laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Pensions (Supplementary) Bill [B 129—86 (GA)]—(Minister of National Health and Population Development).
2. (2)
   1. (a) Pensions (Supplementary) Bill (House of Assembly) [B 130—86 (HA)]—(Minister of Health Services and Welfare).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

1. (1) the implications for the South African economy of already existing and possible future sanctions and boycotts;
2. (2) the adequacy or otherwise of any steps taken to deal with such sanctions and boycotts; and
3. (3) further steps to be taken in order to deal with the same,

the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the Committee’s report appears in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Assembly of Thursday, 19 June, and I move the following amendment:

1. 1. In item 2 of the Report:
   1. (1) In the first paragraph, to omit “a series of” and to substitute “certain”.
   2. (2) In the second paragraph, to omit all the words after “Committee” up to the end of the fourth paragraph and to substitute:

1. 2. In item 4 of the Report:
   1. (1) To omit the second and third paragraphs and to substitute:

1. (a) only the Minister of Transport Affairs or the State President may authorise service conditions for Commissioners, and that the benefits received were therefore unauthorised;
2. (b) the use of the House Ownership Fund was not authorised, firstly for the same reason as applies to the officials and secondly because the Commissioners are not employees; and
3. (c) the amounts due will not be recoverable from the Superannuation Fund as provided for in the agreements, nor can they be recovered from the pension benefits in terms of the Pension Regulations for Railway Commissioners.

1. (a) the loans be recovered forthwith;
2. (b) interest be levied on the loans from the date of the loan being made until repayment date, at the prime overdraft rate ruling over that period; and
3. (c) section 12(4) of the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Act, 1983 (Act No 17 of 1983), be amended so that the General Manager may not grant loans to officials or Commissioners of the South African Transport Services.”.

If hon members will turn to the report of the Auditor-General and look at the section entitled “Loans to Management and Commissioners” on page 24 they will see that it reads as follows:

That was what the Auditor-General said in his annual report.

One has to turn to the evidence to discover what actually happened. The evidence is very bulky but I merely want to quote a few of the details. When Dr Welgemoed asked: “May I ask Dr De Loor whether he could provide more details concerning this issue?”, the Auditor-General replied as follows:

That was the Auditor-General’s introduction.

In the course of the hearing of evidence on this matter, Dr Grové, the General Manager of SATS, gave the following answer to a question put by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central:

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central later put the following question to Dr Grové:

The reply was: “Most of them have housing loans”, so this was over and above what they had.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also asked the following question:

The reply was as follows:

So, the responsibility is also that of the hon the Minister.

A bad Minister.

Mr Malcomess asked a further question:

Dr De Loor replied:

Are you enjoying this speech?

I am not enjoying it. It is my duty.

Are you enjoying it? [Interjections.] Why don’t you ask for a loan? You might get one.

Mr Raw asked the following question:

The reply of the General Manager was: “That is what it basically boils down to.”

In another reply to a question by me the General Manager said:

Mr Isaacs then asked:

The reply was:

There was another reply from Dr De Loor when he said the following:

Lastly, I would just like to read the final remarks made by the Auditor-General at the very end of the meeting when he was asked certain other questions. He replied as follows:

That is the difference, Mr Chairman. The Auditor-General also said the following:

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central then asked Dr Grové whether he considered this particular loan to be like all other loans, and Dr Grové said that he did not agree.

That more or less states what the position is. The question that arises is whether the General Manager had the authority in terms of section 12 of the SATS Finance and Accounts Act of 1983 to do what he did. It provides the following:

I considered this matter to be so serious that although it was the opinion of the legal advisers that he could not act in terms of this provision, I obtained my own legal opinion from a very senior advocate, who says the following:

He then goes on to say:

In other words, the situation is that in terms of this particular section as it stands, it was quite legal for the General Manager to do what he did in the first instance. However, I do not think that was the intention of this particular section when this Act was originally passed. This particular section was meant to give the General Manager carte blanche to act in normal terms and not in the terms under which it appears here.

The question then arises as to whether the General Manager acted correctly. At a previous meeting of the committee this question was raised, and we suggested that it was perhaps a matter to be considered by the Advocate-General. The matter which will have to be considered—we recommend that the hon the Minister goes into it—is that if a person has reasonable ground to suspect that any person, either directly or indirectly, has been or is being enriched or has received or is receiving an advantage in an unlawful and improper manner through or as a result of any act or omission by a person who is performing service in the employ of the State or an institution, body or association referred to in the definition of “public moneys”, then in terms of section 4 of the Advocate-General Act it is a matter which should be dealt with by the Advocate-General.

This is one of the matters which will have to be considered. We on this side of the House consider it to be a very serious matter indeed. We have given our reasons as to why we think so, and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will deal with that in greater detail.

I now want to deal with the second part, namely the part which deals with the question of general sales tax. The report of the Auditor-General on the accounts of the SATS for the financial year 1984-85 reveals in paragraph 10 that the SATS, by means of contracts approved by the Receiver of Revenue in Johannesburg, deprived the Exchequer of sales tax to the amount of R34 million and, in doing so, the SATS effected a saving of some R24 million. Furthermore, it is reported that Finansbank made a profit of some R7 million to R8 million. Hon members can find this in paragraph 10 on page 5 of the report, under the heading “Agreements entered into with two companies”.

I do not want to read out the whole of that portion of the report. All I want to quote is the following:

In other words, first of all it was for R600 million and then for R350 million. The report goes on to state:

I want to deal with the transaction of R600 million first. I also want to quote from the Auditor-General’s evidence to the standing committee in this regard:

*That is the point. It is a business enterprise of the State. I quote further—

†According to the data which was produced by the SATS the advantages of the R600 million transaction amounted to R21 million, while the loss in GST to the State amounted to R34 million. The difference in the amounts was evidently paid in respect of cost of property. The whole point is that in terms of section 27B of the Exchequer and Audit Act, Act No 66 of 1975, the hon the Minister of Finance agreed to the exemption of an annual amount of R75 million from 1 April 1980 in order to assist the SATS. To do this, the hon the Minister of Finance changed R850 million in existing Treasury loans and converted them into non-interest-bearing permanent capital of the SATS. In other words, the State had already given a present to the SATS of R75 million a year in order to meet the whole question of GST, and then, at the first opportunity, the SATS uses this in order to deprive the State of R34 million. If this had not happened in the first instance, they could possibly have been forgiven. When the State, however, had proved so generous, why should they have done this to the State?

It is absolutely true that the bank made the same offer to other people.

What actually happened was that the hon the Minister of Finance announced an increase in GST on a particular date. It was, however, to come into effect at a later date—about six weeks to two months later. Therefore payers of GST were enabled to devise tax-avoidance schemes. In this particular instance two companies belonging to the Waring group did the transactions. Finansbank has the controlling interest of the Waring group because it owns 70% of the shares, while the remaining 30% of the shares belong to General Mining. The two companies were F R Waring Associated and Waring Minerals International. F R Waring Associated bought goods in terms of two contracts for R134 million and R450 million respectively—plus GST, of course. Waring Minerals International bought goods to the value of R16 million…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: With reference to Rule 125 of the Standing Rules and Orders I just want to ask whether the hon member for Bezuidenhout is allowed to read his entire speech in this House. [Interjections.] He is not only using it for purposes of reference; he is reading virtually every word. [Interjections.]

Order! The aspect regarding the prohibition of the reading of speeches by hon members has been discussed in this House on several occasions. However, it is something which is so generally accepted these days that I am not prepared to call an hon member to order every time he does so. The hon member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr Speaker, Finansbank, in their statement before the Select Committee on the Accounts of the SATS, stated that the Waring group were international and local commodity dealers, and that they endeavoured to do deals of a highly sophisticated nature, to the benefit of both the private and the public sectors. They purported that they could reduce the purchase price for buyers by way of cash transactions allowing them greater discounts. On 13 May 1984 the hon the Minister announced that on 31 July GST would be increased from 7% to 10%. If GST on goods were paid in full, however, before 1 July 1984, they would only then be liable for 7% GST instead of the full 10%.

On 29 June 1984 Finansbank paid R600 million plus R42 million to the sellers of a whole list of specified goods in terms of the contract which we have in our possession. The supply contracts between the SATS and the suppliers were ceded to Waring’s, and there was a long and complicated contract drawn up between them, in terms of which, over the next two to three years, the goods were delivered to the SATS. Another member of the Select Committee asked the following question, and I quote:

He did not think, however, that that was the appropriate thing to do in this case.

Another question that was asked—this is the most important point—reads as follows:

Mr Schweppenhӓuser—then the Commissioner for Inland Revenue—replied:

Mr Shaver then asked:

Mr Schweppenhäuser replied:

As I have said, the Receiver of Revenue in Johannesburg had given it his approval but the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, when he heard about this, sought his own legal counsel. I quote:

That, then, is the point I want to make.

I also want to highlight a very strange occurrence. I asked the gentleman from Warings why three companies were used. He replied that that was because the particular company used certain purchases more related to it. I then asked why three companies were mentioned. He replied that he thought the name of one of the companies had been changed and therefore differed slightly from the original name. I then asked:

Mr Van der Berg replied:

He subsequently did furnish us with details which showed that they were used to make up tax losses. Although I am not a “tax-lator”, it occurred to me that there was perhaps a contravention of section 103 of the Income Tax Act, and I feel this should be investigated.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I think the hon member discussed the most important aspects of this report fully in the half-hour at his disposal. I think he covered the two important points which we dwelt on for some time in the standing committees, comprehensively.

I also want to refer to this aspect, but I want to do so from a different point of view. I want to begin with the question of contracts in particular.

As far as the contracts are concerned, we did all the work we had to do. We gathered all the information and witnesses, for example. The witnesses gave evidence before us and set out the matter clearly to us. The only thing I want to say about that, is that in my opinion Sats acted correctly in respect of the contract sections. I know there are problems with the interpretation of the contract, but I think Sats acted correctly.

I have a problem, and I think the problem resides with the South African Transport Services Act, Act 65 of 1981. This Act contains two clear instructions. Section 3(1) stipulates, for example, that Sats is not a separate juristic person, but one of the State’s business enterprises. I think this contains a certain element of conflict. [Interjections.]

Section 7 clearly says:

It goes on to say:

When I look at all these instructions, I get the impression that there are conflicting instructions, and I said so in the standing committee. On the one hand Sats has to save, but on the other it has to cover its costs. In addition Sats has to spend more than R1 000 million per annum on socio-economic services. These are services which are cross-subsidised either by the Government or by Sats itself.

This reminds me of what Confucius, the Chinese philosopher who lived 500 years before Christ, said: “Those who do not want to save, will be tormented.” I think that is the position Sats is in. It tried to save, and now we are tormenting it. I think we should set Sats aside for a moment and accept that what they did was correct in terms of the Act and also in terms of the Income Tax Act. Even after the people of Sats had discussed this with the officials responsible for income tax, the latter wrote a letter to Sats—we all have a copy of the letter—in which they indicated that it was correct.

For the sake of completeness I do just want to say that Sats acted in the same way as many other firms did at the time. Individuals did the same thing; we all filled our motor cars because the hon the Minister of Finance had given us a reasonable warning. There were probably a lot of us who bought furniture and others that bought food, but everyone acted within the Act. I do not think anything irregular was done in this case.

We did make a recommendation. I know the hon member for Bezuidenhout moved an amendment. When we look at the Minutes of the House, however, we see on page 242 at point 5.2—about contracts—that this matter was discussed fully and that we made a recommendation. I do want the hon the Minister of Finance to consider this recommendation, because it is not one of Sats problems. It is a problem that arises in the tax laws.

We made a recommendation, and I hope that before the Margo Commission submits its report, it will consider the recommendation so that this kind of thing can be obviated. If the State wants to obtain all the revenue it thinks it needs and for which there is legislation, we must not leave a gap as happened in this case. The hon the Minister of Finance acted in agreement with the decision taken by him and the Cabinet, however, and that is how this was announced.

I should like to come back to another matter which causes problems, and that is the almost R1,5 million which was passed on to the Sats’ management and the Commissioners as a “soft” loan. I want to discuss that as one of the less pleasant or happy episodes in Sats history. This matter bothered me, and I think it bothered every other member in the standing committee too. We went into the matter. The Act was explained to us clearly. The lawyers of the Department of Justice explained the matter to us, and I think it was spelt out reasonably clearly within the Act. The spirit of the Act is at issue too, however. The old saying is that one can turn an Act must be wide enough to accommodate a cart and a team of oxen. Our transport drivers will know what I am talking about. I do not think the spirit of the Act was really respected by the management and the Commissioners in this case.

This brings me to a wider ranging discussion which is in progress among the public at large. At this stage I should like to speak directly to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and put questions to him. Apparently we are going to adjourn within the next day or two and Dr Wim de Villiers’ report has not been tabled yet. We shall probably not receive it until we return. As the hon the Leader of the House said, that will probably be on 30 January 1987 at the earliest. With regard to the R1,5 million—as I said, this is rather an unfortunate episode—I merely want to ask the hon the Minister about the problem of parliamentary control over Sats, because that is what the discussion among the public at large is about. I know about it, because many people in my constituency work for Sats, and some of the trade union leaders live there too. There is a problem which is becoming more and more prominent and which is giving rise to more and more questions. We all want to know whether Sats should be under parliamentary control or not.

This episode brought this point into prominence once again. I want to ask the hon the Minister what his standpoint is, because I cannot go back to Primrose for the next few months and hear only in February 1987 what the Wim de Villiers report says. I should be very grateful if the hon the Minister would be prepared to reply to my question when he replies to this debate. We should be able to convey that standpoint to the trade union leaders and the Sats workers who want to know how those of us in this House, irrespective of the party we belong to, see the important point of whether or not Sats should remain under parliamentary control. [Interjections]

As a result of a rather unfortunate episode that took place and the further unhappiness caused by it because certain people, viz those not in the management, could not share in it, my standpoint this afternoon is that Sats should remain under parliamentary control. I shall acquiesce in what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs decides, however, and I should like him to elaborate on it.

No! [Interjections.]

I should like to ask for a reply to this so that we can convey it to those concerned, particularly since salary increases are being requested again. With all the new transport legislation that is being predicted for next year and which will be discussed by the standing committee, I think it would be a good idea if we could get the guidelines from the hon the Minister.

I do not want to say any more about the whole question of the money that was allocated with only the verbal approval of the hon the Minister. I think the standing committee expressed itself meaningfully on this matter.

Before I go any further, I want to welcome the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central back into the House after his long absence. I want to tell him it was beautifully quiet when he was not here, and I hope he will conduct himself quietly during the last two days of the session so that the peace will continue. I do want to welcome him back into the House after his travels. He reminds me of Archbishop Tutu when he travels around like that. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I think it is a harsh amendment when one thinks that those people have to repay the money immediately; I do not know whether they will be able to do that so quickly. I am convinced that the hon the member had a point, however, when he said the relevant Act had to be amended to prevent cases such as this one.

My standpoint remains that in a case such as this one, in which we want to compensate people for their good service, we should compensate them directly by means of salaries. All kinds of gimmicks must not be used to do so. If one decides people are worth X amount, they must be paid X amount and other “things” should not be used to pay them X amount. That is my standpoint on this matter.

I should like to point out two matters in the report of the standing committee which I regard as a great improvement. I am referring to the heading “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”. We have reached the stage at which we are going to use a new concept to refer to a unit, viz the “Hill”. A “Hill” refers to one million effective tons which are conveyed at a speed of one kilometre per hour over a distance of one kilometre. This is definitely a better term than a “ton kilometre” or “open permanent way”, because “100 ton kilometres” can be one ton over 100 kilometres or 100 tons over one kilometre, so that one does not know what exactly one is working with.

I should like to congratulate the management of Sats on creating a new concept which has eliminated a whole number of the problems we have experienced with the interpretation of statistics and the analysis of some of this information. We can now use the term on a fixed basis so that everyone knows what we are talking about. I am very grateful that we have a norm which can be used as a standard.

