain Simon Jenkins. In this report he discussed the difficult task facing the Home Secretary in Britain and said—

No prizes for guessing where our hon. Minister is deficient.

The hon. member is so one-sided in his approach. His statement that the hon. the Minister has not taken a single correct step is a reflection of his one-sided approach. The problem I have with the hon. member for Pinetown is not only in connection with his approach to the hon. the Minister and the way in which the South African Police Force is administered but also in connection with his view that the courts have to have a say in and be the umbrella body in connection with the activities of the South African Police. In his actions the hon. member for Pinetown never succeeds in breaking away from the role of advocate. The hon. member constantly plays the role of counsel for the defence. He builds up his case and then he presents it to the judge and withdraws. The role of politician involves being a legislator and also being a responsible administrator, to ensure that a specific department, in this case the Department of Law and Order, functions effectively. It is not necessary that the two building stones I have singled out, namely demands for justice in the legal sense of the word and an effective police force, should be in conflict with one another. The hon. member for Pinetown cannot show me a single statement he has made in the Press or in a speech in Parliament to which I have listened in which he sounded a positive note in connection with the efficiency of the South African Police. I have not heard the hon. member either in the House, a Committee of the House, or elsewhere in a public announcement adopt a standpoint against those people who are intent on undermining law and order in and the security of this country. I shall not be as one-sided as he is and say that he is only an advocate for specific civil rights and human rights and that he wants to undermine the efficiency of the South African Police Force totally. The fact of the matter is that if the hon. member’s statements were to be implemented, it would lead to the South African Police Force not being able to perform its task effectively.

Let us debate another matter, namely the so-called code of conduct in respect of detainees in this country. I have perused the Press record of the hon. member for Pinetown and, if my memory serves me correctly, he is the only…

What is the hon. member talking about? What is the subject we have to discuss?

The track record of the hon. member for Pinetown as the main spokesman of the PFP indicates that the PFP’s standpoint in connection with law and order is of such a nature that they do not underline or recognize its positive aspects. Statements by newspaper groups that are known not to support the South African Government as far as security measures are concerned, confirm the point that the statement on the code of conduct in connection with detainees strikes a positive note. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

But only if he speaks about the subject before this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, why…

Tell us a bit about the positive side.

Why does the hon. member for Yeoville not tell his colleagues also to indicate the positive aspects of law and order? No, they do not do so, because it is not in conformity with the specific standpoint they hold. Is it not so that because of their silence and also because of their behaviour hon. members regularly succeed in counteracting the positive aspects of the South African Police Force?

Let us consider the specific inquiry referred to by the hon. members, namely the so-called Aggett inquiry. There have been so many insinuations and allegations made about this case. Even the findings of the magistrate were criticized. People are inclined to emphasize the negative aspects of this matter and totally ignore its positive aspects. I think the behaviour of those hon. members was aimed deliberately at creating a specific atmosphere and a specific climate. I think in South Africa one has to be careful to ensure that the two building stones of security matters are on a par with one another. For that reason one cannot resort to overemphasizing one and underemphasizing the other. In my opinion we in South Africa in general lack a proper knowledge of the political trends in White politics in South Africa. As a general statement it would be correct to say that South Africans are obsessed with politics and that they read the small print of political statements. However, when it comes to finer political statements that have nothing to do with the ordinary party political situation in South Africa, they affear not to have had a good grounding in respect of its details. I want to refer the Committee specifically to a series of articles that appeared in one of the Afrikaans dailies in connection with the role the ANC has played in South Africa. When one reads through those documents one finds that hon. members of the Opposition have conveniently kept silent about certain facts. It is only when one bears those aspects in mind that one realizes what the background is against which the South African Police have to operate. One of the articles quotes a certain Thom Lodge of the University of the Witwatersrand as saying that a series of attacks had been launched against the security of South Africa since 1976. The attacks were as follows: Sabotage of railway lines—33; sabotage of industrial installations—26; murderous assaults—36; shoot-outs with police—20; bombs in public places—15; attacks on administration buildings—14; attacks on police stations—13; and attacks on military targets—3. It was indicated that a force of approximately 1 600 men was being trained in Russian oriented States to undermine the security of this country. Those hon. members do not consider this reality the South African Police and the hon. the Minister are facing. It is ignored but neat examples of how the country can be administered along specific legal lines are presented without taking into consideration those people who stand to gain by it if law and order are not maintained successfully in South Africa.

When one takes all of this into consideration, I feel a case can be made out for the fact that the code of conduct in connection with detainees is not only aimed at protecting the detainees but also at protecting the image of the South African policeman. I think it also gives the South African Police Force the opportunity to protect itself against unnecessary and harmful attacks by members who read only brutality in the actions of the South African Police. I want to suggest with all due respect that in this way and through their other branches such as their Department of Public Relations, the South African Police are seeking to improve their own image and should not constantly be the target of vicious and despicable attacks such as we witnessed here again today.

Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of my contribution I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s tribute to Gen. Geldenhuys who, at the end of this month, is to retire from the police Force after what I call a very illustrious career. In paying tribute to Genl. Geldenhuys on behalf of my party, I do so in the knowledge that here we have a wonderful person who, whilst he was a member of the South African Police Force—and that covered a period of many years—served his people and his fatherland, something for which we thank him and pay tribute to him today. When we took leave of Gen. Geldenhuys recently at a function arranged for him by the hon. the Minister, I heard, from the hon. the Prime Minister, some of the most beautiful words I have ever heard addressed to any retiring official. What I am saying is that someone could only do so if he were accustomed to treat policemen with respect, as we have been taught to do and are wont to do. In taking leave of him, let me say that we are not taking leave of the dignity with which he imbued this post over the years. We thank him for the wonderful service he has rendered.

On behalf of our party I also want to tell Gen. Coetzee that we are very glad and satisfied about the fact in the near future he will be occupying the post that is being vacated by Gen. Geldenhuys. We want to give him the assurance that we shall continually give him our support in the execution of the great and responsible task that he will have to carry out.

When we come to the discussion of this Vote and reads the annual report that has been made available to us, together with the specified particulars in regard to “Vote 13—Police” in the Estimates of Expenditure, we come to realize what a wonderful and clearly defined picture emerges of the activities of the Department of Law and Order. In that connection I must say that I really cannot agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that few particulars are furnished. For any person who reads those particulars with a sense of empathy and endeavours to make inquiries about the activities of the South African Police, there is sufficient evidence available in this report.

Before I dwell on a specific point in this annual report, I also just want to refer, in passing to a remark which the hon. member for Pinetown made about the cover of this year’s annual report. I thought it to be a fine representation of one of the sections of the South African Police Force. We do not have a monopoly on the service rendered by police dogs. Throughout the world use is made of police dogs to carry out certain tasks. In my estimation it is a fine representation of the contribution made by these dogs. I do not read in it what the hon. member read in it. It sets me thinking. I had a friend who went to stay in Waterkloof years ago. That friend lived amongst English-speaking people and quickly came to realize that on every gate in the area there was a small plaque inscribed with the words “Beware of the dog”. He was of an inventive turn of mind and also had a small plaque made for him on which he had the following words inscribed: “The dog is the hell-in”. Mr. Chairman, my apologies to you for the slight harshness of the words. That is not what I see in this picture. For me it is confirmation of an effective weapon that the South African Police make use of today in the execution of their duty. In these days of prevalent elections I think one should warn the canvassers in Waterkloof, in particular, not to mess around with the posters, because the dogs will be after them if they try such antics.

There is a specific matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. My source is this annual report. One could spend hours talking about the particulars contained in this report, but I specifically want to dwell on one matter referred to on page 6, paragraph 2 of the report, which reads as follows—

Then the hon. the Minister gives us still further particulars. I should just like to refer again to the hon. the Minister’s recent answer to a question to put to him in connection with the number of vehicles used. One of my colleagues put a question to the hon. the Minister about these police units that have to trace stolen vehicles. The question was: How many members are there in each unit and is there a shortage of members. The hon. the Minister replied that there were 21 such units and that they had 87 vehicles at their disposal. As we know, it is simply not possible for all these vehicles to be used each day. They travel long distances and have to be ready for service at all hours of the day. The hon. the Minister indicated, however, that the shortage was not so pronounced as to impede the units’ activities. He also added that the matter would be given the necessary attention. If we look at the particulars of the Vote before us, we see that an amount of approximately R224 000 has been budgeted for repair costs to vehicles. Then there is also an amount of approximately R3 413 500 budgeted for the purchase of new vehicles. We would like to be able to deduce, from this increased amount now being made available, the possibility that these units, which the hon. the Minister mentioned, might be extended and overhauled so that the specific function that they were designed to perform could be carried out with greater efficiency.

If we look at the annual report before us, we find that there is also a tremendous increase in the number of stolen vehicles. One could almost speak of astronomical figures. The figure mentioned is in the region of 44 400. Any way one looks at it, this is a disturbing figure. We regard this as a very serious matter, and we believe that the hon. the Minister will give it his attention.

There are so many things in this report that one can comment positively on, but I just want to dwell on one further facet. I am referring to the work done by our police reservists. If we look at the number of active and non-active police reservists, we find that there are approximately 17 000 White police reservists, of whom approximately 7 700 are active members. We want to make an appeal to the South African population as a whole to become involved, to a much greater extent, in this form of service to our community. It would greatly help the South African police to do their job.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen in regard to the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Geldenhuys, and the Commissioner of Police designate, Gen. Coetzee. We know both these gentlemen and we know them to be policemen, in the true sense of the word, who have always put the interests of South Africa first. So that is why I agree with the hon. member’s remarks in this connection.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Pinetown. The fact is that tradition naturally prevents me from discussing this matter.

That is, of course, a great pity.

Yes, I must tell my hon. colleague over there that it is indeed a pity that we cannot cross swords today about these matters. In this connection I want to agree with the remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville who is not here at the moment, i.e. about the fact that we should discuss the positive side of the issue. There is a positive side. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to dwell briefly on this positive view of the Police. I should briefly like to focus the Committee’s attention on the work of certain members of the Police Force, including certain units about which one does not hear a great deal in the normal course of events, but which make a tremendous contribution towards combating crime, maintaining law and order and ensuring the security of all of us living here in South Africa.

In this connection I first want to refer to the men and women doing duty at our border posts. The South African Police control 38 border posts on the borders of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. There are also 9 airfields where the Force implements passport control. Approximately 6½ million people move through these border posts annually. The two posts at Ficksburg and the Maseru Bridge each handle approximately 1½ million people annually. Members chiefly perform passport control duties at these border posts. They also keep an eye on the uncontrolled or illegal movement of people across the border. At the same time—the hon. member Mr. Theunissen also referred to that—they give special attention to tracing stolen vehicles and trying to prevent such vehicles leaving the country and to the unlawful transportation of prohibited publications, ivory, precious and semi-precious metals, drugs, etc. There are 144 of these White policemen and 41 policewomen, as well as 244 Coloureds and Black members of the Police Force doing duty at these border posts. As we know, the majority of these posts are situated in isolated areas far from the nearest shops and schools. The Force does everything possible to make conditions for these people as tolerable as possible. They do, however, suffer great inconvenience and their lives are even in danger. I therefore think it fitting to extend a word of acknowledgement and thanks to these people at this stage.

Keeping watch at border posts is only one element in a concentrated effort at combating crime in the Republic of South Africa, an effort that all of us in this Committee wholeheartedly support.

There is also another very efficient instrument used by the South African Police in the combating of crime. I am referring to roadblocks. If one looks at the available data in this connection and analyses such data, one comes to the conclusion that we place much too much emphasis on the use of roadblocks against terrorists. What are the facts? For the period 1 January 1983 to 20 April 1983 the following items were seized at road blocks: stolen vehicles—49; fuel—1 434 l; Mandrax tablets—31 708; fire-arms—17; dagga—2 443 kg. Over the same period the following arrests were made: for car theft—56; for possession of stolen property—15; for theft—34; for housebreaking and theft—17; for stock-theft—7; for robbery—2; for bribery—5; for drunken driving and contraventions of the Liquor Act (something we all feel very strongly about)—184; for reckless driving—4; for possession of pornographic material—8; for possession and trading in dagga—307; prohibited immigrants—127; for possession of gold dust—3. 4 650 summonses were also issued. Who of us in this Committee can object to the action taken by the Police at roadblocks and the use of this method in the prevention of crime so that we in South Africa can live in greater peace and security?

There are units of the South African Police that act as counter-insurgency units, in South West Africa and also on our country’s borders. I have made inquiries, and it appears that daily, on a 24-hour basis, these units cover a distance of 2 300 km on our country’s borders, patrolling on foot and in motor vehicles. They are busy doing so at this very moment. Let us who are peacefully gathered together in this Committee therefore pause for a moment and give recognition to what those people are doing to enable us to meet peacefully here. Those are men who, in sunshine or rain, heat or cold, patrol our borders day and night so that we in South Africa can do the things we are doing here. Let us give them the recognition they deserve.

As part of the security forces, the South African Police also play an extremely important role in safeguarding the inhabitants of the northern area of South West Africa and in eliminating Swapo terrorists. Also in neutralizing infiltrators in the vicinity of Tsumeb, Otavi and the surrounding area where, as hon. members know, mopping-up operations are still in progress today, members of the police special units are tracking down terrorists day and night, and in collaboration with other members of the Security Forces they have been exceptionally successful. Since the intensification of Swapo’s terrorist activity in South West Africa this year, they have increasingly made use of more sophisticated weaponry, and according to information received it is clear that their task was one of conducting large-scale terror and sabotage campaigns in South West Africa. The timely intervention of the Security Forces disrupted the terrorists’ plans to such an extent that they broke up into small groups. In spite of the fact that they have been scattered, terrorist groups succeeded, on their way back, in kidnapping five teachers and 128 children—particularly girls—and taking them back to Angola. During the period of one year, from 1 April 1982 to 1 April 1983, more than 500 terrorists were eliminated, 28 in the White farming areas and the rest in the northern operational area. If one looks at a list of the weapons found, one sees that there were 17 mortars, 148 landmines and anti-personnel mines, 48 hand-grenades, 508 rifle-grenades and 112 kg of TNT explosive. During this period we lost five White members of the South African Police, with 26 injured, whilst 33 Black special constables were killed and 170 injured. On 18 April, after this data had been made available, another member of the South African Police, Sergeant Meissenheimer, was fatally wounded during a skirmish with terrorists in the operational area. Let us today express our deepest sympathy with the next of kin of those who died. At the same time this Committee would like to pay tribute to those members who paid the highest price and to everyone who did his share in that area in the interests of the security of all of us in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow on the hon. member for Verwoerdburg who, more often than not, gives us the benefit of the interesting facts and figures that he always seems to have at his command. It is a pleasure for me too, this afternoon, to say thank you to Gen. Mike Geldenhuys who is retiring at the end of this month. I want to say thank you to him for a job well done from the hon. members of this party and I want to welcome his successor, Gen. Johan Coetzee, who takes over from him at the beginning of next month. There is something that fascinates me about Genl. Geldenhuys, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I remember that his predecessor left us with snow white hair and this gentleman does not have a grey hair on his head. I cannot understand it and I think he was given too easy a time. It also worries me that the gentleman taking over from him equally does not have a grey hair on his head. I do not wish him harm, but I hope by the time we say farewell to him when he retires we are going to see signs of wear and tear.

The South African Police has, since its inception, built up a fine record of achievement and I think that any fairminded and objective critic would agree that this force compares well with the best in the world. It is a force that enjoys an international reputation for efficiency and it enjoys an internal reputation for outstanding work in the investigation and solution of crime. However, most unfortunately, there are elements inside and outside South Africa that, it would appear, would go to any length to discredit the South African Police Force. They recognize that the quickest way to do this is to destroy the image of this Force. I am sad to have to say that there appears to be a growing element in this country that seems to derive pleasure from any action that contributes towards the diminution or the destruction of the image of our South African Police Force.

I am sad to have to say this, but I believe it needs to be said: It is unfortunate that I sometimes feel that the hon. the Minister albeit unwittingly on occasions but not on all occasions, contributes towards this process. I believe I would be shirking in my duty as a politician and I would certainly be shirking in my duty as a spokesman on police affairs in the Opposition benches if I were not to say that I am deeply concerned about the well being and the standard of a fine body of men. I would be shirking if I were not to say and not to point out to the hon. the Minister that image in any organization starts at the top. I must point out that every time this hon. Minister makes an ill-timed or an ill-worded statement—and I am sorry that I must throw these words back at him again—every time he makes the sort of statement that he did on the Seychelles affair, namely that they were running around in the bush and breaking a few windows, it is reminiscent of the words of Jimmy Kruger and his famous “leaves me cold” statement. Every time that sort of statement is made, loyal South Africans from all walks of life and of all political persuasions, both on this side of the House and that side of the House, wince with embarrassment. I must point out too that the detractors within South Africa, people who would destroy the image of the South African Police, dance with glee and the international anti-South African lobby positively drools at the mouth with excitement. It is my fervent wish and my sincere hope that if the hon. the Minister is going to continue in this portfolio, he very carefully reconsiders his “shoot from the hip” attitude when he makes statements and he equally carefully considers all aspects of every statement before he issues them for public consumption. I want to say this in all sincerity to the Hon. Minister of Law and Order. I am not saying what I am saying here for my good. I am not saying what I am saying here for political gain and I am not saying it in order to score a cheap political point. I am saying what I am saying in the hope that we can start from today to rebuild the image of the one of the world’s finest police forces. That image, I repeat, starts from the top. Mr. Chairman, you will recollect a visit we made to the Republic of China. You will remember a gentleman that we met—the hon. member for Kroonstad will also remember him—by the name of Lin Yan Kan who is now the Minister of the Interior. I think he is the gentleman who taught us about surface tension. He said these words when he was appointed as Minister of the Interior, and in the Republic of China the Minister of the Interior is responsible for police matters: “My job is to protect the public well-being”. I commend those words to the hon. the Minister here today as being an utterance worthy of consideration on his part.

I want to move on by expressing my satisfaction and pleasure at the obvious acceptance of a recommendation which I made during a snap debate in the House with regard to the identification of police vehicles with what is popularly known as Kojak type lights and sirens. I believe this is a positive step and it goes a long way towards re-establishing public confidence and it certainly will go a long way towards promoting that image I was discussing earlier. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for taking note of that suggestion and I am grateful to him for the positive action that has come out of it. However, I am somewhat disturbed to read in the Press—let me hasten to add that I do not always believe what I read in the Press—that it is suggested that it may cost R1 000 per vehicle. If that is the case I believe we are being ripped off because I do not see how it can cost R1 000 per vehicle to fit a siren and a flashing light.

I also want to deal with a very disturbing aspect and that is unlicensed or illegal firearms. Earlier this year a colleague of mine asked a question and the reply to that question is disturbing, to say the least of it. We find that in 1982 we had 402 cases of illegal possession of fire-arms in the Cape Province, 71 in the Free State and 640 in the Transvaal. However, in the little province of Natal we had no fewer than 1 239 cases of the possession of illegal fire-arms. As the saying goes: There is something rotten in the State of Denmark and I believe that there is something here which must be investigated very quickly before we have greater and even more serious problems on our hands. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider a special investigation into this alarming aspect or will he tell us whether these alarming figures are brought about by virtue of the fact that these arms caches have been found in Natal, particularly near Ulundi, which is the capital of kwaZulu. If this is in effect so, it would appear that kwaZulu is a hot target area for the smuggling of arms possibly for terrorist use. I am grateful for the action that has been taken recently against smugglers, I believe from Lesotho, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to give us clarity on this position here this afternoon. I ask him to advise this Committee of what is happening because we in Natal are deeply concerned at the situation. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue the way it is, particularly when one reads these figures in relation to what is happening in other provinces. Finally, I would like to remind this Committee that when we think of road blocks… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga started what could be considered an excellent speech. He said certain things with which I am fully in agreement. He spoke of the quality of our Police Force in South Africa and said it was one of the best in the world. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but then he fell into the same trap as that into which the official Opposition usually falls. I find it amazing that when the police come up for discussion, in this Committee and also in the House, the hon. the Minister is always attacked. Let me tell hon. members today that there are few previous Ministers who have tried to promote the image of the South African Police as positively as this hon. Minister has specifically tried to do. I think we must accept this fact, once and for all, and stop playing the man instead of the ball.

In recent times many questions have been asked and many reports have appeared in the Press about the use of fire-arms by the Police Force. Let me say at once that one is shaken to the core when one hears of someone having lost his life by violent means. The question that can be asked is why this is so and why it is sometimes necessary for a criminal or a policeman to lose his life in the process of maintaining law and order. Why has it become not only a South African problem, but indeed an international problem? For how many years was it not a British tradition to provide British Bobbies with fire-arms, in the execution of their duties, only in the extreme instances. This tradition is disappearing, is dying out. The Chief of Police of Manchester in England recently declared that it would be irresponsible, in the times in which we are living, for a police chief not to provide his men with fire-arms in the execution of their duties. West Germany is faced with the same problem, and one likewise name one country after another. Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear to me and that is that we must realize and accept that we are living in communities for which violence no longer has the same meaning as a few years ago. For some people the life of a fellow human being has become a cheap commodity, a fellow human being’s property is no longer inviolable and lust has taken possession of large parts of our population.

Let us, for just a moment, take a look at the serious crimes reported to the police during the first three months of this year, in other words from 1 January 1983 to 1 April 1983. I want hon. member to listen carefully to these figures, because they are frightening figures that will nevertheless give one some insight into what the South African Police are faced with. There were 3 501 cases of murder or attempted murder and 8 222 cases of robbery. There were 3 511 cases of the serious crime of rape and 29 700 cases of serious assault. There were three reported cases of infanticide. In other words, almost 45 000 cases of serious crime were reported over a period of 89 days. That is an average of 500 per day. Now you will understand, Mr. Chairman, what I mean when I say that we live in violent communities. This makes it possible for me to agree with the Manchester police chief.

Under these circumstances the South African Police must do their duty. We can therefore realize what risks the police must run in the execution of their duties. Over the period of 3 months to which I referred, 12 members of the Force lost their lives in the execution of their duties. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to express our innermost sympathy with the families of these 12 men who paid the highest price in the execution of their duty of maintaining civilized standards and peace in this country. A further 205 men were wounded or seriously injured during this period, and 476 were assaulted. This means that over that period of three months a total of 681 men were hampered in the execution of their duties as a result of assaults and injuries. The people our police have to deal with are, one can therefore see, not people with high moral standards or little angels. Sometimes they are dealing with people who are prepared to commit serious crimes for the price of a bottle of liquor or because of disputes about women or drugs. Therefore it is sometimes necessary for the police, when their own lives are in danger, to make use of fire-arms.