I also want to address the request that when we compare transport statistics in future and when the hon the Minister gives the CSIR instructions to do certain work in cooperation with the Central Statistic Service, we shall try to get all transport statistics in South Africa on a more rationalised basis so as to be able to make comparisons. I have sketched to the House that one ton over 100 km is the same as 100 tons over one kilometre. We do not know what we are working with. I therefore request the Central Statistic Service and other bodies to take cognisance of this norm in future to get a standard norm so that we can make comparisons, especially since transport is on the eve of deregulation and greater competition. This will make it easier to make comparisons regarding this aspect.

In conclusion I want to point out one thing which elicited quite a lot of discussion, viz the pension fund. We have spoken about it before, and I merely want to say that Sats’ pension fund as defined in the reports 4, 5, 6 etc, about pensions and the whole home ownership fund which is associated with this, is a very strong fund. The fact that the fund is available to all races now is a great improvement. Hon members must take the following into account, however, because we must take cognisance of this in these times we are experiencing. For every R1 the Sats employee pays into the pension fund, Sats pays R3,25. There is so much talk about the fact that Sats employees do not get sufficient salary increases etc, and in mitigation I want to submit that one take these fringe benefits into consideration, because Sats’ contribution of R3,25 for every R1 contributed by the employee is a great fringe benefit.

I also want to say in particular that many people in South Africa who work for Sats are the owners of homes at very low interest rates today as a result of this generous contribution. The possibility of owning homes was created because these funds were used for that purpose. I want to express my thanks to Sats for continuing to assist people, young people in particular, who qualify to obtain homes in this way, as set out in the report.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Primrose asked the hon the Minister whether the SATS should remain under parliamentary control or not. I think that question is answered by the very report which we have before us, and by what it has disclosed through the fact that it is under the control of Parliament and audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. As long as the SATS remains one of the biggest business undertakings in the country, and until such time as it is privatised—if ever—I can see no alternative to its remaining under the control of Parliament, and particularly under its financial control. I think that is a broad issue which is answered by the report rather than flows from it.

While I am dealing with peripheral matters, I think it is interesting to note that the new measurement, the “hill”, does not refer to a physical hill, that is a “koppie” or a “rantjie”. We will find in future that an unknown SATS engineer’s name will appear year after year in the annual reports and records, and thus will have immortalised his name much more than any General Manager or Minister of Transport Affairs has ever done! These have come and gone and been forgotten, but Mr Hill will be remembered for the new measurement which he formulated and which will now become part of the permanent record of the SATS.

Let me turn to the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout who repeated at great length what had been said on the standing committee by quoting from the evidence which had been given.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. I was merely saying that he lost his audience in the House because of the great lengths to which he went to do it. He certainly lost me; in fact he started to put me to sleep. [Interjections.] There is a simple issue involved here. Admittedly, I am not personally experienced. I am not an expert on sharp business practices on the borderline between what is legal and what is not legal. I am a simple soul, and there are two issues which are raised here and which to me seem simple. [Interjections.]

Tell us about postal rates. [Interjections.]

Yes, I am still a simple soul. In business I simply judge whether a thing looks right or wrong. Now, having read this amendment and listened to it, quite honestly I am no wiser than I was before.

There are two issues involved here which look simple to every one of us here who is not a businessman who is steeped in experience and has been sharpened on the grindstone of what one can get away with in business. Firstly, I want to deal with the contracts. To me it seems strange that the SATS could enter into contracts to buy goods without specifying the details of what they were buying and then cede those contracts so that they would pay for goods which they had not ordered in detail, which had not been delivered and which would not be delivered for a long time, and so avoid paying sales tax on them. I do not think any of us liked it, but I think anyone—even the hon member for Bezuidenhout himself—must have been satisfied that the SATS had clearly acted legally. They went to the Receiver of Revenue in advance and explained to him what they wanted to do. They obtained in writing his approval that this was legitimate tax avoidance. Now, the issue is whether it was wise. There is no question about its being honest and about its having been cleared by the Receiver of Revenue. So, let us get that aspect out of the way. [Interjections.]

The question is now whether it was in the interests of the country. Frankly, I do not believe it was, and I think that the report makes this clear. It makes it clear that this loophole should be closed. However, this is a loophole used by everyone who fills up his tank with petrol before the increase in the petrol price, or who buys a fridge or a car because the sales tax will soon be going up.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether when one goes to buy a fridge before an increase in sales tax, one is not buying an identifiable article? Now, what was the identifiable article or articles which were bought in this case? What were they? [Interjections.]

That is the point I have just made…

[Inaudible.]

The point I made was that to me as a layman it seemed strange that one could buy something without specifying what it is.

That is correct. They are a bunch of rogues. [Interjections.]

I am not in the rogue class… [Interjections.]

Are you defending them?

I am saying that they obtained permission or clearance from the Receiver of Revenue, and therefore they acted legally. Apparently other people do the same.

The clearance of the Receiver of Revenue refers only to facts which one puts before the Receiver. If one does not put the full facts to the Receiver…

That is the same as any court, surely.

There was a letter placed before the standing committee which authorised this particular deal. Therefore, I accept that it was not illegal, but I do not think that any of us felt that it was something which was advisable and in the interests of the country. In fact, the report, whilst saying that it accepted the legality of such a step, specifically urged that steps be taken to consider delaying any announcements in future increases of GST as long as possible in order to limit such undesirable practices as far as practicable. What I am saying is that the committee accepted that it was an undesirable practice…

Making the taxpayer pay!

Yes, the taxpayer lost by the use of a private company, and the country lost money in taxation.

What about the R850 million? [Interjections.]

I let the hon member for Bezuidenhout burble on with his speech without one interruption and he should now let me make my speech. [Interjections.]

The case was argued at length. It was accepted by all, including the hon member for Bezuidenhout, that it was not illegal. All we are arguing about now is his version of how hard the SATS should be hit or how gently they should be let off. That indicates that we did not like it and still do not like it and we do not think it should happen again.

I accepted the wording of this report in the standing committee. I voted for it and I stand by that. If I had not wanted to do so, my function was to vote against it and move an amendment to go on record. I did not do so. I accepted this report which was argued over for days. We had draft after draft. We had the view of the Auditor-General and of the General Manager. We had composites of the two, and ultimately we came out with this report. Therefore I am not going to support an amendment which goes back to square one and tries to incorporate into a report all the arguments we had in the committee. I accept that what happened was undesirable and that the committee indicated that it was undesirable and that it should be made, if not impossible, as impossible as possible, to repeat such an operation.

In your version you are voting for an immoral thing!

If something that any businessman can do is immoral, then it is immoral. I am not arguing about that. I said I did not like it and that the committee did not like it…

We are dealing with public money!

Of course we are dealing with public money! However, we are dealing with an operation which was legal…

It was not legal!

No!

It was legal. It was accepted by the Receiver of Revenue…

Let’s go to court, come on!

The hon member for Yeoville is entitled to do so if he wants to keep the advocates busy but I am satisfied that the standing committee stated that it was undesirable and I am prepared to let the matter rest there.

It was a conspiracy!

I do not know whether to call it a conspiracy. The hon member will find my opinion in the minutes. I regarded it as sharp practice. It was sharp practice but it was accepted by the Receiver of Revenue in writing.

Even the channelling of profits into a tax-loss company? [Interjections.]

Even the Auditor-General did not at any stage allege that it was not legal. There was no evidence to state that this was not legal. It was a question of whether it had been in the interests of the State…

Legal but sharp!

Yes that is a good explanation: Legal but sharp. [Interjections.]

†The argument was whether it was in the interests of the SATS and whether it was its duty to save itself money to pass on to its users at the cost of the State, or whether it should have paid like a good boy and let the users of the SATS cough up the extra amount rather than that the State should lose money. I believe that it acted wrongly but I do not believe that it acted in a way which requires that this House should now condemn its action in harsh terms.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member for Durban Point whether he knows why the Post Office refused to accept the same sort of situation?

Perhaps they held a different view as to what is acceptable practice. [Interjections.] They may well do it. However, I am not going to continue with this side argument with the PFP. I think that we have stated the matter clearly enough in the report and I am not going to take this opportunity to now come to Parliament and to reopen the whole matter in the form of this amendment which goes far further than the standing committee was prepared to.

The other issue is that of the loans to senior management and to the Commissioners. Here again I must say quite frankly that I was and am most unhappy about this practice. I believe that this was wrong. I believe that it was a hidden benefit which should not have been granted in this form. Once again it is possible, although there was conflicting evidence in this regard, that it fell within the powers granted by the Act to handle the matter in the way it was handled, but there was certainly a conflict of legal opinion over it. I do not think this is the right way of doing business.

That is putting it politely.

Yes—I am putting it politely. I think it is a hidden benefit which, had it not been disclosed, would have remained undiscovered.

I believe that if we want to reward top management, then they should be paid what they are worth and it should be a straightforward payment, open and aboveboard, and not a hidden loan which was purported to be a housing loan but which in fact was not. It was a straightforward loan, purported to be a housing loan although it did not have to be used for housing purposes. [Interjections.]

I believe that even though management had the verbal approval of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, that is not sufficient and the whole position should be regularised. If necessary the law should be amended and there should be no doubt in future that whenever a benefit of this nature is given, it is given as part of the pay package and seen to be such, particularly in the case of the Commissioners. The Commissioners are not employees; they are a board. They are appointed to the board and act virtually in the capacity of Deputy Ministers. They are not on the paysheet or members of the pension fund and they are reappointable every five years. I certainly do not believe that the Commissioners should have been granted loans of this nature—loans at a nominal percentage purporting to be housing loans.

I hope we shall find that arising from the discussions and the report on this matter the position will be regularised. I would not go so far as to say, as the hon member did, that they must be repaid immediately. I do not think that is practical but I would like to see them regularised and placed on a basis where there is no doubt that they are part of a pay package. Fringe benefits tax will have to be paid on them, but I do not like this way of paying a hidden salary, under the counter as it were, to selected persons in any establishment.

I do not think I shall waste time on the other matters. I accept the report as I did in the standing committee and I cannot vote for the amendment because I believe they carry the criticism far further than it is necessary to carry it in this House.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Durban Point for supporting this report and also for what I believe was a very constructive speech on this entire matter. Then again, Sir, I think that was to be expected from the hon member because I believe I am correct in saying that, of all hon members sitting in this House, he must be the longest serving member on the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services. I do not know when he first became a member of that committee but it must surely have been 20 or more years ago! I mention this because I just want to indicate to hon members that the hon member for Durban Point has a great depth of experience in regard to the way in which this standing committee actually operates.

I have served on this committee for 11 of the past 12 years. It was one of the first committees to which I was appointed. I must say, Sir, that as a freshman member of Parliament at the time, the one thing that impressed me most about the way in which Parliament operates was the way in which a standing committee on an appropriation operates. What also impressed me was the role which the Auditor-General plays in the running of this Parliament. In fact, he truly is Parliament’s and the public’s watchdog. It was in fact the Auditor-General who brought these matters to the committee.

We know from past history that there have been occasions when the Auditor-General’s report has indeed uncovered irregularities, some of which have caused major crises in Parliament. I am quite sure the hon member for Yeoville knows very well what I am talking about. He was the member who, some years ago, as a result of the Auditor-General’s report, pressed a point which caused great revelations to be made to this Parliament and the country. I mention this because…

And there was a Minister who gave verbal consent there too.

That may be true.

However, the point I am trying to make is that these standing committees of Parliament and the officials who present their reports to these committees are there to ensure that the State operates correctly and that public moneys are looked after.

The one point I want to make is that everything we have been discussing in this debate so far was revealed within the report and was made available to the Auditor-General by the General Manager and his staff. There was therefore no attempt to hide any information. Once the Auditor-General had raised this point with management the answers were clearly forthcoming.

I believe the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s amendment tends to indicate that there was much of an illegal or fraudulent nature that was taking place within the SATS. I think this tends to cast a very bad reflection upon the General Manager and his staff. I want to say, as a member of the committee which looked into this, that that is not a true reflection. I think that the hon members sitting in the Official Opposition benches, were the only ones who wanted to submit a different report to the one we are now debating, along the lines of this amendment. When one studies the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout one sees that his party is trying to indicate that there was something fishy about this whole matter, and I do not believe there was.

What I do want to say, is that the practices could perhaps be looked upon as undesirable.

Well, were they undesirable or not?

Yes, I believe that perhaps the ways in which they went about things to solve certain problems were not the correct ways. [Interjections.]

To solve what problems?

This is the very point I want to make, Sir. Perhaps the reason why these two events took place, namely the one involving the contracts and the other concerning the loans, was because of the failings of this House and this Parliament! We leave too many loopholes in our legislation which open the way for people in the private sector who are in competition with one another and with the Receiver of Revenue to utilise these loopholes to benefit their own businesses and operations. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon member for Bezuidenhout as a businessman, and as one businessman to another, whether he has never taken legal advice or advice from accounting firms in regard to the tax laws of this country to see whether there are loopholes which he can use in tax avoidance schemes so as to avoid paying tax.

This is evasion, not avoidance.

The hon member for Yeoville says this evasion, but that is his opinion. That is his legal opinion; he is a legal man, I am not, but we had legal opinion—the committee did, from the Department of Justice and their legal advisers—that nothing illegal had been done. [Interjections.] In every court case there are two groups of legal experts—one group says a person is guilty and the other says he is not guilty.

Mr Speaker, in regard to the contracts and the GST avoidance, the hon member said that there was legal opinion taken on that. I want to ask him if he is quite sure of that, Mr Speaker, because my memory of it was that opinion was only sought from the Receiver of Revenue in Johannesburg and that there was no legal opinion taken on this at all.

Well, talking of legal opinion, I have here a translated version of a letter that came from the Department of Justice and it is headed “Legal opinion regarding the granting of …” Sorry, this is soft loans. I beg your pardon, it is not the correct document. [Interjections.]

However, the point is that when we asked the Commissioner for Inland Revenue who was at the meeting whether anything that had been done had contravened the tax laws he replied that there had been no contravention.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member, if in fact the view of the hon member is that this was the opinion of the Commissioner or the Receiver in Johannesburg, is it not a fact that, firstly, the Commissioner has been found by the special income tax court and by the Appellate Division in many cases to be wrong; and secondly, why do we not then let this matter be decided by the special income tax court?

There is no doubt that the hon member is correct that certain actions been found by the Appeal Court to have been incorrect, but the point was that this committee had to decide whether the management of the SATS had acted incorrectly and illegally. In the light of all the evidence that was placed before the committee it was agreed—with the exception of the hon members of the PFP—that the management had acted in good faith and that they were doing nothing other than many other firms were doing. This was agreed in the light of the evidence placed before them. [Interjections.]

However, the report before the House clearly states that these loopholes should be looked at. It recommends that these tax avoidance loopholes should be closed so as to ensure that this type of thing does not happen in the future. The point I want to make is that we perhaps, when looking at our legislation and also when the legal advisers are advising the standing committee in regard to this legislation, should look more closely at it to ensure that these loopholes do not exist.

As far as the loans to the senior management are concerned I am again inclined to agree with the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Waterkloof that we do have a problem in regard to the ways this was carried out, but there were certain anomalies which existed in the SATS salary structures. One found that certain senior officials, when they were promoted, so-called, to certain head office jobs, were in fact worse off than they had been in their previous jobs when one compared their various allowances such as housing allowances and free houses. The granting of these loans to senior management was done in order to ensure that the persons concerned was not worse off. I believe we have to get rid of these anomalies which exist. The problem that exists is that all too often the families of public servants—because they are open to the scrutiny of the Press and the public in general, although I agree they should be—are inclined to be denigrated or that the position of the individual concerned I believe, is denigrated at times. As a result, many of them are not being paid what they should be paid. We want to correct this particular problem, Sir, and I appeal to the hon members of the Official Opposition to look at this matter realistically because the senior officials of the SATS are top men in South Africa. They are running one of the biggest corporations in South Africa. Therefore, they should certainly be paid their worth. [Interjections.] They should be paid their correct worth but whenever there is talk of increases in the salaries of senior public servants, what actually happens? Do the hon members of the Official Opposition support those increases?

We have never opposed proper increases in respect of senior officials! Give me one example of an in stance in which we have opposed such increases!

Well, Sir…

Give me one example!

Sir, the hon member for Yeoville is asking for one example. He is an hon member of this House who gets up here very often to say that the State is paying too much money in respect of salaries and wages etc. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, they may talk that way now, but whenever increases are mooted, the Press blows it up out of all proportion and the public of South Africa are left with a perception that public servants are paid too much. [Interjections.]

You had better sit down. Every time you open your mouth to speak you put your foot deeper into it!

Sir, I believe we have to change that perception in the minds of the public. Someone once said if one paid people peanuts one only got monkeys. The senior officials of the SATS deserve every cent they earn because they are running one of South Africa’s biggest corporations, and I believe they should be correctly recompensed for it.

I believe the report before us clearly indicates the committee’s views in respect of this matter, Sir. These anomalies should be corrected, the regulations should be investigated and everything should be put in order. Therefore I have pleasure in supporting this measure. I believe the amendment tries to create the impression that there were a lot of illegal goings-on, and that people benefited when they should not have benefited. I believe that is an incorrect impression.

In the quiet of the standing committee, which consisted of members from all the parties in all three Chambers, there was general agreement on this report, and the only exceptions were the hon members from the PFP. In my view, at this moment the PFP are trying more to make political capital out of this issue than really to reflect the real spirit that prevailed in that committee—with the exception of themselves—in trying to resolve this particular problem. I believe that the standing committee, in its wisdom, resolved this problem in the best possible manner.

Mr Speaker, I will reply to the hon member for Amanzimtoti in due course. I want to start, however, by saying that the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, like the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, is a watchdog of Parliament. The purpose of having these committees is to identify areas where the public’s money, the taxpayers’ money, has been incorrectly or improperly used, and then to report to Parliament on their findings. The standing committees are not meant to be whitewashing mechanisms; they are meant to be watchdogs.

So, both the instances which we are discussing here today—the issue of GST avoidance or evasion in the contracts and the issue of the soft loans to the officials of the SATS—have in common that they cost the taxpayer of South Africa money. I believe, therefore, that it is the job of the standing select committee to identify such aspects and to take the proper steps to report to this Parliament.

I believe that through the debate we are having here today, we are reporting properly on what occurred. By contrast, I believe that neither the report that was voted on by the standing select committee nor the committee’s recommendations properly reflect the situation. That is why we are debating this matter in this House today.

I want to start by talking about the matter of the contracts on which GST was avoided. The hon member for Durban Point tried to compare this to a man who avoided paying GST on petrol by filling up his car when he heard that GST was about to go up. If this was what the SATS had done, if they had gone out and physically bought goods with the pre-knowledge that GST was going to go up and had taken delivery of those goods, then we would not have had a problem here. But this is not what we are talking about. This was a mechanism conceived by a financial institution which created a situation whereby the SATS bought a whole lot of goods in advance which they did not take delivery of and which to this day they probably have not taken delivery of, in order to es cape GST way back in the past. This is not something which has ever happened before.

It is true that they did seek the opinion of the Receiver of Revenue in Johannesburg and he advised them that it was permissible. That does not mean that it was legal. It was one man’s opinion that it was legal, and to the best of my knowledge he was not a legal man.

He consulted his head office.

Yes, certainly he consulted them. The point I am trying to make is that to the best of my knowledge no legal opinion was taken as to the legality of this action. I do not even want to discuss the legality of the particular operation because I do not think that it is the job of the standing committee to decide on legal questions as we are not legally trained. However, it is our duty to save the taxpayers’ money being spent in a bad way, and this is what happened. The net effect was that the State lost money. The SATS saved R34 million at the expense of the State but the loss in GST to the State was greater than that R34 million. [Interjections.] The difference between what the SATS saved and what the State lost was the profit made by the financial institution which thought or dreamed up this nasty little scheme which the department of the hon the Minister of Communications—I see he is in the House today—had sense enough to turn down when they were offered the scheme. [Interjections.] However, the department of the hon the Minister of Transport Services accepted it and the overall net result was that the State lost money. The SATS saved, the Exchequer lost and the in-between mechanism, the company that thought it all up, the Waring group of companies which had a tax loss, which did not even have to pay tax on the profits that they made, were the people that made the money.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon member whether this is not the case in every instance in the private sector—one must bear in mind that the SATS is in competition with private hauliers—where tax avoidance schemes result in savings in taxation, a loss to the State in revenue and profit to the person who thinks up the tax avoidance scheme?

That is a very easy question to answer. Let us talk about a business in the private sector, which has two different departments. I can guarantee hon members that the board of that company would be very angry with a department that made a saving which overall cost the company money. They would put a stop to that forthwith because they would not accept for half a second that one department of a business should make a profit at the expense of another department as a result of which an outside body made money. This is what has happened here. What we seek to do with our amendment is to strengthen the disapproval that this institution, Parliament, gives to this scheme. It goes as far as to say:

They were undesirable because they cost the State money. It went on to say:

With a recommendation like that which came from this Parliament the SATS would not be able to repeat what they had done. I can tell you that if there were to be an increase in GST tomorrow—I hope there will not be, but with this Government spending the taxpayers’ money, for instance, by reconvening Parliament which sits for a few weeks and does not deal with anything of importance—one would have a situation that is very undesirable indeed.

I want to come now to the scurrilous little affair of the soft loans to the Commissioners and to certain officials of the SATS. The situation here is absolutely clear. Allow me first of all to give the background to it: There had been more or less a freeze on increases right through the public sector. There were trade unions, employees’ organisations of the SATS itself that were giving the hon the Minister a hard time because they were not getting the increases in salary they believed they should have received. This affected everybody in the SATS from the General Manager down to the lowliest employee.

However, the senior officials discovered a way of overcoming the fact that they were not getting this increase. In the evidence given to the standing committee it is quite clear from an answer given by the General Manager—this was quoted by the hon member for Bezuidenhout—that they used this soft-loan scheme because it was the only way in which they felt they could pay themselves an increase in salary. They knew they could not get it any other way. If they could have done so, they would have. However, because they could not, they went for this scurrilous little scheme and they paid themselves out R1,45 million at 4% per annum. At that stage the prime overdraft bank rate was up to 20% or 21%. Let us assume that they only saved themselves 10% on ordinary loans. They would still have paid themselves an extra R145 000 per year among 14 of them and three Commissioners.

There can be no doubt that the mechanism of the little legal clause they used in order to lend themselves this money was not intended by this House when the Bill was passed and became law. It was not intended to be used by officials to make themselves loans. It was for loans to be made in the normal course of business. I am quite certain that if somebody had had the forethought to move an amendment at that stage to prevent that clause from being used for loans to officials it would have been agreed to by this House without any shadow of a doubt.

I believe that against the background of all the employees of the SA Transport Services not being given the sort of increases which they thought they should have, this is something of which a very stern view should be taken by Parliament. We are meant to be the watchdog of public money. In fact, Sir, in the United Kingdom they go as far as to make members of the opposition chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do not know whether or not they have a Select Committee on Transport Accounts. I expect they do not. I believe this is an example we could follow. I am not for one moment suggesting that the chairman of the present standing select committee did a bad job; on the contrary, I think he leant over backwards to give every member the opportunity to put his case in full. Nevertheless, I think this is a principle we should think about in this Parliament. A member of the opposition, rather than a member of the Government, should be chairman of the committee which, after all, is seeking to investigate the actions of the Government.

We in the PFP took such a serious view of this particular matter that at one stage we considered that it should be reported to the Advocate-General, because the Advocate-General is there to investigate cases of self-enrichment. I cannot see this in any way other than that one is giving oneself an increase in salary. We decided, however, that in view of the committee discussion on the whole matter, in which our views were fully aired, and that we would have every opportunity to air this matter in this House that that step would perhaps be unnecessary. The committee then voted. I confess to being astonished that the representatives of the Labour Party and the NPP saw fit to vote with the Government on this particular issue, because the net result—when one has read the recommendation before this House—is that the people who did this have got away with it. They are keeping their money and they are keeping it at a low rate of interest. When one considers the background to how they gave themselves this money, I do not think it is just or that it should happen. They have given themselves an increase in salary which they should not have had. I want the hon the Minister to reply specifically to that, because he apparently authorised it verbally.

Will he do it again?

Will he stand up in front of the trade unions of the SATS and tell them the story? Will he tell them that he authorised it at the time when he was saying “no” to them? If he were to do that, he would be a very courageous man indeed!

I do not think they should be allowed to get away with it, and that is why we recommend that the money should be repaid. I realise full well that it might take some considerable time to repay that money, and I would not seek to put a time limit on that repayment, provided only that a fair and reasonable rate of interest is paid on the loan while it is still outstanding. I suggest a prime bank overdraft rate. I would consider this generous because, if I wanted to borrow money in order to buy a house, I would certainly have to pay a bond rate which would be considerably higher than the prime overdraft rate. We believe therefore that this Parliament should not justify these loans and that it should attempt to ensure the repayment of that money and that it recovers interest at a reasonable rate on the funds that were lent.

I thank the hon member for Primrose for welcoming me back in this House. I must say that I was astonished, having flown so far and so long to return, to find that Parliament was sitting for only a further two days.

The hon member performed quite a skilful eggdance on the subject of these loans, and I want to congratulate him. I had a feeling that he felt exactly as I did about this particular affair.

The hon members debated it in such a skilful way that he basically ended up saying, “Fine, if they are worth the extra money, let us pay it to them in salary”. I agree with the hon member. I agree 100%. It should be done over the counter, aboveboard, in an honest way—let us give them a salary. I would go along with that 100%. In fact the hon member skilfully skirted the issue and did not succeed in coming out very strongly one way or the other.

The hon member for Durban Point, who I see is no longer in the House, complained that the hon member for Bezuidenhout had put him to sleep. I want to inform him and his party that they are going to be put to sleep permanently in the Claremont and Pinelands constituencies today. Tomorrow afternoon we shall meet in this House to bury the NRP, because that is where they are going to be after the elections today.

I believe this Parliament should think very seriously in this particular debate today about its role and its function. This Parliament does not exist for the purpose of being the rubber stamp of the Government, the Cabinet and the Executive. As individuals we must decide for ourselves what is right and what is just; and we must vote accordingly. I cannot believe that this Parliament can believe it was right and just for these people to lend themselves R1,45 million when one considers that of that R1,45 million, R150 000 was lent to the Commissioners! They do not even work for the South African Transport Services as such! They are a sort of super board and are appointed because of their political backgrounds. It is a sort of political favour that is dished out. The hon the Minister, I believe, has on occasion even called them his Deputy Ministers. This shows that they have a totally political function, and they, when approached, were given a little bribe. They were told: “Here is R50 000 for you at 4% interest.” Of course, they approved the whole thing.

Inasmuch as I disapprove very strongly of the officials having taken this money, I disapprove even more strongly of the fact that the Commissioners themselves received R50 000 each at 4% interest. I should like to have the hon the Minister’s view on that. When one considers the role the Commissioners play in the SATS, I believe it is time to bring this system to an end.

We have heard today in this debate that the SATS is meant to be administered as a business. Well, then let us have a board of directors who are businessmen. Let us have a decent board who can really ginger up the SATS and give sound advice to the people who have to run the SATS. Sir, let us have the cream of South Africa’s businessmen sitting on the board of the SATS instead of people who get the jobs as a sort of political favour among the many which this Government has to hand out. [Interjections.]

So, I want to appeal to hon members of this House to think long and carefully what they are voting for if they vote against the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I support his amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the hon member whether, if he wants a board of directors, he still wants parliamentary control?

Yes, of course, because as long as it is a State corporation there must be parliamentary control and there must be a budget which comes before Parliament. I believe we have to exercise that function. However, I do not think that that conflicts at all with the idea of appointing businessmen to the board of the SATS. The hon the Minister can call them Commissioners if he likes, but let us appoint them for their business skills and not for their political skills which is the case at present.

There should be parliamentary control over Escom as well.

In regard to the hon the Minister’s question to me, I would suggest secondly that the SATS also ought to be put more into the private sector. We still want it to report to Parliament but let us then hive off as much as possible of the SATS into the private sector so that the whole thing becomes less of a giant, and less of a drain on the public.

I have just had word from my hon Whip, and in closing I move:

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

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

1. (1) the events that took place in Soweto;
2. (2) the actions of the various authorities, organisations and individuals in relation to those events; and
3. (3) the underlying causes of the events and the situation in Soweto.

I believe that the motion really requires no explanation. It calls for a full-scale, independent, judicial inquiry into the latest of a long list of tragic episodes in South Africa.

Under the National Government this country has lurched from one major crisis to the next, over and above, of course, the ongoing years of violence and endemic unrest. There are, alas, many dates to commemorate in South Africa: 26 March 1960—Sharpeville and the first emergency; 16 June 1976—The Soweto crisis on education; 3 September, today, the anniversary of the 1984 violence and unrest at Sebokeng and the Vaal Triangle; 18 February 1985—Crossroads and threatened removals; 26 March 1985—Uitenhage and the funeral massacre; 21 November 1985—Mamelodi and the funeral massacre; 22 March 1986—Alexandra Township; and ongoing trouble in May and June of this year at Crossroads and KTC, and the ugly episode of the Witdoeke, and the evidence of credible witnesses that the Government aided them in driving out other people. On 26 August 1986 there was the incident in Soweto and the issue of evictions as a result of non-payment of rent.

There is nothing new about holding a judicial inquiry into such tragic episodes. I want to remind hon members of this House that we have had the Wessels Commission inquiring into the incidents at Sharpeville, the Cillié Commission that inquired into the Soweto incidents in 1976, the Van der Walt Commission which looked into the Sebokeng and Vaal Triangle events and the Kannemeyer Commission on the Uitenhage incident. We have called for inquiries into the killings at Mamelodi and Alexandra, and at Crossroads and KTC, which the Government, for reasons best known to itself, has refused to give. Maybe the Government fears the things that might be revealed, if those commissions of inquiry are appointed, and that may well be the reason we have not had those commissions. In this instance, of course, the reason given by the hon the Deputy Minister of Information, who is in the House, is that a public inquest will be held and that is all that is necessary.

I did not say that! I did not say “public”.

Oh yes, you did!

Well, I must be blind because I myself, with my very own eyes, saw that beautiful face on television informing the public of South Africa that that is the case.

Did you hear what he said? [Interjections.]

I did hear what he said. That explanation cuts no ice. As everybody knows, the purpose of an inquest is specific and restricted. The judicial officer, who is a magistrate, is required under section 16(2) only to record a finding upon the inquest—

We know what happened at the Biko inquest.

The inquiry which we are asking for ranges far beyond these limited factors. We want the whole complicated series of cause and effect which led to a number of deaths and many injuries to be investigated. We want to know about the situation existing in the township; about the relationship between the community and the officials; whether the police overreacted; and why people for instance believed there were going to be wholesale evictions and so on. Those are the sort of things that the Van der Walt Commission covered in very great detail very competently.

We want a judge at the head of such an inquiry because he is far better qualified than a magistrate who is the lowest echelon of judicial officer and, as we know, judgements by magistrates are often set aside by superior courts. Most important of all, a magistrate is a public servant. He is within the system.

You have never accepted a judgement of court.

What are you talking about?

Oh yes, I have. I have accepted lots of things that judges have said. I have complimented the judges in recent months particularly on their very important decisions in the courts. Certainly, there are some that I have queried. That is my democratic right. However, I still have more confidence in what a judge will have to say about the Soweto unrest on 26 August than I would have in findings at an inquest under a magistrate because, as I have said, he is within the system; he is a public servant. A judge is independent and better qualified.

I hope I do not have to remind the hon the Minister of Law and Order about the grossly incorrect information which he gave to Parliament after the Uitenhage massacre, information which was fed to him by his own officials. That information is the only source from which the hon the Deputy Minister of Information gets his information ie through the Bureau for Information and, I might say, information which the hon the Minister had to retract and indeed had to correct in this House.