It therefore happens that not only the police, but also criminals, are sometimes killed or wounded. Over this period of three months the following persons were killed or injured: 4 Whites killed and 8 injured, with 48 Blacks killed and 106 injured; eight Coloureds were killed and 38 were injured, whilst 1 Asian was killed and 2 injured. I am referring to these figures, not with pride, but merely because I am trying to lay bare the realities of the world of crime. Of the people killed or wounded, 107 were trying to escape arrest. Over the same period there were also 277 attempted escapes. Some of the people killed or wounded were extremely dangerous criminals who were sought, amongst other things, for the following crimes: 16 for armed robbery, 10 for murder or attempted murder, 2 for suspected sabotage and urban terrorism, 72 for housebreaking and theft, 13 for rape, 15 for aggravated assault, 15 for assaults on police officers and 22 for car theft. It is interesting to note the fact that during this period of three months 51 more policemen than criminals were seriously injured. What does this tell us? It proves to me that they are not the bell-wethers they are accused of being. I would like to see a situation in which no policeman are killed and injured in the execution of their duties. Nor would I like to see any criminals killed or injured in the process. It would, however, be wishful thinking on my part to expect that, because if there is not a complete change in our society, if we do not learn to respect law and order, if we do not learn to respect one another’s property, if we do not totally renounce violence, I am afraid this process is going to continue and perhaps escalate even further. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Algoa who detailed the amount of serious crime which the Police have to combat in South Africa. All of us are worried about the increasing rate of serious and violent crime in this country and we, on this side, feel that if the Police perhaps did not have to implement so many of the laws which were mentioned by my hon. colleague they would have more time to successfully solve unsolved murders and to bring these violent criminals…

Where did they put dogs on people in the parks?

They have not yet done so…

That is what he said.

The hon. Minister did not get the allusion of my hon. colleague. What he was obviously alluding to was the new regulation in Pretoria where parks are closed to Blacks and it is said that dogs will be used. [Interjections.] Can hon. members not hear me? That is not a very usual complaint.

As an oldtimer in this particular Vote I would like to join my colleague in wishing the retiring Commissioner a happy retirement. Our relationship was not always most amiable but it has on the whole been reasonable courteous and I have no doubt that I will maintain the same relationship with his successor to whom I wish a less trying period of office.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know in which capacity I should address you now but I would like to address you in your capacity as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I would like to say that we do not consider that Committee of Supply should be used simply in order to bestow paeans of praise upon the Minister concerned or his Department.

You will never do that.

We believe that Committee of Supply is here in order to challenge the hon. the Minister for his acts of omission and commission and to decide whether or not this Committee should thereafter vote supply of money to his Department. My colleague has made out a good case for our wishing to reduce the salary of the hon. the Minister. I have a number of other points to raise and some of them will be touching upon the issues which the hon. member for Pinelands has already raised, and I will be enlarging on some others.

First of all, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given any consideration whatever to amending Section 32 of the Police Act? The hon. the Minister will probably recollect that the Rabie Commission made some reference to this section and suggested that it ought to be looked at. To remind hon. members, that is the section of the Act which lays down the period of prescription of six months after the Police may not be charged under the Act. I believe that in a country where there are powers to detain for an unlimited time, where people can be held by the Police without any limitation of time, often in segregated and solitary conditions about which a lot has been said in the last few years, it is patently absurd for the Police to be protected against any charges after a six months period has elapsed. There are two conflicting opinions on this. One was in Natal where Judge Leon has decided that the person charging could in fact continue with the charge of assault laid against the Police. This person was detained and when he came out it was more than six months since the assault had taken place but he was allowed to proceed. However, in the Transvaal, a conflicting opinion was given by Judge Kriegler and I think it is time that this matter was resolved by a change in the Police Act, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would be fair enough to bring it into line with the corresponding provision in the Prisons Act which is Section 91, which gives a person who might have suffered assault while in prison the opportunity of bringing a charge six months after he has been released from prison.

Section 91?

Section 91 of the Prisons Act. I might mention to the hon. the Minister that when I was in Russia last year I sent him a postcard that he never received informing him that there was plenty of law and order in the USSR…

It must have been the KGB that got hold of it.

I am not sure whether the KGB got hold of it or the Special Branch here but someone got that postcard, I am sorry to say.

It is a pity, Helen.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the USSR they have a law which provides that if the Police puts one in prison for more than four months one may be charged with parasitism when one comes out, in other words, not doing a useful job. I must say that the existing section of the Police Act rather reminds me of that.

Why does everything always remind you of Russia? Why never of Britain, West Germany of France?

It reminds me of Russia because so many of our laws can much more appropriately be compared with what goes on in Russia, than what goes on in Britain or elsewhere in the West.

I want to say something which enlarges, to some extent, on what the hon. member for Pinetown has said and that is the hon. the Minister’s misguided sense of loyalty to his Police Force. I would normally commend anyone for being loyal to the men under him, but in this instance I do not agree with its condonation of everything, publicly anyway. What he does in his own office to that particular offender is another matter. We do not know about that and other members of the Police Force do not know about that. What is important, is that he does not give public condonation of everything which is done by the police. As far as I can see, in his term of office, this is what he has done. The number of people who have been shot in self defence by the police over the last 10 years, in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Pinetown, was the horrendous figure of something like 1 800. That means that in many instances the police turned minor offences into capital offences, because these are people who have been shot dead generally in an attempt to evade arrest. I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister curbs his misguided and blind sense of loyalty to the police and sets his sights on an increased sense of responsibility, more particularly regarding the use of firearms in the South African Police Force. I think that he can take an example here from Great Britain where I am sure he can remember the reaction of Minister Whitelaw regarding the mistaken shooting of a man by the police in London quite recently. There was an absolute furore and there was tremendous reaction within the police force and from the Minister himself. Waldorf was the man who was shot. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us any information about the aftermath of the Kempton Park case? I think the hon. the Minister will remember that there were four persons who were accused of activities under the Terrorism Act. That was the accusation. They were all acquitted and magistrate Luther commented that the police in the case were all unreliable witnesses. Has anything been done to follow up on that? Has this been referred to the AG? I think it is very important that we know about this. I must say that magistrate Luther to a great extent restored my faith in the legal system in the lower courts.

Sure, sure!

Yes, he was quite right to think so.

What about the man on the Aggett case?

No, Sir that is the man who absolutely shattered my faith in the lower courts. I thought I made it absolutely clear. I have said it before and I say it again: I think that was an outrageous decision given by the magistrate on that case. [Interjections.]

Now, Sir, let me come to security matters. Will the hon. the Minister tell the Committee how many people are presently held under Section 29. The last figure I got officially was 26. That was in February. I should like to know how many are being held now and how effective does he think his new code is proving. I am informed that the interrogation methods are much the same and I should like to know if the hon. the Minister has any further information about that. The most important safeguard that was introduced by the Internal Security Act last year was the necessity for the Minister to sign a monthly report authorizing the further detention of a person after a month. I want to know, does the hon. the Minister really study those reports in detail or is it enough for the police simply to say to him: “We need to hold this man for another month”, and that he just signs? I should like to have knowledge of the sort of details which the hon. the Minister asks for if they are not voluntarily supplied.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete her speech.

I thank the hon. member. On the question of bannings, the hon. member has mentioned the banning of Rev. Beyers Naudé. The interesting thing about this is that the Board of Review considerably changed the banning order of Rev. Beyers Naudé who incidentally refused to give information or to appear before the Board because he was not going to justify the system in any way or give it any form of respectability. Now, that can only mean that the Board of Review had before it exactly the same information that the hon. the Minister had before him when he imposed the banning order on the Rev. Beyers Naudé. I wonder if he could explain to the Committee how it is that the Board of Review, on exactly the same information, greatly reduced the restrictions which had been placed on Beyers Naudé? All Rev. Naudé cannot do, as far as I understand, is to leave the magisterial district of Johannesburg, but he can go to meetings, he can enter educational institutions or factories or even Black townships. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what changed in the fortnight between the hon. the Minister’s issuing a very restrictive banning order on Dr. Naudé and the Board’s decision to relax the order very considerably.

An effective system.

No, I think it was really the worldwide outcry…

It is an effective system in terms of the Security Act.

Why is the hon. the Minister not effective? That is what I want to know. What made him come to the conclusion that he had to issue those restrictions? Either Beyers Naudé is a security risk or he is not.

He is not.

Of course. This is the point, and if he is not, then the banning order on him ought to be removed altogether. I maintain that unfortunately it was only the worldwide outcry against the rebanning of Dr. Naudé that led to that decision. The unfortunate other people—there are about 60 people in South Africa who are under banning orders and who are not world renowned figures the way Dr. Naudé is—do not have the same opportunity of having their banning orders reduced. I wonder if the Board of Review is giving these cases the same kind of attention that it gave to the Rev. Beyers Naudé?

I want to know too if the hon. the Minister will tell us something about the conspiracy trial. Is there anything still to be expected or can we now forget about it altogether with the disappearance of Cedric Mayson and with the disappearance of Auret van Heerden, who was the chief witness.

We shall definitely not forget about it.

The hon. the Minister says he will not forget it. Perhaps he will tell us what he is going to do about it, because the hon. the Minister told this Committee in 1982, after the big flurry of arrests and detentions at the end of 1981, that we could expect a major conspiracy trial. All we got out of that conspiracy trial was one unfortunate young woman, now sitting in the new Diepkloof gaol and serving a sentence of 10 years. For the rest there has been no major conspiracy trial. What there was, of course, for many months were people held in detention without trial.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us if he is considering removing restrictions from a number of people who have been banned over and over again? I want to mention two or three of these cases. One of them is of course Winnie Mandela. Is she going to spend the rest of her life in that dreary little dorp in the Free State, only coming out of obscurity because the Special Branch insists on raiding her every so often, and thereby again putting her on the front page of every newspaper. [Interjections.] What about that Indian gentleman, Mr. Ramgobin? He has had to endure 12-hour house arrests since 1966. He happens to be married to the grand-daughter of Mahatma Gandhi. I think this very relevant right now with the worldwide publicity about the film, for the hon. the Minister to take a look at this case, because this man has had four successive banning orders served on him. He is 50 years old now. Then there is Fatima Meer Mia, Priscilla Jana and various other people who have been under banning orders over and over again.

There are two cases I must bring to the notice of this Committee of people held under section 28 of the Internal Security Act; most extraordinary cases. The first is the case of a man who was captured, I think, in January 1981 during the raid on Matola in Mozambique. The hon. the Minister must know about him. Although the hon. the Minister of Justice and Prisons is responsible for the type of detention under sec. 28 i.e. preventive detention, it is this hon. Minister who is responsible for keeping him there. What is going to happen about this man? He is a Mozambiquan citizen. He was literally captured during this raid and to the best of my knowledge we are not at war with Mozambique. Therefore, he cannot be considered a prisoner of war. Are we going to keep him forever?

What is the name of this man?

The name is David Thobela—I am not sure of the spelling. Then there is the other case I have brought to the notice of this Committee on several occasions before, namely the wretched Mr. Tatsa. The hon. the Minister knows about him too. I have raised this case with his predecessor when the hon. the Minister of Justice and Prisons was responsible for this particular section. He has been held for more than three and a half years, most of it I might say, in solitary, although one of those years was just ordinary imprisonment for refusing to give evidence although the two men against whom he refused to give evidence were acquitted, he was given a three year gaol sentence which on appeal was reduced to one year. During that year he was also kept in solitary. Goodness knows how they got around the prison regulations to do that. That man first did two years under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Then, as I said, he was held and charged and was acquitted; then he was charged and sentenced for not giving evidence. When he came out he actually was released after the one year but he was immediately redetained. His parents went to fetch him—he is a man of 26 or 27 years of age—and he was redetained under section 28 of the Internal Security Act.

It sounds like Zimbabwe.

He is now in a psychiatric ward and that sounds a bit like the USSR too. [Interjections.] He is in a psychiatric ward and I want to know what the hon. the Minister’s intentions are about this man. It is a shocking case, I believe. As I said, for almost three and a half years this man has been kept locked up and only during one of those years has the court had anything at all to do with his incarceration. Surely it cannot be that the hon. the Minister is going to keep this man locked up for the rest of his life? What are the hon. the Minister’s intentions?

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would tell us something about the young woman who was arrested for failing to produce her reference book and then eventually was held for 10 days in prison on a pass offence. Her parents were not informed. The hon. the Minister says they were not at the address that they were given. Then she died of diabetes, having obviously not received the proper treatment while she was in prison. Clearly they could not diagnose a case like this. However, it seems to me that to hold a sick young woman in gaol without trial for a pass offence for 10 days, is an astonishing thing to happen.

Finally I want to agree with my hon. friend that there has been a great deterioration—I am not now talking about the snarling dog, but I am talking about the report itself—in the amount of information that this Committee is given in the annual report. I have with me the report of 1977-’78. It gives an absolute wealth of statistics, enormously interesting to anybody who is interested in criminology. All the departments of criminology of Pretoria University, Unisa, Stellenbosch and Cape Town provide very interesting and useful statistics by breaking down offences, breaking down infringements of the law into classifications—the 1977-’80 Report contains something like 28 to 30 classifications of crimes telling us about the racial composition and of who did what to whom. I wonder why we are now being deprived of all this very valuable information. Instead we are shown a sheepdog performing its duty—a very pretty picture, but hardly informative. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I should like to react to the debate up to this point. I shall reply in full to the hon. member for Houghton. I should like to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their contributions and I shall refer at a later stage to certain aspects of their speeches. I shall also refer in greater detail later to a few matters which I should like to bring to the attention of this Committee.

At this stage I should like to confine myself more specifically to the hon. member for Pinetown and to a certain extent the hon. member for Umhlanga. This afternoon I sat here listening to the hon. member for Pine-town, who spoke so feelingly and decently about the South African Police that one began to appreciate it, until he came to a certain point. All the time the hon. member was speaking, I kept saying to myself: There is a snake in the grass here; this is not the hon. member’s attitude to the South African Police.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper to allege that an hon. member is a snake in the grass? [Interjections.]

Sit down!

Order!

Do not tell me to sit down. There is a Chairman in this place. If I can obey the Chairman, you can also obey him.

Order! I do not think that the hon. the Minister…

Why do you allow people to give the ruling instead of you?

Order! I shall give the ruling.

That is why I am asking you, Sir. Every time when I start to raise a point of order one gets a chorus of people trying to take your job from you.

Order! I am giving my ruling now. I do not think that the hon. the Minister referred to that member as a snake in the grass. He said that there was a snake in the grass. He did not refer to the hon. member. [Interjections.] Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it if the hon. member does not know the Afrikaans idiom. Actually he knows it well enough; he is just pretending to be so stupid. He knows perfectly well what it means.

I know precisely what you said, Sir.

Since one particular hon. member is making an observation now, I wish to come to another matter, since the hon. member is so concerned now about the integrity of this House, something we are all concerned about. Last February I issued a statement which hon. members on that side of the House read. They are very aware of it. The hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Pinetown read it. In that statement I explained about the conversation which had occurred between myself and a reporter from the Rand Daily Mail on the Jan Smuts Airport, and in the statement I furnished the background to the matter, and said that the conversation as reported by that particular reporter was basically correct as far as the contents were concerned. I did not in any way impugn the integrity of the Rand Daily Mail reporter. I did not deny in any respect that what had been published was not what had been said between us. The qualification, however, was this: I said that that conversation had taken place in a light-hearted spirit and was not intended for publication. The hon. members who always make such a fuss about how we should accept one another’s standpoints and assurances as members, are not prepared to do so unless it suits them. They are not prepared to do so. They prefer to bandy about a petty little story, despite the assurances given by an hon. member of this House to other hon. members, despite an assurance, the contents of which were accepted publicly. For want of anything better to say certain hon. members keep on referring to it, but they forget the one rule in this House, which is that an hon. member’s assurance should be accepted. It was published while the House was in session. I have explained this previously and I am doing so again today. All I want to say now, is that those hon. members know what they can do with the kind of integrity which they maintain. This entire matter does not worry me in the least. I acted correctly; I stated in the correct way what the position in connection with that matter was, and all the people concerned in the matter who wish to act in a responsible way in regard to it, realize and accept that that kind of conversation which was held, was not for publication. If there was a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter concerned, then it was his misunderstanding. However, I did not offend him as a result of my public conduct. Not at all. Nor did I say that he had offended me, apart from saying what the qualification had been. Yet hon. members do not want to accept it. Why does the hon. member for Umhlanga, who is the second foreman of his party and an esteemed member of this House, not prepared to apply this rule?

That is only one of your remarks, Louis, and you know it!

We should always bear the rules of this House in mind in our conduct towards one another. The hon. member is now saying that it was only of the remarks and that he can mention other examples to me. However, I wish to mention one example to him, in regard to which he works himself up into a temper. Then I wish to ask the Committee whether they agree. Last year I made a speech at Odendaalsrus and in that speech I said that the South African Police had during the course of a certain period arrested 14 terrorists or terrorist supporters or fellow-travellers or people being trained as terrorists. Those were the precise words I used and I have all the particulars with me. Then a reporter from one of our newspapers went and phoned the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Umhlanga. This is the pattern which is followed by certain people. The moment something is said or something happens in connection with the Minister of Law and Order, those two hon. members have to be contacted. No one has any objection to that, but then they compete to see who can come up with the sharpest reaction. That was where the hon. member for Umhlanga made a fool of himself. What did he do? The hon. member for Umhlanga reproached me for referring to terrorists as terrorists. It was reported in quotation marks, under his name, in various English language dailies. He has not yet published a correction. That is what the hon. member reproached me for doing. I should not refer to terrorists as terrorists. If I do I am a disgrace to South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. members knows it. The hon. member knows it is on record. He did not correct it. That is what he is making a noise about. I ask the hon. member in this House today whether he stands by what he said in those English-language reports on that allegation which I made in a newspaper?

My reactions stands to your reported remarks.

Very well. If the hon. member says that one should not refer to terrorists, then we know where we stand with him…

Don’t start twisting words.

… and his party. It is no use the hon. member trying to act so piously on occasion and then on other occasions being the sharpest member in this House.

You are making a fool of yourself, man.

He is always a fool. That is the difficulty with the hon. member, but sometimes it has to be pointed out. When the hon. member for Pinetown commenced his speech this afternoon, I said to myself that there was a snake in the grass now; I did not trust this story. When has the hon. member ever shown any sympathy for the Police? Not in this House!

I have often.

The hon. member has never reacted sympathetically in this House to the Police in regard to their task and the combating of crime.

Have you not heard me point out that members of my family were…

The hon. member has never uttered a sympathetic word in this House on the service which the South African Police are rendering on our country’s borders, something to which one of the hon. members referred a moment ago. I still want to hear the hon. member speak with appreciation one day of the actions of the South African Police in the operational area in the north of South West Africa. I still want to experience him speaking with appreciation of those things, and adopting as strong a standpoint against Swapo as he is appreciative when he refers to the Police. That is the hon. member who recently, on a debate on the amendment of the law providing for road blockades, led his party in voting against the principle of that amending Bill.

Of course.

There are members sitting among the Opposition on the opposite side whom I am certain were not completely convinced that they were doing the right thing by voting against the use of road blockades as proposed in that Bill. However, it was the hon. member for Pinetown who led them in doing so, and to this very day he is opposed to the principle which applies in that law. I can expect it of the hon. member to object to this photograph on our annual report and refer to that police dog as a “brute and a savage dog”. What appreciation does the hon. member have for them? The hon. member has no appreciation for this constable and this dog. He has no appreciation for the contribution which is being made by this police constable and his dog.

As a Minister you are very weak.

It is no use saying that. He assumes that he has the sole right to criticize. That is his assumption, and when he is given a reply, he always wants to be acrimonious about it. He will simply have to take his medicine too for a while. I want to ask him this question: When has he ever, in all his life, spoken with appreciation of the constable and his dog patrolling the streets of Durban at night? Never in his life. Now, however, this is “a brute and savage dog”. [Interjections.] At least the hon. member for Houghton went so far as to say something favourable about this dog of ours. I have already said that the hon. member for Pinetown would rather die than refer to a terrorist as a terrorist, unless he is first found guilty by a court and is labelled as such by the court. The hon. member is not prepared to do it. If he is, he need only tell us so in this House. I say, as I know him, that he is not prepared to do so.

With reference to the shooting incident in Johannesburg, which was a very unfortunate incident, and the debate which was conducted in the House, the hon. member must tell me when I ever condoned or approved of such a shooting incident inside or outside this Parliament.

I quoted you.

No, you did not quote me. That is why I am asking you. I am asking you to quote me. I am asking the hon. member to quote me verbally. When or where did I ever praise a policeman for shooting any person under the circumstances he is referring to? I am asking the hon. member. He is making the accusation. Let him tell the House where I said that, because he knows that is not the position. He knows that I did not praise that particular policeman for shooting Mr. Duvenhage. That he knows very well. That is the allegation and the accusation he made this afternoon, namely that I praised the particular policeman who shot Mr. Duvenhage.

I gave you the exact words.

You can quote them again where I praised the particular policeman for shooting Mr. Duvenhage. [Interjections.] Those are the words that he used, namely that I praised the particular policeman. That is why I am asking the hon. member to let me have it.

*The hon. member referred to the shooting incident in which Mr. Saul Mkhize lost his life. Unfortunately I was unable at that stage to make detailed notes of the hon. member’s argument, but I remember that the hon. member adopted the standpoint that in that case as well a different kind of attitude should have been adopted, that a more simpathetic attitude or that a more responsible attitude should have been adopted in the Mkhize case. Now I ask the hon. member: What more should any hon. Minister of Police or Commissioner of Police—in this case I am the subject under discussion—do than what we did in the Mkhize case? Comment was made immediately after the incident, and it was not unsympathetic. Immediately after the incident an inquiry by senior officers was ordered, and carried out. Immediately after the incident a standpoint was adopted in connection with the use of fire-arms, as I did in the Duvenhage case. It was immediately said that everything possible would be done to place all possible facts before the Attorney-General for a decision. What more should have been done? The hon. member can tell us. What more should have been done than we did in the Mkhize case? I do not have the verbatim statement with me at the moment. All I know, is that there is not a word in the statement or comments which I made for which I can be reproached in any way. The hon. member will just have to indicate to the House where I did that. Why is the hon. member reproaching me? It is his task to do so. He said it was his task to criticize. Now I want to ask the hon. member to quote the passage which he objected to to this Committee. I maintain there is not a single word he can object to, nor can he object to any action of mine or of the Police in connection with the Mkhize case after the incident in establishing all the facts and ensuring that justice took its course. The hon. member will simply have to furnish the particulars.

The hon. member then made the astonishing remark, while he was telling us what a heaven on earth we would be living in the day the Progs came into power—may Providence preserve us from that ever happening. If we do experience that Utopia, it seems to me there will at least still be a security branch of the Police. Did I understand the hon. member correctly? Will there be a security branch under his Government as well? [Interjections.] I do not know what that security branch must do, but I want to refer to one matter, namely that the hon. member said that the “Special Branch under our government may not question detainees”. The hon. member actually told this Committee that under their government those security policemen who arrested a person would not question him. Why arrest him then? Is it his standpoint that they should bring him before a magistrate within 48 hours and that if he does not reply to questions satisfactorily “then they must charge or release him”?

The remark was not made.

I am saying that now. [Interjections.] It is the most astonishing remark I have thought possible to be made in this House by any responsible party.

The remark was not made. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the directives which I issued in terms of the Security legislation, particularly in terms of section 29 dealing with the detention of people. I now wish to ask the hon. member earnestly whether he has ever read and studied those regulations.

Yes.

Now the hon. member comes and says that they are absolutely useless and that they are only some departmental regulations or something.

Exactly like the Law Society says.

The hon. member has never taken the trouble to even try to establish how much trouble was taken to re-examine the entire matter of peoples’ attitudes, as expressed for example in the Rabie Commission’s report and in the debate last year. I said in the House last year that we would again look into everything more fully, would look at all possible reports at our disposal and at all other possible particulars which might be in our possession and that we would then, to the best of our ability, draw up regulations which in our opinion would be the most suitable to our circumstances in South Africa. We studied all the important United Kingdom reports.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he will not allow judges to have access to detainees?

Mr. Chairman, we have never had any basic objection to judges visiting detainees.

Why was this aspect excluded from the Act?

Wait a minute, let me explain it to you now. In the period during which I have been the responsible Minister, it has happened already that judges have occasionally visited detainees, for example, when they were paying a visit to a police station or to police cells. Occasionally they may also visit a prison in order to visit some of the people there. Section 28 prisoners, for examples, have already been visited on more than one occasion by a judge.

[Inaudible.]

No, but those prisoners were for example visited at my request by the full board. It is not a case of my or the Government’s advisers having any objection to judges visiting the prisoners. The Rabie Commissioner felt the same way. We do not think that it is, practically speaking, the right thing to do to place that obligation on our judges as well. For that reason the obligation was placed on the magistrate. The magistrate is the person, i.e. the legal person, who visits the detainee.

I am not asking about the obligations. Why does the detainee not have the right to address a request to the Supreme Court?

We can argue about that on some other occasion. I am not prepared to take the hon. member through the entire history of the matter. He must give me a chance. I am not prepared to do so now, and I do not wish to give the hon. member just any old answer. I do not wish to go through the entire history of the matter now and say why he is not legally entitled to appear before the judge. That is the case which the hon. member is trying to make out now, is it not? I thought the hon. member was talking about a visit to the detainee.

Or submit an affidavit.

We are talking about different things of course. I understood the hon. member to ask why a judge was not allowed to visit a detainee. That is what I explained to him. However, the hon. member’s question now goes further. He wants the man to be entitled, either by way of a sworn affidavit or by making representations to a judge to appear personally before a judge. I am not prepared to argue those particular aspects to finality with the hon. member now, and for that reason I do not wish to reply to him more fully on this point.

I should like to touch upon another matter to which the hon. member referred. He referred to the “scabs, marks and scratches”, and I do not know how many other injuries Dr. Aggett had on him. Did the hon. member read the verdict of the court? Did he read it in full? Did he read the entire verdict? I do not think so.

I did read it.

No, I do not think so. Why is the hon. member so unconvincing?

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member mean to tell me that he read every word of the long verdict? Let us admit to one another that he did not do so—except to read parts of it. I do not blame him. I just want to make my point. The hon. member may as well tell the truth. I shall not take it amiss of him.

I saw it.

All that I want to tell the hon. member is that if he had read the verdict in full, he would not have said what he did in his speech a moment ago, then he would have known what the magistrate had said in connection with the injuries found on Dr. Aggett and he would have known that not even the family doctor himself found any of those injuries which were referred to. This is on record.

It is a medical practitioner…

It is on record. Here it is. I studied this verdict carefully, two days after the event. If he had read it, he would have known that the magistrate found that not even the family doctor found these particular injuries to which he referred. He found that they were simply not there. Not even one of the medical practitioners found it. Not one of the medical practitioners found those injuries to which the hon. member referred. However, it is the injuries which the hon. member relies on, these injuries which were mentioned by the witnesses whose evidence was ultimately not accepted by the magistrate in that connection, because it was so unlikely.

Dr. Kemp?

I said Dr. Kemp and Dr. Botha. Dr. Botha was the house doctor that was appointed and Dr. Kemp was the State Medical Practitioner. The State Medical Practitioners and Dr. Botha’s evidence on this point was of course accepted by the magistrate. The magistrate said that those injuries were, according to their own evidence, not found by them. The injuries to which the hon. member referred were alleged in the evidence to which the other witnesses referred. The magistrate analysed that evidence and said that on certain points he could not accept it, after which he gave reasons for doing so. If the hon. member reads the verdict, he would have known it. For that reason I want to tell him that next time he should rather do his homework before he comes here and requests that my salary be reduced by R5 000.

Are you a bit short of cash?

I can do with that R5 000.

The hon. member for Houghton has asked me a number of questions. I shall try to reply them as briefly as possible.

Take your time.

No, I do not have so much time available. The hon. member is always asking me a number of questions which will take hours to reply to fully.

The first question the hon. member asked me was in respect to section 32 of the Police Act. My information is that we are having a look at the provisions of section 32. I am quite aware of the two cases in the Natal Division and the Transvaal Division to which the hon. member has referred. We are having a look at this. This matter has also been referred to the Department of Justice.

*They referred it to the South African Law Commission. During the next session I shall perhaps be able to furnish hon. members with more particulars in this regard.

While the hon. member was speaking, I observed that I could not understand why she always derived so much pleasure from comparing the South African legal system with that of Russia.

Because it is so similar.

I want to tell the hon. member now that I know that she did not find Russia to be such a very pleasant place at all when she was there. I am convinced that the hon. member thanked the Good Lord when she was able to close the doors of Russia behind her and get out of the place. The hon. member must not try to impress us now by always drawing comparisons with Russia.

†The hon. member referred to my misguided sense of loyalty to policemen and said that we always give public condonation to every act of a policeman.

*I now want to tell the hon. member that it has always been my standpoint—and all the policemen know it because I have been saying it throughout the length and breadth of South Africa for four years, in a language which we all understand—that the Police have an extremely difficult and sensitive task. And, not unnaturally, we will make mistakes. On occasion we will take the wrong decisions and—we are all human—some of us may perhaps do things which are quite wrong and which we will not be proud of at all. However, this is not part of my speech. I am not referring now to those things which fly in the face of all standards; I am referring now to mistakes which a policeman may make in the performance of his duties. It can happen and it will happen, because we are human. In this connection I have always adopted the standpoint that as long as that member of the Force was honest and was trying to do his work to the best of his ability and happened to make a mistake in the course of it, I shall not very easily castigate him in public.

[Inaudible.]

No, give me a chance now. As the responsible Minister, I shall not castigate that member in public. We talk to one another behind the doors of the office.

It is no good.

Wait a minute, give me a chance to qualify my standpoint. I am not prepared to castigate a policeman in public every time he makes a mistake in a difficult task which he has to perform. After all, there must be such a thing a morale, and an understanding and trust between men. I must have confidence in them and they must have confidence in me. What will become of the relationship between the Police and its Government if the police have to worry all the time that they will have the Minister down on them for the slightest error of judgment? We cannot do that?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister is simplifying things. May I ask him why, for instance, he condoned the incident when the police fired shots in a crowded street at peak traffic hour in Johannesburg the other day?

Order! The hon. member is asking the wrong question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you do not bring the hon. member to halt occasionally, she will keep us occupied for a very long time.

A question is a question whether it is wrong or not.

The hon. member was making a short speech.

Oh yes, I am answering the hon. member. I replied to that particular question in the House when it was put by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Yes, badly.

I have not replied badly. I have replied very fully. In my reply I said that I satisfied myself as to all aspects concerning that particular incident and that I was satisfied that the policemen concerned, senior officers—I think the senior officer was a major—and other members, kept the strict instructions issued by the Commissioner and myself very much in mind when they dealt with that particular criminal in the city area of Johannesburg. I replied fully in the House. I said that I was satisfied. The hon. member for Hillbrow agrees with me.

No.

Do you not? I am sorry; then I misread the expression on your face.

[Inaudible.]

All right.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the point I was busy making. I want to tell the hon. member that there is such a thing as trust between a Minister and the members of his department, particularly a service department involved in such sensitive matters as these in which we are involved. I do not think there is a single member of the Force who can accuse me of not having played my part. I am not accusing members of the Force either. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that not a single incident which was contrary to statutory provisions occurred in regard to which action was not taken; to which the Commissioner of Police and I did not give personal and departmental attention and in regard to which we did not adopt a strong standpoint departmentally, when that was necessary.

Do you not think you should change?

I shall give the hon. members a few examples. I shall do so gladly on this occasion, although I actually wanted to discuss this matter in greater detail at a later stage.

When it comes to the handling of firearms, I should like to give the hon. member a more detailed reply. As I have said, there was not a single case to which the Commissioner and I did not give positive attention or in regard to which we did not take action when such action was necessary.

The Standing Orders dealing with the handling of fire-arms and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are very strict, comprehensive and clear. I prepared a full set of notes on this matter, but time is not going to allow me to discuss it with the Committee. Consequently I shall simply refer to them here and there.

I would love to read it.

I shall make a copy available to the hon. member. I have the whole background to this matter, but time is not going to allow me to deal with it, because the two hon. members who began the debate, took up far too much of our time this afternoon.

In particularly I wish to refer to sections 39 and 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Without going into details I want to say that they deal with arrest and what can be done when a person should try to escape, or resists arrest, etc. They also deal with the requirements which are laid down and the criteria which have to be applied in regard to a person who may be involved in such circumstances. I have a detailed summary of the Standing Orders of the Police. It is only a summary, but I could also let the hon. member have a copy of the Standing Orders so that she can have it at her disposal, together with the Criminal Procedure Act.

I would like to.

I think she will find it very enlightening. In support of this point which I am trying to explain to the hon. member, I wish to furnish her with various particulars. In addition to emphasizing the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Standing Orders and directions which the Commissioner of Police has reconfirmed from time to time since 1974, I conveyed in a serious discussion with the Commission, immediately after and during the discussion in connection with the Duvenhage case, my concern about the handling of fire-arms by members of the Force. This was not reproach for concern, but responsible concern. The Force consists of 40 000 men, a force which deals with violent and criminal aspects of society. I went so far as to say to the Commissioner that I was unhappy about the large number of shooting incidents in which members of the Force were involved. The Commissioner of Police then quoted from a letter which I had written to him in an administrative instruction to all members of the Force. I want to quote that relevant portion to the hon. member so that she and other hon. members can realize that we are dealing with serious matters and that we are doing our duty in this regard. I just wish to quote a paragraph to the hon. member. As I said, the Commissioner caused it to be distributed among all members of the Force. I gave him my co-operation and I should like to make this documentation available to the Committee. It is documentation between the Commissioner of Police and myself, and forms part of the exchange of documents which has to take place between the Minister and the Commission on occasions such as these. I quote—

Well, that is very good.

This is the conversation which took place between the Commissioner of Police and myself. This is the documentation…

When was that?

This was on 15 March.

You should send it out.

No, do not reproach me about the way I do things. This is the way in which I try to maintain that position of trust between myself and all members of the Force, and therefore I can state with great confidence to the hon. member that a wonderful spirit of trust prevails between every member of the Force and myself. Hon. members can go and ask anyone of them from all four race groups in the Force behind my back about this. I am happy that this is the case, because every policeman knows that a Minister is not going to come down on them for every little problem which they encounter along the way. That is not the way we do things.

But you realize that on 2 April, i.e. after you sent that out, Mkhize was shot with a shotgun?

Oh, please, Mr. Chairman.

They do not take any notice.

Before we leave this aspect and go into another, I wish to point out to the hon. member that we are living in a violent society. During the year under review, 1981, a total of 185 878 crimes in which violence played a part were reported. In 1981-’82 the figure was 183 143. The victims of this violence were not only members of the public, but members of the Police Force as well. Hon. members furnished some of the particulars here. I wish to indicate how many members of the Police Force were killed or injured in their performance of their duties during the past five years. I should like to furnish these figures briefly so that they may be placed on record. In 1978 seven were killed and 155 injured; in 1979 17 were killed and 152 injured; in 1980 23 were killed and 147 injured; in 1981 16 were killed and 122 injured; and in 1982 13 were killed and 128 injured in the execution of their duties. For those reasons I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that these are serious matters we are dealing with and for that reason all of us should—and I know the hon. member for Houghton does—make our contribution towards keeping this violence under control. At a later stage of the debate this afternoon I shall also comment on certain political aspects in regard to the committing of acts of violence. It is simply that I do not wish to do so on this occasion. We must warn people against this situation. I find it very interesting to see how, in other countries, the Minister concerned and his Police Force are also struggling with their Parliament just to acquire a few more powers, so that on certain occasions they can at least be in possession of a fire-arm so that policemen can protect themselves. The best example of this is peace-loving England to which we are always being referred. The Minister there, Mr. Whitelaw, has a host of problems in merely obtaining a few more powers for his police force so that they are able to defend themselves.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member asked me whether the circumstances in regard to the Kempton Park case were followed up. I can tell the hon. member that I gave this matter my personal attention by studying the verdict of the magistrate. I looked into the matter carefully. I have also been informed that the Commissioner appointed a senior officer to investigate all the circumstances of that case. I have the full comment I asked for with me here. I am satisfied that this magistrate was not correctly and fully quoted in some of our newspapers. Exaggerated statements were ascribed to him. That is very clear. Attention is also being given to this matter—and it is not that I am uttering threats against the Press or anyone else for that matter—because it is a pity that there should be exaggerated reports in the Press on verdicts of our courts which could create misconceptions abroad. However, the hon. member can set his mind at rest, because attention is being given to all the various aspects of that matter.

†The hon. member has asked me how effective are the directives concerning section 29.

*I should just like to tell the hon. member that we do not simply contend ourselves with the directives which I have already issued. I do not wish to deal in full with the directives now. I have all the particulars here, but that is not necessary now. I am convinced that the hon. member has most certainly studied them. The directives have been published in full. I did so by way of a Press conference. In addition a debate on the matter was conducted in the periodical of the Law Society in the sense that the Association of Law Societies also published their standpoint. Consequently it is general knowledge and I do not wish to go into the matter in detail.

I should just like to give the Committee the assurance that the Commissioner and I are in constant communication with one another on this issue. It is an on-going task of the Chief of the Security Police to monitor the situation within his own branch, the Security Branch, by satisfying himself at all times as to what may best be done under the circumstances. I am not saying that this is the final answer. I have never said that it is the final answer. I have debated this matter very fully on more than one occasion, particularly last year during the debate on security legislation. During that debate I also stated why we were unable to do certain things. Consequently I do not at present wish to go into the question of why doctors or attorneys are not allowed access to prisoners, etc. That was not part of the hon. member’s argument.

I wish to give this Committee the assurance that we are constantly giving attention to the matter to see where we can improve. I mentioned examples. Last year, for example, we spent R48 000 on improving the cells at John Vorster Square. In the meantime I have inspected other cells where we detain some of these people to satisfy myself, together with the Commissioner of Police, the Chief of Security Staff and other senior officers as to whether we are doing the right thing and whether we are eliminating all possibilities of injury to these persons.

I should now like to inform this Committee that we have once again looked into the position in this connection at John Vorster Square. Besides having brought all these directives to the attention of all members and having introduced a proper command structure there, we also looked into the possibility of introducing a closed circuit television system in the cells. We considered and examined all the systems. We then arrived at the conclusion that we could also do it. The Commissioner has already taken steps in this connection and the necessary equipment for the installation of a closed circuit television system at John Vorster Square has already, as far as possible, been purchased. It will be installed in all the cells where either the male or female detainees are being detained. I just want to explain this surveillance system. For the men the person maintaining the surveillance will of course be a male member of the Force and for the women a separate system will apply in this sense that a female member of the Force will then be the person monitoring the surveillance screen which shows one what is happening in the cell.

Not for interrogation?

No, wait a minute, I am discussing this now. The control room will of course be manned on a 24-hour basis. The draw-back for the detainees is that there will have to be some degree of lighting in the cell at all times, but attention was given to this matter as well, with a view to ensuring that the degree of lighting there will cause the least possible inconvenience to the person being detained. This is a step forward for which hon. members of the Committee, particularly those on the opposite side of this Committee, will be grateful. I think this is going to help us a great deal in our efforts to take every possible precaution to ensure that a person cannot injure himself in detention or cannot be injured in his cell by anyone else.

The hon. member referred to our annual report which in her opinion was not detailed enough.

[Inaudible.]

I beg your pardon. The hon. member is concerned about the monthly reports which have to be submitted to me in regard to the request for further detention of section 29 detainees. The hon. member asked me what information I expect from the Police and require them to provide me with. I expect the Commissioner of Police to furnish me with sufficient information to enable me, in conjunction with him, to arrive at a decision in terms of the provisions of the Act as far as my responsibility is concerned. I am satisfied that the Commissioner of Police does in fact provide me with that information and the necessary motivation. I study every case personally and in the nature of things I give a personal decision on every case. This is what the Act requires of me. I have no problems in this connection and I do receive the necessary information.

The hon. member asked me why the Board of Review has now arrived at a different decision in the case of Dr. Beyers Naudé.

†I do not find it strange, Mr. Chairman. The Board of Review need not necessarily have the same information as I had at my disposal. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Board of Review went out of its way to look very properly at every particular aspect in this particular case.

Surely you did too?

Of course I did. We are talking about the Board of Review now. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Board of Review went out of its way to make sure that it was really attending to every particular point or issue in this matter.

*I told the hon. member a moment ago that this was a fine example of the system within which we are now working. This is the best example. In last year’s debate hon. members were very suspicious and would not accept that this system could work. They thought the board would merely be another rubber stamp of the Minister. I gave hon. members the assurance that the Minister of Justice and I would not only appoint a serving judge, as was provided, but that we would also appoint a practising member of the Bar or Side Bar. There is a serving judge, as well as a senior active practising member of the Side Bar, a person who in his day was chairman of the Law Society of South Africa for a year or two, i.e. a person who was held in high esteem by his own colleagues, and a senior retired president of the Regional Court of South Africa were appointed. Not one of the hon. members on the opposite side can lodge any objection to any of the three members of the Board of Review. Last year I gave the House of Assembly the assurance that this board would not be a rubber stamp of the Minister. Here is an example of that. This board looked into every aspect of the Dr. Beyers Naudé case and concluded that certain recommendations which differed with his decisions should be made to the Minister. I did not then go and browbeat the board. I accepted the board’s recommendations, after proper consideration. I accepted them to the great benefit of Dr. Beyers Naudé. Now why does the hon. member not rather thank us for having put a decent system into operation in a decent way?

In how many other cases have restriction orders been changed by the Board of Review?

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the number of cases that we have reviewed so far or that I have had on my table. I just do not have that figure. However, every case that the law required to be reviewed up to this stage, has definitely been attended to.

Alright, I shall ask a question in the House of Assembly. The hon. the Minister can find out in the meantime.

Yes, but it has been attended to in terms of the provisions of the law. Mr. Chairman, I have answered this particular question, because the hon. member referred to the 61 restricted people in South Africa and asked what is their position. That is their position. The hon. member asked me about the conspiracy trial. I shall reply with respect to that. Then the hon. member asked me whether I would consider lifting restrictions on a number of people.

*Very well then, but I must also tell the hon. member that it is really not all that easy. And I shall prefer not to comment on some of the names which that hon. member mentioned to me as possibilities. In the case of Mrs. Winnie Mandela, however, I just want to say this: Surely that hon. member knows that she can leave Brandfort if she wishes. Surely the hon. member knows that.

Yes, but not to Soweto.

No, surely the hon. member knows that too. Now why did she not say that when she addressed the Committee? You see, Mr. Chairman, that hon. member wants to leave the impression that Mrs. Mandela has been banned to Brand-fort.

She has.

Yes, and there she sits now, supposedly confined to a little mud hut somewhere in the hot expanses of the Free State, and that is the image which is being blazoned abroad. Mr. Chairman, surely that hon. member knows that Mrs. Mandela can move to any other place of her choice, except Soweto.

Well, that is the point she wants to make.

But the hon. member wants her in Soweto.

No, she wants to be in Soweto!

Yes, that hon. member is supporting her.

No, she herself wants to be in Soweto.

That hon. member knows why we cannot allow Mrs. Mandela to go to Soweto.

I do not know that.

No, she knows very well.

No, I do not know that.

She knows very well.

*It is no use her pretending to be too innocent now. She knows that very well. And I may as well tell that hon. member now that we shall not allow her to go to Soweto. If she wishes to go to another urban area we can see what arrangements can be made, an offer which has already been made in the past.

What about Natal?

Yes, I think we must consider Natal next time.

*Mr. Chairman, I am trying to go as fast as I can. Finally I just wish to say this: The hon. member asked me about certain detainees in terms of section 28, namely David Thebela and a person called Thatsa. There is a third person who is also being detained in terms of section 28. Hon. members will recall that section 28 is the provision which provides for persons to be detained for an indefinite period. They are then detained in prisons, and not in the police cells. These three are examples of such persons. These are cases in respect of which I have been satisfied that, what we are doing at present is the correct thing to do, namely the detention of these three persons. There is no doubt in my mind about this. However, I want to tell the hon. member that the Commissioner and I, and some of our advisers and responsible outside organizations, which, together with us, are also involved in the area of security, have already exchanged very serious views in regard to section 28 and the people one has to detain in terms of this section.

David Thebela?

Yes. And it will not help that hon. member to pull wry faces at me now. This is a serious problem and at this stage I cannot within any confidence tell the hon. member what else we should do but what we are presently doing. All I am saying to the hon. member is however that, for the present, I cannot find anything more acceptable than what we are dealing with here in terms of section 28. If that hon. member, or any hon. member of this Committee or of the entire House of Assembly, has any ideas for me in respect of this matter which they should like to bring to my attention in this connection, I can assure them that I shall consider them in all earnest. These persons are at present being detained in a prison. Their cases were referred to the Board of Review, as required by the Act. I have already told the hon. members that the Board of Review visited them. The Board of Review acquainted itself with the situation and examined the circumstances under which they are being detained. The Chairman and a member of the Board came to me personally, after the visit, to conduct a conversation with me in my office on all aspects of the matter. In the case of Thatsa I just wish to tell hon. members that he is no longer in hospital. He received psychiatric treatment. At one stage the possibility that he might have to undergo a brain operation was mooted, owing to the possibility of a…

Tumour?

Yes, a growth which he might have had. It was established, through the best specialists available, that the operation was not necessary. My latest report, which I received today, indicates that he is physically in good health. His mental condition is normal, and he must simply continue with his medication. He is expected to be discharged from hospital soon. This is the report of very senior medical practitioners in Johannesburg, who are highly respected in their own professional sphere.

Why do you not send him home? If he misbehaves, you can always

No, it is not as easy as that hon. member is making it out to be.

Finally, the hon. member referred to the case of a young Black girl who was detained owing to an identity book offence. She put a question to me on this matter in the House of Assembly, and I furnished her with a full reply to the question. I pointed out to her that we did not know that she was ill. However, the moment this was brought to our attention by the responsible officers in the prison in which she was being detained as an awaiting-trial prisoner, she was immediately taken to Baragwanath Hospital. Immediately after she was identified as a sick person, she was taken to hospital and the results I made known in reply to a question in the House of Assembly. Consequently I do not think it is fair that that member should raise this matter in this way in this Committee today as if we had done something wrong. As the hon. member put it: “Why did we hold a sick young woman in jail for 10 days?”

†We did not know that she was ill during those 10 days. We only learnt that at a particular stage and then we immediately removed her to Baragwanath Hospital.

*Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member in respect of this part of my reply that I think the annual report was a neatly presentation. However, I am not trying to imply that there are not particulars which we will perhaps be able to look into again, with a view to including them in the annual report. Personally I am not in favour of going all the way back to the old system which applied up to a few years ago in the annual report. Many hours of labour went into compiling that report in that way, and it was not of much value to the people who ultimately had to read it. However, I shall ask the Commissioner whether we should reconsider whether there are not, nevertheless, any aspects which could be of value to hon. members, aspects which are not included in the report at the moment and which we can therefore publish in the annual report in future.