In the Soweto case, there are conflicting versions of what took place in White City Jabuva, on the night of August 26. I have here a Press report giving the Bureau’s version and I shall try to read it very rapidly to the House. The Bureau’s version is as follows:

In another report the Bureau said that about 1.30 am—

I quote further from the Press report as follows:

That was the official version given by the Bureau. We have the version given by an eyewitness and published in last Friday’s Weekly Mail and it is different. That version corresponds roughly with what Mr Rupert Lorimer, former MP for Orange Grove, and I were told when we visited Soweto and spent both Thursday and Friday mornings immediately after the riots and shootings on the Tuesday night, and talked at length with residents in White City. We talked with several different residents at different times in different places and so there could not have been any collusion. The most important thing is that they all told us the same thing—that there was no stonethrowing before the police started shooting and that there was no throwing of any petrol bombs. They admitted to hearing a loud bang later on, about three hours after the trouble started, which they assumed was the hand-grenade that was referred to in a police report. According to the reporter—the eyewitness reporter—we were not told this by the people we spoke to—there was a youth with an AK-47 and that he was firing at the police long after the police first started shooting.

They told us that seven evictions for non-payment of rent had taken place in Jabulani and Chiawelo, other parts of Soweto, the previous week. There were rumours that rent evictions on a wider scale were going to take place in White City on Tuesday night. The rumours were given substance by the fact that council police evicted a few families from White City on Tuesday morning. The heads of the families were taken to the council office and later were allowed to return to their homes.

That evening people attended meetings to decide what to do in the event of widespread evictions. As one group was leaving a house a council policevan drove down a street and fired a shot. No one was hurt. More vans appeared and fired over the heads of the crowd that assembled when whistles were blown. However, no warnings were given—and no stones were thrown, incidentally—before the police then started firing at the crowd. Youths built barricades to stop further police cars from coming in. Casspirs appeared on the scene, blocked off the area and fired teargas into the houses. By now many people had indeed been shot because the vans were going up and down the street firing at random. Some of the older people decided to go to the council and try to get them to call off the police. They found no officials there—only the police.

In the meantime people were battling to get the wounded to hospital. They said it took a long time before the Baragwanath ambulances arrived, but Red Cross ambulances arrived in the meantime. Many people were taken to a private clinic in Diepkloof. It is alleged there that the police or the army—I am not sure which—pulled the kids out of the cars that brought them to the clinic and beat them up. Many of the wounded refused to go to hospital because it is the practice of the police—as we have seen in the past—to arrest people who arrive in hospital as a result of unrest situations.

Why is the hon the Minister shaking his head? Everybody knows it happened in the Eastern Cape. They arrested people. The hon member for Berea and I went to the hospital and saw the wounded people there under arrest and under police guard. Therefore, what is he shaking his head for? He had better watch out; it will fall off altogether! [Interjections.]

The people to whom we spoke were extremely bitter about the shootings. Over and over again Mr Lorimer and I heard the words: “They are killing our people! Why are they killing our people?” One thing that emerged from our discussions…

What about the police being attacked with hand-grenades?

Oh, be quiet! I will let the hon the Minister talk when it is his turn. [Interjections.]

One thing that emerged from our discussions is that there is a sad lack of communication between the council and the residents of Soweto. Way back in April, we were told, a deputation from White City Jabavu went to see some councillors to put their grievances to the council. They were supposed to report back to the community in May but they had nothing to report.

I want to point out that White City is one of the poorest areas in Soweto. There are some of the “elephant houses” there, and I am sure the hon member who sits behind me will continue on that aspect. They are grim little structures that were built in the 1940s. They are vastly overcrowded by people in the lowest income group. Many pensioners live there. They consider the rent to be far too high. When they saw the councillors they were given a breakdown of the monthly amounts they were expected to pay. For the first time, they realised that rent per se was in fact the smallest percentage of what they had to pay. The rent is R3 per month, which is very little. However, in toto R50,80 has to be paid every month. The rest is for services, maintenance and rates, and the people say that they get very little indeed by way of maintenance. There is also an amount of R12 included in the R50,80, in respect of an electrification levy and then over and above that they pay, of course, for the electricity and the water which they use. People complain there is no maintenance—the toilets are not fixed when they break down and the houses are never painted or fixed up at all. The entire system of financing in Soweto has to be radically changed. It cannot be expected to be self-sufficient and the regional services councils are certainly not the answer. It may well be asked to what extent the present mood of hostility is caused by grievances long endured and I am sure that the answer is an unequivocal yes to a very great extent.

The Soweto Council inherited a legacy of bad management, inadequate funding, a massive shortfall of housing and a mountain of debt. The West Rand Administration Board, which took over from the Johannesburg City Council in 1973, had the misfortune to get Mr M C Botha as the responsible Minister, who we know was steeped in Verwoerdian ideology and did not build any houses because he was convinced everybody was going to go back to the homelands.

The electrification scheme, had it been completed in the 1950’s, would have cost R86 million. Now it has escalated in cost to R214 million because nothing was done to put in that electricity. What the cost will be of the failure to keep up with the demands in housing heaven alone knows. The shortfall is 22 000 houses in Soweto and that is probably only half of the total of the people needing shelter. Backlogs of eight to ten years exist on the council’s books and it is hardly worth anybody’s while putting their name on the waiting list. It would be very sensible to think about transferring the ownership of those houses to the people in Soweto who have lived there for many years and must long ago have paid off the cost of those original houses which is anything between R300 and R500 per house that is all.

I want to make two comments before I sum up. Firstly, I think the handling of the events on Tuesday night by the State-controlled media of radio and television was an absolute disgrace. [Interjections.] That is the only way I can put it. Soweto, believe it or not, was the main lead on BBC that morning. The main lead on Wednesday morning was the rioting in Soweto, the people who had been shot, and the number of people who had been wounded. South African listeners, however, learnt of the night’s happenings in the last item in the news at 08h00, after the sports items. Can you believe that, Sir? Extensive coverage was given to the people who were lost in a storm in Britain. That incident received coverage, but not the happenings in Soweto. There was nothing on TV—the hon the Deputy Minister of Information can correct me if I am wrong…

I am not responsible for television!

You could have fooled us! [Interjections.]

What!? [Interjections.] Oh, that hon Deputy Minister is the Deputy Minister of Information, and therefore he is responsible…

I am not responsible for television!

You are responsible for keeping television out!

That hon the Deputy Minister is responsible for giving information to the public…

He is simply irresponsible!

… and he should have demanded, and he would have got—I have no doubt whatsoever about that—time on television to tell the people of South Africa what had gone on in Soweto last Tuesday evening. He should therefore not try to get off the hook by giving me that ridiculous excuse, Sir. Life has become very cheap, that is the trouble. Black lives in particular have become very cheap. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, Black lives have become very, very cheap. [Interjections.] If I were to add up all the people who have been killed in all the incidents that have occurred over the years—from Sharpeville in 1960 until 26 August 1986—it will come to hundreds of people…

Why do you not refer to Blaauwkrans and Weenen and Moordspruit?

… and add up the people who have been killed in the ongoing unrest and during the two emergency periods we have had, it will come to thousands more. Therefore, that hon Deputy Minister should not try to give me that stuff.

What about all those who have been killed by their own fellow Blacks by means of the necklace and landmines?

Never, on South African television, never do we see the scenes that have made the whole world our enemies. The entire world has become the enemy of South Africa because they know what is going on in South Africa, and we do not know it because TV does not show it to us. That is because TV is controlled by the Government. That is why, Sir. That is disgraceful. [Interjections.] It is utterly disgraceful! It is absolutely disgraceful! [Interjections.]

Why do you not talk about all those who kill innocent people by means of the necklace?

Oh, I talk about the necklaces as well, Sir. [Interjections.] I condemn necklacing whenever it takes place, Sir. I condemn it. I condemned the hacking to pieces of a councillor on 26 August. That is to be condemned as well. Certainly, I condemn it unequivocally.

And the landmine?

It was not a landmine. It was a hand-grenade. [Interjections.]

In the Northern Transvaal?

I am busy with Soweto. I am not talking about the Northern Transvaal now. The hon member for Rissik should know that, Sir.

You are not concerned about what is happening to Whites. You are only concerned about the Blacks! [Interjections.]

I am talking about the Black people now, and I am addressing myself to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.]

I want to ask him about the restrictions which he has placed—or the commissioner to whom he has delegated this power—on the funeral which is supposed to take place tomorrow. My information is that the commissioner has restricted the funeral to an indoor funeral, to 200 people being present, to one preacher delivering the service to the mourners, and to everybody attending arriving in vehicles—nobody on foot. Is that correct? I sincerely hope it is not correct because it is ridiculous. It is so insensitive of this Government to think they can place such ludicrous restrictions on a funeral of that nature when there are nearly 2 million people living in Soweto. The Government say that funeral must be restricted to 200 people. Furthermore the dead can only be buried one at a time. No mass funerals are allowed.

Do you want a political service? [Interjections.]

I shall tell the hon the Minister what I want. I want the Government to clear out. [Interjections.] I want the Government out of power. That is what I want, Sir. [Interjections.] What I want is for the hon the Minister to realise that as long as he bans normal political meetings and does not allow freedom of association, funerals are going to be turned into political rallies because that is the only outlet that people have for their highly emotional feelings. With whom does that hon Minister think he is dealing, Sir? [Interjections.] He is dealing with a sophisticated urban population, and they want to be able to express their political feelings. If he goes on banning everybody and everything—and funerals in particular—he is inviting civil disobedience, and civil disobedience will occur. When that happens it is the unfortunate…

Are you propagating civil disobedience? [Interjections.]

You are the cause of it! [Interjections.]

… it is the unfortunate policemen who have to go in there in order to apply these ridiculous restrictions and the law. Then there is another confrontation, there is more shooting, and there are more funerals. It is a terrible spiral of violence and death, and I lay it firmly at the feet—the large feet!—of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] I say again, Sir, I lay it firmly at his feet.

I spoke to the hon the Minister about this this morning, and I hope and pray that he has had sufficient afterthoughts or second thoughts or whatever else one might want to call it to change the arrangements which the commissioner has made for those funerals, otherwise there is going to be terrible trouble! [Interjections.]

That is a tightly-knit community. The people have booked Jabavu Stadium, they have hired buses, and they have gone to further great expense which they can barely afford. I hope, therefore, that the hon the Minister will do something about the arrangements.

I shall just sum up very quickly. An independent judicial commission, with wide terms of reference, should be appointed immediately to establish what took place. Secondly, the evictions must stop forthwith. The people are caught up in a most terrible dilemma: They are threatened with arson if they pay their rent and they are evicted if they do not pay their rent. These are the ordinary, non-political people, and if the Government cannot protect them, it cannot evict them either. The evictions must stop. [Interjections.] Thirdly, the Government must start sitting down and talking with the recognised leaders of the Soweto community, like the residents’ associations, for example. The Government should release these leaders from detention and start negotiating with them. I believe that is the only way we are going to be able to solve this terrible impasse which has now reached such a dreadful state in Soweto.

Decades of neglect of basic policy on the unrealistic dreams of Blacks as temporary sojourners in the urban areas have resulted in well-nigh unendurable conditions which it will take many years and billions of rand to eradicate. In the meantime, shooting Black people in the townships will not bring the new hope to the African continent about which the State President was so eloquent at the Orange Free State Conference of the NP.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset, on behalf of the Government, I wish to state the Government’s standpoint in respect of the request made by the hon member for Houghton, as expressed in the motion which she moved. The Government’s reaction to it is best interpreted in the amendment which I now move, as follows:

[Interjections.]

Order!

What government authorities are you referring to?

I am referring to the same authority to which the hon member for Houghton referred in her motion. I suggest to the hon member for Bryanston that he read the motion. Sir, I should like to go further. I want to say at once that I wish to state the Government’s standpoint on violence.

The Government’s standpoint on violence is that it condemns and rejects every form of wrongful violence, whoever commits it. The Government’s standpoint is furthermore that the actions of every organisation, individual and the authorities should be aimed and directed at a state of order which ought to be preserved in our country.

The Government’s standpoint is not that order can only be maintained by violence. The Government’s standpoint is that the various agencies of the State, in respect of their actions in the social sphere, the constitutional sphere as well as in regard to security matters, are significant elements in the preservation of order in our country. I want to say at once that in this endeavour of the Government the support of the hon member for Houghton and her party is often quite absent. When it is in fact present, it is half-hearted.

I also have sympathy with the nearest relations of those people who lost their lives. The Government sympathises with people who are intimidated by violence and with people who are wrongfully tried by “people’s courts”. The Government also sympathises with people whose property has been damaged or destroyed. The Government feels sympathy for people who are prevented from carrying on their normal way of life or daily task. The Government does not, however, feel sympathy for the perpetrators of violence; the Government does not feel sympathy for arsonists; the Government does not feel sympathy for murderers…

Unless they are Witdoeke.

… and the Government does not feel sympathy for communists, even though the hon member for Houghton apparently has.

Rubbish!

I truly have not yet heard the hon member for Houghton and her party speaking with the same hysterical outrage when policemen or security force members are murdered on the border. [Interjections.] She acts here as a mediator for the forces of violence that seek the destruction of the country.

Secondly I want to say that an assessment by the Government of the motion moved by the hon member for Houghton and the Government’s standpoint on it will obviously be determined by the circumstances in which the country finds itself. Hon members in the House will agree with me that we would have assessed the motion by the hon member for Houghton in a different light if we had considered it at a time when our country was in a state of normal orderliness and stability.

The hon member for Houghton referred in his speech to series of historical incidents in which violence was committed. What the hon member did not say, however, was that they dated from the time the ANC and the Communist Party set themselves the goal of destroying the state structure in South Africa.

I maintain that revolutionary climate is prevailing in South Africa at present. This is demonstrated by the fact that we proclaimed a general state of emergency in terms of the security legislation.

In the second place it is important that we understand—and the hon member for Houghton and her party ignore this completely—that there are two parallel processes in progress in this country, which vie with each other and which are in fact locked in mortal combat for ascendancy within the Republic of South Africa.

On the one hand we have the forces of revolution, as embodied in the ANC, the Communist Party and the UDF, and which, with the support of the South African Council of Churches, seek not only to bring the Government to a fall, but to destroy by means of violence the state structure which applies in this country. They want to establish a communist state in its place, which they want to bring about by means of violence.

Today I want to say that there is a specific tendency which is revealing itself in regard to the approach of the hon member for Houghton and her party to this set of circumstances and that is not to be mediators for those people who strive for order—for those who have to bring about stability—but in fact to do the opposite in this regard every day.

The Communists can teach you very little about suppression!

Allow me to say this to you, Sir, and the hon member is aware that what I am saying is true. In the second place she knows that regardless of the aims of these sympathisers, they have chosen this method of achieving their aim; they have decided to make the country ungovernable. I think that the time has come that we take a look at what the slogan of “ungovernability” means and what it implies for the majority of innocent citizens of our country.

What does it really mean? Defined in very simple terms, it means that a situation must be developed in which people are forced, by means of violence, to stop subjecting themselves to the authority of the State, and to subject themselves to another authority. Furthermore that means that people are no longer able to work when they want to go to work, but that an authority other than the civil authority dictates to them by means of intimidation, arson and violence how they should manage their lives. It means that children may no longer go to school when they or their parents choose, but are prevented by means of violence from doing so upon the insistence of the violent authority of other bodies in the country.

It means that people may no longer listen to the civil authorities or obey the laws, but have to obey another authority. I find it strange that the hon member for Houghton never referred to this in her speech.

It means that they may no longer direct their conduct, that it can no longer be controlled by the laws, regulations or civilised norms of behaviour, and that these no longer apply.

What do you know about civilisation? Look at your own Crossroad record!

I want to tell the hon member for Green Point that he is the last person who can talk about records.

What do you mean?