Mr. Chairman, if there are any other matters, I shall reply to them more fully on another occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the official Opposition has the right to criticize and I believe that the hon. the Minister has replied in full to what had to be replied to. However, I trust that all hon. members are agreed that a tremendous task rest on the shoulders of the members of the South African Police, and this applies from the Commissioner of Police right down to the ordinary policeman. Certainly one of the most important tasks resting on the shoulders of every policeman is to maintain law and order, and every responsible South African will realize that if law and order is not maintained in South Africa, it will mean the end of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we have many kinds of offences and major problems. Certainly one of the greatest problems facing us and facing the police in South Africa and in respect of which I feel it is the duty of every responsible South African to support these people by word en deed, is terrorism. I believe, and I think every hon. member will agree, that terrorism is as old and goes back as far as one can go back into history. We are living today in a dynamic world where a wide variety of changes are taking place daily. There is no doubt that terrorism has also undergone a change since the time it began. I feel therefore that in order to identify terrorism, it is as well to try to define it from time to time. I fee that a good definition of terrorism in the times in which we live may be the following: Any intimidatory action, whether by the gradual use of force or by threats of violence, or any other actions that is aimed at gaining political control by overthrowing an existing government or compelling such government to make specific policy concessions which will seriously threaten the maintenance of law and order. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a reasonable definition because—and I feel we are all agreed on this—the arsenal of the terrorist contains two weapons. The first is the psychological struggle which is aimed primarily at the mental resistance of the population. The second is the already well-known low-intensity war of attrition that is being waged against the government and the people. However, it would seem as if the communists have recently increased the degree of intensity and curtailed the duration of the attrition phase.

Mr. Chairman, an important starting point for any society in its struggle against terrorism is therefore that a strong and stable government has to be in power and that the mental defensibility of the entire population has to be very high. In addition, terrorism as it is today is not an isolated phenomenon. It is a part of a larger revolutionary onslaught by communism. It is being used as an instrument to compel political and social change. It has become an extremely dangerous threat to the entire world. It can be regarded as a new form of warfare, an extension of the conventional pattern of warfare and an indispensable part of the pattern of behaviour of those who are planning the overthrow of a state or territorial expansion.

Now we in this Committee have to ask ourselves, while at the same time reassuring the people outside that we can, whether we can ward off a terrorist onslaught on South Africa. I feel that by their successes the South African Police have proved that this terrorist onslaught is in fact being warded off. This claim has a long history. However one can refer briefly to the 1976 riots. These led, inter alia, to large numbers of Black youths leaving the Republic of South Africa. Many of them were recruited by the ANC and the PAC in neighbouring states and sent away for military training. After their training some of them were sent back to the RSA to commit acts of terrorism and to gain recruits. From the interrogation of arrested terrorists it appeared that the Security Branch of the South African Police had already identified most of the terrorists abroad. This on its own is a breakthrough. It is one of the most important aspects in combating terrorism and it is one of the major aids in identifying, tracking down and arresting terrorists. In addition, timeous arrests and action by the South African Police have in some cases prevented major damage or loss of life. In many cases the terrorists were on their way to their target areas when they were arrested by the police. The information network of the Security Branch of the South African Police is at present so effective that highly trained terrorists have recently been arrested on several occasions immediately after they have crossed the border into the RSA. Large quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives which were to be used against targets in the RSA were also seized. This timeous action has not only prevented damage but has also restricted the possibility of loss of life in the RSA to a minimum.

The success of the South African Police in combating terrorism is one of the reasons why the ANC consider the South African Police to be an important target. They plan to lower the morale of members of the South African Police by means of violent action against members of the Force, police stations and State witnesses. We can prove this statement by referring to certain practical confrontations. From 1979 to date 9 police stations have been attacked and 6 policemen and witnesses have been murdered and there have been 13 attempts to murder policemen and witnesses. Let us also look at terrorist trials and convictions since 1976. I shall mention only the most important and most sensational trials in which trained terrorists were found guilty of serious crimes: On 25 July 1977 the Gwala case ended in Pietermaritzburg. There were nine accused. All nine were found guilty of enlisting recruits for the ANC for military training and the promotion of ANC activities. The sentences ranged from five years to life imprisonment. Four people were sentenced to a total of 67 years imprisonment. During January 1980 three terrorists, viz. Lubisi, Mashigo and N. Manana, who had been responsible for the attack on the Soekmekaar Police Station, were arrested and charged. All three were sentenced to death. On appeal, the sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. A further milestone was reached in 1979. A group of trained ANC terrorists attacked a number of targets, but they were successfully tracked down by the police.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we all assist the police.

Mr. Chairman, a while ago the hon. the Minister was holding such a long and in-depth discussion with the hon. member for Houghton that one almost forgot what one wanted to say! However, the hon. the Minister did mention something in that discussion which I also want to raise this afternoon. It also has to do with the policeman and his fire-arm.

It goes without saying that it was to be expected that this matter would crop up during the discussion of this Vote and that is why I have done a little research into what has been written and said about this subject. The hon. the Minister has also just spelt it out to us that there are standing orders and regulations describing in full the handling of firearms. This afternoon the hon. the Minister also gave a further indication of what form this has to take. I feel one need not be a prophet to predict that the subject of the policeman and his fire-arm will crop up again from time to time. We can expect this in the future because, as hon. members will know, the police have a specific task to perform in this connection and the police in our country are allowed to use their fire-arms under certain circumstances. It can only be of academic interest to refer once again to what has just happened in England in connection with the arming of policemen in that country.

Please tell that to hon. members of the Official Opposition; they like listening to it.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that an article appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 12 April of this year which included a particularly interesting contribution in connection with “Bobbies and the Gun”. It was written by a journalist by the name of Stanley Uys who I think is also well-known in South Africa. Of course, one does not know what the intentions or ulterior motives of that journalist were when he wrote this article, but I think his intention was, inter alia, to throw more light on the problem of the policeman and his fire-arm, concerning which there are problems in England at the moment. This report was written in consequence of steps being considered in the British Parliament to introduce certain legislation. As they put it—

As I mentioned, to a major extent this discussion in the British Press dealt with the question of the arming of the well-known British “bobby”. Mr. Chairman, I should just like to read out to hon. members what the Daily Mirror’s comment on this was. It stated—

In this article Mr. Uys also gives a further quote from The Times which added—

Mr. Chairman, this specific information in connection with the problem facing the British Parliament at the moment is, as I have mentioned, not only of academic interest to us. Particulars also appear in the Press indicating that there has been an alarming increase in crime in England. For example, during the past 20 years, there has been an increase in the incidence of armed robbery in London from one per week to five per day. It is also spelt out to us that during the past year there have been 1 172 cases of armed robbery in England.

Mr. Chairman, another statement made there is that compared with the police in the United States of America and in Western Europe the British Police are not as trigger-happy as is sometimes the case among policeman in other countries. However, I want to repeat that to a certain extent this is history because it is quite clear that the situation of the police in Britian is also going to progress to the state of affairs we now have in South Africa. The British policeman will have to be armed properly, and I say this in consequence of a Sapa-Reuter Report which appeared in The Citizen. It stated—

Mr. Chairman, this is another indication of where they are headed as far as British legislation is concerned. It was alleged recently in the Sunday Times that during the past three years South African Police had killed 565 persons and wounded a further 1 500. I do not know whether these figures are quite correct but, even if they are approximately correct, this remains a very serious state of affairs. The recent death of Mr. Duvenhage and more recently still that of Mr. Saul Mkhize have already provoked serious discussion in Parliament. We shall also not be able to discuss the merits of the Duvenhage case because that case is sub judice.

Any right-minded person finds it deplorable that people have to die at the hands of South African policemen and I do not think there is anyone, in Parliament as well, who would think otherwise. However, I want to assure hon. members of the Committee that more people will be killed by our police in the future just as more policemen will be killed by criminals, ruffians and rioters. It is simply a sign of the times in which we live that, when we have to deal with mass rallies, those masses are frequently incited by political agitators and people who simply remain at a safe distance on the sidelines and do not accept full responsibility for the consequences after they have stirred up such mass feelings. As I have mentioned, no one takes pleasure in the death of a man like Mr. Saul Mkhize or anyone else. The death of that specific Black man was without doubt a severe setback to our country’s efforts to foster good relations. However, I feel we should guard against making the task of our police more difficult and more dangerous. Hon. members will know that there are always people who seek to comment on this type of situation by jumping the gun. For that reason I think that we should associate ourselves fully with the condemnation expressed by our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information of the State Department which recently in my opinion jumped the gun by interfering in an uncalled-for fashion in a case which was purely a South African matter. It concerned the death of Mr. Mkhize.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to express an opinion today on the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Mkhize. What I do, however, want to say is that Mr. Mkhize did have close links with an organization such as the Black Sash, with Bishop Tutu and also with an organization like the Association for Rural Advancement in Pietermaritzburg.

Mr. Chairman, in no way do I seek to advocate or approve the injudicious use of firearms. Not in the least. I say it is a good thing and it is right that we in Parliament should be free to criticize the South African Police at our discretion as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, following upon what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said, I should just like to point out again that the hon. the Minister has already expressed regret in regard to the events surrounding the Duvenhage case. In addition I wish to confirm once again that hon. members on this side of the House also regret what happened.

That hon. member referred to mass rallies, however, and said that the task of the police was being made more difficult and more dangerous. This gives me reason to dwell for a moment now on the AWB and the propaganda of violence which they are making. Firstly, I wish to allege, because of recent statements and events, that there can be no doubt that the CP and the AWB act in concert. There can be no doubt that the AWB is merely the military wing of the CP. By this time there can surely be no doubt that there is particularly close co-operation between the CP and the AWB, particularly at leadership level.

This co-operation between these two parties emerges clearly from statements made by their leaders, and I wish to refer to certain of these statements. At Kroonstad, Mr. Eugene Terre’blanche said inter alia the following—and it is interesting that the surname Terre’blanche literally means “white earth”—he said that he was grateful for the co-operation which existed between him and the conservative leaders. His own words were “ons is dankbaar, geagte Voorsitter, vir daardie samewerking wat weliswaar sal lei na groter samewerking totdat Suid-Afrika uiteindelik een groot blanke konserwatiewe of onderlegde party het”. It is interesting to note that the posters which were put up to advertise these meetings were put up by executive members of the Conservative Party in Kroonstad, and subsequently taken down by them again. The hall was also booked by one of the executive members of the Conservative Party in Kroonstad. The hon. member for Kroonstad can verify these facts.

That is correct.

The leaders of the Conservative Party are, as usual, more wily in their statements and therefore more careful in their choice of words. In the no-confidence debate on 31 January of this year, Dr. Treurnicht said the following with reference to the new constitutional dispensation and with particular reference to Rev. Allan Hendrickse, in columns 62 and 63: “I say that I, as a White person, do not accept that. [Interjections.] I say that increasing numbers of Whites in South Africa will not accept that”. These two leaders agree very subtly in their statements. Mr. Terre’blanche maintains that the membership of his movement is growing by thousands every month. He says this growth is attributable to the hard work of the conservative parties. I now wish to ask hon. members of the Conservative Party in this House whether they encourage or condemn membership of the AWB among their members. Do they tell all members of the Conservative Party that if they belong to another party, while they are members of the Conservative Party, they will be suspended or do they close their eyes to membership of the AWB or do they in fact encourage their members to become members of the AWB? We must also consider how the leaders of the Conservative Party and the AWB propagate violence, which is already making the task of the police difficult, and which the hon. member Mr. Theunissen advocated should be avoided at all costs. I have already stated that Dr. Treurnicht in a very subtle way propagated violence during the no-confidence debate in this House when he said that Whites in South Africa would not accept the new constitutional dispensation, which has in a democratic way already been agreed to in two general elections in South Africa. According to a report in Beeld he said in Nylstroom: “Hou op om ons te terg deur ons volk se selfbeskikkingsreg weg te vat en dan te verwag dat ons moet hande klap”. He added that the people had previously taken up arms when their freedom had been threatened. This statement agrees in all respects with Mr. Terre’blanche’s statement in Kroonstad when he told the audience that history was once again making it necessary to fight. Mr. Terre’blanche went on to say that he was prepared to relinquish South Africa only through the barrel of a gun—as if the Government would simply give South Africa away. The difference is simply that the Government does not intend fighting a revolution in South Africa unnecessarily. We want peace and peaceful co-existence in this country. If foreign powers threaten us, however, South Africa will defend itself.

Dr‘ Connie Mulder’s share in the advocating of violence must not be forgotten. According to The Star he said at Ellisras that the voters should reject the Government’s guidelines “otherwise it will be necessary to do it with the gun in a few years’ time”. The disturbing aspect of the standpoints of the Conservative Party and the AWB and repeated references to the possibility of violence if the Government’s proposals are not rejected at the polls, are a cause for concern to every right-minded South African. This is, to say the very least, intimidatory politics, and it is also irreconcilable with the ordinary party political process. With these statements the CP-AWB alliance is fanning the flames of violence, and we must protest very strongly against this. I do wish to refer briefly to the challenges issued by Mr. Terre’blanche to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. At Kroonstad alone he threatened the hon. the Minister and said that if law and order had collapsed and the Whites had capitulated, the AWB would take over the country by violent means. Furthermore, he said in a challenging way that he had said this several times before and that the Minister could do nothing about it. He also said that in any event he would not in future pay any heed to Louis le Grange. He also said: “Jy hou jou hande af van die Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging, mnr. P. W. Botha en mnr. Louis le Grange”. Finally he also said that a great explosion was coming.

My question to the hon. members of the Conservative Party is whether they reject these threats of violence from the AWB, or are they also simply prepared, like their leader, to say that they will not repudiate or reject the AWB before it has been found guilty. Do they also wish to make cheap political capital out of the situation, or are they prepared to adopt a standpoint opposing the AWB?

I wish to warn hon. members of the CP, however, that, in the same way as Dr. Treurnicht colluded with the leader of the AWB, he also colluded with the founder members of Aksie Eie Toekoms. After all, it was he who, shortly after the movement was founded, held talks with the leaders of Aksie Eie Toekoms at the Jan Smuts Airport, and it is interesting that Dr. Treurnicht never told any National Party MP what the contents of those talks were. It is possible that he reported to the present members of the Conservative Party in this House at their secret meetings, but he said nothing about it openly to National Party MPs.

That is why I say that history will demonstrate that Dr. Treurnicht gave the founding of Aksie Eie Toekoms his blessing. What is more, I make so bold as to say that he was one of the founder members of Aksie Eie Toekoms, but his involvement remained a secret in the same way as he held secret meetings here. In this way he undermined the National Party from within with his secret meetings and group-formation while he approved of attacks being made in public by other political parties such as Aksie Eie Toekoms.

His dual role became clearly apparent when Aksie Eie Toekoms was dissolved, shortly after the establishment of the Conservative Party, and those members all joined the Conservative Party. Surely it was one of the founder members of Aksie Eie toekoms and at present one of the leading lights of the Conservative Party in my constituency, Prof. Jacobs of the Potchefstroom University, who tried with might and main to prevent a group of Nationalists from throwing Mr. Eugene Terre’blanche and his vociferous supporters out of the Fochville townhall on 14 November 1979 when they wished to disrupt a meeting addressed by Dr. Treurnicht. At that meeting, together with us, he addressed the people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue on the issue of the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging and I will do so in a moment. I want to start off, however, by associating myself with the tributes paid to Gen. Geldenhuys. Personally, I can say that I have always enjoyed the greatest degree of courtesy and co-operation from him. I have only one complaint about him, and he knows what it is. It may not be his fault, but the hon. the Minister’s. That is that, during his term of office, he did not reopen the police station in Yeoville. If the new commissioner knows how to reach the heart of the M.P. and the people of Yeoville, he will see to it that the police station is reopened there and he will persuade the hon. the Minister accordingly. I wish Gen. Geldenhuys a very happy retirement and good health. I want to say to Gen. Coetzee that what I find fascinating about him in discussions with him, is that he has an intellect that I respect and I think he will be of great service to South Africa in the job he is about to take.

I would like to come back to the question of the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging. I am pleased that the hon. member for Losberg has raised this question because I think the issue of that organization, to some extent, is a test for the Government as to its approach to the handling of this type of organization in South Africa. Not because of the heckling at a public meeting, because with great respect to anybody who saw the pictures of that meeting, I deprecate and disapprove of it, but I must tell you that some of us have had worse. I have had much worse at public meetings and to my mind that is not the reason why we should deal with the AWB. There are far more serious reasons than that. I think we expect decent conduct at public meetings, we expect people to answer questions and we expect heckling—some of us enjoy it. The real issue in regard to the AWB is firstly: Will organizations be allowed in South Africa which virtually create a form of private army? When I see people with black jackets in a routine fashion, my mind goes back to other people who started types of private armies with black jackets and with other coloured jackets. I also think of other people who have been regarded as minute fringe organizations, not very strong, that have grown into very powerful and dangerous organizations. Why I am concerned about this, is that in a country that is undergoing change and that will undergo stress, the danger of this type of organization increasing in strength and drawing people who decide that this is the method which should be used in order to resist changes or to bring about what they want in South Africa, is very real. One of the things that I believe members of this House should accept—I think it is one of the unfortunate things that we have had a little equivocal talk instead of unequivocal talk from certain members of the Conservative Party—is that we want a complete rejection of organizations that advocate violence, that tend to be private armies and of people who do not obey and who do not adhere to the normal democratic process of the ballot box as a means of change. That can be stated very easily and anybody who hedges on that, must have a reason for hedging. I want to make the appeal to the leadership of the Conservative Party to stand up in the House and be unequivocal in their rejection of these principles. They have to accept the principles of democracy. If they want to play ball with the AWB, they must say so and be open about it. I am not accusing the Conservative Party of anything at this moment, but it is up to them to be able to stand up and to say in this House where they stand. The time for pussyfooting and playing around with this issue is over. The chips are down and they must say where they stand.

It has been said that there will be an inquiry into the activities of the AWB. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what he has in mind and what the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind regarding this inquiry. How will it be conducted, who will conduct it and what will they investigate? I think we need to know that something is being done in a concrete form to deal with organizations that have no place in the democratic system. I have no objection to an organization that differs from me in its philosophy and that has a different political approach because that is what the democratic system is about. However, I have an objection to people that use violence and I have an objection to the kind of veiled reference to violence. There is too much of it in South Africa. People always say that if you do not do this and that, there will be violence. They do not have the guts to say that they will use violence if we do not do this and that. They always say there will be violence in a double edged way and I think that this double edged talk is a very dangerous thing, wherever it comes from—whether it comes from the extreme left or the extreme right. The reason for this is that I believe that the people in this House are committed to peaceful processes and committed to finding solutions by peaceful means, even if they disagree in respect of what they are trying to do. The reality is that we are trying to do it by peaceful means.

I want to mention one other thing. I believe that the kind of image created by the AWB, is doing the country as a whole harm because the reality is that people who want to invest and be involved in South Africa are put off by this kind of image that is created. I do not believe that what the AWB is doing is in our country’s interest and in the interests of the democratic process. Therefore, I believe that one needs to look at it and say to these people that if they want to advocate their cause, they should do so by normal democratic means, but certainly not in the way they have been doing it up to now. The hon. the Minister also needs to tell us whether he will allow members of the Police Force to be members of the AWB. The same applies to hon. the Minister of Defence. Will he allow people in the AWB to hold senior positions in the Defence Force because the two things that are irreconcilable is that you cannot, on the one hand, be the guardian of peace in South Africa in the Police Force and on the other hand inherently believe in violence as a means of change. I think we need an answer from the hon. the Minister on that and I think it is very important.

Another thing that leads directly from this and which concerns me is that the statistics and what we know about South Africa, tends to indicate that crime is on the increase. People can say that crime is on the increase in other countries as well, but in South Africa the increase of crime is far more serious than in some other countries of the world. It is more serious, firstly, because of the racial situation and secondly because of instability in a period of change. Unfortunately, history shows that crime is a destabiliser from a political point of view, an economic point of view and is very often a precursor to violent action of a political nature. Therefore, crime needs to be dealt with. One of the things that worries me, is that if one looks at the establishment of the Police Force, we find that the establishment is not filled; it is considerably less than it should be—I also find it remarkable that we have only 18 302 White policemen and 18 824 non-White policemen. If we look at the Police Force as a whole and we look at the population as such, why we have only 18 824 Black, Coloured and Indian policemen is beyond my comprehension. The population statistics require that we should have far more policemen to see to it that the Black population is protected against crime because then they have respect for law and order. One of the things that is essential in our society, is that people of all races should have respect for law and order. One only has that when the law protects you. When the law does not protects you, when your belongings are not safe, when you cannot walk down a street on your way home form a day of work with your wages and you are afraid you may not make it, that does not install respect for law and order. We therefore need to increase the Police Force in South Africa, particularly as far as Black policemen are concerned because that is the only way we will see to it that people have respect for the law in South Africa and have a feeling of security and belonging in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to reply to the remarks made by one or two members. I nearly forgot about the other issues that were raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga. When I replied to him a moment ago, I became so cross with him that I almost forgot about the other issues. The hon. member raised the whole question of unlicensed fire-arms, not only in Natal. He also asked if the Natal and/or kwaZulu area is becoming a target area for terrorist activities and/or other forms of subversion.

I also asked about the smuggling of fire-arms.

Yes, that was the crux of your question. I do not think it is correct to say that kwaZulu as such has become a particular target area, but it is clear that kwaZulu is also à target area. The same goes for the Port Natal area because it is so highly industrialized and because it is very sensitive as far as the population groups are concerned. This is also the case with the Northern Natal area because of its particular situation vis-à-vis Swaziland and/or Mozambique. There are therefore three particular areas in Natal which are definitely target areas of the ANC and other organizations. It is a fact that we found two very important arms caches near Ulundi lately. I am sure they were not there for innocent reasons and we must make the deduction that it was definitely intended for some form of attack somewhere in kwaZulu. This is a very serious matter and I am very glad that we found those arms caches timeiously before they could be used.

I will reply to questions raised by the hon. member for Houghton later concerning the detention of people during 1981-’82 and that trials which flowed from those detentions.

*At this stage I should like to refer to the speeches by the hon. members for Losberg and Yeoville relating to the AWB. I shall reply later to the other questions put by the hon. member for Yeoville but at the moment I want to confine myself to the AWB. Any organization, whether it be radically leftwing or radically rightwing in our terms is an organization the existence and actions of which require the attention of the Minister of Law and Order and the South African Police. You may rest assured that all organizations that give any indication, by word, deed or written document, that there is a possibility that could lead to the undermining of some aspect of the security of South Africa will be given the necessary attention by the South African Police. I want to be circumspect as far as the AWB are concerned because four court cases are in progress at present arising out of the arrest of members of the AWB who have been brought before the courts on charges relating to the Arms and Ammunition Act and on other charges. In the nature of the matter I do not want to say anything that could affect the position with regard to those court cases. Nor should I like to say anything about a subject which could have some influence on the court cases which are in progress or which are to come before the courts. However, I want to make a few remarks relating to the political activities of this organization and then I want to adopt a standpoint on behalf of the Government. We are fully aware of what the AWB stands for and what their objective is. Some of their documents are available, and we have made a full study of the available documents. One ascertains the nature of this organization form its constitution or programme of principles and from the statements of its leaders, particularly the one leader, because in point of fact the AWB only has one leader. All these things furnish an overall picture which is, to say the least, extremely disturbing. The Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging is a registered political party but lacks the courage of its convictions to appoint candidates.