Exactly what I said! Since the hon member for Houghton has asked, I want to tell her that wherever she and her party move in Black communities, stability is not propagated, but they become part of the violence itself. [Interjections.] It is true about Crossroads, and it is true about KwaNdebele, and you find them in the company of the anarchists in respect of their contribution to the stability of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have not as yet heard the hon member for Houghton and her party objecting to the fact that normal health services are unable to function properly. I have as yet not heard the hon member for Houghton making objection when people interfere with the upgrading work in the Black residential areas. [Interjections.]

Order! This House itself decided that this motion would be discussed. I should like to ask hon members not to try to impede other people in respect of this important motion. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am aware that many different reasons are advanced for the development and the continuation unrest and insurrection in our Black residential areas. I should like to have it placed on record that I have never argued that a dramatic socioeconomic upgrading and upliftment programme should not take place in our Black communities. In fact that process is under way, but it is being impeded by the people whom the hon member for Houghton takes under her protection. She does not condemn that conduct.

In an attempt to understand the recent events in Soweto, I think it is necessary to look at the reasons and the alleged reasons which are being advanced, in order to see the matter in a healthy perspective. It is frequently said that the causes of the disturbances and unrest should be sought in the bad conditions under which the Black communities of our country in particular live and have to make a living. Some people say that the housing in Black residential areas, which is poor and inadequate is such a reason. Others say that the education system is poor, unsatisfactory and inferior and that that is the cause of the uprisings. Others say that unemployment among the Black population is extensive, and that is why there is aggression and violence. Still others say that the Black population does not want to accept the local authority systems of the Government, and that they reject it. There are also those who say that the inadequate health services, sports facilities and transport facilities are the causes of the unrest.

Let us test these assertions on the basis of the events in the residential areas of the Black communities. Are these statements true, partially true or untrue?

I am not saying that poor housing conditions do not exist in certain places, but if poor housing is the cause of insurrection we must accept that that is the reason why certain Blacks, such as the ANC, the UDF and the Comrades are burning down the houses of other Blacks.

If the purportedly poor education system is the cause, we should probably accept that that is the reason why the ears of children who want to go to school are being cut off by the intimidators and the perpetrators of violence in the Black areas.

If unemployment is the real problem, we must accept that that is the reason why people who do not want to participate in a “stay away”, and who are not unemployed, and who would like to go and work, are sentenced to 30 strokes by the illegal, so-called “people’s courts”. [Interjections.]

If the local authority system is the real reason, that is why the councillors and the officials of those authorities are being murdered by the Comrades by means of the gruesome symbol of their so-called liberation struggle, the “necklace”.

If poor health services are the reason, why should clinics and other health institutions be burnt down, even though Black children suffer and die in the process as a result of the lack of services?

I think the time has come that we look critically and analytically at these ostensible reasons which are used as a screen behind which the perpetrators of violence do their dirty work in the South African society.

I can provide further examples in order to indicate that poor circumstances are not the primary cause of violence, murder or intimidation.

It is very clear that we are not dealing with a spontaneous uprising, a demonstration of dissatisfaction with poor conditions, because the actions of the Comrades against law-abiding citizens who wish to lead a normal life, bears no relation to the causes which are so readily dished up and disseminated, and to which the hon member for Houghton referred. What we cannot understand or do not want to understand is that we are dealing with an attempted revolution. We are dealing with an attempt to destroy the state structure.

My own department is responsible for matters relating to the local authorities of the Black communities, in the same way as other colleagues are responsible for local government matters of other population groups. Local government systems are accorded a high priority within my own department’s area of responsibility. Discussions are continually being held with local authorities and investigations and inspections are carried out regularly in order to determine where the problems are or where matters can be improved.

The fact is that the hon members on the other side are undermining the government authorities within which the Blacks have to participate.

After the inspections complete and comprehensive reports are compiled and discussed with the councils and officials concerned. Such an inspection was made during July this year in Soweto and the report comprises 63 pages. Sir, you can therefore accept that my department knows what is going on in Soweto and what the circumstances are in which the inhabitants live.

Looking at the hon member for Houghton, I would say that she does not need an inquiry. She has already given the evidence, she has already come to a number of conclusions and has already passed judgement. [Interjections.] The hon member proffered the tales which were told her as if they were real, acceptable and credible evidence. She then went even further and spoke disparagingly of the judicial officers who have to make a contribution in order to stabilise this country and to cause its legal processes to function properly. I think it is a disgrace.

I also know under what difficult circumstances the town councillors have to function, including those of Soweto. For this town council the provision of housing is a high priority and of primary importance. Therefore every attempt is in fact being made to reduce and eliminate the backlog of 220 000 houses to which the hon member referred.

The true facts are that 23 000 surveyed stands are already available. The construction work will begin as soon as the services have been provided, provided the perpetrators of violence do not hinder and impede the construction work. If that were to happen, I wonder whether the hon member for Houghton would rise to her feet and say that we should appoint a commission of enquiry into the conduct of the perpetrators of violence, the murderers and arsonists. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. In Soweto there are 228 existing schools of all kinds, and there are a further 29 stands available for the expansion of educational facilities when this becomes necessary. There are 21 clinics in Soweto which are staffed and run by the city council of Johannesburg, as the agent of the city council of Soweto. The council renders the normal services of a city council, but besides that also renders certain commendable welfare services and culture-promoting services such as libraries, crèches, etc.

Protection services are being rendered by the municipal police. According to the average norm of 1,7 constables per 1 000 members of the population there should be 1 275 police officers. There are 814 police officers and a further 186 are doing their training.

The hon member for Houghton spoke about the eviction of tenants and rent collection. The image she projected here of the city council was that they were callous people who readily evicted tenants from their homes. She also spoke about the inability of the people to pay their rent or service charges.

Let us consider the facts.

In March this year 79% of the rentals and services charges was collected; in April, 83,1%; in May, 65%; and in June only 6,1% was collected. This can be attributed directly to the conduct of the Comrades and their followers. Nothing is said about that part of the evidence, because it is not important in the consideration of the hon member for Houghton’s motion.

The evidence indicates that the city council of Soweto are not a lot of insensitive people who evict tenants for every petty contravention or failure to pay. Like us they are aware of the difficult economic circumstances which are being experienced, and they usually make arrangements with the tenants for payments in instalments or postponement of payment when it cannot be paid immediately. Our experience in Soweto and everywhere in the country is that the Blacks accept that they should pay for their accommodation, that they should pay for water and electricity and that they are prepared to meet their obligations.

At the beginning of June—here the date and the behaviour in regard to the collection of rent synchronises with the figures which I mentioned here—the Comrades and certain other radical organisations publicly announced a boycott of rentals and service charges and subsequently also demanded that the city council of Soweto resign at the end of September. It is known that people who want to pay their rentals and service charges are physically prevented from doing so and are even threatened with death and violence if they were to do it. That explains the low percentages which were collected in June.

My information is that the tenants in arrears are given five to six weeks’ notice and they are encouraged in the notice to come and negotiate with the city council and its officials and make arrangements for the repayment of their debt. It is interesting that the Soweto city council has up to now evicted only seven defaulters. Far more than seven people were involved in the violence, however.

She spoke of “large-scale evictions”.

She spoke of large-scale evictions.

[Inaudible.]

That is what the people told her. She said: “That is the mood”. That is the mood she propagates, Sir. [Interjections.]

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Furthermore it is known—and it is strange that the hon member who is so familiar with these people does not know this—that the Comrades use whistles to convey orders to the population, and that those who do not want to react are threatened or have to deal with the so-called Sanjovas, the arsonists. I refuse to believe that the hon member and her friends, who together make such clinical investigations, did not ascertain these facts.

I did that! [Interjections.]

The hon member said she did it.

[Inaudible.]

It is very interesting that she says that she knew it, but it is also interesting that we are hearing it now for the first time. [Interjections.] Why did the hon member not ask for an inquiry into the conduct of these people who try to dominate the lives of others by means of violence? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Let us take a further look at the facts.

On Tuesday, 25 August, 1986, notices were served on tenants in arrears in Jabavu, a suburb of Soweto. In the notices the people were requested to come and speak to the Council in order to make arrangements for the settlement of the moneys in arrears. The notice therefore contained no threat of eviction. The hon member for Houghton’s acquaintances—that is, if they are not closer acquaintances—spread the story that people were going to be evicted from their houses.

According to my information, while the SAP and the municipal police were engaged in normal foot and motor patrols, they were attacked that night with firearms. They returned the fire. My information is that no municipal policeman and no member of the SAP was engaged in or about to evict people from their houses when they were attacked. The written evidence is in fact that there was no action to evict people from their houses.

I want to state that a tendency has arisen to cast suspicion on any actions of the SAP, the municipal police or the security forces among the communities that have to be protected by them. The purpose is to demoralise and demotivate these people. While they have to work long hours under difficult circumstances in order to protect the hon member for Houghton, they are kept in continual suspense about possible investigations, legal or otherwise.

I cannot support a commission of inquiry, because the fact of the matter is that there are processes according to which the events in Soweto can be assessed. The hon member referred to one, namely an inquest. The judicial officer here has a dual function, namely to determine the cause of a natural death, and should the evidence indicate it, to give an opinion about who could prima facie be held liable for the death. If the officer in charge recommends it, the inquiry may be held in public. A person is in his specific context entitled to be assisted by counsel.

In the second place there are the normal legal processes by means of which people who have committed a crime, may be charged in our courts. These legal processes either follow upon the inquest or an independent inquiry which forms part of the policemen’s normal routine investigations. All relevant events in Soweto, and specifically in respect of security action during that period, can therefore be investigated independently.

In conclusion I want to say that this Government is committed to the reform process which has to contribute to the stabilisation of our country. The reform process and the conduct of the security forces are not opposite poles. The one is necessary for the other. I wish to state that it would be a mistake to depend solely on the conduct of the security forces to the exclusion of negotiation, because no one maintains that security action alone on a permanent basis can offer acceptable solutions. What I do in fact know is that if we continually undermine the security forces, there can be no question of a negotiating process for reform. For that reason the hon member’s is not acceptable.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has in fact given another version of the events that led up to the tragic situation of the deaths of 21 people and injuries to something of the order of 91 people. He in fact states that there are other causes which should be investigated. In fact, he has virtually made out the case which we ourselves are trying to make out, namely that there should be a proper investigation not only into the events that led to the deaths of these people but into the surrounding circumstances as well.

He has one small difference with us, however, in that he wants to do it by way of a public inquest. We want to do it by way of a judicial inquiry. Are we very far apart? Surely a judicial inquiry under a judge is far better and surely far more information can be obtained by a judge than at a public inquest where many people will not attend and the same results will not be achieved.

Now the hon the Minister has come forward today with a pious amendment in which he states that all of us express disapproval of unlawful violence. Of course we all disapprove of violence! We also disapprove of violence on the part of the Government. However, the hon the Minister has given a version obtained from someone else, of the events leading to the deaths of these people. In her request for a judicial inquiry, which I support, the hon member for Houghton has quoted verbal accounts of eyewitnesses living in Soweto. I could probably submit other versions as well. The mere fact that we have different versions before us cries out for a judicial inquiry to investigate the damage to property, to maintain order and enable the community to continue with their ordinary civilian life.

I put this question to the hon the Minister and the House: If we were to accept this amendment here today, would it solve one single problem facing Soweto today? No, it would solve nothing. However, if we were to order a judicial inquiry under a judge and properly constituted by this Parliament, we might get to the root causes. May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in paragraph 3 of our motion for a judicial inquiry we ask for an investigation of the underlying causes of the events and the situation in Soweto, although it goes much wider than merely the question of what happened. This is what has to be investigated.

Let me say that the biggest mistake the National Party Government ever made was to take away the control of Soweto from the Johannesburg City Council. It did this by means of the Black Affairs Administration Act, No 45 of 1971, which came into force in 1973.

Twenty-two regional boards were responsible for transportation, housing, labour matters, health and recreation. I can speak from the personal experience of an executive position for a period of over 10 years, when we as the management committee of the City Council of Johannesburg administered Soweto very closely. We had a very good relationship with them. We never had any problems. We never had any riots. We never had any burnings the way we have them now.

The council battled for years to obtain money from the Government to build them houses and to obtain loans, but what was the attitude of the Government at that stage? It said that the Black man was merely a sojourner. He could come to the city for nine months, then he had to go back; he could not stay in the city itself. We were not allowed to make conditions too comfortable for the Black people living there. That I was told by Minister Blaar Coetzee to my face. Notwithstanding that, we built sportsfields, libraries and clinics for them. We had health programmes; we dealt with infant mortality to combat measles. We built crèches and schools for them.

When the administration boards came into being, they destroyed that relationship because the people of Soweto, for reasons which I think we will understand, did not trust the Government. They did not have confidence in the Government at all.

We even subsidised Soweto from our own funds. We poured in £2—£3 million, as it was in those days, to help alleviate the problems and conditions that prevailed in Soweto. But it was difficult to administer. The properties were leased and there was no rateable income. The one source of income available in Soweto was mostly from the beerhalls and the sorghum beer that was sold. At one stage the situation with regard to commuting was very bad. People were hanging onto the trains trying to get to the city where they had to work. That was the situation until the SA Railways effected some small changes to deal with that.

Rent control went out of the Johannesburg City Council’s hands and into the Government’s hands. In 1978 the first council for Soweto was elected in terms of the new legislation. The election took place in the council chamber the Johannesburg City Council had built for them, and I was present. People were then elected to serve on the council. How were they elected, Sir? They came in on a 3% or 4% poll. They had no credibility, and the people of Soweto did not support them at all.

They still don’t.

Soweto is a large, sprawling city consisting of approximately 1,5 million to 2 million people. There are certain areas in which the houses are well built and comfortable but there are also slum areas. There is a terrible shortage of housing and accommodation, with the result that there is a lot of overcrowding. As the Johannesburg City Council we did our best. We built houses, schools, clinics and libraries.

Soweto today is a different picture entirely. There has been new development, particularly since the advent of the tricameral system of Parliament and since the Blacks have been excluded from meaningful participation in constitutional development and have been denied a say in their own affairs. [Interjections.]

I am told that Comrades from a number of organisations such as the UDF, Azapo and Azano have formed cells and have taken command of different areas in Soweto. In fact, I understand they have done the same in other townships in South Africa. I have been informed that youngsters, from the age of nine years and up, run around the city streets of Soweto. They do not attend school, are armed with knives and some even with guns. Those people steal; they gain their livelihood by robbing people.

I have been advised by a storekeeper to whom I have spoken who runs a shop in Soweto that he cannot get supplies for his shop because the vans that bring the supplies—such as bread and milk—into Soweto are stopped and robbed or are prevented from coming in. At one stage the police had Casspirs at their disposal to escort those vehicles. Now the use of Casspirs has been stopped and the stores are about one-third as full as they should be with the stock they should have. Thefts and robberies often take place. This sort of thing is rife. People have complained to the police. The police take the statements, but virtually tell the people: “Look, we are very sorry but there is very little we can do.” These things are hardly investigated and very few of the crimes in fact are solved. Perhaps the police have a difficulty in going into some of the areas to investigate some of these crimes. This is what I have been told. People I spoke to who have no political interest and merely want piece and tranquility in the area have told me that they all support the ANC because that is the only hope; what else can they do. That is a rather sad state of affairs. [Interjections.]

A number of political murders have taken place and some of these murders are most cruel in the sense that necklace methods are used. These are methods my party and I and all hon members condemn as strongly as we can. Anyone who is civil-minded and peace-loving will abhor the absolute savagery with which these acts are perpetrated.

Only a short while ago—approximately three weeks ago—there was an order for children not to attend school. I have been advised that four children were killed because they defied that order. One was in Jabavu and that child was necklaced; two were stoned to death in Chiawelo; and one was stoned to death in Maroka. These children were aged from 16 years onwards.

Some parents have sent their children to the country to get an education; others have tried to live in the city of Johannesburg itself and there is a movement towards the city, just as the Soweto councillors have abandoned their homes in Soweto and have taken refuge in the city. If the report in The Citizen of Tuesday 2 September is correct, 27 of the 28 township councillors have gone and, although Mr Nico Malan, the secretary, has denied it, those councillors are nowhere to be found or, if they are there, they are very heavily protected. The matter obviously needs investigation.