Did the hon. the Minister say that the AWB was a registered political organization?

A registered political party.

Is the Minister not referring to the Volksparty?

The hon. member undoubtedly has more information about the AWB than I, and I know that the hon. member will have made a thorough study of the AWB. If I have the wrong information about the AWB he can correct me later. I inquired about the matter at a late stage and the information which is at my disposal, and of which I am able to take cognizance, is that the AWB is a registered political party. If the AWB has a political arm which is known as the Volksparty and has registered itself in the name of the Volksparty, then that may be so. However, as far as I am concerned the Volksparty and the AWB are one and the same thing.

You made a statement.

Yes, I said so and as far as my information is concerned, the AWB is registered as a political party. If the hon. member’s facts are correct that it is a branch of the AWB known as the Volksparty, that may be so. Therefore I add to that—I do not want to dispute the data provided by the hon. member at this point—that even though the AWB has various branches it is a political organization as such and the AWB does not have the courage of its convictions to appoint candidates in an election. They have had more than one opportunity to do so. According to its own programme the AWB, according to Mr. Terreblanche himself, opposes a Jewish-British-oriented democratic multiparty system in South Africa, and in the process of resistance it does not hesitate to place on record its own view of a so-called ideal national setup. Mr. Chairman, you should study these documents. Their views include, inter alia, the following, and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen will not differ with me in this regard. Firstly, a one-party authoritarian State, chosen by qualified Whites, viz. only certain Afrikaners, who will obtain the franchise, thus immediately excluding as voters other Afrikaners and other Whites speaking other languages. Secondly, these qualified Whites will elect representatives to the House of Assembly on the basis of their so-called professional and occupational qualifications. I am now quoting almost verbatim from AWB documents I have in my possession. Thirdly, land and subterranean assets will be nationalized and placed in the hands of nationally oriented private entrepreneurs. This is a system that is called national (“volkseie”) socialism. In the fourth place, closer to practical politics, there is the creation of a homeland for Coloureds, fifthly, the removal of Blacks on a large scale from so-called White areas and their establishment in homelands. In this ideal White ethnic State (“Volkstaat”) the president will be elected by the qualified Whites after that president has been nominated by the supreme council. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen will know about the supreme council, the chief council, the great council and all these things.

We were in it together.

The hon. member really must not attribute all kinds of dark things to me because he and I practised as attorneys. It is since he left Pretoria for Marico that things began to go wrong as far as he was concerned. When he was still practising in Pretoria and was under our proper supervision he did not display any of these characteristics.

I do not believe that he supports the AWB.

No, he is too decent. The supreme council, that reserves the right to nominate the president, is the supreme council of the AWB which at present consists of the leader of the AWB, Mr. Terre’blanche, together with the secretary-in chief—I think he is the man who emerged somewhat the worse for wear in Waterkloof a few evenings ago—two secretaries, one for administration and one for organization, and a chief organizer. In other words, these five people reserve the right to nominate a future president of the RSA. If this ideal of the AWB were ever to be realized, the practical effect would be that a select group of Whites, who would not be allowed to establish themselves as a political party and who had complied with certain professional or occupational qualifications and who had been prompted by the supreme council of the AWB, could vote for a president. This president would then govern the nationalized ethnic State in pursuance, as is alleged at one point, of Plato’s view that the so-called philospher class ought to govern the State. The political structures of the AWB, namely the supreme council, the chief council and the great council—each member of which is known to us, and I have a list of these names, which is at the disposal of the hon. member, although I do not think I should show it to him—stand under the direct authority of the leader-in-chief. In these circumstances it is by no means remarkable that the leader-in-chief of the AWB has become the sole mouthpiece of the AWB. He interprets the views of the organization from platform to platform and it is a fact that the role of his subordinates has been reduced to that of typical yesmen.

If in the light of circumstances one man sees himself as the saviour of the Whites, it is not to be wondered at that his statements are derogatory, insulting, reproachful and, above all, contemptuous of the greater part of the inhabitants of this country. In the nature of the matter, he and his organization must urge all to join battle; they must arouse emotions; they must wage the politics of emotion to the utmost degree; they must hurl accusations; they must commit character assassination; otherwise no notice is taken of them. This is done in an atmosphere of militancy, of symbolism that is strongly reminiscent of a period in the history of man when the most objectionable characteristics of man came to the fore.

South Africa’s sound race relations are among its most precious possessions and must not be disturbed in any way if at all possible. Direct incitement to violence takes place not only in the forms of a call to physical violence, but also if the natural consequences of one’s actions are that ethnic relations are so bedevilled that the implementation of law and order is jeopardized.

What are the other characteristics of this organization? Apart from this great and other councils, they have, inter alia, the Stormvalkbrigade and the Blitskommando. These are the people who form a brigade riding motorcycles and wearing black leggings and matching riding-breeches, shirts and helmets. According to the AWB it is their task to secure their leaders and to transfer messages within and outside the organization, as the leaders may decide. At meetings the sign of the AWB, which in point of fact is a swastika, is used ad nauseam. Background martial music is used ad nauseam, while riding-breeches and leggings and red and black banners are used very conspicuously. Inflammatory and emotion-laden speeches are usually delivered at such meetings. All this forms part of the pattern of arousing emotions in this regard. Mr. Eugene Terre’blanche comes from Ventersdorp. As a boy and as an inhabitant of that part of the world he is known to us. I want to say to him in all reasonableness that in his younger days he excelled as an actor in plays and concerts, but that he is not engaged in playacting any longer. He is now dealing with the serious issues of his nation. I want to say to Mr. Terre’blanche that he must stop his play-acting. He is no longer dealing with the things of children and young people when he excels in this sphere. I want to say to Mr. Terre’blanche and to all members of the AWB that the Government is not prepared to allow private armies. The Government is not prepared to allow any form of private army. Mr. Terre’blanche must realize that his persistent emotion-laden speeches and provocative conduct may eventually lead to a situation of violence and unrest which certainly cannot be permitted in our country. I want to say to hon. members that the activities of the AWB are being investigated by the South African Police. All actions by the so-called political party will be investigated by the South African Police on an on-going basis. This links up with the standpoint put forward in Pretoria a few days ago by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that the Minister responsible—referring to me, of course—would be asked by him to institute an investigation into certain activities of the AWB in terms of the provisions of our legislation. I want to say to the hon. member Mr. Louis Theunissen that I certainly do not accuse him of AWB activities. If he belongs to it is his affair. I have adopted a standpoint in this regard. However, I want to say to Mr. Theunissen that his party is making a significant contribution towards the inflammatory situation at political meetings. Members of his party were among the ringleaders at the meeting at Waterkloof together with the HNP, the AWB and students from Pretoria, from whichever institution they may be. The responsibility for the kind of thing that happens at meetings cannot simply be shifted onto the AWB. As the hon. member for Losberg said, the AWB and the Conservative Party are really as close to one another as brothers in the struggle. There is barely any difference between their respective approaches to the political sphere and there is AWB and CP involvement in the behaviour at meetings, as well as involvement by other people who take an interest in this kind of unpleasantness.

Do you want to have the CP investigated as well? Is that what you are aiming at?

No, but I say this to the hon. member so that he can go and tell his friends. I say this so that his friends outside may be aware of it. All I am saying is that the Conservative Party must not make such sanctimonious noises about the contribution made by members of the CP to this situation which hon. members of this House are concerned about. That is what I am trying to tell the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Yeoville asked me what the position was in respect of members of the South African Police. Nearly a year ago I made a statement, either in the House or outside, in which I said that no member of the South African Police would be allowed to belong to the AWB. They were given direct instructions by the Commissioner of Police, whoever were involved at the time, to resign immediately. Any member who did not adhere to that instruction would be dealt with by the Commissioner in terms of the standing orders.

*There is no doubt about it. No member of the South African Police may belong to the AWB. Hon. members must ask the responsible Minister what the standpoints of the other departments are. I think that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, has also adopted a standpoint in regard to this matter, but I am not sure on what occasion he did so.

†The hon. member for Houghton referred to the arrest of a number of people.

May I ask a question? Would the hon. the Minister be prepared to indicate what sort of inquiry he has in mind in regard to the AWB?

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to elaborate at this stage, except to say what I have already said in this regard.

*I can only give the assurance that a thorough investigation will be carried out.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to a matter which has been repeatedly raised within and outside this House over the past year and therefore I just want to furnish a very brief reply in this regard. It refers to the number of people arrested in respect of a specific police investigation at the end of 1981. Those people were arrested and the accusation is constantly being made that they were arrested because they were members of a trade union and that this happened due to their trade union activities. This supposedly constituted intimidation of trade unions. This is how these events are presented. The facts of the matter are that at the end of 1981 the Security Branch decided to carry out an intensive investigation into the activities of the ANC, the South African Communist Party and Sactu, viz. the South African Congress of Trade Unions. This investigation eventually resulted in certain people being charged under the Terrorism Act, others being charged under the Internal Security Act and certain individuals being charged with high treason. Thirty two people were detained in the course of the investigation and the investigation succeeded in indicating that an effective network had been established in the RSA by these organizations and that by means of this network subversive activities had been launched, chiefly in the social and political spheres. Instructions were sent to the Republic directly from London and indirectly via the neighbouring States. Some of the members of the ANC who were detained had received specific instructions relating to subversion and resistance, chiefly in the fields of labour and education. This resistance, and the eventual chaos that was envisaged, would have served as an outstanding breeding ground for an organized military attack from our neighbouring States. In the meantime, certain persons were also told to collect information about certain military and non-military installations by means of espionage and infiltration. A secret communications system was created, ANC-SACP and Santu literature was distributed, anti-Republic Festival campaigns were organized and various industrial boycotts and strikes arranged. This investigation and these detentions gave rise to various criminal prosecutions—not only one, but time does not allow me to deal with each case at this point; however, the details are available—and various persons accused were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The detentions were also accompanied by extremely negative propaganda and publicity, and our public and the outside world were repeatedly given the impression that notwithstanding the things I have mentioned, these people were being detained solely due to their trade union activities. Miss Barbara Hogan and some of her other trade union henchmen were responsible for the following projects being successfully launched by ANC members in the RSA. The red meat boycott, the Wilson Rowntree boycott, the Fattis and Monis boycott, the Colgate Palmolive boycott—I am now addressing the hon. member for Houghton about the facts that were revealed, inter alia in the court cases and by the investigation to which I referred.

Were all these strikes subversive?

The hon. member must give me the opportunity to reply now. There is very little time left and I still have to reply to a long debate. Then, too, there was the anti-Republic celebration and the distribution of ANC pamphlets.

Another aspect I want to mention with regard to the detention of these people is that the evidence of 13 of the people who were detained as witnesses and were to give evidence in the Barbara Hogan case was admitted, and as a result they did not give viva voce evidence in open court. The result of this was that the evidence did not appear in the Press and accordingly the general public were unable to take not of the incriminating nature of that evidence, viz. the white-anting of trade unions by the communists in order to create chaos and labour unrest in the RSA.

With regard to this matter I should just like to refer to the Aggett funeral. The funeral of Dr. Neill Aggett had a decided ANC undertone. On 12 February 1982, just before the funeral, three pamphlet bombs exploded at various places in Johannesburg, and on the pamphlets it was stated that they were issued by the ANC. They were entitled: “People’s hero—Dr. Neill Aggett”. The contents concern Dr. Aggett’s death in detention and the duty of the ANC, Sactu, the SACP and the People’s Army, Umkhonto We Sizwe, to carry on the struggle as Dr. Aggett had done, and appeals to workers to withhold their labour and operate on the basis of the Freedom Charter. The funeral took place, the cathedral was packed with Black and White members of the public and in the course of the service the people were addressed by the general secretary of the AFCWI, Mr. Jan Theron. He said inter alia that Dr. Neill Aggett had been murdered for his ideals. He also remarked—

When the coffin was removed from the hearse two large ANC flags and banners were unfurled. Black people walked around with ANC lapel badges, while the crowd shouted slogans like “Botha is a terrorist”, “Amandla-Awethu”, “He was not a terrorist; he was a hero”, and so on. After the burial a wreath was found on the grave which had on it a card from the “ANC underground”. Written on the card was the following—

That is what appeared on the card. It is known that the family of Dr. Aggett were upset about the turn taken by the funeral. Dr. Aggett’s father also remarked: “I am very upset. It is unfortunate that it happened the way it did.” He said this to a reporter. What is illuminating, however, is that the events surrounding this funeral also elicited the following editorial comment in The Friend of Bloemfontein—

That is what the editor of that newspaper said. I should now just like to quote to the hon. member for Houghton a brief extract from what Lord Shackleton said in analysing Britain’s security legislation. This applies equally to the difficult task of the S.A. Police—

I think that this is equally applicable to our police.

However, there is one last matter which I want to put to the hon. member for Houghton. She did not raise it herself but it arises out of the speech she made in this House earlier this year. Either in the no-confidence debate or in a subsequent debate she spoke about the number of people who had died in detention and referred to “about 50 people who cannot testify at all because they are dead having died in detention.” This is a subject that the hon. member for Houghton is very fond of raising, and she likes to express her opinions in that regard. Unfortunately at this point time does not permit me to enter into a full-scale debate with her on this subject. It is interesting that in one of our English-language newspapers, the Pretoria News, the names of 53 people who were supposed to have died in detention in terms of our security legislation, were published on 13 August 1982 under the heading “The men who died beyond the law’s succour”. According to the report this is our fault. When we analysed the figure we found that three of these people died in independent Black States. In one case there was only an entry “November 1981, November 2, unnamed person” on the list. That was one of the 53. In one case the name of the person was in fact published. In nine cases the names of people who died during detention of natural causes such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, diabetes, stroke, heart attack etc. were also included in the list. The accusation is made that they died as a result of security legislation. No record whatsoever can be traced of three people, whereas three people were never detained in terms of security legislation. At the time of their death they were classified as ordinary criminal detainees. In the rest of the cases where people died in detention due to natural causes, full inquests were held. With the exception of Joseph Mdluli, in regard to which members were charged with culpable homicide but found not guilty, the security branch was fully exonerated in all cases.

I would not mention that if I were you. It was one of the worst cases.

I should like to place these facts concerning the numbers on record. I know that this is a subject which the hon. members for Houghton and Pinetown always get excited, because it does not suit them when one refers to the facts. The hon. member for Houghton puts so many questions to me, and now I should like to ask her a question too: A long time ago I said that I could not believe that she required the answers to all these questions herself; her field of interest is not so wide that she would take an interest in all these things. I should now like to know from her why, after all these years, she is now taking such an interest in this “unnamed person” and in the duplicated name and in the three people of whom there are no record, and in those three who were not detained in terms of security legislation.

Because people want to know these things.

I should appreciate it if the hon. member were to tell me who the exceptionally interested people and bodies are that require this information. I have nothing against that, but it interests me to see that the hon. member is now taking such an interest in this after all these years. I am sure that the hon. member did not put those questions to me for nothing.

You are quite right.

I knew I was quite right.

But not in your conclusion.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the increase in crime. May I assure the hon. member that we are also concerned about the increase in crime. In more than one speech during the last year I have given particulars of the relevant crime figures in South Africa. I have also made comparisons. I have given quite a complete picture of the situation in South Africa and, because of the pressure of time, I am therefore not going to repeat myself. However, I want to assure the hon. member that I have prepared full information about the personnel situation and the proposed increase of staff in the South African Police. A little later tonight I may reply to this particular issue. At the moment it seems as if I have run out of time.

Are you going to increase the establishment?

Yes. Just to give the hon. member an idea: We are planning to increase the establishment, if at all possible and if the money is available, to approximately 68 000 men in a few years’ time as opposed to the present establishment of 43 000 men. Time does not allow me to provide the hon. member with all the particulars now. Later during the evening I will try my best to place them on record for him.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. nominated member Mr. Theunissen spoke here earlier today the thought occurred to me that this hon. member has always been a very solid member of this House and that it was a pity that at one stage he saw fit to leave this party and the people who elected him, and cross to the Conservative Party. However, it does seem to me that when the hon. member for Overvaal began to speak about the AWB and the hon. the Minister also touched on that matter, the Committee began to become a little more lively. It seems to me as if a very sensitive nerve was touched in the debate. I have known that hon. member for some time and I have great respect for him as a good democrat. I take it he is one. In the circumstances one cannot help recalling the statement of his hon. leader earlier this year in a debate when he referred to the Rev. Hendrickse and to certain quotations and said that they would not take certain things. A question occurs to one in this regard and I should be obliged if the hon. member or his leader would perhaps make a statement about it at some stage. If a man like, eg., the Rev. Hendrickse is elected in a democratic way by his particular party, and if, in accordance with his democratic right—one assumes that he may have that in the future—he becomes involved with a cabinet, would the hon. member, as a good democrat, accept that principle and not regard it as provocation by democracy? Would the hon. member and his people “take” it on the road ahead?

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the imposing of law and order in this country is as much a matter of profound importance to that hon. member as it is to me and to the hon. the Minister. We have now, unfortunately, had the Germiston District election in our national life. That day, at the polls, it occurred to me from time to time to wonder whether law and order did in fact prevail or whether some degree of intimidation of the voters did not occur on that day. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, yes. Apart from the unfortunate behaviour that was seen on occasion that day…

Except for the PFP support on your side.

… I do think that one would like to see law and order and calm prevailing on 10 May for the voters of Waterberg and during the other elections so that the voters can make their important decision on that day. I should like to assume that the members of those parties will act in that way on that day. I feel that the South African Police, as impartial custodians of law and order in this country, will certainly see to it…

But then you have no problem, surely.

… that every voter of Waterberg will be able to cast his vote impartially. I may just mention that the National Party is making good progress in Waterberg.

What about your meeting at Dwaalboom?

What I find disturbing…

Order! The hon. member should really get a little closer to the subject.

As you wish, Mr. Chairman. The question of lawful action is an aspect that disturbed me a few evenings ago, too, at the meeting of the Prime Minister. There is also the question of the degree to which the Conservative Party is in league with the AWB. I really believe, hope and trust that the hon. member will make a clear statement this evening and take sides against that organization. There are sometimes clear signs of panic and consequent lack of order at meetings that I find disturbing. For example, members of that party walk out when Die Stem is being played.

I have only praise for the South African Police, and I want to confirm what a policeman from Detroit who visited South Africa on 14 February this year had to say. The policeman, Don Kozen, was quoted as follows—

One is really proud to think that the South African Police make a tremendous contribution in South Africa. Our people do not always appreciate this sufficiently. There are so many people and organizations that openly support militant organizations that seek to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. These are things one cannot approve of. I could also refer to a Rooi Plan van Oorwinning in Suid-Afrika, written by one Rev. Olaf Scheuer, that is freely available at the moment and that indicates that this Government is in league with the communist idea and that a conservative government or organization will have to overthrow the Government on the road ahead. These pamphlets are being issued by members of the Conservative Party. It is things of this nature that I find disturbing.

At this stage I do not want to go into the matter further. I have put it to that hon. member and I should like to see him, as a good democrat, dissociating himself from pamphlets of this nature that are being distributed in Waterberg.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

I should now like to respond to the remarks made by the hon. member for Roodepoort about the AWB. I sincerely hope that this matter has now come to a head and that the investigation—whichever way the hon. the Minister chooses to have it done—will once and for all bring this matter to a speedy conclusion so that we and the public of South Africa can know, once and for all, what the role of the AWB in South Africa is. The Conservative Party is a party that has seats in Parliament. It is the second strongest opposition party and can therefore be called the second official Opposition. I think all of us have the right to know exactly where the AWB stand in relation to the CP. I therefore sincerely hope that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, who is present here tonight, will also clarify that issue for us.

There are three aspects that I should like to raise here tonight. By way of background, may I just say that when we criticize certain matters we do so because it is our responsibility and our duty, as hon. members of this House, to do so. Perhaps my friends on that side will say that we are negative in regard to the matters we raise involving the Police, but I think that they—and this includes the hon. the Minister—will know that we are not really negative in our attitude towards the Police. We have shown our regard for the Police for the services they render to South Africa. We have an appreciation for those services, for the risks they take and for their conditions of service, for the improvement of which we have fought quite substantially.

That applies to 98% of your members.

No, I think it applies to all of our members. They level the criticism that they must level, but do not always have the necessary time to mention the positive aspects, so although the aspects may be negative as far as the Police are concerned, there are certainly positive aspects as far as the public is concerned.

The first matter I want to raise concerns shooting. I want to refer, in particular, to a question I put to the hon. the Minister—Question 9 of 27 April 1983—concerning the Police shooting at a Mr. Kruger at 17hl0 on a Tuesday afternoon in Smith Street, a peak period for the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the city of Johannesburg. I say this against the background of an answer to a question advising us that in 1982 there were 739 shootings, with 110 adults and 18 juveniles killed. I also say this against the background of the Saul Mkhize case, the Brian Eudey case in Pietermaritzburg and the Kobus Duvenhage case on 4 March in Rand-burg, and now again this shooting. In reply to subsection (5) of the question the hon. the Minister said—

In fact, the hon. the Minister confirmed that across the floor of the House today when the hon. member for Houghton raised the matter. He also said, in answer to subsection (6) of the question—

I therefore think I am correct in saying that the hon. the Minister now feels that the matter has been fully investigated, the Police were justified in doing the shooting and he has nothing further to add, that being the end of the story. Am I correct in saying that that is how I understand it?

Go ahead. I am listening.

Well, prima facie that is the way it appears. Let me put a few facts to the hon. the Minister and let us examine this case to see whether we can still come to that conclusion by the time we reach the end of this debate.

The first report appeared in The Star on Wednesday the 13th. This is a statement made by a Police spokesman from John Vorster Square. It is therefore an official statement. I quote:—

Fortunately he did not die, but he was wounded. Let me further quote from a report in the Rand Daily Mail of the 15th. This relates to a statement by a Mr. Tweer who was present in the street. He says—

The previous headline was: “Police gunfire clears busy street” and the headline here was: “Police slammed for irresponsible shooting”. Mr. Tweer went on to say—

He says—

He went on to say—

In The Star of 13 April Mr. Tweer gives his reasons for not making a statement. He said that he later asked the police officer who had fired the shots what was going on—

The facts further reveal that on the day in question Desmond Kruger was in a flat. He was bare-footed and was there together with the occupant of the flat when one of the policemen—I think it was Captain Brand—opened the door. Whether he bent down to look in a bag or not, I cannot say, but let us assume that that is correct. What, however, happened next? Kruger then did a back somersault through the window and landed in a courtyard below the first floor, a drop of two floors. Being bare-footed he actually crushed his heels to such an extent that he had to receive treatment. His heels were crushed and he could not run. The main bone into the ankle itself was so crushed that he had to have a pin inserted. This can be confirmed by the hospital in which he was admitted to ward 377 of the orange block. Being in that condition, of course, he could not really run. The flat was obviously under surveillance. The Police must have known that he was there. The only avenue of escape possible was through the window. We are told, however, that two men actually went to the front door, but surely the Police must have been downstairs to block the man’s only possible escape route. If he attempted to escape at all, it would have been through the window, so that avenue of escape could have been blocked as well. After he was actually running on his crushed ankles, shots were fired at him. Four shots actually hit Kruger, one in the right hand, one in the left hand and two in the buttocks. So he was actually hit four times. He then went to a parking garage where he was actually caught.