Another problem simmering in the townships is the question of the schools. I have been informed by one of the headmasters that one third of his pupils have not come back to school. The reason why they have not come back to school is because they were told that they now had to have identity documents in order to be identified.

One good thing the Government did was to take away the “dompas”. Yet what did the Government then do? It immediately reinstated it by insisting that those children who do attend school be issued with identity documents. The children have been told, however, that they should not attend school. As a result of this one headmaster alone has lost one third of his pupils. What has happened to these children now? They are roaming the streets! They have no education and are now among the unemployed. So that was not a very clever move by the Government. It caused great dissatisfaction. In some cases, I have been told, books have been burnt at the schools and the police have often fired shots around schools where necessary.

One of the alleged main problems that led to the deaths of the 21 people is that of housing. There are two aspects to the housing position. The one is the rent and the other the quality of the houses. Insofar as the rent is concerned, it appears that the Comrades have decided as a matter of policy that the people should not pay their rent since they—the Comrades—want to make the township ungovernable. Consequently, anyone found paying rent is to be necklaced. On the other hand, the Soweto Council requires money to function, and so they have decided to evict those people who do not pay their rent. So what choice do these people have? What would any hon member in this House do if he were faced with either being necklaced or thrown from his house? The situation speaks for itself!

I have also been advised that approximately a month ago in Diepkloof and Meadowlands 20 houses were burnt to the ground on a Sunday night because the people had gone to pay their rent. This matter urgently requires investigation.

In addition to this, I have been advised that last Wednesday or Thursday a youngster went into the administration offices in Albert Street in the City of Johannesburg itself. The people have been told to pay their rents at this administration office. This youngster had apparently come to inquire whether his mother had paid the rent. The clerk then took out the receipt book which bears all the names of those people who have paid their rent. As the clerk was looking through the receipt book, the telephone rang. When the clerk turned around to answer the telephone, the youngster grabbed the receipt book and ran off with it. Now it is probably in the hands of the Comrades. Hon members can imagine how all those people who have paid their rent feel! Their names are in that receipt book and are going to be disclosed.

Moreover, in those cases where there were people collecting rent in the township itself, the rent collectors were told that unless they disclosed the names of the people who are paying their rent, they themselves would be necklaced. It is a chaotic situation, Sir!

As I have said, the second aspect is the quality of the houses. I have been advised that the four-roomed house is very poorly built. It has no ceilings, it has been built of cheap mazista brick and it has not been plastered; and yet the rent is R58 per month!

The price of electricity, however, is even more exorbitant! Electricity accounts range from R100 to R200 per month. However, there are no electricity meters. So how is electricity consumption measured? How is the consumption of electricity assessed and why are they made to pay those accounts? As far as the five-roomed houses are concerned, the houses have not been plastered and they do not have electricity. The occupants have to instal electricity themselves. They pay rent of R145,20 per month.

I have been advised that, because of the dissatisfaction with regard to conditions in respect of the rent, the residents decided to hold a meeting when they came home from work at nine o’clock. They met at Jabavu Square in White City in order to voice their opposition in regard to the conditions of the houses. They had spoken to their councillors, but unfortunately the councillors were unable to do anything for them. The result was that, when they held that meeting, the police came—at that stage there were about 700 people in Jabavu Square—and declared that it was an illegal meeting. I have received different versions of what happened, so I do not know what really happened. Some say the police started firing and others say that fights were going on. Whatever may have happened, the result was that on that night of 26 August, at least 21 people were killed. I am told that more may have been killed, but I have to accept the Government’s figures.

On the very next night, at Mapela about two kilometres away a similar incident took place. Again a riot broke out and again there was shooting. I do not know how many lives were lost then. That is why we must have a judicial inquiry into what has happened.

Tomorrow there is to be a funeral. As the hon member for Houghton said, the commissioner has placed restrictions on that funeral. Are hon members, and the hon the Minister in particular, aware, however, that the people of Soweto have been warned not to go to work in Johannesburg tomorrow? Is the hon the Minister aware of that? If the people do go to work, they do so at their peril.

What is going to happen at this funeral? The funeral of a Black man is totally different from funerals as we know them. There is a custom among the Black people to attend the funerals of the people they knew. That is why they attend these funerals. Does the Government want a confrontation tomorrow when the funeral actually takes place at Avalon cemetery? [Interjections.] This is a very serious situation. I think by trying to prevent funerals taking place the Government is absolutely begging for a confrontation. Let them have their funerals in peace. Why does the Government have to confront them?

With their red flags included?

The hon member for Houghton has been given certain versions of these circumstances as I have, and this situation cries out for a judicial inquiry. [Interjections.] A reporter of the Weekly Mail quoted in the Cape Times, Sefako Nyaka, gives a version which is different to any of the versions which we have. In the Cape Times of 28 August 1986 we were told about Mkwanazi, the councillor who was unfortunately hacked to death.

A judicial inquiry will have to try to answer the following questions. Is Soweto ungovernable? It must establish that. Do the police have control over the township? Let us establish that. Is crime being combated? Is the Soweto Council functioning? Can the councillors function and do their jobs? What form of local government can be restored in order to restore peace? Surely we must start from the top and surely the judicial inquiry must determine the answers to these very vexed questions.

If the Government thinks that Blacks are going to serve on the regional services councils it is making a mistake. It can forget about it. That hope is stillborn. The Government must scrap the regional services councils and get a form of constitutional development that will involve the Black people so that discrimination is removed.

I want to refer to one paragraph of the report of the commission of inquiry into the previous riots at Soweto. In 1980 the chairman, Mr Justice Cillié, said the following at page 604:

What has the Government done since 1980 to do away with discrimination? What has the Government done since 1980 when this report was brought out about the dissatisfaction with the schooling and what has it done about the overcrowding as far as housing is concerned?

If ever a case was made out for a judicial inquiry it was made out today. I believe we should fully support the motion of the hon member for Houghton. The amendment of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is really biased and it is going to do nothing for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton is requesting that a judicial commission be appointed and gives three reasons to support her request.

Sing us a song!

The first reason is that one has to determine exactly what the events in Soweto were and how they unfolded.

The second is to determine what action was taken by the various authorities, organisations and individuals in connection with the events there. The two points mentioned could most certainly be determined in a post-mortem examination. That is what a post-mortem examination would entail. In this regard the State would submit certain evidence, and the legal representatives of interested parties could cross-examine witnesses. Then judgement could be passed.

The third reason the hon member advances for a judicial commission of inquiry relates to the investigation of the underlying causes of the events and the situation in Soweto. In a wider context reference was made to the matters the hon member for Hillbrow mentioned.

In this connection my standpoint is that a judicial commission of inquiry is not the body to investigate this. Here we are, in fact, faced with a revolutionary onslaught, and the implications involved in that, and I do not think that a judicial commission is the body to carry out such an investigation. In this connection I want to refer to certain of the matters mentioned by the hon member for Houghton.

In her speech today she very clearly tried to place the blame on the SA Police. According to a report in the Pretoria News she said: “Soweto killings were unprovoked.” Is that correct?

[Inaudible.]

According to a report in The Star she said: “The White City killing was apparently totally unprovoked.” She therefore says that this was “totally unprovoked”.

“Apparently unprovoked”.

“Totally unprovoked”. That is what she is reported to have said. Here we again have a case of the blame being placed on the Police. Then the hon member for Houghton comes along and says that she spoke to eye-witnesses, one of these being The Weekly Mail. The Weekly Mail then published an “eyewitness account”. [Interjections.]

I do not agree—nor do I think that the State will agree—with everything that The Weekly Mail wrote about this. Let us look, however, at whether the hon member for Houghton’s accusation that the blame lies with the Police because the attack was “totally unprovoked” is, according to the eye-witness report, correct. I quote from the newspaper:

The report went on to state:

So there were roadblocks. Let me say here that I am quoting random extracts from the report, and I do not want to create the impression that I am quoting completely in context, because there is also criticism levelled at the Police in this regard, criticism to which I am not referring now. I just want to say that it is very clear from this report that the Police were subject to great provocation. Let me quote further from the report:

The eye-witness report therefore says there was a hand-grenade attack, but the hon member for Houghton says it was “totally unprovoked”.

That was two hours later!

What utter nonsense is that? What impression is she trying to blazon abroad about the situation in South Africa? [Interjections.] Is it not scandalous and unpatriotic of any hon member of this Parliament to try to do that?

You are not on television! [Interjections.]

That hon member must take his own medicine; he must not get the wind up now!

Don’t talk to me about medicine, my friend!

Let me quote further from the newspaper report:

A little further along it is stated:

It is an honest report!

That is what the hon member says, and then she speaks of its being “totally unprovoked”. I quote further:

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member must now please stop cackling. She make a speech in a minute. She must just please stop cackling.

Sing her a peace-song! [Interjections.]

I quote further:

Order! I think the point about the song is now being repeated unnecessarily. The House is now dealing with the motion.

Yes, we are now dealing with serious matters. I quote further:

Immediately after the event, the hon member for Houghton gave the world the impression of the Police having been “totally unprovoked” in the action they took, saying this on the basis of “eye-witness accounts” and The Weekly Mail. Now The Weekly Mail itself states that the hon member’ account, which she dissiminated abroad, is not the truth. Her own eye-witness says she was not telling the truth about this.

Now she sanctimoniously comes along here and attacks the Police as if they, and no one else in South Africa, are guilty.

At what stage did that incident take place? It was hours after the shooting!

I want to take the strongest exception to certain emotional words that the hon member for Houghton recklessly bandied about in this afternoon’s debate. She quoted the eye-witness account saying: “They are killing our people”. She says: “Life is regarded as cheap in South Africa.” In as far as that re mark refers to the South African Police, it is a scandalous remark, and she ought to be ashamed of trying to create that image of the Government and of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

She is not altogether wrong, however, because there are people in South Africa for whom life is cheap.

Drama!

She says “drama”. She is joking about it! For her it is something she can dismiss in a cynical fashion. What kind of person is it who tries to focus attention on one specific act or action, but does not express her categorical aversion—except when she was provoked—to the real violence being perpetrated in South Africa?

Since the commencement of the state of emergency Black people have brutally murdered more than 200 other Black people.

[Inaudible.]

I do not hear her issuing statements condemning that. When she was provoked by the hon member’s interjection, she said it was repugnant to her. The hon member for Hillbrow expressed himself in much stronger terms than the hon member for Houghton.

In this connection I just want to point to the number of Black people who were killed as a result of Black-on-Black violence during situations of unrest and those who were killed as a result of action taken by the security forces. In the period from September to December 1984 81% of the deaths were the result of police action and 16% the result of Black-on-Black violence. The remaining portion is comprised of security people who were killed and deaths resulting from terrorist attacks. The percentage of people killed as a result of police action decreased to 61% in 1985, to 38% from January 1986 until the state of emergency was proclaimed, and to 23% since the state of emergency was proclaimed.

Black-on-Black violence in South Africa is specifically the problem that we have to face up to. That percentage increased from 16% in 1984 to 35% in 1985. In 1986, until the state of emergency was proclaimed, the figure was 47%, and thereafter 60%.

This means that we are here seeing efforts by revolutionaries, who do not have the support of the masses, to gain control of the masses by way of intimidation and violence. It is a pity that this hon member, in the way in which she expresses herself, is creating the impression that she is emotionally sympathetic to those who, in point of fact, think life is cheap in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I must say right at the outset that the CP will support the amendment of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This does not happen every day, but they say exceptions usually prove the rule.

What about… [Interjections.]

I do not wish to make war with the hon the Minister of Law and Order now. [Interjections.]

The PFP have seen fit to move a motion here arising out of the events in Soweto last Tuesday, although they do not refer to the precise time or day in the motion. I would go so far as to claim that the PFP were not serious when they came forward with this motion, since they have seized upon this one incident in Soweto and they are asking that as a result a judicial commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate only those events.

Surely anyone who wants to try and look at matters in South Africa in a balanced way, cannot see these events in Soweto in isolation. It is in fact part of a pattern that is developing throughout South Africa.

I have listened to the hon member for Hillbrow, who is relatively well-informed. He told this House how the comrades in Soweto had decided that rent would no longer be paid. This did not only happen in Soweto.

In my constituency there are also Black townships with which I am familiar and where squalid living conditions such as those that prevail in Soweto do not, according to hon members of the PFP, exist. There is proper housing there, but the same pattern has also manifested itself there. Ordinary, law-abiding Black citizens were intimidated not to pay their rent. They were threatened with having their houses burnt down over their heads if they paid their house rent. I am pleased to be able to say that since the state of emergency has been put into operation, and some of the intimidators are temporarily in cold storage, this situation has cleared up quite well in my constituency. [Interjections.]

In their motion the hon members of the PFP ask that the actions of the various authorities, organisations and individuals in relation to those events be investigated. Now I find it odd that until now the PFP speakers have not been more specific as to the question of which organisations and which individuals should have their actions in this regard investigated. [Interjections.] Would the PFP want the actions of the UDF in Soweto to be investigated as well? [Interjections.]

Let me hear.

[Inaudible.]

Would the PFP also want the members of the UDF, the ANC and the South African Communist Party…

Read the motion!

Read the motion. That is all of them.

Well say so.

Very well, then they must spell it out. They only referred to the authorities and the Police in their argument…

Read the motion!

Of course I have read the motion, but I did not hear them asking in their argument for a judicial inquiry to investigate the actions of a certain Winnie Mandela…

It says here “organisations and individuals’". [Interjections.]

The hon member did not ask—he was speaking—that the actions of the South African Council of Churches…

Paragraph (2).

I am referring to paragraph (2). He did not ask that the actions of the SACC before the incidents, and what is important, after the incidents as well, be investigated. Nor did he ask for the actions of individual members of the PFP to be investigated.

Prepare yourselves for that!

We on this side of the House maintain that this request by the PFP is not serious. They came to this House with this motion only to use it as a peg.

However, I found it quite unexpected that this time the PFP did not try to pin the blame on the Police, as they have done repeatedly in the past, but at least they are trying to cover a somewhat wider field. We agree with them that if there are unsatisfactory living conditions, it could encourage a climate for possible unrest. We concede that, but experience has taught us that that is not the direct cause. The direct cause is the instigators and agitators who exploit existing conditions for their own anarchistic aims, viz to overthrow those in power in this country.

We agree with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the restoration and maintenance of law and order in South Africa, in the Black townships in particular, as such is not the only solution to the problems. We agree with that, but we in the CP want to say that what is more important is to ask what the practical solution is with which the Government of the day aims at solving the situation permanently.

We in the CP therefore find it odd that the Government is at this stage abolishing some of the most important measures that appeared on the Statute Book of South Africa to exercise proper control over the influx of Black people to the cities, when there is no work for them in the urban areas. This happened when a state of emergency had to be declared as a result of unrest, for whatever reason, in the Black urban areas and Black townships elsewhere in the country as well. The Government comes and tells us vaguely that they are going to pursue a policy of so-called orderly urbanisation. There is proof that if ever there has been disorderly urbanisation in South Africa in the Black residential areas in our cities, it is now.

You do not know what you are talking about! [Interjections.]

We regard it as being absolutely reckless of the Government of the day to take the steps they have in fact taken without having a practical solution to the problems.

We therefore agree that the maintenance and restoration of law and order alone is not the solution. However, when proof is furnished in this House that law and order are breaking down in large sectors of our Black urban areas, we understand the causes. However, we also hold the Government of the day responsible for the restoration of law and order. [Interjections.]

I may well repeat our standpoint. Two years ago, when we pleaded that the Police Force should be left to enforce the laws of this country, we were accused of wanting to see bloodshed in this country. [Interjections.] We then warned that if one allowed matters to take their course, they would get out of hand.

I want to state our standpoint very clearly again this afternoon. If there are people in South Africa who want to, and think that they can, overthrow the existing order and authority in South Africa, it is not only the right, but also the bounden duty of the Government of the day to answer that unjust violence with just violence, if necessary. [Interjections.]

Now one hears a buzzing about the AWB. Apparently hon members do not understand Afrikaans, or they do not know what is going on in South Africa. [Interjections.] As far as I am aware, in every civilised country in the world it has always been the right and the duty of the government of the day to use just violence to combat unjust violence. It certainly is not an invention or a creation of the AWB. How ridiculous can one get! [Interjections.]

Now when we hear that in the situation in which we find ourselves at present the uncollected rent of Blacks—I hope I am quoting the hon the Minister correctly—already exceeds an amount of R200 million, we can make no other inference but that the Government is no longer capable of dealing practically with the situation. [Interjections.] We can make no other inference.

Now they are making songs!

Yes, I will rather say nothing about the songs. We in the CP are not demanding a judicial commission of inquiry like the PFP wants; we are demanding that the Government of the day must start to govern South Africa now. [Interjections.] If it does not see its way clear to govern South Africa any longer, it must make way for a government that is prepared to govern South Africa. [Interjections.]

There is a very easy way of determining whether the White voters of South Africa still trust the Government of the day to govern South Africa. Since we are speaking of organisations, and the fact that the restoration of law and order alone is not a solution, we ask ourselves where this Government and the organisations that support it are taking South Africa. [Interjections.]

We are told that a certain organisation which has very close ties with the present Government now envisages a future government in South Africa and is beginning to prepare its members for this. They say it means that there can no longer be a White, entrenched government in South Africa, and they go further by saying that the majority of the members of the government may well be Black. [Interjections.] However, the system and procedure must supposedly work in such a way that all the groups can participate in it effectively. [Interjections.] Sir, I am referring to the Afrikaner Broederbond.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Of course, I do not know whether the hon member Dr Vilonel is aware of the organisation’s existence. [Interjections.]

Oh, the old capitulation!

I can scarcely believe that an organisation like the Afrikaner Broederbond, which was established in the interests of perpetuating and maintaining Afrikanerdom in South Africa—I myself was a member, and I am not ashamed of it—is today striving for a government in which the Blacks will be in the majority. Take note that the terminology that is commonly used nowadays, viz that of a Black majority government, is not used. [Interjections.]

Is that the solution? Is that the solution the NP and those preparing the way are presenting to South Africa?

I could join such a Broederbond! [Interjections.]

We should like to know from the Government whether it is its standpoint that it wants to restore law and order in South Africa, so as to enable it ultimately to put a government in power, the majority of whose members will be Black. [Interjections.] Since the members of the governing party discuss this behind closed doors, we should also like to hear in public what the present NP’s standpoint is. [Interjections.] We should like that reply.

I conclude. We can support neither the PFP’s motion nor their motives. We shall support the amendment of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. However, once law and order has been restored—it must be restored, unless chaos is to reign here—the question is: Quo vadis, South Africa? As far as that is concerned, we say that the present Government chose a reckless course when it bid farewell to the tried and tested path of separate development, separate freedoms, and separate government structures for every people in South Africa, and started taking precisely the opposite path. That path can only have one fatal end, and it will not be a government in which the Blacks will form the majority; it will be a Black majority government. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I dissociate myself and the NRP from the emotive language, the terminology and the impression created by the hon member for Houghton in moving her motion. I refer to the choice of phrases such as “funeral massacres” and her prolonged series of “days of remembrance”, which she has now placed on record in Parliament—apparently to entrench them as part of our history—and her long series of allegations stated as facts. She made the statement that life—especially Black lives—had become very cheap in South Africa, which has already been dealt with. This is not the way we view the problems that face us and we dissociate ourselves entirely from that sort of language.

In my constituency I have other dates to remember, such as the date on which the Parade Hotel was car-bombed and some young mothers were killed. That is also part of our history. The Trust Bank was also bombed in my constituency. In addition, eight other bombings all took place in my constituency. I can tell hon members where they all were. There was the A-1 Café, the Whitehead Buildings, a garage, the cenotaph, a rubbish-bin outside the Daily News…

They have something against you, Vause!

Perhaps. Perhaps they have, because I love my country and I can understand…

You think it is funny, do you? You really think it is funny! [Interjections.]

Order! That also applies to the hon member for Bryanston.

I love my country and I have served my country and the enemies of our country would probably hate me for that.

Nevertheless, I believe the hon member for Hillbrow has made out a case. The hon member for Houghton’s words have gone out and most of the diplomats have returned to their offices or their homes to send their dispatches and reports to their governments. The foreign Press already has it on the wires around the world, and I regret to say that it is a fact that a denial by the hon the Deputy Minister of Information or the hon the Minister of Law and Order or the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will not erase the impact which the content of that speech will make among the countries of the world beyond our borders. [Interjections.] I therefore believe that the hon member for Hillbrow has made out a case for an inquiry to establish the facts.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated the facts as he saw them. The hon member for Hillbrow showed how the hon member for Houghton had stated the facts as she saw them, and these allegations stated as facts, are in direct conflict with each other. A denial is not going to establish what the facts are—not in the eyes of the South African public or in the eyes of the world. I therefore believe that we should have a judicial commission of inquiry, a commission to establish the real facts. I believe that commission should subpoena those witnesses who have given affidavits to the PFP. I believe it should subpoena all those who have given so-called factual accounts of what happened in Soweto. If either side was at fault, then let us establish the facts in the light of day for all to see. I believe it is in the interests of South Africa that the truth be established openly and publicly; and, if there are people who have given false reports, who have lied, who have given false affidavits, then they should be brought to court and punished for perjury.

Hear, hear!

I believe that is the only way. This matter has gone so far that I believe this is the only way we can get not only the facts established for ourselves but also the facts proven to the world as they are, instead of these untested allegations. I therefore move as an amendment to the amendment:

That is a straightforward appeal that we establish the truth—the real facts, not the allegations. That is the purpose of a commission.

The purpose of a commission is to establish facts. It is not as appears to be the view of the hon member for Houghton to try to judge and to condemn. Its basic purpose is to find the truth and, as I heard the introductory motion put, it seemed to me that the purpose of the commission she visualised would be to condemn and to sentence. That is why I have worded my amendment as it is—a plain, simple call for a judicial commission to establish the truth. Then we will know what the real facts are and then we can bring before the courts those who are guilty.

For instance, I should like to see brought to court those who perpetrated the brutal murder of a councillor—a man serving his people, a man with the courage to stand up and be counted and to serve in the local government, a man who was brutally murdered, hacked to death. I should like to see the truth of that established. I should like those who fire-bombed and burnt down the homes of other councillors identified and brought to book and I would like to see them punished with the strongest penalty of the law that is possible—as a colleague of mine always says: “Give them a fair trial and hang them!” Well, I will not quite take it that far, but give them a fair trial and, if they are guilty, then give them the fullest weight of punishment within our power. We cannot leave this hanging in the air, with allegations and counter-allegations, untested and unproven.

Therefore I move the amendment to the amendment, which I have read out, and I would urge the Government to think very seriously about this so that we can clear the air and protect those who this very day are making it possible for us to have two elections in this city, who are providing the law, order and peace which enables us to hold a democratic election. I hope that they will have listened to the speech or will read the speech of the hon member for Houghton, because she also expects to get their support. It is because of what our security forces do to keep law and order and to protect the peace that we are able to have elections. Therefore I believe no one should be accused unless they are given a fair opportunity to prove their innocence.

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon member for Durban Point supports the hon member for Hill-brow’s motions, particularly as they were so very widely framed. [Interjections.] I am talking about the general support he expressed. I know the hon member did move his amendment.

The trouble is that you have too much music in your head! [Interjections.]

Order!

You must listen, man!

Order! The hon member for Randburg may proceed.

The first argument I want to bring against the hon member for Houghton is that we did have an inquiry after the Soweto unrest in 1976, and the terms of reference of that commission were not even as wide-ranging as the terms of reference being proposed here. We know how many years the inquiry lasted, and we still have information that we have to deal with.

Secondly, today is the second birthday of the so-called “bloody Monday” of unrest that broke out in the Vaal Triangle as a result of the rent issues there. We then had the Van der Walt Commission, and it provided us with more information regarding grievances and the so-called root causes which this hon member debated, and that we must handle. I contend that we do not possess the physical resources to attend to all the information that we already have at our disposal to the degree that the grievances will be dispelled. This will have to happen in future by means of a process.

I was granted very little time indeed by my hon Whips, but I nonetheless want to say something about violence. The revolutionary violence that we have here, has two dimensions. The first is that of the Marxist-Leninist assault of the SACP, and also the connection of the nationalists within the ANC with the violent struggle. If there is to be progress on the path of negotiation, and if the grievances are to be dispelled, violence must come to an end. I do not think it is at all possible to make real progress with negotiation and effective reform if the problem of violence is not attended to, and the violence itself is not suspended.

I want to appeal to the hon members of the PFP to devote their energies, too, to suspension of the violence which is being committed through this dimension. They can be pressurised, and I think that persuasion could also be employed.

The second dimension of violence we have, is precisely the problem of the expectations of a broad mass of subjects that cannot be met. These people then resort to violent protest. The violence with which we have to contend certainly also entails such a dimension.

I contend that it is an axiom that only security actions can bridge the gap between the expectations of people and the ability of a government to meet them. This is axiomatic and valid not only in South Africa, but in every country in the world. According to the idiom of the hon member for Houghton this gap can only be bridged by repressive measures. The gap can indeed become narrower in the process of satisfying needs by utilising means that are actually available to the extent that the gap does exist, however, one will be forced to resort to security action to bridge it.

If we are to make headway in this process, and if we are indeed to get to the point of negotiation, we must also accept that the whole process will continue to proceed in conflict. The hon member for Barberton expressed his support for the amendment of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—I also support this amendment—but he added the condition that law and order must be restored. I want to allege that law and order is not “restorable”, in his idiom, by security actions. Indeed, I maintain that even in a process we shall merely proceed from one conflict to the next; we shall have to eliminate conflict through conflict. Conflict will have to grind conflict until the rough edges become rounded, and that will be a long process. I want to use the words of prof Piet Cillié in a recent speech of his, “Dit sal maar ietwat van ’n morsige spul wees.”

The hon member for Houghton also intimated that she experiences problems with the question of rent collection. I want to refer very briefly to the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill, from which we deleted the contentious Clause 13. At that stage it was argued that the normal legal process had to be employed. Now, while this is the approach it is argued that the process should not be employed. Hon members will have to think what they are doing, because by way of that action they are in fact moving in the direction of supporting the arguments and strategies in favour of the country’s unrest, violence, unruliness and ungovernableness.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg made an interesting contribution and I want to assure him that we are doing all we possibly can to ensure that the violence is brought to an end. We are totally opposed to violence and we would like it to come to an end as soon as possible.

The hon member for Barberton suggested that hon members of the PFP should be included in the inquiries of the judicial commission of inquiry that we asked for. We reject this idea with contempt. We have nothing to hide and any suggestion that we did anything in the townships that is worthy of an investigation by a judicial commission of inquiry is rejected totally.

I am sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information is not here at the moment but I hope he will return—he is possibly singing another song! [Interjections.] During his dramatic performance here this afternoon …

Melodramatic!

Yes, it was more melodramatic. During his performance he was guilty of misinformation as he frequently is because when he quoted reports from the Weekly Mail he combined the reports of two incidents and gave the impression that the reports referred to one incident only. I will come back to him a little later.

Our motion expresses shock at the deaths and violence in Soweto last week and calls for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the events that took place and the actions of various authorities and organisations. My hope is that when organisations are investigated the actions of the Bureau for Information will be included as well.

The day after this shocking event in Soweto the Bureau announced that 13 people had been killed. The following day, after newspapers throughout South Africa had reported the day before that the figure was 21, the Bureau confirmed that figure. During the course of its announcement, the Bureau also said the following, according to the Cape Times of 28 August:

That was the statement issued by the Bureau for Information. During the course of their announcements, the Bureau made no mention of any other points of view. I ask myself how it is possible that in regard to the same event the Weekly Mail could report the following a day or two later:

I ask myself how such conflicting reports can be forthcoming about the same incident. It is therefore obvious that some sort of inquiry is needed to determine what the truth of the matter is.

Really, you are so naïve!

The reason why conflicting reports were forthcoming about the same incident is actually quite simple. I believe that the Bureau for Information is deliberately manipulating the news and attempting to keep South Africans in the dark about what is happening in the country.

Whites and Blacks live separate lives, with the Blacks knowing what is going on in White areas because they work in our shops, factories and homes, while Whites who hardly ever enter Black townships are not aware of what is happening there because they are kept from the news and the truth by the Bureau for Information and the SABC. I am glad to see that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information has returned to the House.

I am not the only one to say this, and I want to quote from certain newspapers. In its leading article on 1 September, The Star said the following:

I deny that.

Well, that is a point of view. The hon the Deputy Minister can deny all he likes, but these are the points of view of responsible people. [Interjections.] It continues:

They conclude by saying:

The Cape Times of 2 September 1986 said:

Business Day of 1 September 1986 asked:

Those are the comments of three leading newspapers in this country.

However, it is not only the Press critical of the Government that have commented on the incident. Dawie, in his column in Die Burger on Saturday, 30 August 1986, delivered a highly critical comment of the Bureau and concluded by saying:

That is what Dawie said in Die Burger. [Interjections.] Everybody knows that Die Burger is not a supporter of the PFP. In fact, it is the official mouthpiece of the NP in the Cape Province. That is a resolution taken at Cape congresses each year—that Die Burger is appointed the official mouthpiece of the NP. Yet, it has delivered a stinging indictment of this hon Deputy Minister’s bureau. It is not only Die Burger…

It is not only Die Burger that is critical of the Bureau, however. On Sunday, 31 August, Rapport also had some harsh things to say about the performance of that Bureau last week.

The Soweto deaths are not isolated incidents, however. I want to mention a few other incidents because it is clear that the Bureau has become totally discredited in the eyes of the South African public and the laughingstock of the international Press. The Soweto incident was the final straw.

One of the incidents I was speaking of was the hon the Deputy Minister’s misleading response to our request for a judicial commission of inquiry. In the Cape Times of 29 August the following was reported:

The issue is said to be sub judice after he has pronounced judgment on the issue by saying that the Soweto riots were triggered off by an ambush on police!

You must read the whole transcript. [Interjections.]

I do not have time to read it all. The amount of paper that comes out of that Bureau is unbelievable! [Interjections.] Then there was the hon the Deputy Minister’s incredible attack on the Media Council when they suggested that the emergency regulations should not apply to the Press. The council which had used moderate language on an issue of vital importance was described by the hon the Deputy Minister as “biased and ill-considered”.

There was also the misinformation regarding the number of children returning to schools. On two consecutive nights, I think, there were television reports supplied by the Bureau for Information that the figure was up to 80%. Those of us who keep informed of what is going on know that those figures were misleading. They were not true.

They were the nationwide figures!

They were still not correct. The figure of 80% was not a true reflection of the situation.

It was a nationwide lie!

There is also the squandering of public money on the printing and issuing of booklets each time the State President makes a speech. That is an NP function and not the function of a department of state. To use public money to promote the views of one particular political party is, we believe, a corrupt practice.

There is also the ridiculous waste of money on a pop song, an issue which has been adequately aired in this House.

What does that have to do with the motion?

It has exactly everything to do with it, because it is part of the misinformation that this Bureau imparts. [Interjections.]

One recalls the decision of the Bureau to permit only the SABC to film the bomb blast at the Mowbray Police Station. One recalls the contradictory attitude of the Bureau regarding the publication of photographs of bomb-blast scenes. Furthermore, one recalls that the Bureau admitted that it had misled the Press regarding the dropping of pamphlets in Soweto. All these incidents have occurred because the Bureau is the only source of information. They are also a result of the Draconian emergency regulations which a Natal judge described as “a jumble of words”.

No, he did not.

Yes…

That was not said in his judgment. He reserved judgment. That was not said… [Interjections.]

Those Draconian regulations have left newspapermen in no doubt as to who is calling the shots. It is the Bureau, because the newspapermen have been browbeaten into submission by vague regulations and sinister threats from the Bureau.