I should like to ask a number of questions about all this. Why was it necessary to fire shots at the man when he was in this injured condition, having jumped down two floors? He is a man of 42. That is common cause. Present at the scene there were, not only two policemen, but six or seven policemen, young, able and agile men who could have caught him. Was it really necessary to fire shots on the pavement when so many people were walking along the pavement in such a busy area? Was it worth taking the risk of killing an innocent pedestrian for the sake of apprehending a man who was wanted for car theft, a man who was not armed at the time because he did not fire any shots at the policemen and who could have been caught quite easily? Even at the risk of his getting away, was it still worth while taking the chance of shooting innocent bystanders? As Tweer himself said, he told his family to get down on the floor in the car and take cover so that they would not get hit themselves. Over and above the crushed ankle and the broken bone in his leg, Kruger was then hit. Why was it necessary, after he had been hit, for the Police to keep on firing at the man all the time? It is said that he was fleeing, but he was not fleeing. He was running away from the bullets that were being fired at him. What else must he do? Stand and get shot? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip. In the light of these facts, let us have another look at the hon. the Minister’s reply. In answer to a question about why shots were fired, he said it was because the man was fleeing. With respect, however, it must be pointed out that the man had crushed ankles and bullet wounds. In my view the policemen should have acted with more circumspection, instead of just firing shots at a man in that condition merely because he was supposedly running away. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said he was shot twice in the right buttock, but I hope that the further facts will be officially revealed. I am not blaming the hon. the Minister, however, because he obviously acted on information given to him. I can tell him, however, that I have it on very good authority—the man’s family whom I actually spoke to myself—that he had a wound in the right hand, a wound in the left hand and actually two in the buttocks, one shot having missed a very delicate place by a mere hair’s breadth. So in the light of the circumstances of the case, and the information I have just outlined, I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will not feel completely satisfied that the shooting was justified. Assuming that the man had been killed, would that have been a justifiable killing? The hon. the Minister said he had nothing to add, but I sincerely trust that he will indeed have something very substantial to add and will not regard the matter as closed. I also trust that the Commissioner of Police, who was involved in this investigation, will find it necessary to make further investigations. Perhaps a statement could be taken from Kruger himself. When John Vorster Square issued its statement, had a statement already been taken from Kruger? Was a statement taken from Mr. Tweer who had to take cover, with two of his friends from an insurance company, in the street?

Tweer did not want to make a statement.

He did say, in the Press report, that if a senior police officer came to his flat he would actually make a statement. [Interjections.]

There are two further matters I should like to raise quickly. One relates to a circular issued at the Joubert Park Primary School by the headmaster of the school to the parents of each of his 380 pupils. In the circular he asked the parents—and I think the pupils—for their co-operation in reporting all cases of non-Whites living in flats in Hillbrow and Joubert Park. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the policeman who has been allocated the task of receiving this information is doing so with the hon. the Minister’s consent, whether the hon. the Minister agreed that this is the correct thing for the headmaster of the school to do, a man who is concerned with education. Is it right for him to incite his pupils to racial hatred? Does he think it is right for a witch-hunt to be organized against Coloureds and Indians living in the area when Coloureds and Indians will be sitting in the Coloured and Indian Parliament? I ask this in the light of the fact that Coloureds and Indians can live in a residential hotel in Hillbrow for up to three months without any permit.

Was there a request from us that he should do so?

In the circular he sent out, he said that a certain sergeant would be available to receive the information. In other words, there is liaison with the Police. Would the hon. the Minister please look into the matter and dissociate himself from what I think is a despicable act. Let me say that I have written to the Director of Education in the Transvaal to complain about this matter as well.

Lastly I just want to mention the question of the Hillbrow police station. In answer to a question on 25 March 1983, the hon. the Minister indicated that in Hillbrow there had been 55 murders, 75 rapes and attempted rapes, 2 culpable homicides, 299 assaults with intent and 508 robberies in 1982. These are substantial figures. The area concerned is a densely populated area, as everybody knows. The Hillbrow police station, I heard the hon. the Minister say, is going to have its establishment increased, but if we cannot even fill the existing posts, I do not see what use there is in increasing the establishment. We do not have sufficient policemen in Hillbrow to do the job. What we need is the bobby on the beat. That is what we need in Hillbrow. That has been my plea for some time past now. We need more police to keep proper order in Hillbrow. What is more, I think that the area of jurisdiction of the Hillbrow police station covers too many suburbs. It is misnomer to think that the Hillbrow police station’s jurisdiction only covers Hillbrow. It covers a very wide area, including many surrounding suburbs. I therefore think that the time has come for the hon. Minister to take a close look at the question of crime prevention in Hillbrow and the allocation of adequate police protection to the people living in that area.

Mr. Chairman, normally the hon. member for Hillbrow is one of the more responsible members of the official Opposition. It is such a pity that he is sometimes led astray by his other less responsible friends also to seek sensation and in that way to detract somewhat from his otherw.se constructive contributions. I shall refer to this again during the course of my speech.

Right at the outset I want to say that it is really a pathetic state of affairs when the main point of criticism of the chief spokesman of the Opposition on Law and Order in connection with an entire year’s activities has to be the picture of a dog on the cover of an annual report. [Interjections.] However, I shall not pursue the matter.

The South African Police protects internal security and order in this country with the greatest competence and success. Its members frequently perform their demanding task under the most difficult—in fact perilous—conditions. One would therefore rightly expect the South African Police to enjoy the full support of everyone. Yet we find that this is not the case and that the South African Police are the target of a constant and intense campaign of criticism from the ranks of the PFP, a campaign which goes far further than constructive criticism aimed at improving the activities of the South African Police which would be welcomed by all of us, including the Police. It is criticism that rather assumes the form of a vendetta to try to bring the Police into discredit.

The reasons behind this PFP campaign and the aims of the campaign reveal an alarming aspect of the dual personality of that party.

In the first place there is the common aim of the official Opposition as a whole to attempt by means of attacks on the administration and operation of the SAP as a government institution—for which the Government is responsible—to put the Government in a bad light as far as the electorate are concerned. Closely linked to this is an attempt—as we again had on the part of the hon. member for Hillbrow—to make further political capital out of this by seizing on events and matters in public and bruiting them abroad with the sole aim of creating a sensation or sharing in the sensation created in the Press in connection with a specific matter.

Linked to this propaganda effort we also find the far more dangerous and actual aim of certain elements in that party. I suspect this is the power clique the hon. member for Yeoville complained about a while ago, the power clique which has taken that party in tow. This second aim goes far deeper than mere irresponsible criticism of the administration of the South African Police. In fact, it is aimed at discrediting the South African Police as an organ of the State, specifically the Security Branch, and representing them to the general public as being pawns in the hands of power-crazy political leaders who are misusing the Police for their own ends. This gives the campaign a far more serious connotation than mere misuse for political gain, and the scope and implications in this regard are alarming. It falls totally within the scheme of recognized Marxist techniques to destroy the credibility and esteem of the Government—specifically that part of the Government entrusted with maintaining law and order—among the people it serves. [Interjections.] If that hon. member will only keep quiet he may realize that he is involved in something he knows nothing about. By destroying credibility the climate is created for revolution. Wittingly or unwittingly the PFP campaign is contributing to this.

To support this claim one need only refer to a few examples. There was, for example, an article in the Sunday Express which the hon. member for Pinetown quoted from with approbation earlier today. It is an article which appeared on 6 March of this year. Under the headline “Democracy wilts as official truth replaces truth” various statements are made, and I should like to quote a few sentences from this article—

The article then goes on to say—

It states further—

I now come to the final quotation—

No care is even taken to ensure the correctness of the facts, not to mention the distorted statements. But it goes far further than that. In the March 1983 issue of the so-called Pacsa Fact-sheet published by an organization calling itself the Pietermaritzburg Agency for Christian Social Awareness and Action—the date of this issue is interesting and I shall return to it later—a list is published of persons who are alleged to have died in detention between 1963 and 1983. In order to draw attention to the Police’s so-called brutality and lawlessness, statements such as the following are made—

It is also stated—

Reference is also made to another aspect. Clemency is requested for people who have been condemned to death as terrorists. In this respect the document states the following—

Under a prominent heading, “Death”, the following is said—

And so it goes on. I could also quote from other documents but my time is limited. What is interesting here is that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands, the acknowledged leaders of the left-wing power clique, associated themselves with this and on two days, namely 18 and 29 March of this year, they asked 16 questions about people who were allegedly being detained, 15 of whom were alleged to have died in detention. As in the above document, reference is made to people who do not exist and there are duplications. Of the 15 persons referred to, there are records of only 5, 4 having be detained under security legislation and one for car theft, while there is no record of the other 8. What is significant is that this is a duplication by those hon. members with the names of the same people who do not exist, of what appeared in the above-mentioned document. It is clear that these elements have made common cause with extra-parliamentary organizations whose aim it is to show that deaths in detention are quite commonplace and are becoming more frequent as a result of illegal police action. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the third time during the discussion of this Vote that I am rising to speak. Of course, this is due to the fact that our ranks are somewhat depleted since as hon. members are probably aware, important work is being done in the Bergs and the Kloofs. Looking at our opposition opposite, however, I see that their ranks have also been considerably depleted because they are probably also doing their best there.

(Mr. B. W. B. Page): Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the Vote.

I did, in fact, intend doing so presently. I actually intended saying that I did not want to politicize the discussion of this Vote, as the hon. the Minister did. Funnily enough, when I was preparing my notes for this contribution, my heading was: “Politicization of the South African Police”. [Interjections.] In all honesty, I want to say that a major question has arisen in my own mind concerning what we should, in fact, understand by the “politicization” of a particular departmental Vote, since it is, of course, fashionable nowadays for every Minister who rises to speak to make the solemn request that the particular Vote should not be politicized, just as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs did the other day during the discussion of his Vote.

You may do so if you wish!

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has said that, since I think it may help him out of an embarrassing situation. In the past, however, it was generally felt that the discussion of this Vote should not be politicized either. Nevertheless, there is something that I must add at the outset. With a view to all the arguments of the official Opposition to which I have listened in this Parliament over the years, I do not think that there is really a definition of what actually constitutes “politicization” and what does not.

They do it all the time.

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions from that hon. member. In my opinion, the hon. the Minister thoroughly politicized the Department of Law and Order this evening.

There is no such thing.

The hon. the Minister will just have to tell us later what he does or does not regard as politicization.

I said that there was no Department of Law and Order.

I have no objections whatsoever to the fact that the hon. the Minister used the discussion of his Vote this evening to announce formally that he had ordered an investigation into the AWB. Of course, we do not know what form the investigation will take. I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet as a whole have every right to decide on that. I do not think the hon. the Minister had much of a choice. After the hon. the Prime Minister had ordered him to do so, he simply had to act the way he did this evening. I regret, however, that the hon. the Minister used this discussion this evening to practical politics against the CP. However, the hon. the Minister anticipated what I was going to say by saying that it was customary. Consequently, I am unable to say a great deal about it. Of course, he is quite entitled to do so. The hon. the Minister is intent on linking the CP finally to the AWB. Through our leaders, we in the CP have made it abundantly clear that there is neither a formal nor an informal connection between ourselves and the AWB. [Interjections.] The CP is a political party in its own right, and we have the right to fight elections without the assistance of any other party, whether official or unofficial. If there are members who can give evidence to the contrary before the body that is to investigate the affairs of the AWB, they are at liberty to do so. However, Sir, they must not level accusations at the CP that cannot be substantiated for the sake of petty political gain. The CP has stated unequivocally that it is opposed to any form of violence, including violence to bring about constitutional changes.

The hon. the Minister made a very serious statement this evening, if I understood him correctly, when he intimated that the CP was making a particular contribution to the activities of the AWB. Now I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Was the hon. the Minister intimating by his statement that he also wanted to have the CP investigated? I should like a reply to that question this evening. We should like to have clarity on that score before the election on 10 May, so that the voters in Soutpansberg, Water-berg and Waterkloof will know what the hon. the Minister has in mind.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville in his absence that neither I nor any of my MP colleagues is a member of the AWB. I myself have never even seen the constitution of the AWB. Over the years, I have always regarded myself as a good friend of the Jewish people and I can understand that he and his followers in faith feel unhappy when they see and hear things that may remind them of very unpleasant events. However, Sir, I also know him to be a responsible member of the Jewish community and I believe that he is prepared to wait until the result of the investigation that has been announced is known. Meanwhile, I want to assure him that he and his party need not fear the CP except at the polls.

I think it is imperative that we realize that the attempts being made to hang the AWB as an organization around the neck of the CP are nothing but signs of political bankruptcy on the part of the Government. The NP has become a political party that accommodates people who are drowning politically, that is clutching at every straw, just as it is doing in this case. The AWB has already indicated that it welcomes this investigation. Let it therefore take place. Our leader, Dr. Andries Treurnicht, said as far back as last year that the Prime Minister should have the AWB investigated to determine whether there is any truth in all these allegations, insinuations and reflections. Now it is going to happen.

In conclusion, I want to refer to an allegation the hon. member for Roodepoort made this evening, viz. that he expected voters to be intimidated and victimized at the polls on election day. I regard that as a highly irresponsible reflection on the competence of the electoral officers at the following stations concerned, and I say: If the NP wants to behave in that way, I want to assure its members that the South African Police will see to it that this does not happen.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid to Gen. and Mrs. Geldenhuys by the hon. the Minister. We trust that they will enjoy many more happy years together. Then, too, I should like to extend a warm welcome to Gen. Coetzee, and welcome him to this Committee as well. We hope and trust that he will have as many happy years here as Gen. Geldenhuys had.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. He made a number of remarks here this evening. I do not want to devote my entire speech to him, but I just want to ask him two questions. Firstly, I should like to know when his leader asked the Prime Minister to have the AWB investigated. That is the first question. Secondly, I am going to ask the hon. member—and another of their members is sitting here: Do you dissociate yourself from the AWB? They, as well as their hon. leader, have been asked this question many times.

What have you done with your red flashes?

I never wore red flashes. It just goes to show what you know!

You guarded Iscor’s gates—“waarheidsridder”!

I did guard Iscor—I agree with you—because I refused to take the red oath.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think it is unparliamentary to call an hon. member a “waarheidsridder” and I ask you to give a ruling in that regard. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen called the hon. member who is speaking now, “waarheidsridder”.

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Chairman, before I reply, I should like you to give me a definition of what “waarheidsridder” is.

I should appreciate it if the hon. member would withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, it just goes to show why they are in that party—because they have no idea of what the truth is. If they knew what the truth was, they would still be with us. However, they are sitting on that side now. I repeat: Do they disassociate themselves from the AWB? If so we could carry on the discussion. However, Mr. Chairman, there are members of the CP who belong to the AWB. That is why they do not want to disassociate themselves from it. I shall leave them at that, Sir. It is on record, however.

There are members of the AWB who belong to the National Party, too. [Interjections.]

That is an untruth, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the Police Force as such. Now, I want to tell you that this Police Force of ours—this was mentioned by one of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Umhlanga—has been shown to be one of the best and most successful police forces in the world. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. But, Sir—and I want to make this very clear this evening—this Force of ours consists of various branches, and I want the official Opposition to listen carefully to this. The Police Force consists of various branches; not only the Security Police and the Riot Unit. Sir, you will realize that all this criticism being levelled at the Police Force is being levelled at those two units, and at no one else. Now we are aware that there are many other branches that make this Force of ours such a strong one. I want to refer to a few of them.

Firstly, there is our Fingerprint Section. It is one of the best in the world. The people from Scotland Yard have been to South African to come and have a look at our system. I want to go even further. I want to take you to another branch very few people speak about. I reiterate: This Force of ours is there to combat crime. I also want to refer specifically to the forensic science laboratory. I should like the public, as well as this House, to pay tribute to this small, but fully-trained staff. Now I want to tell you why I am saying this, Sir. During the period 1 January to 31 December 1982—last year—this forensic science laboratory were given 6 169 cases to investigate. They are classified as follows: Serological cases—769; Spermatological cases—3021; drug cases—1 330; hair analysis—261; transcription and voice identification cases—23; and general cases—765. However, what I find striking about this branch of the South African Police is that these reported cases were not only completed; 20 751 investigations were carried out, and that by 40 people. 40 people carried out 20 751 investigations within the space of one year. My request this evening is: If at all possible, this branch must be looked at to determine whether more staff cannot be made available in that regard. Do you realize what this means? Plus minus 520 investigations have to be dealt with by one person. That is more than one investigation per day, if one calculates it over a period of 365 days. Our policemen and policewomen have to do that work. These are not people who stand up and say: “I am boycotting”. These are not people who are unwilling to work. They carry on with their work, and therefore I want to pay tribute to these people this evening.

I further wish to point out that in March 1982 the transcription and voice identification services were transferred from the CSIR to this laboratory. All those cases are now going to be referred to this laboratory for investigation. Those are people—and I want to emphasize this once again—in one of the branches of this large Police Force of ours to whom tribute should really be paid. Criticism should not be levelled only at certain sections of the Police Force, on the basis of which the Force as a whole is involved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few ideas about crime. I want to mention a few figures. Unfortunately, my time is very limited. Of course, I am coming back to the few sections that are criticized so much by our official Opposition. In the year 1982—and these are figures worth remembering—more than 35 000 cases of all kinds of robbery were reported. 17 635 accused persons were brought before the courts. Now, this evening it was stated from the official Opposition benches that the police occupy themselves with trifles, instead of solving other cases. There is proof of what is being done by this Force of ours. 135 304 cases of breaking and entering were reported. The number of accused brought before the courts in that regard was 37 350. I do not want to give further statistics, but this is just an example, and proof of the fact that our people are doing their duty.

I want to conclude by saying that this laboratory is even used to bring poachers to book. I have before me a booklet entitled Servamus. It is the police journal. It appears that a few cases were solved by giving a piece of grease to the laboratory. The blood of stolen buck was found in it. These are a few examples to show you what our people are doing. Consequently, I want to make an urgent appeal this evening that in future we should take all the branches of the South African Police into account before criticising.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana started by discussing the AWB and the CP. I shall come back to right-wing terrorism in due course, but he then went on to speak about the various divisions in the Police Force, i.e. the Finger-print Division, the Forensic Science Divisions, etc. He said, Sir, that we in these benches had criticised some of these divisions. That is not so. [Interjections.] What I want to say, Sir, is that I very clearly heard the hon. member for Pinetown actually sympathising with the police in regard to some of the laws that they had to administer. This is the problem, as we see it from these benches, that in having to administer apartheid laws, the police have a very difficult and unpleasant job to do. Take the simple issue of beach apartheid, where they have to go down onto beaches, because some members of the public has complained, and take off families with little children, enjoying themselves on the beach. Sir, I think that must be a terrible job to have to do and it certainly makes me very ashamed that that sort of job has to be done in this country.

Secondly, there has been a case recently, for instance, where the police have had to come in and deal with shop apartheid, I would call it. In Grahamstown, for instance, there have been Coloured and Indian shop managers who have done a responsible job as managers for many years. The owners of the businesses have been happy with them. But then there has been a complaint to the police. It is against the law that you should be the manager of a business in a White area, and so again the police have had to take action. Again, one is ashamed, and I am sure that many of the policemen are ashamed at having to carry out some of the laws of this Government.

But to get back to right-wing terrorism, I want to say that over a number of years, these terrorists of the right have caused a lot of death and destruction in South Africa. There have been many deaths and there have been unsolved crimes, as well as disappearances. Not very long ago in Port Elizabeth two Black men went to the hospital and nobody has seen them from that day to this. The hon. member for Walmer in fact had a question on the Question Paper about this fairly recently. The Eastern Cape has had its fair share of this type of incident. Just to go back a few years, when I first became a member of Parliament, it was the time when Donald Woods left the country. There was the incident, for instance, of the T-shirt which was sent to Donald Woods’s child with powder in it. Donald Woods is old enough and big enough to defend himself, but to send that sort of thing to a defenceless child is not very pleasant.

Is there no terrorism to the left?

I am not saying there is no terrorism to the left. Of course there is terrorism to the left. We are all well aware of it, Sir, but there is also terrorism to the right. I am interested to see that that hon. member should also appear to be defending these terrorists of the right.

The next instance I want to recall—and I think the hon. the Minister is aware of it—concerns a PFP candidate in the last election who stood for Algoa. A very scurrilous document was produced about him. This was investigated for a period of time, but the case was never solved. The same gentleman had a dead cat hung from his door on one occasion. The reason why I raise this, is because when I went home to Port Elizabeth last weekend I was asked to interview a number of young people. There were eight journalists and there was one person there who was a member of the DPSC, the Detainees Parents Support Committee. They gave me a list of incidents, a list of things that had happened to them, most of which were fairly recent, which add up to a campaign of harassment of these people, starting in May 1982. There were phone calls in connection with the sister of one of these people, who is a trade unionist in Natal. The calls proved to be false, and were reported to the police. In February 1983 a Mrs. Stewart found bogus Black Sash pamphlets offering certain services on her front lawn. Thirdly, a poster attacking members of the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee was displayed at the St. Georges’ Park cricket ground. In December 1982 a journalist had the petrol cap removed from his tank at least six times. Then there was a poison pen message. There is a whole list of these things which happened to a number of the journalists in Port Elizabeth, which really add up to a campaign of harassment. In February 1983 a sub-editor discovered that his motor-cycle had been vandalised while he was away on leave. His motor-bike mechanic told him that grinding paste had been introduced into the engine through the oil. The motor was destroyed beyond repair. Just to fill that one out, the mechanic involved at a garage said he was surprised to find grinding paste in the oil, which had destroyed the engine. He called in colleagues to confirm his finding, and in a statement this person, Mr. Holmes, said: “We feel with our experience and knowledge that this was done deliberately. It is not worth repairing the motor.” The vehicle was then written off. Petrol caps of sub-editors were chiselled off their motor cars. Another journalist found sugar in the petrol tank. I think many people will be aware what that can do to a motor vehicle engine.

I want to mention too what a member of the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee said. I quote from a statement she has given me—

Sir, when you look at all these instances, they undoubtedly add up to a campaign that has been conducted against these predominantly young people and I would like to ask formally, across the floor of this House, that the hon. the Minister should ask the police in Port Elizabeth to pay special attention to these incidents, most of which have been reported to the police already. I also understand that the police have been approached in the area, to try to end this campaign of terrorism that has been waged. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Will he please ask for a full and top-level investigation into these acts which without doubt are causing a great deal of distress. Sir, the people need some sort of protection from these sadistic right-wing maniacs. I could not call them anything else. They obviously are sadistic, right-wing maniacs. I am distressed to think that there are people of this nature in Port Elizabeth, and I hope that the hon. the Minister and his police will be able to deal with the matter satisfactorily and bring these people to the dock and into prison where they belong.

In the time remaining to me, I want to talk very briefly about the Minister himself and his attitude in relation to police salaries. Over a number of years in this House. I have raised the issue of police salaries. This was at a stage when there was a lot of publicity about this matter and there were articles in the press. I had approaches from a number of police at that time—I am now going back several years. One was able to get information from the hon. the Minister on precisely what the situation was, for instance what the salaries of constables, sergeants, were. One was able to ascertain what the salary differentials were between Black policemen, Coloured policemen, Indian policemen and White policemen. Regrettably, since this hon. Minister has been in the position which he is now in, that information is now longer publicly available to us. I have asked a number of questions. I asked again this year whether the hon. the Minister was prepared to reconsider his decision to allow us to know what the salaries of his police force were. We have, therefore, no means of telling whether the police are satisfied with the situation, whether the staffing situation is adequate, or whether they feel that they are adequately compensated for the long and difficult hours they have to put in, and also for the overtime they have to put in—and I am aware that they are not paid overtime. I do not believe it is right that a Minister, who is voted taxpayers’ funds by this Parliament, should be entitled to keep that sort of information away from public representatives publicly. I am aware that the hon. the Minister will give me the information privately, but that is not enough. It needs to be given publicly so that we can all see that our police force, who protect us from all sorts of crime and violence, are actually being adequately remunerated for the job of work that they do. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised a number of matters. One of these that I want to react to, and to which the hon. member for Pinetown, too, referred this afternoon, is that the South African Police is supposedly being used to enforce what they call this Government’s abhorrent laws. The simple truth is that this side of the House governs this country, and the Defence Force and the South African Police are instruments of a government. Hon. members opposite can therefore raise a fuss about our laws being unjust, but according to the standpoint of the governing party they are the best possible laws whereby to bring about peace and prosperity in this country. I do not think that this attitude adopted by the official Opposition is to the credit of our country. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, in our part of the world bait, called “stinkaas” is used to trap lynxes. The hon. the Minister pointed out this afternoon that when one has a Force of 40 000 people, the occasional error of judgment will occurr—we would concede that—but why must people always harp on errors of judgment that could arise by accident? Why must these things be singled out to cast suspicion on the South African Police; as though they are heartless and cruel and take pleasure in doing people an injustice? Surely the opposite is true. We in this country are all striving to bring about law and order and security, for a country can only develop and grow if what I have just said is carried out effectively. We should pay tribute to and thank the South African Police Force, which stands in the front line of security in this country. They maintain law and order. They are on duty day and night, against the infiltrators and those who commit acts of terror in this country as well. Those people also have families who live under tremendous tension because this dangerous work has to be done.

Sir, I can find no fault with the appeal made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central with regard to the terrorizing of young people. If it is justified, I believe the hon. the Minister, as well as the South African Police, will give the matter the necessary attention. I just want to say that a person who is well-disposed towards his country and his fellow-man, and who is peace-loving too, need not fear the South African Police. They should co-operate with them, since these people are the friends of the peace-loving citizens of the country. These people are not there to terrorize and prosecute people unnecessarily. They also fulfil an extremely important and essential role in our society, in civilian life, and for this they are owed a great deal of gratitude. One appreciates this, and one has only the highest regard and respect for the South African Police.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that the South African Police are in the front line in maintaining law and order and peace in this country. That task can only be fulfilled if they have sufficient manpower at their disposal. When we look at the South African Police, we find that it is not fully staffed. If we analyse the figures and include temporary employees, we see that approximately 86% of the posts are filled, and I think that if one takes the present circumstances and the present shortage of manpower into account, the South African Police can be proud of that. I said that we needed sufficient manpower to carry out this task. We have already heard from the hon. the Minister this afternoon that they intend extending the number of members of the Force. This is something I am very pleased about, since this will perhaps assist in making it possible to improve the manning of remote stations that are manned by only one White person in certain areas, such as in my constituency. We can only succeed in doing so by making the Police Force attractive to young men and women. Consequently, despite what has been said this afternoon, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he looks after the interests of the South African policeman. Since he became Minister of Law and Order, he has made it his business to see to it that the conditions of service of these people have been improved so as to be competitive with other careers, so that people could be attracted to the Force and so that we could establish a Force we could be proud of. In view of the percentage of occupied posts, which I have already mentioned, one can only say that our hon. Minister has succeeded brilliantly in this. Today the South African Police offers every young man and woman an extremely rewarding career. People who have passed standard 8, as well as graduates, can be accommodated in the South African Police Force. There are excellent possibilities for promotion for the enterprising, purposeful and dutiful member of the Force. He starts off as a trainee constable and undergoes training at the Police College. With that behind him, he can progress through a number of ranks. There are therefore excellent opportunities.

What about the benefits which the South African Police Force offers? I would be the last one to say that the South African policeman earns enough to compensate for the extremely important task he performs in this country, but we must see this in the light of the resources of South Africa’s economy. Of course, this is something the hon. the Minister must bear in mind when fixing salaries.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that I cannot see the point of discussing the salaries of policemen or teachers across the floor of this Committee. The hon. member himself admitted that if he were to go and ask the hon. the Minister for the salary scales, he would be given them. If he is unhappy, this channel is open to him and he has the opportunity of discussing this with the hon. the Minister. I do not think there is one hon. member in this Committee that would dissociate himself from a plea for an increase in the remuneration for the South African policeman, but this must be done in a responsible way, since, as I have just said, the country’s economic resources must be taken into account. I also think that the hon. the Minister would be the first to plead for improved salaries, improved allowances and improved benefits for the members of his Police Force, when circumstances permit. This side of the House is just as concerned that every member of the Police Force, as well as every official of the Public Service, should be remunerated sufficiently so that the State machinery will be properly oiled and running smoothly. I think this is the duty of all of us and I wish to make the appeal that we strive to support these people, who perform such an important task, in the execution of their duties and to treat them in such a way that they will be aware that they always have our sympathy and support, and that we place less emphasis on the isolated unfortunate incidents, and not constantly single them out in order to label our Police. We need a strong and stable Police Force in this country, for the reasons I have already mentioned. At this point I also want to say to the hon. members of the Opposition that if they do not want to assist us and the hon. the Minister in bringing this about, at least they should not hinder us in our efforts by disparaging the Police and by discouraging promising young people from entering upon a career in the Police Force. If this is the kind of thing that is said about the South African Police, young people will be deterred from throwing their weight behind the Police Force. We support the Police. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, each year when this Vote is discussed we on this side of the House know that there will definitely be one or two members on the Government side who, on instruction, will make a specific type of speech on the views and attitude of the PFP towards the police and police activities. This time it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp who specifically prepared a speech which he was to make if the hon. member for Pinetown were to say nasty things about the police. However, the hon. member for Pinetown happened to make a positive speech in which the image of the police was presented very positively. Consequently the hon. member for Krugersdorp was completely taken aback and surprised and had to work out his speech all over again while he was on his feet, and that is why it was completely pointless and confused. The hon. member for East London City had worked out his speech a few days ago. It was in writing and he simply had to read it as he had worked it out. So he once again came up with the usual clichés of the PFP being engaged in a campaign against the police, the PFP being engaged in a vendetta against the police, the PFP trying to obstruct the police in the execution of their duties and other such allegations. We shall hear the same allegations again next year. We already know that there will be members who will have to perform that selfsame little task.

There are hon. members on this side of the House with police stations in their constituencies and in whose constituencies a large number of policemen reside. Hon. members of the Government party will be surprised to hear how many of these policemen come to us for advice and how many of them vote for us. The allegations that are made against us have no effect whatsoever and are not endorsed by the policeman.

†I should like to mention one aspect which the hon. member dealt with tonight. I refer to the inquiry into the activities of the AWB. The hon. member for Yeoville has also referred to it. We are very concerned about the activities of that organization. But I wish to express one word of caution. That is that we should guard against entering the McCarthy type of era and conduct the sort of investigation of that era into organizations which have strong political views. The AWB is a detestable organization, as far as I am concerned, with the most primitive methods of appealing to basic emotions of the prejudiced White electorate. It certainly needs to be looked at very carefully. I am surprised, however, that the Government has decided at this stage, late in the by-election campaign, to come with this inquiry. When the accused in the AWB trial some time ago were brought to court on a number of charges including possession of ammunition and explosives, charges which on the face of it appeared to be very serious, one was surprised that there was no opposition from the State to their application for bail. The impression which one got at that stage was that one was here dealing with right-wing “terrorists”, but that from the police point of view there did not seem to be the same concern about the activities of these individuals.

Nonsense.

There did not seem to be an instruction that an application for bail should be opposed.

You are talking nonsense now.

That is the impression which one got from reading the newspaper articles. It was well before the by-election, but now with the by-election imminent after a hectic meeting in Waterkloof an inquiry is called for. The point I am making is that it seems as though the Government seems to allow these organizations to carry on with their activities until it finds itself at the receiving end of the propaganda and activities of people like the members of the AWB.

At the same time the explanations which we have had from our colleague in the Conservative Party, Mr. Theunissen, were really not convincing in any way and after having heard what he had to say tonight I tend to agree with the remark made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp that the CP is merely the parliamentary wing of the AWB. One expected the hon. member Mr. Theunissen tonight to tell us exactly where they stand as far as the AWB is concerned, but he skirted around the issue in his explanation. He has not categorically distanced himself from their statements and their aims and for as long as this wishy-washy attitude is held by the CP we will see the CP and the AWB basically as one and the same thing with the same detestable aims and objectives.

There is another aspect which I should like to raise. I am referring to the allegation that the Police and the hon. the Minister are allowing police stations to act as advertising agents for Nasionale Pers, the Afrikaans newspaper group. If you go to the Rondebosch Police Station you will find in the charge office a poster-size pamphlet stuck to the wall with the picture of a man breaking into a house. The lower third of that poster is devoted to a large black advertisement as it were of all the Nasionale Pers papers. This is a blatant advertisement for Nasionale Pers.

What is wrong with it?

That hon. member wants to know what is wrong with it. If the hon. the Minister allows commercial organizations or political organizations or newspaper organizations to advertise their products through police stations, through the medium of the charge office…

What is the basis of the advertisement? What is it about?

I assume that it is a crime prevention campaign that is involved. However, one third of that poster is devoted to an advertisement of Nasionale Pers newspapers. That is something which the hon. the Minister ought not to allow. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this was done with his consent and in how many police stations these type of posters are displayed. If those facilities are made available to all commercial organizations and newspapers then no doubt there will be many more of those posters available in the various charge offices. It is a practice which we cannot condone and which I am sure the hon. the Minister cannot condone either.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Durban Central would pardon me for not reacting directly to his speech. On the one hand, I have very little time, and on the other, although it may sound strange to hon. members, I have no intention of making a political speech.

This evening I want to speak about the subject of drugs and the involvement of the South African Police in combating them. It is true that for a number of reasons, drug taking is increasing in South Africa, too, with dagga still far in the lead, as has been the case for a considerable length of time. There are people who believe that there is really nothing wrong with smoking dagga, but over the past few years responsible medical researchers throughout the world have proved beyond doubt that dagga can do a person irreparable harm, both physically and psychologically. I have a great deal of proof of this. There are many sources I could quote from, but a remark made by a psychiatrist, Mitchell Rosenthal, director of New York City’s largest drug rehabilitation centre, Phoenix House, will suffice. He had the following to say about young people who were addicted to dagga—

I believe that this is indeed an alarming conclusion, reached by someone who knows what he is talking about.

I do not think I need argue at length that we in South Africa simply cannot afford anything of this nature, that we should try to avoid such a situation at all costs. That is why it is so alarming that there are indications that our own drug problem, of which dagga is a very important component, is increasing steadily despite the successes being achieved through action by the South African Police. I therefore want to discuss briefly, and let the spotlight fall this evening on, the important work the South African Narcotics Bureau is doing in this regard.

We are dealing here with a group of dedicated people. They have thoroughly identified the danger of drug abuse to all sections of the South African population. They are in earnest about combating it. What is very important, is that they fulfil their duty with a great deal of sympathy for their fellow-man who has fallen into this trap. Consequently, their actions are aimed at prevention and at combating drug abuse, rather than at prosecution. Consequently, regular informative talks are held at church societies, schools, nursing associations, parent associations, services and so on. The Peninsula branch of the Bureau held no fewer than 170 such talks last year. In this way, they managed to reach approximately 16 300 people directly. At such talks, a specific warning is usually addressed to parents, which I think I may well repeat here, since it is in the interests of all of us to take note of it. The warning is: Do not leave your children alone too often at night with access to too much money. Sometimes these children visit disreputable discothèques when their parents are not at home and there they are tempted to experiment with dagga.

Talking about discotheques, the Police unfortunately do not always get satisfactory cooperation from the local authorities in this regard. Applications for licences for discothèques are referred to the Police, and on the basis of their experience, they request that the local authority concerned lay down certain conditions, for example, that no children under 18 should be admitted, that bright lights should be available, although they do not necessarily have to be switched on, and that the doors of fire escapes and main entrances should not be locked. Surely these are reasonable conditions, in the interests of the safety of those who visit such places as well. One is therefore amazed that there are local authorities that fail or refuse, to co-operate in this regard.

We must take cognizance of these facts, since it is a fact that drug taking among children is increasing alarmingly in our country. When I speak about children, I am speaking about young people from the age of 12 to 16 and in some cases, even younger. I just want to mention that cases of this nature are dealt with by our Police with a great deal of circumspection and sympathy. Such children are usually not even charged, but are placed in the care of welfare officers.

Dagga is still the drug used most frequently in South Africa, the one people usually start out with, since it is relatively cheap and easily obtainable. After dagga, Mandrax is most frequently used. It is imported into South Africa in a variety of ways from the East, and particularly from India. I might mention that in a place such as Bombay, for example, there are back-street factories where Mandrax tablets are manufactured at approximately 20 cents per tablet. In South Africa the price is determined by their availability on the black market. The price in Cape Town usually varies between R3,50 and R20,80 per tablet. That is the tablet that costs 20 cents to make. We do not know how many of these tablets enter the country and how many are taken, but what we do know, is that in the Cape Peninsula alone 219 369 tablets were seized last year. Many methods are used to bring these tablets into the country, but the era of containerization has opened a new channel to the drug smuggler. Well-organized international syndicates operate in this field. When the container is loaded overseas, the package with the consignment of tablets is concealed. When the container is unloaded in South Africa, a member of a local syndicate is present to receive the package. All this takes place without the sender or receiver of the legal contents of the container knowing what criminal practices are taking place. The Police are often helpless in these cases, since they are only permitted to open a container if they have a reasonable suspicion that part of its contents are illegal. Recently large quantities of opium and the extremely dangerous drug cocaine have been seized. This is an indication that the onslaught of the international drug smuggler is now aimed at South Africa as well. Most of the drugs used in Europe and elsewhere are now to be found in South Africa, too. This is cause for concern, since we are already aware of the tremendous misery and sorrow this has caused young people, their parents, friends and communities overseas. The South African Police are in the forefront in combating this evil. They work unceasingly. In Cape Town alone 33 members of this branch worked 9 529 man-hours of unpaid overtime last year. I believe that this is evidence of extraordinary dedication. These people deserve our support, gratitude and praise, and I want to express the hope that their work will be rewarded with a great deal of success.

Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that I follow the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I must say he raised a very important matter. The seriousness of this matter is underlined by the answer I received from the hon. the Minister recently to a question I put in the House of Assembly, in which it was pointed out that the value of the dagga which the Police seized in the past year amounted to approximately R300 million. This only goes to show how important the matter is which the hon. member for Stellenbosch raised.

†Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga, and other members of this Committee in respect of the retirement of our Commissioner of Police who has served the country so well, particularly during some extremely difficult times. I should like to wish him every happiness in his retirement. At the same time I should like to wish the Commissioner designate every success. He is a senior officer who has a record and reputation for his professionality and leadership qualities. We look forward to seeing the result of his new management style and his efforts in this very important department of our Government.

I should also on behalf of the New Republic Party at this stage like to record our condolences and our sympathies with the families of those members of the Force who gave their lives either in the counter-insurgency warfare against terrorism in South West Africa or in the performing of normal police duties. These things so often go unnoticed and are taken for granted. The public are inclined to forget that the members of the Force also lead a normal life with families and children.

I should also like to refer to a visit which I had the privilege to enjoy with the police group to the Police in South West Africa in July. It was an extremely informative, well-planned and very well set-out visit for the group. I believe we were given a very good insight into the nature of the task performed there, the morale and esprit de corps of these men and particularly the cameraderie that existed between the Police and the members of the Ovambo home guard. That was a particularly noticeable point. The very good spirit that existed between them was very evident. We were also informed about the reservists functioning there as part of their training and were impressed by the degree to which they are integrated with the Police.

I must mention that the hon. the Minister was an excellent host and I want to thank him on behalf of my party for the very pleasant way in which he conducted this visit.

I should like to make one point about the question concerning awards to the South African Police serving the counter-insurgency situation in South West Africa. These men serve in contact situations which are in every detail equal to any contact situation experienced by members of the South African Defence Force. I believe their contribution goes unheralded and that in many respects the public has very little idea of the level of their participation, their expertise and the success which they achieve. I believe the South African Police Force members serving in those circumstances should be eligible for the award for deeds of gallantry and bravery, namely the Honoris Crux, in exactly the same way as members of the South African Defence Force. This could be awarded after consultation between the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Law and Order. We cannot see how there can be a distinction between the deeds of bravery and gallantry in the field performed by members of the Defence Force and those performed by members of the South African Police Force because the situation is identical for members of both forces. In fact, no matter how good the intent on the part of the South African Police Force is with the awarding of their own bravery medal, one medal will always receive precedence, will always have the top spot and the other will definitely not receive the same recognition and acclaim on a national basis. I really believe that members of the South African Police Force should be entitled to that award in the same way as members of the South African Defence Force and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this very earnestly and discuss it with the hon. the Minister of Defence to see whether this medal cannot be regarded as a national medal and not a medal for members of the South African Defence Force only. There is certainly an imbalance in this regard. Having listened to some of the casual remarks made by some of the serving members up there, one realizes the extent of their service and the deeds that go quite unnoticed.

The next point I should like to raise is the question of South African Police Force numbers. This has already been mentioned by hon. members preceding me and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville. I agree completely with the view that the Police Force establishment should be jacked up tremendously and that the Force is understaffed. This was in fact one of the points I wanted to make. However, my thoughts went a little further than that. One must be realistic. Althought we cannot fill the total complement at this stage, we must bear in mind that we have an interval which we must cope with. If we look at it practically, it is clear that the only way in which we can combat crime to a greater degree is by involving the public by making the public more aware of the situation and by making use of their knowledge of the subject and by obtaining their assistance. This is, however, not enough. We need them to actually do service. In this respect I wish to refer to an article which appeared in The Citizen of 30 April on the opening of the Delmas Agricultural Show by the hon. the Minister. He appealed for more reservists to help fight crime and indicated that the Police Force had a serious staff shortage. He called on active members of the community to consider joining the reservists. I feel that that, too, should be linked to a form of service for which legislation already exists. The new Defence legislation provides that all able-bodied men up to 55 can be required to serve in some or other capacity. The fact of the matter is that in many instances a great number of the people falling into the category that should join the commandos are not called up because they are so concentrated in the cities that they cannot be handled all at once. There is, in fact, not use for them all in the SADF, whereas on the platteland most of them will probably be called up for commando service because of the sparseness of the population. Maximum effort is required from the platteland dwellers to fulfil commando requirements. This is a bit of a bone of contention between the country dwellers and the city dwellers because the country dwellers say that the city dwellers get away with not doing the service which is prescribed for everybody up to 55 years of age. I believe that we have a very good source here because in lieu of service in the SADF these men can be called to serve in the police reserve. If the SADF is not going to make use of the services of these people who live in the very areas where crime is most prevalent, they can be called to serve in the police reserve. Surely, these people can be used in a reservist role in terms of the same legislation which requires them to do SADF service. I think this could be the method by which we can bridge the gap whilst we are increasing the establishment as the hon. the Minister has indicated. At the same time it can be a method of involving the public in assisting themselves right in their own area where they have local knowledge, where they know the people, the circumstances and the situation regarding their own particular type of crime problems. It is a method which will cause the least amount of disruption because they will be doing beat duty in their own neighbourhood. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to associate myself, in a few words, with the hon. member for King William’s Town who conveyed his best wishes to the outgoing Commissioner of Police and also to the incoming Commissioner of Police. At the outset however I want to say this evening that as we have asked in the past in this House that our Defence Force not be politicized so we should not politicize our Police Force either. These men are performing a service. Their task is to combat crime and to maintain law and order. They are also our first line of defence, but only up to a certain point after which the Defence Force has to take over. I want to take this opportunity to bid Gen. Mike Geldenhuys and his good wife goodbye. Over the years we have known each other I have had excellent co-operation from him and we have been on very good terms. He has always been understanding and willing to help when he could. Looking at Gen. Geldenhuys sitting there, I feel it is fitting that one should say to him this evening: “The song has ended, but the melody lingers on”. General, we wish you everything of the best in your retirement.

I also want to say a few words to our new Commissioner of Police. I think Gen. Coetzee has proved his mettle because what he did during the Silverton bank siege was sufficient in itself. Accompanied by only one man, he went along there to negotiate with the terrorists. I think this was something few of us in South Africa could have emulated. I think we all realize that a wrong word or action could have been fatal under those circumstances and could have had far more serious repercussions. This proves that in Gen. Coetzee we have a leader of stature.

As far as I personally am concerned, 1983 was a very significant year. It was also a historic year as far as the South African Police were concerned. I was born 50 years ago in Germiston, the son of a policeman. Hon. members will therefore understand why the South African Police have a special place in my heart. Both my father and my grandfather were policemen. Together father and son helped to put down the miners’ strike on the Witwatersrand in 1922. When I think back to the old days, I remember involuntarily the everyday sight of the unforgettable mounted policeman and his beautiful horse on patrol and the policeman in his blue uniform on foot patrol. Both were a part of everyday life. Then in 1936 the first Ford police vans made their appearance together with the then well known “Black Maria”. Shall we ever forget that period? Shortly thereafter, in 1937, in Germiston on the East Rand, with great pomp and ceremony and a wonderful mass display, leave was taken of the East Rand mounted unit in the Malvern stadium. Not long after that the machine replaced the horse and the well known green BSA motorcycle and the khaki-coloured Harley Davidson with its sidecar appeared on the scene.

What a motorcyle that was!

Yes, it was a fine motorcycle! For a period of almost 15 years both mounted policemen and detectives made use of this mode of transport. It was therefore in the late ’thirties and early ’forties that the South African Police began to mechanize. As a result of this what has been probably one of the South African Police’s most effective and formidable units was established in 1948, namely the Flying Squad. It is general knowledge today that it was a a result of that mechanization that the mechanized branch of our present-day South African Police was established. As a result, the mechanical school at Benoni grew into the giant undertaking and training centre it is today. Approximately 1 000 members of the force are trained there annually in the art of specialized driving and the maintenance of their motor vehicles. It is hard to believe that during the ’thirties and ’forties only four motor mechanics maintained all the vehicles from Germiston to Devon. This illustrates the increase in the activities of all sectors of the Force as it is today.

Basically the South African Police consists of two divisions, namely the unformed branch and the CI. That is how the South African Police started out, but it is no longer the case. Over the years increasing demands have been made of the Force with the result that the following further branches have been established: The gold and diamond branch, the commercial branch, the forensic and scientific branch, the dog school, the narcotics bureau, the stock theft unit and the security branch. The specialized branches of the South African Police are the following: The training college, the chaplain and welfare services, the quartermaster’s office, the transport branch and the special mounted unit. There are also branches of communications, the building industry and works. There is also a branch for planning, the criminal bureau, crime research, the public liaison division, the special task force and the police band. Last but not least, there is the Reserve Police. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Reserve Police. As we heard this evening, there are 7 700 active members of this force. These men perform their duties quietly and inconspicuously and without any compensation at all. Some of these men occupy authoritative positions in the community and some of them are even directors of very large companies or professional people. The police reservists receive intensive training inter alia in law enforcement, and they also receive counter-insurgency training to combat terrorism. Reservists do not always function under supervision or under protection of fulltime members of the Police Force and therefore frequently operate on their own. These men also do their share in the operational area. In addition, in many cases they put in more hours of work than the minimum required of them and are sometimes virtually in full-time service.