One must also bear in mind that a number of newsmen were expelled from the country, so it was either, to quote a Bureau spokesman: “Play by the rules” or run the risk of being sent out of South Africa. It is no wonder, therefore, that pressmen regarded remarks concerning “White minority regime” and “Draconian” as being ruled out of order. In the early days of the state of emergency there was confusion and misunder standing, particularly if one takes into account the guidelines issued by the Bureau for the answering of questions at Press conferences.

The hon the Deputy Minister answered a question yesterday and set out the rules for answering questions. They were quite ridiculous, because how can one anticipate what is to be announced at the Press conference and then be gagged by not asking questions in advance? On the other hand, if one does ask questions four hours in advance, as is required by the Bureau, the answer is “phoned through to the questioner who is then informed that he may not raise that matter at the Press conference.

No, that is not so.

That is what I am informed by pressmen. It is little wonder that the Press conferences have become an embarrassing farce and have now been abandoned.

A Press conference was held this afternoon. [Interjections.]

I am pleased to hear that but we would like to know what is going on there because the number of pressmen attending those conferences has dwindled to virtually nothing because they regard them as an absolute farce. They are a deliberate attempt by the Bureau to manipulate the news and control the flow of information by taking on tasks for which it is not trained and which it is certainly ill-equipped to handle.

Bring back Eschel Rhoodie! [Interjections.]

I agree with Dawie and Die Burger that matters of this nature should be left to trained journalists to handle and I agree with the Cape Times that the Bureau has proved beyond any doubt that it is unable to keep up with the news. I believe the Bureau should be closed down immediately before it does any more damage.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat devoted his whole speech to criticism of the Bureau for Information. As I have already remarked, by way of an interjection, I find it difficult to see where this fits into the wording of the motion before the House. This is not a discussion of a Vote; it is a motion dealing with certain events and circumstances prevailing in Soweto. [Interjections.] That is what it is about. The hon member apparently thought he had to deal with the matter as if he was dealing with the discussion of the vote of the hon the Deputy Minister of Information. [Interjections.]

If there is time, I shall come back to a few aspects of the hon member’s speech, but in the very nature of the case it is not my task to reply to the debate in such detail. The House is aware that owing to certain circumstances the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning cannot attend this portion of the debate. Inevitably his approach to the debate, at this stage, would have been slightly different to the approach I now want to adopt owing to the duties incumbent upon to me. [Interjections.] I should like to reply in more detail to certain things said by the hon member for Houghton and furnish the House with information which it would, in my view, like to have.

Before I come to that, first the following: The hon member for Barberton really cannot get away with what he was doing this afternoon. I am glad the hon member and his party support the Government’s amendment to this motion, as moved by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We are all grateful for that; one would not have expected anything different from the CP either.

Then the hon member for Barberton came along—probably for want of conversation—and decided to make a political debate of this. He began putting certain questions to the Government, asking where the Government was taking South Africa. I accept the fact that the hon member is not a member of the Broederbond, but he does have one of the Broederbond’s confidential documents in his possession, and he quoted from it in the House. He was kind enough to make it available to me, because he is an principled hon member. He kindly made the document available to me when I asked him whether I could please see it, but how can an experienced hon member like the hon member for Barberton be as perverse as he was this afternoon? I do not know whether the hon member was ever a member of the Broederbond, but if he was, I would at least have expected his approach to the Broederbond in the House this afternoon to have been an honest one. What, however, did the hon member do? He quoted one sentence on page 6 of the report, a sentence which reads:

The sentence, however, goes on to state:

You are making things even worse! [Interjections.]

As the hon member for Barberton presented it, it is NP policy, as indicated by the Broederbond, that there is now simply going to be a Government with the majority of Blacks and that that is the course the NP has set for the country. [Interjections.]

Quote that whole report! [Interjections.]

No, I do not have time for that! I have only a few minutes. I have the document at my disposal, but it would be a great pleasure for me, both inside and outside the House—in Barberton, too, if the opportunity presents itself—to argue this matter with the hon member. He can prepare himself for that. If he wants to create that opportunity for us in Barberton, I shall avail myself of it.

Thank you very much!

I shall avail myself of it. [Interjections.]

Since my time is very limited, let me tell the hon member for Durban Point that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already stated very clearly why any amendment or motion requesting a judicial commission is unacceptable to the Government. I am merely confirming this, because I do not have the time to discuss the matter in detail.

Although an intensive investigation is still being conducted, and it cannot be said with any certainty, at this stage, that this is factually correct, the available information seems to indicate certain causes for the unrest situation on 26 and 27 August. I very briefly want to place that information on record. On more than one occasion, since July 1986, the Soweto Students’ Congress—I shall refer to them as Sosco—and the Soweto Youth Congress—I shall refer to them as Soyco—discussed and adopted a strategy in terms of which security patrols… [Interjections.]

†I am sorry, but the hon member for Houghton’s own hon colleagues are talking so loudly behind her that she cannot hear me.

I was listening to you.

Well, it is the hon member’s senior Whip who is doing it. She must please address herself to him.

I am. [Interjections.]

I reiterate, Sir, that these two organisations discussed and adopted a strategy in terms of which security patrols were to be attacked.

Yesterday, during a Soyco meeting, several supposed grievances were discussed, a pamphlet being distributed amongst those present. In the pamphlet the following demands, amongst others, were made: The withdrawal of security forces from Black residential areas; the lifting of the emergency regulations; the freeing of detainees; and the lifting of the order declaring the ANC and Cosas, amongst others, to be illegal.

On 10 August Sosco distributed a pamphlet in which the demands I have just quoted were reiterated and in which further demands were made, amongst others that the wearing of identity cards by pupils be abolished. This pamphlet also contained a programme of action in terms of which, from 13 August 1986, pupils would boycott schools each week from Wednesday to Friday and therefore only attend school on Monday and Tuesday “to organise”—ie not really to attend school, but to “organise”. The pamphlet also stated that the boycotts would continue until the authorities met their demands.

Just to give hon members an indication of how effective this appeal was, I should like to quote, amongst other things, the following statistics: On Tuesday, 12 August, 21 schools in Soweto boycotted classes, but on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 13, 14 and 15 August, in respectively 38, 55 and again 55 schools, classes were boycotted. Those were the days on which the boycott was launched. Those were the days on which the boycott was launched. On each of the two very next days the number of schools in which classes were boycotted again decreased to 28. On Wednesday, 20 August, Thursday, 21 August and Friday, 22 August—those were the planned boycotting days—the respective figures were again 42, 47 and 53 schools. Those were the results of the efforts made by these organisations. According to their envisaged plans, 13 August was to have been the first of a series of “days of action” in which attacks would be launched on members of the Security Forces and councillors. Since 13 August there has been a fluctuating increase in the number of incidents of unrest in Soweto, compared with those of the preceding period. There is no doubt in my mind that both Soyco and Sosco played a very important role in this.

It is also interesting to note the ratio of the number of incidents in Soweto to the total number of incidents in the country as a whole. In this connection I just want to refer to a few statistics. On 13 August 60% of the country’s incidents of unrest occurred in Soweto. Subsequently this percentage fluctuated between 59% and 28%, the lowest figure. On the specific dates about which today’s debate is being conducted, 46% and 48% of the country’s overall incidents of unrest occurred in Soweto.

The two organisations, Soyco and Sosco, also directed their efforts at establishing street committees. During the period from 21 to 26 August various street committee meetings were held at which it was decided to block off the streets on 26 August in order to keep the Security Forces out of the area. At these meetings mention was also made of the fact that arms and ammunition was being concealed in this area. The areas involved were White City and others in Soweto. I am purposely not going into too much detail, because I am well aware of the fact that everything I am now telling the House will be used at some time in the future. I am therefore trying, as far as possible, to stick to given information we have at our disposal.

At a street committee meeting at approximately 7.45 pm on the evening of 26 August—that was the evening when the problems were at their worst—those present at the meeting were called upon to mount barricades in the streets immediately in order to keep the Security Forces out of the area. They were instructed to attack the Security Forces if they appeared on the scene and to relieve them of their weapons and ammunition if this were at all possible. Immediately afterwards the meeting adjourned, with those present taking to the streets.

Available information seems to indicate that whilst these events were taking place, there were trained local and overseas terrorists present in the crowd gathered in this area. According to a report in the Cape Times of 1 September—I think the hon member for Houghton has already referred to that—reference was made to an eye-witness report. I quote:

In those incidents the Police and the other Police units involved were actually fired on. Some of our vehicles carry the signs, not to mention the Police Force members who were injured when the firing took place.

During the night of 26-27 August, at approximately 22h15, the first event took place in White City when a Police patrol came upon a group of between 300 and 400 Black youths blocking certain roads with large rocks, rubbish bins and drums, with stones and petrol bombs being thrown at vehicles. The patrol dispersed the group with tear-smoke. They regrouped in the areas between the houses and again flung stones at the police vehicle. Approximately 15 minutes later another police patrol appeared on the scene. They came upon a barricade at a crossing, with the road on both sides of them blocked by rocks, refuse drums and other objects—completely blocked—with groups of Black people standing around in the immediate vicinity and watching the scene. The streetlights were on and a burning tyre lay in the middle of the crossing.

When Warrant Officer Burger climbed out of the patrol vehicle to remove the barricades across the road—other policemen had meanwhile also climbed out—a hand-grenade was flung in their midst. The hand-grenade exploded and warrant-officer Burger and three other policemen were injured, with damage also being done to the vehicles.

Then a section of the Soweto Council Police were also involved in the events in the immediate vicinity. From the afternoon of 26 August to between 04h00 and 05h00 on the morning of 27 August—I have the exact times of each incident here, but my time is too limited to furnish the details—there were 27 incidents, in which groups of up to 500 or more Black people were involved, in Emdeni, Joza, White City, Mapatla and Naledi, all suburbs of Soweto.

Altogether there were 21 incidents, of which I have all the details. In all these incidents attacks were made on all the respective branches of the Police. There were murderous assaults on them, amongst other things with firearms—according to my information—and also stones and petrol bombs. There were also murderous assaults on private vehicles and individuals. In one of the incidents some people were also shot dead. There were murderous assaults on the homes of councillors. Several councillors’ homes were burnt to the ground. One of the councillors was murdered—he was doused with petrol and set alight. There were also other forms of assault. Other councillors were also injured in the process. The Police were fired on from the crowd, and in our view it is also possible that some of those injured and killed were hit by those volleys. I am not stating that as a fact, but that could have happened. All this is apparent from the incidents about which I have obtained information. According to my information, 21 people were killed and 98 were injured. It is very clear to me that a calculated assault was launched on the Police, councillors and other members of the public, and that on each occasion their lives were in danger.

It is a pity that people were killed and injured, of course, and everyone in the House regrets the fact, but the relevant organisations and individuals that caused these incidents must take the full blame and bear the full responsibility for this. They are the one who commit acts of violence against their own people and they must expect no sympathy from us. [Interjections.]

The Police obtained statements from several of those who were wounded in which they consistently contended that on 26 August they were approached by a group of unknown people and forced to erect barricades with a view to attacking the security forces and relieving them of their weapons. Those are the facts which I have at my disposal at the moment and which have come to light from Police investigations thus far carried out. [Interjections.]

Enough of a reply has been given to indicate why there is not going to be a judicial commission of inquiry, but I also want to advance another specific reason for not doing so. In the past 10 years or more the hon member for Houghton and her party have never yet accepted a single judicial commission of inquiry’s report in this House. They did not accept the reports of the Rabie Commission, the Cillié Commission, the Kannemeyer Commission or the Eloff Commission.

That is not true!

In a previous debate, when I accused her of this, the hon member for Houghton herself acknowledged as much, saying she would not, of course, accept the report if it did not suit her. The question is whether it suits her. The question is not whether it is a balanced or a good report of a judicial commission of inquiry. As far as the hon member’s own attitude in the House is concerned, including her conduct in the past, regardless of the merits of the case, in my view it is a waste of time to consider her request for a commission of inquiry. She would, in any event, not accept the result of the commission’s investigation if it did not suit her to do so.

Unfortunately my time is up.

What about the funerals? You have not replied to my question about the funerals.

Order! Would the hon member for Houghton like to reply to the debate?

I do want to reply, Mr Chairman, but I want the hon the Minister to answer my question first.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton has asked me a question I should like to reply to if it meets with your approval. It is her choice and her time I am making use of, and if I do reply, the hon members of the PFP must not rush me. [Interjections.] Yes, I will use the time well. [Interjections.]

Answer the question!

Let us now do what rugby players do when they take a long time setting up a free kick. [Interjections.]

In all seriousness, let me point out that the conditions to which the hon member referred were promulgated in the Gazette. The hon member is concerned about certain provisions of the conditions. I have given attention to the matter today and have discussed it with the Commissioner of Police and other advisers in the security personnel set-up. My information is that experience has taught us—it has also been my own experience in such cases—that in no way should we be prepared, in such circumstances, to allow funerals to be employed for political ends. That is one point of departure. [Interjections.] Yes, but give me a chance to finish what I am saying and then I shall give the hon member a turn to speak.

Secondly, in no way are we prepared to allow funerals to develop into gatherings of great masses of people, because the more people who are present, the more difficult it is for us to try to maintain any kind of order there and the more difficult it is for us to try to maintain any kind of order there and the more difficult it is for us to sustain any of the conditions laid down. And because, at a large number of funerals, we have, thirdly, had a great deal of success, in co-operation with the families of the deceased, in implementing, in practice, the conditions that have been laid down, we say that experience has taught us that this is the desirable thing to do. I want to assure the hon member for Houghton that in this connection we discussed the conditions with the families. Today, in a very responsible manner, senior officers discussed these conditions with some of the members of those families in Soweto. We also do so in order to obtain the co-operation of the families and the next-of-kin so that an orderly funeral can be held. That is our approach. We talk to the people in a sympathetic manner. We communicate with the family. We try to obtain their co-operation, and in the past few months we have, in every case, obtained the relevant family’s cooperation. We have not, in a single instance, had any problems during funerals that we have tried to arrange along these lines during the state of emergency.

We are not prepared to allow funerals to degenerate into a situation in which every Tom, Dick and Harry with his Red flag or his ANC flag heads the procession, with the ANC and the UDF taking over the funeral for their own political ends, which have nothing to do with the families or the deceased.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for his reply, which was given in a courteous manner, and I hope that his anticipation of a peaceful funeral tomorrow along the lines that he has suggested, will in fact eventuate. I am not sure that it will.

[Inaudible.]

Well, it is in direct conflict with what the hon the Minister told us earlier about the manner in which the township has been taken over by the Comrades, the student organisations and so on. I very much hope that he is right, however, because I do not at all enjoy seeing these terrible confrontations which result in more deaths. Let us just wait and see what happens.

I think the hon the Minister and the other hon members who have spoken in this debate, all of whom I thank for their participation, have really borne out the need for an independent judicial inquiry. I do not think it matters two hoots whether or not I accept the findings of that commission. The point is that a lot of facts will come out, as they have done in every other commission that we have had—all the ones I mentioned earlier on.

Everybody here has a different version of what happened. The hon the Minister’s version differs from the version I have been given. The hon the Deputy Minister of Information carefully read out half of the report that appeared in the Weekly Mail but did not read out the rest of that report. [Interjections.] The hon member for Johannesburg North supplemented what he had said. Therefore, all the versions are different. I do not take much notice of what the hon member for Barberton said because I still have in the back of my mind an occasion on which the hon member for Barberton inferred that the police should be given greater powers to shoot. I remember that debate very well indeed.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not touch on the subject at all.

Oh, I think he made a perfect speech on it! [Interjections.]

No, he talked about constitutional government. [Interjections.]

I want to say that it is important to appoint a judicial commission and call off the evictions until some sort of control and protection of those people can be exercised. Most of all, non-racial local authorities should be set up. That is the only way in which these problems can be solved. The Government should not impose its will from the top. These matters must be solved by negotiation with the communities themselves. That is the real answer.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the question,