We are grateful for the effective way in which road blocks are manned in urban and rural areas. Organized crime and terrorism are combated in this way and human lives are protected and saved. Statistics bear out these latter statements of mine and in this regard I have to agree with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. As far as terrorism is concerned, I should like to quote a report from the Citizen of 24 March which appeared under the headline: “Four held at Road Block”. The report reads as follows—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found the speech of the hon. member for Germiston very interesting but I am sure he will not mind if I do not follow him because I have a very short time at my disposal.

I just want to respond to the hon. the Minister who said that we never before supported the Police or some such nonsensical remark. Mr. Chairman, it is as if the National Party have some sort of monopoly over the South African Police.

What do you mean by that?

Exactly what I say. Last year my hon. colleague sitting next to me was the Opposition spokesman on Police. He expressed a similar kind of sympathy to that which I expressed today and perhaps even in better terms than I am doing, for the Police in their job and for the invidious position in which they find themselves. He made a similar speech the year before and I have spoken in this House before about my sympathies for the Police.

That brings me to another matter. When I spoke earlier I made the point that there were certain ways in which we would differ from this hon. Minister in our attitude towards the Police. One of the ways in which we would differ is this: We would not conceal in secrecy the salaries of the Police Force as this hon. Minister does, refusing to answer questions about them in this House. I want to say that we would not be ashamed of the salaries and we would in fact, as I have said, increase the status of the police force and also their salaries. I want to know why this branch of the Executive has to have a hidden scale of salaries. Is it because certain people at the top are getting too much and other people in the field who do the work are getting too little? Is it because one branch of the Police gets more than another branch of the Police? [Interjections.] I am elected by the taxpayers of South Africa and that hon. member there is elected from another part of the same town as I represent, by the taxpayers, and it ought to be his duty and it ought to be my duty to see how that money is spent and it ought to be our duty to see that the police are properly recompensed for the job they do. I do not know, because I am not allowed by the hon. the Minister to know whether they are or not although every other department’s salaries are open to the public. However, I do not know but my guess is that the Police salaries are too low in South Africa. As I said, we would raise their status and their salaries. We would pay more and we would expect more. We would expect to get what we pay for. We would expect quality and I am sure we would get it. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister this: By denying the public the right to know what Police salaries are, we in the Opposition are denied the right to assist the Police in what ought to be a proper investigation to see that they are paid and recompensed properly. The hon. the Minister is in fact denying the Police the right to support from the Opposition on this very important issue of their salaries. Why should they not have support from the Opposition?

They have something to hide.

Why should they not? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. The hon. the Minister was quick to mention Great Britain in aid of his arguments. In Great Britain this year police salaries were very substantially raised. They were very substantially raised… [Interjections.] I do not know what they earn here. I know what one colonel earns because he and I were concerned in a very large case and I was simply horrified. I am referring to a trial I had in 1979 and at that time he was a major. His take-home pay was less than R600 per month. I was horrified. [Interjections.] What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is what the official salaries actually are and I would like answers to those questions. [Interjections.]

Order! It is the hon. member for Pinetown who is addressing this Committee.

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

There is no time left, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to say that they are denied the right of our support for the increase of their salaries and I think it is wrong in principle.

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to follow the hon. member for Pinetown because I thought the hon. the Minister could answer him quite adequately. However, I just want to ask him one question in passing: His and my salaries are also paid with public money. Would he like it if the extent of our salaries were bandied about in Parliament? I am just asking him that question.

Everybody knows what we are paid.

In speaking about the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and his team of police officials throughout the Republic this evening and trying to express my appreciation for what they have done, unlike the people on that side of the Committee, I find myself waxing lyrical and realize anew that I cannot find the words to do them justice. We do not always realize that we can sleep peacefully and move about freely because somewhere there is an alert policeman who is putting his life at stake to watch over our safety. I should also like to take this opportunity to express a special word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and his men who make us feel so safe here in Parliament as well as at Acacia Park where we live. We also thank them for guarding our Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet at their official residences. We are very grateful for that. I do not have sufficient time to refer to all the spheres in which the Police Force perform their invaluable services, but I should like to thank them most sincerely on behalf of the whole of South Africa. I honestly feel that in this Vote every cent possible should be spent in giving our police officials the very best. They deserve it and if the Government does not take good care of their requirements, we shall unfortunately not get the quality of men we should like to have in our Police Force.

There is one group of policemen I should like particularly to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister tonight, namely those policemen manning stations in remote areas. I feel sorry for these men who have to sacrifice so much, sometimes without any extra compensation. This happens in my constituency and I am sure in other constituencies as well, particularly those bordering on the national States. These particular policemen are out of the ordinary policemen in the sense that they are usually also able to speak the language of the Black people. This is definitely a talent that merits a bonus. I have also discovered that when some of these men have to do border duty for three months they have to leave their wives and children. I could almost say defenceless at a remote police station. I have also discovered that these men have to travel long distances to take their children to school or they have to board their children in a hostel at great expense. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister please to give very special attention to these police officials and, if possible, not only to negotiate a bonus for them but also to consider providing them with Escom power or other electrical power so that they can at least watch television and install a security fence around their isolated homes to protect themselves. I feel that an official who is happy with his family is an efficient official and I have no doubt about the hon. the Minister’s goodwill towards his officials.

Mr. Chairman, before I go any further, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on his birthday. Judging by his enthusiasm and the quality of his contributions, I am certain that he will serve in this House for many years to come. I also want to thank the hon. member for Queenstown for the excellent short speech he has just made. It is specifically those members of the Force the hon. member referred to whom one frequently feels sorry for, inter alia because of the circumstances he mentioned. However, I should like to add to this—and the hon. member also made mention of this—that it is in fact the wives of these members who make it possible for members of the South African Police to serve in those remote areas on our borders, sometimes in very inconvenient conditions. Sometimes there is no fresh water within a reasonable distance and it is very inconvenient to obtain any. As the hon. member mentioned, electricity and other facilities are not readily available. The policeman’s wife can afford the ordinary things a housewife would like to have in her home, but there is no electricity to enable her to use them. I refer to stoves, refrigerators and the like. For that reason I should like to join the hon. member in conveying a special word of thanks to the wives of those members at remote police stations in particular, on and near our borders in the sparsely populated areas of our country. Particularly in that hon. member’s constituency there are several such police stations along the border with Transkei. Thank you very much for your particular contribution in this connection.

Girls like policemen!

Yes, I know. That is why all policemen have such fine ladies at their side.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank all hon. members on the Government side who made a contribution for their support and for the trouble they took to make a success of the discussion of this Vote today. I shall return later to a few of the hon. members who referred to specific matters. However, before I do that, there are a few matters I want to refer to briefly in connection with the Opposition, and the official Opposition in particular.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the recent shooting in his area. I have replied to that as fully as possible in the House and I do not want to answer all the questions that the hon. member put to me tonight. I will have a look at the matter and I will answer the hon. member in writing on all the matters that he has raised. I only want to emphasize again that I immediately saw to it that I had all the facts at my disposal. The Commissioner immediately gave his personal attention to this particular matter and the Commissioner and I are satisfied on the facts at our disposal that the answer that I gave the hon. member in the House is correct as far as the particulars are concerned. The hon. member also referred to a circular issued by a Joubert Park headmaster. Although I do not have any information on this particular issue I will go into the matter and I will come back to the hon. member. The hon. member also referred to the crime situation in Hillbrow and the need for more men. I will reply more fully to the hon. member when I reply to the hon. member for Beaufort West.

*The hon. member Mr. Theunissen did his best to put his party’s side of the case, but I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it did not work all that well. The hon. member simply cannot get away from the fact that they are saddled with associations with bodies such as the AWB and the Kappie Kommando. The other people such as the AET have probably already disappeared; but who else is there by now? [Interjections.] Yes, there are still a few of these weird people and they are all camp followers of the CP. However, I want to tell the hon. member this: Although we discussed the behaviour and the involvement of the AWB this evening, and in spite of the things I said earlier this evening, the Government has absolutely no intention of investigating the CP. We must be quite clear on that score. However, if we tell the hon. member—and he knows it—that CP members are just as active in and sometimes take the lead in the sort of incidents we are experiencing at public meetings, he must also accept that we have good reason for saying that. We are all politicians and we can all take a look at ourselves, but that is not what is at issue.

What about the behaviour of some NP members at meetings?

Yes, I concede that. We are all politicians and I am not saying this to play off one party against another. We were discussing other things when we referred to the AWB. It was those things I drew the hon. member’s attention to, including the part members of the CP and the HNP and other people play at these meetings. However, that is all I have to say, because the hon. member asked me to tell him pertinently what the position was and I am now telling him what the position is. Mr. Chairman, I must say that it was interesting, because when the question was put to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen across the floor of the House whether he or his party were prepared to dissociate themselves from the AWB, the hon. member for De Aar said “never”. He said “never” with conviction. That was the reply of the CP. In spite of what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said, that was in actual fact their reply. Why does the hon. member not also tell his leader to adopt a pertinent standpoint so that we may know where we stand? However, I feel we have now discussed this sufficiently.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also started off by sympathizing with the policemen who have these horrible functions to perform such as applying apartheid laws and that sort of thing. He was so sorry for the policemen! I could not help remembering that in the Prog constituency of Sea Point the other day the majority of the people—and most probably the majority of them Progs—voted in a referendum in favour of beach apartheid. [Interjections.] The majority in that referendum voted for beach apartheid. The Progs in Sea Point ask the police to apply the apartheid laws but the Progs in Port Elizabeth Central, of course, not! They want their mixed beaches, of course! I challenge the hon. member to go back to Port Elizabeth and to ask the people of Port Elizabeth for their decision in any referendum he likes whether they want mixed beaches in Port Elizabeth or not. The hon. member can arrange his own referendum. He can go back to the people of Port Elizabeth and ask them by way of a referendum and the hon. member can go back to his own constituency and ask his own people whether they want mixed beaches or not.

He will have the same result. The hon. member knows what happened in a South Coast area south of Durban where the people decided in accordance with local option. They firmly voted against mixed beaches. If this is what they want I completely agree with them. The large majority of those people said that this was what they wanted. I also prefer to go to my own beach and I want to provide a beach for each and everyone where they can enjoy themselves. I respect the wishes of those who decided to go for local option and who said that they wanted their own beaches and who had no complaints about beaches for other people.

*If we are to begin talking about beaches, there are many other aspects we could discuss which concern other people. Do not try to score points off me.

This is double talk!

No, it is not double talk. All I want to say is that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central should not be so sanctimonious this evening when right under our noses, in Sea Point, his own people have said: Give us our beaches here.

†The hon. member referred to a number of complaints lodged with him by a number of young people, mostly journalists. We will go into those matters. I do not have any information on that. I will reply to the hon. member in writing. The hon. member also complained about the fact that I am not prepared to publish information about the police salaries and service conditions. I still maintain that I took the correct decision. I am still not prepared to have it published. [Interjections.]

*No, I am not wrong. The fact of the matter is, and that hon. member and all hon. members know it, that they can obtain all the information on police salaries and conditions of employment. I have been offering it to them all these years. Not one of the hon. members of the Opposition sitting there has asked me during the past year what the police salaries are. The hon. member for Pinetown, to whom I shall come back later, wants to discuss 1979 matters. Has the hon. member for Durban Berea not yet told the hon. member for Pinetown what happened to him two years ago in this self-same House? At the time the hon. member also came along here like a veritable Rip van Winkle with police salaries and conditions of employment which were a few years out of date. Now the hon. member for Pinetown comes here with facts which are four years old. Any policeman would laugh at him for discussing the situation which pertained four years ago, whereas such wonderful things have happened to the Police in the interim. No, really, the hon. member must first do his homework. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that he can obtain all this information from me. However, there is one important reason why I decided two years ago not to announce it in this way any longer, and that is that the information was not used by everyone with good intentions to enlighten the public. It was used by some people to embarrass the Government and the Commissioner of Police. I was not prepared to put up with this any longer. The people were not interested in publishing the truth about Police salaries. They published every piece of gossip they could pick up in the streets. We had to draw the line somewhere. We had to decide to what extent we would allow the morale of the Police to be undermined by reports on their salaries and conditions of employment. There is no problem with the Police resulting from their being uninformed. The Commissioner gives them all the information to which they could possibly lay claim in connection with their salaries and conditions of employment. Just ask any policeman in the Force. There is not one of them who is in the dark about these things. The written particulars are available at every police station in the country. I say this to you with the utmost conviction. Moreover I should like to meet anyone who has had more contact with the Police in this sphere during the past year. You could tell me it is my job as Minister of Police, but I make it my business to get to see them. I think there are 19 police divisions in the country, and last year I visited 18 of them. I did not only visit the divisional commissioners, but was also fortunate enough to get to see the constables. You will not find a single policeman in South Africa, except for one division of panel beaters, who is unhappy about the salary he earns. As far as the panel beaters are concerned, there is a technical reason at the Commission for Administration why we have not yet sorted out their salaries, but we hope to be able to do so within the next few weeks or months.

Just ask the police. That is why I am telling the hon. members that if we had not had that unpleasant experience and that destructive situation, I should not have had any objection to publication. I took a very long time to decide on this. I exchanged ideas across a wide spectrum. I made that decision and I still maintain that it was the correct decision. However, I say that every member of Parliament is entitled to and may obtain full particulars from me. All I ask is this: Do not publish it in the newspapers. Inform your voters; discuss it with the policemen in your constituency. There is no reason why this cannot be done. That is our task.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the salaries of the South African Police are comparable with the salaries and service conditions of the railways police?

This is yet another example of how hide bound one can become about these matters. That old question is no longer asked. It is outdated. That question was asked until three years ago. The hon. member is totally behind the times. I want to reply to you, but I first want to tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. Mr. Chairman, you know as much about the police as I do and you will agree with me that that question is no longer asked. I shall tell you why not. The differences which existed were eliminated long ago. Where there is still a difference between the Railways Police and the South African Police we understand the reasons for that difference. The South African Police understand this. They understand why a sergeant or warrant officer in the Railways Police begins with a starting salary higher than that paid in the South African Police. He does not have a scale in accordance with which he improves his position. He has few opportunities for promotion. That is why a member of the Railways Police is appointed at a certain reasonably high scale. He remains there as long as he is a sergeant or a warrant officer. I can give you all the reasons. All I want to tell you is that in reply to your question I can give you the assurance that irrespective of the fact that there are more than five ranks, the South African Police have the same five levels as people in the public sector. The salaries of the South African Police are the same at each of those five levels as the salaries in the rest of the public sector, including all departments of the public sector, viz. Foreign Affairs, Justice, etc. In addition there are wonderful benefits which the police receive. Taking those benefits into account, the position is that there are few parts of the public sector where a person with the same qualifications and with the same enthusiasm and the same high quality of work will be able to do better than he can in the South African Police. I should have liked to have spoken about this for longer, but you can take it from me that this is the case.

†I told the hon. member to do his homework two years ago. It seems to me that he did not take my advice.

How do you assist the recruiting of police when you do not publicly tell people what the salaries and service conditions are?

We do not have any problems with that. We publish the information to all recruits and we inform them fully. I will give you the latest recruiting figures. The hon. member for Durban Central also made a few mistakes. The hon. member was not accusing the South African Police, but he was pointing a finger at the police concerning their attitude towards right-wing parties, especially the AWB in their applications for bail. He mentioned the fact that they got bail, etc. He pointed a finger at the South African Police and I was not in a position to make a complete note, but I have a note here about no opposition to an application for bail, but I want to ask the hon. member what is his attitude. Is he pointing a finger at the South African Police in respect of the bail application of Mr. Cedric Mason who has been charged with high treason? He has been granted bail of R1 000 by the court. Why does he not point the finger at the police now? Is it because it is in respect of Mr. Cedric Mason?

*You see, you must not take a one-sided view and then point a finger at the South African Police. The hon. member objected to a certain notice. The notice is one in which Die Burger, Die Volksblad, Die Oosterlig and Beeld are benefited.

†This is a poster you will find in the police stations. It reads: “By the time you have read this poster, your pocket might have been picked. Watch out!”

Pick-pockets in a police station?

At the bottom of the poster it says: “Die Burger, Beeld, Die Volksblad, Oosterlig”.

*That is what the hon. member is objecting to, namely that the Nasionale Pers newspapers are being benefited in this way. The hon. member comes from Durban and the hon. member has a newspaper there which he probably supports wholeheartedly. It could not be otherwise. If a Prog is not on the best of terms with this newspaper, he is not a dyed-in-the wool Prog. It is the Natal Witness.

There is another poster you will also find in the police station. It reads: “Help fight crime. Dial 10111. If you see anything suspicious, call the police immediately. Sponsored by the Natal Witness in the public interest.” [Interjections.] There is a third example and I could probably find many more. This poster reads: “Who is doing the shopping while you are doing yours? Your house is not locked if the back window is open.”

You need a magnifying glass to be able to read by whom it is sponsored.

The hon. member would seem to have poor eyesight. It is sponsored by—and this is very clearly printed—The Star, The Argus, The Daily News, the Pretoria News, The Friend and The Diamond Field Advertiser.

All the major newspaper groups in South Africa support the South African Police by way of these posters. We are very grateful for this. It is not my policy for companies to make use of police facilities to advertise their goods and assets. I have already received such requests and refused them. The Commissioner of Police will also refuse such requests. However, we have a campaign in which we use everything at our disposal to fight crime. Now our friends in the Press groups come along and tell us that they are prepared to help us. They pay for these things. They publish these things and they give us hundreds of thousands of these pamphlets and posters. We use them by the thousand in police stations and at other places in our towns and cities. Does the hon. member object to this? Three of the major newspaper groups are involved in this. I do not know what the position is as regards Perskor, but they are probably involved in this too. All the groups benefit by this, but all of them have in this way made a major effort to assist the police in their fight against crime. Does the hon. member still object to it?

Will the hon. the Minister allow Die Patriot to advertise in the same way?

I am now referring to important matters, not trivialities.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town made a very interesting point this evening and that is whether members of the South African Police serving in the operation area should not be eligible for the Honoris Crux. I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, and I will have a talk with the hon. member later on. I will test my colleagues on this particular matter. I thank the hon. member for his interest in this particular matter. The hon. member also referred to the increase in the reservist supplement and I fully agree with the hon. member.

*There is another matter I should like to refer to briefly. It is a matter of great importance, which the hon. member for Beaufort West mentioned. Other members have referred to this as well. It concerns our numerical strength. I can provide the necessary information in this regard. The position is that on 31 March this year, we had an increase of 3 657 men in the South African Police in comparison with the same date last year. This was during a period of only one year.

In the same period the population growth was 2,8%.

I am not discussing those intricate matters now. After all the hon. member knows that we have always had shortages. Our losses were always greater than our gains. Now I am able to boast to the hon. member that our gains are greater than our losses. This increase includes the number of students being trained at present. The total up to now is 3 657. With the present number of people joining the Police, I trust that the backlog on the present allocated numerical strength can be eliminated within the next three years. If the number of police officers per 1 000 inhabitants, the details of which I shall give you in a moment, is borne in mind, we have to accept that there are not yet sufficient policemen for the growth in population. All I want to say at this stage is that at the present allocated numerical strength, we are progressing so well that if we can maintain this, then within a period of between three and five years we can increase our force to the figure which is at present the allocated numerical strength. In this connection I should like to point out to you that at present we have 4,45 White police officers per 1 000 inhabitants. We have 0,97 Coloured police officers per 1 000 inhabitants, 1,6 Asian officers and 0,93 Black officers per 1 000 inhabitants.

Is that per thousand Black people or per thousand of the total population of the Republic?

It is per thousand Black people that there are 0,93 police officials. I have already said in the past that we are carrying out intensive investigations in every division of the South African Police to ascertain whether we have sufficient officers per 1 000 people and whether the police officers are distributed correctly throughout the entire Republic. There are problems in this connection. In this regard I just want to mention that we have completed a scientific investigation into the ideal numerical strength for the East Rand, West Rand, Northern Transvaal and Soweto. As regards these divisions of the police we came to the conclusion that we would need 2,7 police officers per 1 000 people to be able to perform our policing task there properly. If, therefore, we endeavour to achieve the ideal position of 2,7 police officers per 1 000 inhabitants, the numerical strength of the force would have to be increased to 68 848. This represents an increase of more than 24 000. I have all the statistics available, but I cannot give them to you now. Now the question arises: How long will it take to recruit, train and place those 24 484 officers? At the present rate, if we could maintain it, it is probable that at the rate of 7 000 per annum, we could achieve this within the next four years if we do not take our losses into consideration. If we take our losses into consideration, we are confident that within a period of 10 to 15 years, the ideal of 68 800 men can be achieved.

Has provision been made for the population growth?

We have made provision for the population growth. These facts give you an indication of the successes we are achieving. If we make projections, this is the picture of the future we give you. The hon. member asked whether we were informing people about our circumstances. During the past year we had a successful recruiting year. I can give you a very brief indication: In the period May 1981 to May 1982 and May 1982 to May 1983 there was a percentage increase of 46% in the employment of Whites, 33% for Coloureds, 4% for Indians and 9% for Blacks. This represents a total increase of 29%. There was a total increase of 25% with regard to re-employment. As far as Indians were concerned, there was an increase of 200% in re-employment. There are already 2 269 students employed at police stations awaiting training at police colleges. Unfortunately I do not have time to tell you more, except that in view of all these circumstances and in view of developments in the Force and the qualifications expected, the Commissioner of Police, the officers and members of the Force decided a while ago to recommend to me that only matriculants should be employed, and that only if there are insufficient matriculated applicants will applicants with standard 9 be recruited to supplement the numbers further. I think I have replied to all the hon. members, particularly to those on this side of the House, as regards specific cases. If I have not replied in sufficient detail, I shall take pleasure in replying in writing if members bring it to my attention.

†I just want to get back to the hon. member for Pinetown. I want to tell him the following: I have answered the hon. member in respect of his problem with the right of the public to know everything in respect of police salaries and I have explained to the hon. member why he is an absolute Rip van Winkle in regard to these matters.

*I want to get back to the hon. member who suggested earlier this afternoon, on behalf of the official Opposition, that my salary be reduced by R5 000.

We shall settle for R2 000.

That hon. member should rather stay out of the conversation. A while ago the hon. member for Pinetown was an absolute embarrassment to his party when we discussed the Bill in connection with road blocks. He led most of the members of his party to vote on a matter about which they had no option, because they are disciplined members of the party. They know I am right. The one member who is well aware that I am right is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has too much common sense to have voted for something like that if he had not been a disciplined member of his party. What is the hon. member for Pinetown doing now? If you look at the speech the hon. member made this afternoon, do you know on what grounds he is asking that my salary be reduced? None of the points he mentioned had anything to do with poor administration; they had nothing to do with the incorrect application of laws or policy; they only concerned security matters where I had acted in the interests of the security of South Africa. In all the cases I have been charged with, I took steps in the interests of the security of South Africa in conjunction with the Security Police. If I had the time I could have indicated to the hon. member that these allegations of his are completely incorrect. Now he is again leading his party into a situation where they are asking for the salary of a Minister to be reduced because he did his duty as regards the security of South Africa. It is a disgrace.

Amendment put and the Committee divided: