Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! Before calling upon the Secretary to read the first Order of the Day, I wish to state my view regarding interjections which have been made in this Chamber in the past. Members sometimes make interjections which are not unparliamentary in essence, but which can be construed as comparing the member to whom the interjection is addressed, to an animal. I have to point out to members that in future such interjections will be regarded as unparliamentary and that I am in full accord with the ruling given by my predecessor, Mr Speaker Greeff, on the same subject on Tuesday, 11 March 1986 (Questions and Replies in the House of Assembly, column 453).

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Yeoville addressed me yesterday, and I took the trouble to read his speech. I just want to say that he should at least take the trouble to read mine as well. If he were to do so, he would find out that he had done me an injustice. But I do not want to repeat my own speech here. I want to suggest that he carefully reread pages 18 and 19 of the photocopied speech for the opening of Parliament. He would then probably not make the kind of impetuous remarks he made here yesterday.

The hon member also quoted Dr De Kock and said that according to The Star of 4 November, Dr De Kock was alleged to have said:

I contacted Dr De Kock this morning and he said that he never used the word “blundered’. [Interjections.]

Order!

Did you get a letter from him?

No, I telephoned him. The hon member, who never spoke here while he had the chance, must not start speaking now that he wants to leave.

[Inaudible.]

I asked Dr De Kock what he had said. I am going to quote it to you, because one cannot believe a newspaper like The Star. Dr De Kock said that he had never used the words “we blundered”. He did in fact—and this is quite correct—refer to an erstwhile period of prosperity and to the fact that no one in this country was aware that that period of prosperity could suddenly come to an end.

Let us look at the facts.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member must keep quiet now. I am making my speech.

Order!

The facts are that in 1980 the gold price averaged $613. In 1981 it averaged $459. The following year it suddenly fell to an average of $375. From then on it evidenced a downward trend. With our views of things at that time, we were faced with a new situation, and that is what Dr De Kock was referring to. I am now going to quote to hon members what Dr De Kock said:

That is what he said.

Somebody is misleading you.

Of course, but I believe Dr De Kock. I do not believe any old chap who reports for The Star. [Interjections.] Let me also say that Dr De Kock also referred to the unforeseen and uncontrollable situations that arose as a consequence of the drought. Do not laugh about that, because the fact remains that this Government had to spend hundreds of millions of rand to counteract the drought conditions …

Who is laughing?

I am not saying the hon member is laughing; I am saying that should not be a laughing matter, as frequently does happen when we raise this argument.

Secondly, the truth of the matter is that the gold price dropped. Thirdly we had to proceed with the creation of infrastructure in the country. Fourthly …

Locusts!

… we had the impossible situation of foreign banks, for political reasons, suddenly intervening and exploiting certain obligations we had to their own advantage, but to the detriment of South Africa.

It is now interesting to see what the Opposition’s arguments at that time were. The hon member would do well to go and read his speech of Tuesday, 5 February 1980 [Hansard 1980, col 119]. He may also read what he said in 1981 [Hansard 1981(1), col 253] and also in 1980 [Hansard 1980, cols 1366-7]. He may also go and read what that angel of light, Dr Boraine, said in September 1981 [Hansard 1981(2), col 3129], Let us first look at what the little angel of light had to say. I quote the following:

That was Mrs Helen Suzman.

You must say “the hon member”.

The hon member Mrs Helen Suzman.

You must say: “the hon member for Houghton”.

The hon member for Houghton, Mrs Helen Suzman.

Each time that Official Opposition has exerted the utmost pressure for greater expenditure. When this Government has dug in its heels and said one must take a reasonable look at State expenditure, agitation has taken place for political reasons. Hon members must go and read those speeches before again levelling accusations of this kind.

In his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised quite a few points of criticism. He stated, amongst other things, that a number of Deputy Ministers had unnecessarily been appointed and that that was a waste of money. That was more or less the gist of his argument. Let me now ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is aware that in the majority of Western countries in which democracies exist, large-scale use is made of deputy minister and parliamentary secretaries employed in specific portfolios. Is the hon leader aware of that? The hon leader is now sitting still. [Interjections.]

I took the trouble to look up the figure for the number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers for the central Government and the national states. Hon members must now bear in mind that we have a population of 30 million.

How many are represented in Parliament?

The hon leader must just wait a moment; I am now making my speech.

I repeat that we have a population of 30 million. There are 19 Cabinet members, 20 Deputy Ministers, 6 Chief Ministers and 53 ordinary Ministers. Let us now take the USA. It is interesting to look at this. The USA has 20 members—ie 18 plus the 2 serving in the UN and elsewhere—in their …

What is the population of America?

Very much more than ours, five or six times more.

Yes, exactly, it is much more than ours.

I concede as much. [Interjections.] That is not, however, the point I want to make. I shall tell those hon members, in a moment, what the point is that I want to make. The hon leader says I appointed Deputy Ministers and that that was a waste of money and was unnecessary. [Interjections.]

They are.

In the USA there are 20 Cabinet members in the Federal Cabinet. There is a Secretary of State for each department; one deputy Secretary; three Under-Secretaries; 16 assistant Secretaries; and 61 Deputy Assistant Secretaries. Then there are 250 Ministers for the federal states. Now compare that to our little group. [Interjections.] That is the essence of good administration. Would the Leader of the Official Opposition just stop the little angel next to him for a moment and listen to what I am saying.

Let us now have a look at Great Britain. [Interjections.] The same procedure is adopted there. There are Deputy Ministers, Junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. In West Germany that is not the case, but in West Germany there are no fewer than 149 Ministers for the federal states.

How did you manage before?

The point I therefore want to make is that it is a process of good administration to appoint Deputy Ministers and Assistant Ministers, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is welcome to try to make as much misuse of this throughout the country as he wants to. We shall hear him out on this, because we are not going to allow him to prescribe to us how we should administer the country. [Interjections.] Referring to the State President he said:

I now just want to ask him who introduced the pass laws in this country? Did I introduce the pass laws?

Dr Verwoerd contributed a great deal to this.

No, the pass laws in this country were introduced by none other than Lord Milner. [Interjections.] The hon member does not know his history. Dr Verwoerd alleviated the pass law system. Dr Verwoerd introduced another system. [Interjections.] Now, however, he says something different. His statement is wrong and untrue, is it not, because I abolished the pass laws.

That is what we are saying.

Was I wrong when I abolished it?

Thirty eight years you were wrong, then you find you were right.

Just imagine! Lord Milner introduced them and now I am wrong! [Interjections.]

Under whose guidance were South African citizenship rights … [Interjections.]

Black citizenship.

Mr Speaker, it is impossible to make oneself heard above this floodtide of noise.

Order! The hon the State President cannot uninterruptedly be subjected to either interjections or to some form of cross-examination. The hon the State President will now be given a reasonable opportunity to deliver his speech in accordance with parliamentary tradition and in no other manner.

Who solved the question of citizenship after very thorough consideration? It was this Government, not anyone else. Now we are ostensibly wrong. Now it is being used against us as if we have committed a sin.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:

I consulted all three Ministers’ Councils about an election. In terms of the Constitution I have the right to call for a general election without consulting them, but I consulted them. The Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly decided to recommend to me that an election be held. The two other Ministers’ Councils unanimously asked me not to do so. What is more, I was approached by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives on 22 January and he asked me not to do so. I therefore had a unanimous request from the House of Representatives. In addition, the request I received from the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates was not restricted to one party either.

I must now deduce that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks on behalf of the Coloured and the Indian population and can therefore criticise me. I now give him an opportunity to do so. It is not yet too late to dissolve those two Houses. I challenge him to obtain their agreement and to come and tell me, on their behalf, that I should dissolve the two Houses and then I shall do so. [Interjections.] He will not, however, do so. He just wants to play petty politics, because never in his life has he played major-league politics. [Interjections.] I shall put the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his place whenever he abuses any situation, when he ought to know better. He is now the Leader of the Official Opposition and no longer someone who skips around Dr Van Zyl Slabbert in circles to his heart’s content. [Interjections.] It is not yet too late to dissolve the two Houses. He only has to obtain their support and I shall do so. I am now waiting for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s advice. [Interjections.]

Order!

On the strength of that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has now raised the question of whether this House wants to arrogate to itself the right to decide the fate of others.

In the first place let me tell him that it is this House that has to relinquish rights. It is this House which has, since the introduction of the British system, controlled all rights in the political sphere in South Africa. If rights are to be relinquished, it is in the first instance this House that has to do so. This House is therefore the primary factor that has to be set in motion to grant to other groups in South Africa rights they did not have under the British system. I gladly meet the demands of a just cause aimed at obliterating the legacy of colonial politics in South Africa for good and all time.

The NP believes that structures for decision-making and administration in regard to their own affairs should come into being for Black communities outside national states. I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether they would establish structures for the various population groups if they were to come into power—he says, does he not, that they are going to fight to win. If that catastrophe were to befall them, would he go back on the independent states? Would he go back on Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda?

Secondly I want to ask him whether he would go back on his self-governing structures of the self-governing states? No, Sir, he would not do so today, nor tomorrow or even when pigs can fly, because those peoples would not allow him to do so.

He is now suddenly talking to the leaders of the self-governing states. Up to a few years ago they were the leaders of the “bush-parliaments”, as his own predecessor referred to them. They were called “bush-parliaments”. Now he is suddenly talking to the “bush-parliaments”.

I now want to know from the hon the Leader whether he would nullify them. I now challenge him to get the Chief Ministers of the self-governing states and the Prime Ministers of the independent states to come and hold discussions with me, telling me they want the structures, created for them, to be nullified. I challenge him to do that. He would not do so; he would criss-cross the country, gossip-mongering, but he would not do so.

What would the opposition parties do with what has already been achieved? They can only build on it, because it has been a broadening of the democratic base. Millions of people who have not previously had the franchise, obtained it by way of this system. They obtained a means of expressing themselves on matters affecting them most deeply.

Let me put a second question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Would he get the Black leaders who are Chief Ministers in the national states, or Prime Ministers in the independent states, to the point of accepting a position in which they have to have a dominant say over the others? He knows, does he not, that that will not happen. I am also engaged in in-depth discussions with those people and I know what their standpoints are.

So to pretend now that they are suddenly negotiating with those people is simply a feeble attempt at displaying a certain amount of expediency for the benefit of certain other powers. [Interjections.]

The fact is that we must continue with it. Even in the urban areas, also in the areas outside the national states, but in particular in the large urban concentrations, we must give the inhabitants the opportunity of establishing their own autonomous bodies. I say that this can lead to self-government, but what is more, as long as I am alive, I am prepared, if they come forward and ask for it, to give them full independence.

City states!

That is not such a terrible thing. If one compares it with some members of the UN who do not even have a penny to pay for their own administration, there is nothing wrong with our Black peoples being led to self-government, self-determination and complete independence, if that is what they want. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that no dialogue is taking place.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, yes! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says the Government only talks to certain people. Let me tell him a thing or two this afternoon.

Does he know that during the past year or two I not only spoke to these recognised and elected leaders, but that I also held in-depth discussions with numerous Black delegates from various urban areas? In some cases I visited the areas and spent hours with them to ascertain their circumstances. The world, however, must be made to believe that the Government does not deliberate or conduct a dialogue.

What about the multilateral discussions that take place? Let us look at the results of that. Not only did we conduct numerous multilateral discussions with the independent states, but we also have a joint secretariat. We are jointly engaged in the planning and construction of a building in which this joint secretariat and its concomitant organisations can be housed.

We are conducting on-going multilateral discussions with the self-governing states. As far as our problems are concerned, there are already executive committees in which Black communities have a say.

At the lower echelons of government, ie at the local level, there are numerous bodies looking after the local conditions of the Black communities. Our difficulty is specifically that they are being murdered by the terrorists because the latter do not want them to succeed. One hears groan upon groan coming from those Black communities. Representatives of churches and community leaders approach us and ask for protection against the cruelty of the terrorists. They ask us to protect them so that they can lead a normal life, so that they can sleep at night, and so that they can educate their children in a way in which they, as peace-loving people, would like to do so.

The hon member is completely wrong if he contends that we do not have any future pattern. What I am saying is that if Lesotho can have independence, Transkei can have it; if Botswana can have independence, Bophuthatswana can have it, because Bophuthatswana is much more viable than Botswana. The same applies as far as Transkei and Lesotho are concerned. They must be developed—the potential is there—and be taught administration. They must obtain financial assistance, guidance and advice. Of course. South Africa is prepared to grant that assistance. South Africa does not merely grant it to its independent and self-governing states, and is not only prepared to grant it to its urban areas, but also to its neighbours which were previously British territories. And we do so too.

No, Sir, the hon member would make a better showing if he adopted a positive standpoint and rather criticised us about what we do not do to have that policy implemented, rather than wanting to break down what we have already very carefully built up. There is the Development Bank, that is achieving wonders. There is the Small Business Development Corporation. Then, too, there is the assistance provided by departments in that regard. There is the wonderful agricultural development in all those states which I visited personally and viewed. There is the industrial development in those states—the development of industries which had not existed previously in Southern Africa and that are now producing wonderful products.

Why can we not instil in those people a pride in those things that have already come into existence?

Mr Speaker, I also wish to refer to the question of group areas to which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred. After all, that is the latest point of attack— internationally and on the part of certain people in South Africa. It has now become popularly known as the Group Areas Act.

[Inaudible.]

It does not matter to me whether they are people in Stellenbosch or people in Timbuktu; I say that I am going to deal with that now. [Interjections.] Neither the National Party nor I have ever adopted the standpoint that the Group Areas Act cannot be amended. Indeed, as far as I know the Group Areas Act has already undergone seven or eight amendments.

Seventeen.

Seventeen. Well, that is even worse. The Group Areas Act has already been amended seventeen times. It is a complex piece of legislation. The person who compiled it is dead. The late Dr Hans van Rensburg, who was once employed by the Group Areas Board, once said that only the drafter of the Group Areas Act and our good Lord were acquainted with its contents. I concede, then, that this is a complex piece of legislation. However, it has been necessary to amend it over the years because experience has taught that the Group Areas Act could not be implemented in the rigid form in which it was originally drafted. Even I, as Minister of Community Development, proposed amendments to that legislation in this Parliament a full half dozen times, if I am not mistaken.

In the second place I want to say that I have never adopted the standpoint that a law is a sacred cow. A law can be changed, because a law must at all times serve the community and the state. It must not be the prescriptive invariable for a community.

The Group Areas Act embraces certain principles. In the first place it guarantees right of ownership to communities and to individuals on a more just basis than was the case before its inception. Indeed, in terms of this Act population groups have been allocated thousands of hectares of land on which they could acquire ownership rights, on which they could obtain accommodation, on which they could develop their enterprises—far more than they had had before the introduction of this Act.

Secondly, the Act does not only guarantee property ownership rights to communities and individuals; it also affords opportunity for community life. Whereas previously they had lived in slums on a fragmented basis and were unable to have a proper community life, they are now achieving this. Even the report of the Erika Theron Commission, which was critical on this point, had to recognise that the Group Areas Act had given rise to the formation of middle classes for those people who fell under it. A middle class has come into being among the Coloureds. A large middle class has become established among the Indian population—to tell the truth, the Indian population in South Africa is at present one of the most highly developed Indian communities in the world. That is a fact that no one can deny. Nowhere in Africa is there such a community.

Thirdly, the principles of the Group Areas Act also afford the opportunity for flexibility and humanitarian considerations by way of permit control. [Interjections.] Of course mistakes are made. Mistakes are made in respect of any law. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, in reaction to representations by leaders of the Brown and other communities, the Government consented to investigate the matter once again. We appointed a technical committee under the leadership of Mr Justice Strydom which has done very valuable work. We sought to determine whether we could not consolidate the provisions of the Group Areas Act, the housing legislation, the slum legislation and other laws into one comprehensive measure, to cause them to work better. Mr Justice Strydom made certain recommendations. Not everything was satisfactory, and we referred it to the President’s Council.

I now wish to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that my knowledge of the course of events in the President’s Council is quite probably equal to that of any other hon member who comes into contact with members of the President’s Council from time to time. I gave the President’s Council no official instruction not to proceed to discuss its first report which it would have had. What I did say—I accept responsibility for this—is that if they presented a report they should not make it necessary once again for us to order an enquiry a second time. They had to ensure that this time they would come up with a prescriptive report relating to all aspects of this matter. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the head of State asking for something like that? [Interjections.]

There is another point I want to make in connection with community rights. For many years established rights have become established throughout our country by way of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. My standpoint is that those established rights cannot be disregarded. If one wants to see chaos in this country then one must tamper on a unilateral basis with the established rights that have come into being among all population groups of the country. [Interjections.]

Now it is being said that the Act is being infringed. Any Act is infringed at one time or another. If one man kills another, we do not abolish the law that prohibits murder. What nonsense is that? Communities are of essential importance if one wishes to develop a system in this country whereby one seeks to develop various structures from one’s lowest form of administration up to one’s provincial management and the highest form of administration.

I wish to say today that I believe in the devolution of power and in the highest degree of devolution of power in South Africa. However, I believe that this cannot happen overnight. I believe that it can only happen over a period of years—with good judgment and the highest degree of cooperation with the various communities affected. Let me give one example. Our regional services councils which are to administer community services among our various population groups at the local level, cannot function if own communities do not come into being.

If one thinks that one can mix the whole lot up together, as was the case in Winder-mere, Cato Manor and Sophiatown, then one is deceiving oneself. I therefore appeal, on a common sense basis, for the preservation of community life, community authorities and community participation in communal affairs and structures which are established for that purpose and, where they are able, for a degree of self-responsibility in respect of their own interests.

And if they cannot?

Then they must be assisted.

And if they do not wish to be assisted?

Then they are persuaded.

Compelled.

Persuaded. [Interjections.] That is why under my leadership a course of negotiation with the Black communities, with Brown communities and with Indian communities has been pursued to a greater extent than ever before in the history of South Africa, and the hon the Leader cannot deny that. [Interjections.] Somewhere there has to be a final authority. After all, one cannot permit everyone in South Africa to govern, because what would happen if we let that hon Leader govern South Africa?

It could not be worse.

Now I wish to say that there is another factor that we must bear in mind to some extent. Say that for argument’s sake we were to repeal that Act tomorrow and abolish all restrictions. Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition have any grasp, any appreciation—this is my first question to him—of what would happen to the medium and lower paid White worker? [Interjections.] Does the hon Leader realise what will happen to them? We must take into account those people who are unable to purchase their own residential areas; we must also take their community life into account.

I want to go further. What is equally important: What will become of the communities of the Coloured and Indian population if one deprives them at a stroke of that protection they enjoy today? What would become of the community life of the Coloured and Indian populations in the present revolutionary situation if they were to be thrown open as residential areas for the forces of hell which are present at large in the Black communities?

What about the people in Woodstock? They have fewer problems than many other communities.

Order!

Sir, if Genis would only keep quiet, then I too would be happier. [Interjections.]

I shall go even further and say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the Black communities, too, have the right to protection. And as I understand it there are several aspects in connection with which Black communities ask for protection. I could mention a whole series if I only had the time.

What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not do is to tell me to abolish the Group Areas Act. All he must not do is parrot interminably this cry that has now been taken up in the West—for the most part by people who do not know what they are talking about—of “apartheid, apartheid”. They have hijacked the word “apartheid” and made a swear word of it. Do hon members know what they are doing now? They are now doing the same with the word “reform”. Now it is reform. No, really, let us be honest with one another. What does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition want to put in the place of these things if he takes them away? He will create the utmost chaos in South Africa. [Interjections.] Not only will he create disorder; he will not see the end of his disorder, either. Then, however, it will be too late. [Interjections.]

I should now like to deal with a matter of extreme gravity. The hon member for Yeoville asked yesterday whether security was not also a matter of common concern. Of course it is. The hon member for Yeoville cannot accuse me of ever having dealt with security other than as a matter of common concern.

[Inaudible.]

He cannot accuse me of that. Throughout my terms as Minister of Defence and Prime Minister, and since I have been in my present position, I have dealt with the issue of security as if it belonged to the entire country—Black, Brown, White, Opposition and Government.

But is it becoming an issue in the election?

No, but then the hon member must surely give an account of things that I have just dealt with. He must not be so quick to speak, because, as the Afrikaans saying goes, “’n haastige hond …” I beg your pardon, Sir. [Interjections.] Without mentioning that animal’s name, I want to say that the relevant Afrikaans expression is to the effect that a hasty animal, of that kind scalds his tongue. [Interjections.]

I like my dog.

Does your dog like you? [Interjections.]

I ask hon members to give me a little time, because I need time for what is to follow. In my speech of 12 June 1986 in this House I announced the present country-wide state of emergency. It was not an easy step to take. No government takes such a step lightly.

On that occasion I also dealt with security information relating to the terrorist onslaught, and dealt inter alia with three crucial matters. I do not wish to repeat them; I merely refer to them. We must take cognisance, firstly, of the dominant influence on the ANC of the Communist Party; secondly, of the commitment of the Communist Party-ANC alliance to violence as an instrument whereby to gain a hold on South Africa, overthrown the existing system and bring a power clique to power here; and thirdly, of the alliance’s cold-blooded exploitation of discussions with South African interest groups in order to undermine, divide and overthrow the so-called “governing class”. That appears in their programme and one can go and read it.

On 12 December 1986, after I had received very good information, I deemed it necessary to make a statement on television about security action in progress at that stage. At the time I referred once again to the threat posed by the ANC and its cohorts. Certain ANC documents and related explanatory material were subsequently revealed to the country on the television screen. This provided proof of my statements.

I now wish to make the following statement and I say it without fear of contradiction. Between 16 and 25 December and shortly afterwards the Government and the security services took certain steps. Had we not taken them, this country would have been plunged into a bloodbath. Hon members can take my word for it. There are authoritative documents attesting to this which were obtained by the security services and submitted to responsible members of the Cabinet. On that occasion authoritative documents were also used to expose the terrorists’ ongoing endorsement of violence and their commitment to a total takeover of power as well as their sinister objectives with regard to discussions with White groups.

I have mentioned the terrorists’ planning for December 1986 and 1987, and the security action taken in that regard. After all, the ANC has a so-called calendar for 1987. The SACP-ANC structures enjoy protection in certain neighbouring states and from there are regulated to send their gangs of murderers into South Africa. The Black people will not welcome gangs of murderers, but because the Black people are not prepared to make use of tactics of that nature, the terrorists adopt the diabolical strategem of using young people and school children to carry out their plans.

On 8 January 1987 the ANC commemorated its 75th year. The key policy guideline publicised on that occasion was entitled: Statement of the National Executive Committee of the ANC on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the ANC presented by President Oliver Tambo, January 8, 1987. This document attacks the comments or allegations that the ANC had on this occasion begun to move in the direction of a more accommodating and moderate approach. This recalls to my mind a book entitled The Way to Peace, which has just appeared. It has been published under the name of Mr Gorbachev. He puts the West in its place. He has taken over all their terms relating to democracy and freedom. Hon members should just go and read with what diabolical strategem he disseminates his propaganda.

The central theme of the message propagated by Tambo and the national executive committee of the ANC is not a call to peace but a call to war. They are supported by goodie-goodies from America, goodie-goodies from Britain and goodie-goodies from Europe. With the aid of the Press they make propaganda against those governments and they make it impossible for them to offer resistance. That is what is behind this. However, the goodie-goodies are in blissful ignorance of the devils they are supporting, but I am going to deal with that this afternoon.

I want to quote just one extract from Tambo:

My request now to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that we find common ground—surely that is what we have to do. I think he will agree with me that our Defence Force is not a “force of apartheid”. Nor is our police service a “force of apartheid”, or is it? Is our country’s administration a “force” of so-called “apartheid”? Are our sources of capital and of culture the “forces” he seeks to destroy? Yes, he wants to destroy them. He wants to destroy them as his fellows destroyed them in Mozambique and in other states of Africa, and as they are destroying them in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

The ANC’s ongoing obsession with violence is evident from many of its key documents. In June 1985, for example, its Commission for Strategy and Tactics reported the following. Hon members must now listen to what they decide in their inner circles. We have documentary evidence for this. We went to fetch it, thanks to the people of the security services, people on whom one can rely. [Interjections.] According to those documents the following is reported:

It is further clear from the ANC documents that the concept of “people’s war” is at present a priority and that it includes each and every action that promotes the cause of a revolution. It is on this that the slogan for 1987 is based, namely: “Advance to people’s power”, or, as it is also put: “From people’s war to seizure of power.”

Who are these “people” that these people speak of? Is it the hon members and those who are represented by us? Is it the Black people, the Brown people or the Indian communities of South Africa? No, it is not they. The “people” referred to here are the governing clique that they want to bring to power who will be in privileged positions. It is a power clique, the nomenclatura through whom they will enjoy all the privileges, while the ordinary people will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, as is already the case in several countries in Africa. This has nothing to do with the interests of the masses; it has everything to do with the power clique that seeks to come to power in South Africa in the name of a “people’s war”. Apart from deeds of sabotage and terror planned for 1987, the ANC has also produced a programme of action—we have it in our possession—involving national and international planning for gatherings, demonstrations, meetings, symposia and other forms of mass action. About 10 dates have been identified for this purpose, and we know what those dates are.

The ultimate objective of the terrorist alliance is to gain power. The immediate objective is the undermining and destruction of the prevailing order. It is against this background that every action of theirs should be judged. Oliver Tambo himself put it as follows on 8 January this year:

We now come to what he says about those who go and hold discussions with him. This is even more interesting. The democratic revolution—that is what it is called—refers of course to the first phase of the revolution during which the broadest possible front must be mobilised, under the pretext of so-called national liberation and the establishment of an order in terms of the “freedom charter”, in order to overthrow the prevailing system.

It is necessary for South Africans to know that the ANC has not changed direction. The organisation has not suddenly become more accommodating and less bloodthirsty. That is why Mr Tambo told the Americans, who wanted to make him a national hero, what he thought. The New York Times published it, and I quote it here:

That is what this ogre says, Sir. That is what this terrorist ogre says. That is what he wants to do in South Africa. He wants to shed blood here in order to bring his power clique to power. He wants to shed blood, and he wants to drag a lot of people with him, a lot of do-gooders and a lot of people without sense who go along with him, and sometimes academics, too, who in their self-righteousness want to go along with him.

As regards the issue of the mobilisation of Whites against the ANC he must just listen to this, Sir. This has been considered at length in the ranks of the ANC. They have considered this, as is evident from innumerable articles in official publications of the ANC and the SA Communist Party. We must remember, of course, that the real devil is Jo Slovo. He is still the power behind Tambo. He is afraid to get close to us. He is afraid to come here, where the security services of South Africa can get in touch with him. No, he regulates these things from London!

I said to Mrs Thatcher that I objected in the strongest possible terms to the British government permitting such a diabolical organisation to organise terrorist activities of this nature from London. I told her that personally. Moreover, they are delighted that White politicians, businessmen, clerics and students go to hold discussions with them. They are all fully agreed that this phenomenon should be exploited in the most cynical way to undermine the prevailing system.

The African Communist referred last year to visits of this nature and, in an analysis that was eloquent in its contempt, reached the conclusion that the approach of the PFP was merely a cloak “for continued denial of equality through federalism and regionalism”. That is what they say. They reject the PFP too. The PFP must not think, therefore, that if they were to come to power the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would suddenly be the blue-eyed boy. They would walk right over him! [Interjections.] They would walk right over him. He would only be weaker; he would not have the resistance we have because he has behind him too many fellows that he cannot rely on. [Interjections.] Never mind, I shall be coming to that. I am going to be reading out their names here today. I am going to be quoting the names of those little organisations in this House. I am going to be quoting them from the documents of the ANC. Just wait a bit! [Interjections.] In the case of the businessmen it is said that they are motivated solely by self-interest, that they fear a revolution and in fact are only interested in the continued existence of capitalism; that is why they come to speak. The African Communist nevertheless concludes, and I quote:

That is their main point. They do not say “isolate Colin Eglin” or “isolate Vause Raw” or whoever else. They say “isolate the Botha regime from its natural allies”. The issue of discussions with South African businessmen is probably summarised most accurately in the ANC journal, Sechaba. I quote again:

This refers to the Tony Blooms and other gentlemen, whose names I shall mention shortly:

That is what the communists think of these people.

It is said of the businessmen that all they are interested in is what side their bread is buttered on. He also warns against these—

Nevertheless he, too, accepts the tactical games that can be achieved:

In his planning documents for 1987, the Political Military Council in Lusaka describe the objectives of such an exercise as follows:

1. 1. The consolidation of the unity of these forces around the ANC.
2. 2. The defeat of plans to treat the ANC as one of a number.
3. 3. The further isolation of the Botha regime and the encouragement of the broad democratic movement.
4. 4. Further raising the prestige and authority of our movement both at home and abroad.

These are the words. Some weeks ago advertisements appeared here in certain media which were prohibited by the Government in terms of the emergency regulations. Had we not done so, they would have been repeated. Those advertisements shamelessly promoted the image of the ANC. Steps had to be taken to prevent a continuation of this.

In radical left-wing circles it is being said that Mr Chris Ball advanced the money for the advertisements to the advertisers. An amount of R150 000 is mentioned. I am certain that the South African population agrees with me when I say that I should like to know from Mr Ball whether what is being said is the truth.

Just give him a ring.

Order!

The hon member can give himself a ring if he wishes and then provide the information to us. This matter will be investigated in detail. I assure you of that. The hon members should simply sit still and listen.

Towards the end of last year a most remarkable information report on the situation in South Africa was received in Lusaka. The report is in the possession of the secretary of the ANC Political Military Council in Lusaka. This body may be regarded as a kind of security council of the ANC. The Communist Party dominates this body, and usually Tambo is its chairman. The individual who sent the report to Lusaka under the pseudonym Mzwandile is one Ismail Ebrahim, a top intelligence operator in the ranks of the ANC. Ebrahim is a senior member of the Communist Party who plays a decisive role in the field of intelligence in the revolutionary onslaught in the political and military spheres in particular.

It is clear from the report that the ANC, and more specifically Ebrahim, were at that stage engaged in efforts to manipulate various organisations in White ranks, including the Black Sash and the PFP.

He will not succeed. [Interjections.]

I do not say he will succeed, but I shall quote the document and I shall then show the document to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. There are certain movements, whose names are mentioned in the document, which I do not want to name in public for security reasons. Therefore I am prepared to show it to him.

This document I have before me reads as follows—the English is somewhat poor occasionally, but I am going to read it out in the very words in which this communist party member and archorganiser of the ANC reported to Lusaka on what is happening in South Africa:

Now hon members must listen. This is the answer I want to give my hon friends opposite in regard to the state of emergency. Let this communist give them the answer:

At this point I leave a name out—

[Interjections.] I say this may be a lie …

It is a lie.

But does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition see that the communist never says he will invite me? [Interjections.]

I shall come to Jodac in a moment—

They simply want to achieve their aim. I quote further:

This is the only reason for which they are to be misused. The article goes on:

Now, what does he regard as “leftist tendencies”? This, now, is left of the communists. These are the anarchists. They are the “left”—the Mao’s:

He then goes through the list:

What are all these names about?

I shall tell you what they are about. I am now coming to the point I want to make.

… some funny reading.

The hon member must not make a noise now. He will hear everything, and he is going to hear everything. The more noise the hon member makes, the longer it will take for him to hear everything. The hon member for Yeoville says that we must stand together as far as security matters are concerned. I agree with him. I quote further:

That is my answer to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Not only did the state of emergency prevent a bloodbath between 16 December and 25 December; it also prevented these people from being able to continue with this kind of underhand activity that they are engaged in in South Africa.

You cannot govern a democratic country. That is what is at issue.

Let us now look at who or what Jodac is. Jodac is a White UDF member organisation established on 5 February 1984 by left-wing Whites with the aim of establishing an organisation in Johannesburg whereby activities aimed against the Constitution of 1985 and related legislation could be launched. Jodac consists inter alia of the following organisations. I am only going to mention a few:

Yes, there is even a cricket (“kriek”)—

and a whole series of other organisations. There are at least 20 to 30.

It is typical of communist strategy to establish a group of small organisations. One organisation does something in the name of one aspect of justice. The other does it in the name of another principle. So they continue, until they have infected one’s entire society. [Interjections.]

Just like the Broederbond!

Like the FAK! [Interjections.]

Order!

Do you hear, Sir? Is that what one has got into the brain of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, after all this trouble?

Yes.

[Inaudible.]

O shame, what a tragedy. What a tragedy! What a tragedy! What a tragedy! [Interjections.] What a tragedy!

That is why this Government declared a state of emergency: To protect the Black people in South Africa against the imported murderers who use American money and the money of certain European organisations to launch their murderous campaigns against innocent Black people in South Africa. It is to protect those Black people that the Government declared a state of emergency. We want to protect those Black people in the community. We want to enable them to have their children taught, to enable them to live their community life like decent people. That is what stands between these diabolical forces and the security of the communities in South Africa—a Government that uses its security services to keep South Africa safe for, inter alia, the democratic principles.

Hear, hear!

Finally, I must briefly furnish the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with an answer in connection with the media. I want to request the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to do me a favour. He can do it at his leisure, because I think he has a great deal of time.

I am extremely busy.

He does have a little more time than I have. He can read the statement which I made on 20 April 1979 as Prime Minister, when I set out in detail my standpoint on the media. Briefly, what it amounts to is that I recognised that the Press should be free. I also recognised that in a democratic system, the Press has the right to criticise, the right to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the public. I recognised that. However, a free Press is a responsible Press and not an irresponsible Press. I said as much in that speech. And last year I went out of my way to make an appeal to the media and to tell them that South Africa was being threatened. Sons of South Africa are dying on the borders of this country. They are not dying for this country because this Government has made it impossible for something else to happen here, but rather because efforts are being made from outside our borders to bring South Africa into a different sphere of influence, to take South Africa out of the sphere of influence of the free democracies and bring it under the sphere of influence of dictatorships. They are attacking it in order to undermine its leadership in Southern Africa so that it cannot exert its influence in the economic, health and other spheres and be of assistance to its neighbours. That is why it is being attacked, and that is why one communistic effort after another is made to provide armaments to people who are sometimes abducted and enticed away to be able to make attacks on South Africa after they have been trained.

I did not leave it at that. I also personally took steps to ensure that security briefing on the security situation during October and November was provided to representatives of newspaper editorial staffs. This was done. What is more, we invited the Press bosses, the chairmen of the four large Press companies, viz Argus, SAAN, Nasionale Pers and Perskor, and requested them to bring their managing directors with them. We also asked each of them to bring along another member of their board of directors, and they did so. We met them on 28 November. I do not wish to quote everything that I said to them; the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can have a copy if he wants to read it.

May I just ask what is the reference of that speech of 1979?

It was 20 April 1979. I do not have the Hansard column reference.

Was it in this House?

Yes, in the House.

I spoke to the heads of these Press groups and said to them: “Listen, we cannot carry on this way. Wittingly or unwittingly the hand of a diabolical enemy is being strengthened.”

Let me give an example. As regards the bloodshed we have had in the urban area or townships, had we not removed the television networks they would still be continuing to instigate them. I have received letters from abroad and from prominent South Africans telling me that if I had ever done a good thing, then it was to remove them. This brought peace to these Black areas.

I spoke man to man with these Press bosses and it was a pleasant discussion. There was no quarrelling; only an open-hearted approach. I was not alone; some of the senior members of my Cabinet were present.

At that time we undertook to conduct another discussion with them. We met them on 28 November, and again on 5 December last year. On that occasion we put a suggestion to them. We would not subject those newspapers belonging to the Press Union to emergency regulations provided the Press Union undertook to implement discipline itself. We furnished them with the guidelines of what we wanted for the sake of South Africa’s security. [Interjections.]

They asked for time to consider them, and my impression was that the Press bosses agreed with us. Indeed, I can prove it from the minutes. They went back and some of them were unable to stand up against their editors. When on 9 December a Cabinet committee held a meeting with them they themselves stated that we should apply the regulations to everyone. They first issued a statement to say that they agreed with us. That is public knowledge.

I say that I am prepared to suspend tomorrow the emergency regulations applying to those newspapers belonging to the Press Union if they accept the guidelines that we discussed with them and which they recognise to be reasonable guidelines. That is where we stand now. They owe me an answer. I do not wish to launch an attack on them. There are many decent people in the Press managements and I personally have many friends in the editorial staffs of South Africa. What I find strange, however, is that a newspaper can tell you and me what it likes, but the moment you say anything in return it is like a scorpion that lifts its tail, intent on stinging! Why are they unable to take criticism? I could quote to them what the late Mr Schalk Pienaar said of them. He made a very interesting remark in his Tien Jaar Politieke Kommentaar:

I give to them free of charge that advice coming from a late colleague of theirs.

There is something else I want to tell our Press. The day this pack of murderers takes over in South Africa—if they were to succeed—this self-same Press will not have the opportunity to do what they are doing now. They will have to tow the line, or else. That is what will happen to them and they had better think about the future. [Interjections.]

Before I resume my seat I just wish to make a brief statement. In various quarters— in some instances it was done in better faith than in others—concern has been expressed about two matters relating to the contents of the media regulations issued in terms of the existing state of emergency. The first is that parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech are allegedly affected thereby and the media are allegedly unable to report what is said in Parliament if the media regulations prohibit the contents of what is said.

As regards the right of members of Parliament to freedom of speech, the Public Safety Act confirms that emergency regulations cannot detract from that. Furthermore, it is an integral part of parliamentary privilege that Parliament is the authority that determines what may be published in regard to its proceedings. It has never been, and is not now, the Government’s intention to assail in any way either of these two rights to which members on the one hand and Parliament on the other are entitled. Therefore this also implies that the Government does not intend taking steps to restrict media reporting on parliamentary debates; indeed, the media regulations contain an express provision that is in line with this approach.

The second matter relates on the one hand to the degree to which the media regulations can restrict candidates and political parties participating in the coming election with reference to what they may say and have published and, on the other hand, the degree to which the media will be restricted in regard to what may be published about what is said during the election campaign. Although it is the standpoint of the Government that the media regulations are necessary for the sake of public order, the security of the general public and the termination of the state of emergency—because what we seek to achieve by way of these steps is the termination of the state of emergency—the Government believes that election campaigns should be characterised by the greatest possible degree of free, open and responsible discussion of participating parties’ and individuals’ statements and standpoints. Indeed, the voters should be as well informed as possible so that they may exercise their choices in a responsible fashion.

On television too.

It is quite remarkable that that good hon member always butts in when he should not. After all, he is getting older, too.

I ask whether television will also give us an opportunity.

Of course. Television is already being used to give hon members an opportunity, and he knows it. [Interjections.] Indeed, I have reason to complain that television devotes far too much attention to those little parties when I look at their size. [Interjections.]

Therefore the Government does not wish to restrict anyone who participates in the election as a candidate in a legitimate fashion as far as his election campaign is concerned. Nor was it the aim of the regulations to limit legitimate and lawful political activities. What the regulations aim at is securing the country against unlawful and violent activities.

I invite those leaders of the political parties that will take part in the election and that adopt the standpoint that their legitimate political activities will be inhibited due to the regulations, to discuss the matter with a committee of Ministers whom I shall nominate. We shall then see what else we can do to accommodate hon members in a reasonable fashion.

I have already discussed the media but there is one medium to which I now wish to refer, and that is television. I regard television as a powerful factor in the life of any country. This applies in particular in the educational sphere, the promotion of the arts and various other spheres. However, if television is marked by a lack of restraint then that, too, can further the cause of the perpetrators of violence.

I wish to make an appeal this afternoon to the television service of South Africa and its board to consider some of the films they show. Some of their films are not in the interests of peace in South Africa. They are a tedious repetition of murder scenes. I say publicly today that this is not in the interests of our country.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition states that they are going to fight to win as many constituencies as possible. That he is fully entitled to do. We shall fight to remain in power, with our experience. I think that if the country were to be in possession of all the facts in regard to what the Government has been faced with over the past number of years, and they were recognised and not sanctimoniously glossed over, then the country would elect the government which it can trust in times of emergency. [Interjections.]

This party will fight, and perhaps the same will happen as happened some years ago at the time of the referendum. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will recall that a lot of big talk emanated from them during the election, but the outcome was a majority of two thirds. However, this Opposition did not accept the outcome of the referendum and we are going to tell the country that.

We are going to fight to reduce the size of the Opposition. I wish to say that I shall accept the decision of the voters and will abide by it. Will the Opposition do so?

Mr Speaker, we have listened intently for almost two hours to the hon the State President “replying”—I put that in inverted commas—to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this no-confidence debate. I want to say at once that I for one am most depressed at what I heard this afternoon … [Interjections.] … not so much impressed with the horror stories with which he regaled us because he has done that before but because there really was not one new word of hope with which to reassure the country that we were going forward into some new era; on the contrary, what we were told makes me absolutely certain that there is no intention of lifting the state of emergency. The hon the State President is determined to continue to rule by force and by means of using all the might at his disposal, and that is considerable.

He said one or two things that I must question. Does he not know that throughout the sixties the pass laws were intensified and tightened up? It is totally unimportant who introduced those pass laws. The point is that during the years of the NP regime those laws were tightened until last year when finally the Government conceded that they ought to be repealed.

I think all of us here were most depressed about what he had to say about the Group Areas Act. He tells us that the Group Areas Act has been responsible for the development of middle class communities among the Coloured and Indian people. I wonder then if he would explain to us at some stage—not this afternoon, however, because we have had enough of him—why it is that the repeal of the Group Areas Act is the priority demand of the Coloured and Indian Houses in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

He ended his speech on a very peculiar note. He told us that if the Press would introduce self-censorship, he would be prepared to remove the emergency regulations on the media. That is asking the impossible, however. Surely he knows that the Press is going to adhere strictly to its basic principle of publishing what it believes the public has a right to know? That, of course, is what none of us are getting today. The hon the State President can tell us till the cows come home that everything is quiet in the Black townships now. How does anybody in the public know whether that is a true reflection of what is going on throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, when the media are not permitted to report unrest related incidents and can only publish the meagre reports which are given to them by the Bureau for Information? Nobody is going to buy that one, I would like to tell the hon the State President.

Let us now return to the no-confidence debate and leave the rest of the hon the State President’s speech to be dealt with by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he replies to the debate on Friday.

In his telling speech on Monday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition called this Government “incompetent, wasteful and bullying”, all of which, I believe, are totally justifiable epithets in view of the 39 years’ record of this regime. I would like to add two more epithets, namely “unscrupulous” and “untrustworthy”. I will give examples to justify those two epithets later.

I suppose the best way to illustrate what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition called the “Government’s bullying tactics” is to highlight the manner in which it has used its awesome powers under both the permanent and the temporary emergency security measures. I want to give a different picture from the one given by the hon the State President.

I want to ask how many well-meaning citizens there are in South Africa who originally accepted these measures as “necessary” and whom the hon the State President tried to persuade this afternoon that they remain necessary in the interests, of course, of security. All of us want security but there are different ways of obtaining permanent and stable security in this country; that is done by developing a contented population. How many people ever envisaged the extent to which those powers would be used, and the abuses to which they would lead? How many appreciated the fact that, to quote Prof Mathews— I commend his book, Freedom, State Security and the Rule of Law, to all hon members in the Government benches and, indeed, to hon members on this side—where he said:

How many anticipated the ever-increasing restrictions on the media? How many are having second thoughts about accepting the “necessity”—as it is always presented—for tyranny?

I want now to point out the extent to which the Government has used security powers. Estimates of the number of people who have been detained since 12 June 1986, when the state of emergency was reintroduced, range between 20 000 and 25 000 people. That is according to the PFP Unrest Monitoring Committee and the Detainee Parents’ Support Committee. Of those people about 3 000, ie 10% to 12%, were women, and about 6 000, about 25% of them, were under the age of 18.

Presently, according to PFP figures, there are about 5 000 people in detention, of whom 10% are women and 20% are under the age of 18. The Detainee Parents’ Support Committee figures are considerably higher.

The Commissioner of Police informed us in December 1986 that there were 256 children under the age of 16 in detention. That figure is, of course, misleading because it ignores the fact that the Children’s Act defines children as persons under the age of 18. I have no doubt that if 16 and 17 year old children were included in the Commissioner’s statistics, the total would have increased considerably, for it is precisely within that age group that many arrests and detentions take place.

Now, Sir, if these figures are exaggerated, I say that the blame lies fairly and squarely on the former Minister of Law and Order, who shall be nameless but who is not a thousand miles from here, Mr Speaker.

Order! I really do not know to whom the hon member is referring.

Well, I do! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, Sir, the blame also lies on his former Deputy Minister, who has now been elevated, because I made repeated requests to them during the recess to publish the list of names and the numbers of people who were in detention.

This is going to have to be done in terms of section 5A (7) of the Public Safety Act within two weeks of the commencement of this session. It is specified there that the names of people detained in terms of emergency regulations must be tabled. However, the House should be reminded that this list will be incomplete because the Act allows for the exclusion of the names of all people who have not been detained for longer than 30 days. That, of course, will therefore result in a diminution.

Moreover, I must point out that the police have made wide use of permanent emergency legislation such as sections 50 and 50A of the Internal Security Act, the sections dealing respectively with detention without trail for 14 days and 180 days. The details concerning these detainees will also not be included in the hon the Minister’s little list.

I have tabled a number of questions in this regard, and I very much hope that we will get more information than the rather coy response that I got last year from the then Minister of Law and Order.

We on this side of the House have said over and over again that emergency powers are a direct abrogation of the rule of law and of due process, and we unequivocally oppose this negation of one of the basic Western democratic practices. I have to say that I smiled when I read the speech made by our hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs at the World Freedom Day celebration in Taipei on 23 January this year. He said:

Well, Sir, I smiled, but it was a very wry smile indeed, for I thought not only of the thousands of men, women and children who were detainees in our “free society” languishing in jails and police cells, but I also thought of how the Government had ruthlessly used every method available in order to smash Black urban civic associations throughout the length and breadth of the Republic, and not only via emergency powers.

The Government has actively assisted vigilantes; it has armed community guards and “kitskonstabels”. I might say, the shocking incident which took place yesterday at Fingo Village, near Grahamstown, is a stark example of the foolishness of creating “kits-konstabels”, giving them shotguns and letting them loose on the community. I believe it was scandalous, Sir. [Interjections.]

The Police Force and the Army—this we know from what happened earlier at Crossroads—have stood by while people belonging to organisations falling outside the Government’s constitutional structures are being assaulted.

There is another example to which I want to refer, Sir. This occurred at Zolani, near Montagu, where over the past 18 months about 500 people have been arrested and held without bail. There were no proper investigations before the arrests. Fewer than 50 of those held were found guilty of any offence, and due process has in fact been sidestepped.

The former Minister of Law and Order said that all charges would be investigated if sworn statements were made, but I want to tell this House that the police often refuse to take statements. People who have been assaulted are often too intimidated to make statements, and often when charges are laid the outcome has been that the Attorney-General declines to prosecute, and the only recourse then is an expensive civil action.

Intimidated by whom? [Interjections.]

Intimidated by the police; by the people who beat them up originally. Obviously! Intimidated by “kitskonsta-bels” and also by vigilantes. I might tell the hon member that hundreds of thousands of rand in taxpayers’ money have been paid in out-of-court settlements by the State following police assaults.

I have here a list of names relating to people who have informed our PFP Unrest Monitoring Committee in Natal that they have been assaulted while in detention. The list contains 119 names and it ranges from a 12-year old child to people 36 years old. There are among them 46 people under the age of 18 years, who should qualify for protection in terms of the Children’s Act. One of the positive amendments in 1982, I want to remind the House, to the Internal Security Act was that children were once again placed under the protection of the Children’s Act if they were arrested under security legislation. The emergency regulations, however, obviously override this amendment.

Now, Sir, I want to quote from a few of the affidavits—sworn affidavits which I have in my possession, and I believe that these represent a microcosm of what is happening at police stations and in prisons in other parts of the country. I am quoting from affidavits sworn in Natal, and two institutions are constantly mentioned in the affidavits that I have. I have many more. I have just chosen a few at random. It is always kwaMashu Police Station and Westville Prison that feature very prominently.

One child, 17-year old Siphiwe Nkosi, says, and I quote:

Armstrong Khumalo is a Black youth of 16 years, also from kwaMashu. He states that he and three other men were taken to kwaMashu Police Station by the SADF in a Hippo. He goes on to state:

The affidavit states that all four youths were put into a police van and that teargas was sprayed into the van. They were then taken to Westville Prison, where, says Khumalo, Oscar Mgadi—whose name appears over and over and I hope the hon the Minister of Law and Order will look into this—of the Security Police interrogated them and hit them with a closed fist while wearing rings on his fingers. A week later he was questioned by a White policeman about a petrol bomb. He denied knowledge of this and was again hit in the face and kicked in the chest.

I might say that a case was subsequently brought against this youth and it was thrown out. No evidence could be produced that he was in any way involved with petrolbombing or the burning of the garage or the bottle-store.

Zakhele Nxumalo is a 15-year old Black male from kwaMashu. He states that nine White SADF men took him to the police station in a Casspir. He says that he was given an electric shock and he was taken in a police Landrover to Westville Prison and from 1 am to 3 am nine White policemen hit him, taking turns. While he was making a statement, Oscar Mgadi kicked him in the chest. His affidavit states:

On one occasion one of the young men had a Black policeman take his gun and put it against his head and say he would shoot him if he did not talk.

I do not suggest—and I want to emphasise this—that young persons engaged in violence should go unpunished; on the contrary, some young people are very violent indeed and society has to be protected from them. However, there are methods laid down in civilised countries with which to deal with youthful offenders, and these methods do not include physical assaults or detention without trial or being locked up with adult offenders where they face the inherent risk of sodomy.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Justice I have no doubt the prison authorities do their best in this regard but there are so many young offenders awaiting trial that the prisons are desperately overcrowded and it is impossible to monitor what goes on all the time. I have had reports from social workers that youngsters have been sodomised while awaiting trial and that they have been very nervous of having these things reported to the prison officials in case they should be found guilty and sent back to prison where they would face retribution.

The hon the Minister of Justice is here and I want to ask him a question. I am told—and I hope he will tell me that it is incorrect— that a directive has been issued to the prisons that no parole or remission of sentence is to be given to anybody who is found guilty and convicted of an offence which is unrest connected. I hope that is wrong. There is no doubt—one can check this with anybody who is used to dealing with prisoners and they will confirm it—that the “carrot”—if one can call it that—of parole or remission of sentence is one of the important devices at the command of the prison authorities to ensure good behaviour and to help in the rehabilitation of prisoners. I hope that the hon the Minister will tell me that my information on the directive was incorrect.

I will reply to that.

Thank you.

The hon the State President has declared that the state of emergency has worked—that violence in the townships has decreased as a result of the stringent measures imposed. I ask: Who knows if the media are not allowed to report on it? As Prof Mathews points out in his brilliant book:

Prof Mathews continues:

He asks:

So, far from creating the preconditions for political dialogue, these methods actually destroy the chances of political reform.

In the very short time at my disposal I want to illustrate why I have called the Government unscrupulous and untrustworthy. I cite the ugly example of Oukasie, Brits. In 1985 we were assured by the present hon Minister of Education and Development Aid (Hansard: Assembly, 28 Jan 1985, col 51) that—

I am glad the hon member for Brits is here, because Brits’s Black town is a prime example of a pending forced removal. Ten thousand people have signed a petition saying that they do not want to move from Brits. Ten thousand people have said they do not want to go to Lethlabile or anywhere else, and that they have never been consulted by the Government, the development board or even the Brits Community Council.

I went to Oukasie in December last year. It is run-down and it has no modern amenities such as electricity, water-borne sewage or tarred roads. However, there are many good little brick houses there, and there were many more until they were demolished by the Government. The people do not want to move. The township is adjacent to Brits and they can seek work there or, if they already have work, their places of work are nearby. Obviously Lethlabile to which they are to be moved is far away. It is 20 km away, and this means a bus journey of three quarters of an hour. The busfare will be R1,70 return per day or R5,90 per week. They cannot afford this. They cannot afford to rebuild their houses. They are adamant that they do not wish to go.

A feasibility survey was carried out by professionals—engineers, architects and town-planners—and their report states quite unequivocally that Brits’s Black town can be upgraded for very little money. For a sum of R3 million the goodwill of the community can be won, and this is less than the amount spent on that ridiculous song and far less than the Government’s expenditure on the provision of cricket grounds at Verwoerdburg.

Oukasie is not being moved because it is an unredeemable slum or because the costs of upgrading it in situ will be enormous; it is to be removed because of White greed. Whites want the land. It is to be removed— and this is the prime reason, of course— because Brits is a marginal NP seat!

Mr Speaker, Mr John Vorster governed this country with 26 Ministers and Deputy Ministers. The hon the State President is governing this country with 50 Ministers and Deputy Ministers. At the moment, however, only 12 or 13 of the 50 Ministers of the Republic of South Africa are present in this House. Of the 126 members of the NP, 37 are present in this House. Here we are on the eve of an election, a time at which a party should be spelling out its policy, and the Cabinet is not even showing an interest in the debates that have to take place here. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President referred here to television programmes and spoke about imported films which ram violence down South Africa’s throat. We want to appeal to the hon the Minister who is responsible for this to import fewer American films, in which not only is violence presented to the South African viewer, but integration as well. Less integration must be rammed down our viewers’ throats. We can no longer switch on the television without having integration rammed down the throats of the South African viewers from programme to programme.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement on television last night, clenching his fist as he did so. We know that he ran away from Pietersburg with a clenched fist. The hon the Minister accused the American Congress on television of being responsible for the unrest and violence in South Africa. It was an admission from the hon the Minister that the American Congress is capable of generating unrest and disorder within the boundaries of South Africa. He told the people of South Africa that the Americans could take decisions in their Congress which created disorder in South Africa. He said by implication that the South African Government was not capable of neutralising the American influences in South Africa.

It was distorted to such an extent, you cannot distort it any further.

This was a shocking admission from the hon the Minister about this NP Government’s impotence. That alone is sufficient reason for the voters of South Africa to get rid of this impotent Government on 6 May.

The hon the State President spoke about security matters. It is history, and a proven fact, that in respect of security legislation the CP gives the Government positive support. The CP is in favour of the restoration of law and order in South Africa. It is the CP’s standpoint that revolutionary and undermining powers in South Africa must be clamped down on forcefully. It is also a well-known fact that the hon the Minister of Law and Order experienced his greatest opposition last year from the side of the parties whose leaders, Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, sat in the Cabinet with him. Today the hon the State President made reference to the PFP and their links with these undermining organisations. Rev Hendrickse sits in the Cabinet with the hon the State President, however, and before the referendum he said: “Ek kom saam met Mandela deur die stryd”.

The referendum promise of peace in South Africa is lying in fragments. It is not the American influence, which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is blaming now, that is responsible, but the policy of power-sharing. Since the day this Government came forward with its new constitutional dispensation, schools have been burnt down and stones have been thrown and never has there been more bloodshed in South Africa than at this very time. Africa has proved that where the Whites shared political power, they lost it, and conflict and bloodshed became the order of the day. The NP must accept responsibility for the conflict and bloodshed in this country. It is a result of the NP policy.

We thought the hon the State President would come here today, before the election, and spell out the direction in which he is taking South Africa. We thought he would tell us what the position of the Blacks is. The hon the State President took part in the debate. We asked him to be present here, but he is conspicuous by his absence. He did not say a single word about the course he is taking with South Africa. He came here for political gain, to tell us about the security position in the country, in which he has the CP’s support in any case.

Where is the hon the State President who had this letter published at a cost of R290 000 last year—this was the taxpayers’ money—in which he said:

Where is the hon the State President who also said:

Where is the hon the State President who also said:

Where is that hon State President? Why did he not spell out today the course which he is taking with the Blacks of South Africa? [Interjections.]

I know why he did not do so. I have a booklet here which appeared on our tables today. It was written by Prof Koos van Wyk and Prof Deon Geldenhuys and it concerns the hon the State President’s political convictions. The writers are both professors in political science at the Rand Afrikaans University. They write on page 37:

They then give the examples. Then these two academics from the Rand Afrikaans University conclude with the following:

[Interjections.] These are academics in the territory of the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal. Now I understand why the hon the State President did not rise here today and spell out his alternatives to us.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning submitted choices to us. I want to tell hon members that South Africa is before one of two choices, and it must give its verdict on 6 May.

The one choice is one undivided South Africa—one nation, one South African citizenship, one State President and one government, constituted according to the principle of political power-sharing. The second choice is the recognition of 13 peoples, each with its right to an own territory, an own fatherland in which each people has full self-determination and can govern itself. The choice is between these two standpoints: A multiracial unitary state or own fatherlands for the respective peoples. These are the two choices.

What did the hon the State President say at the opening of Parliament last year? He said [Hansard: House of Assembly, 31 January 1986, cols 13 and 14]:

He continued:

The hon the State President spoke about one country, about one South African citizenship and one nation for Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa.

The NP, the PFP/NRP, the UDF, the ANC, and all Coloured and Indian political parties support choice number 1, viz one country, one nation and one government, constituted according to the principle of political power-sharing. [Interjections.] The only point on which the NP, the PFP, the UDF and the ANC differ, is in which way each South African citizen, White, Black, Coloured or Indian, should be able to exercise his political powers. That is the only point on which they differ. The NP, the ANC, and the UDF also support the ideal of one undivided South Africa—one country, one nation with one government. [Interjections.]

The NP is under an obligation to the electorate of South Africa to say how it is going to give the 17 million Blacks full political rights on an equal and fair basis with joint decision-making on common affairs such as defence, law and order, constitutional development, this Parliament, manpower, mineral and energy affairs and home affairs. They must spell out to us how they are going to give these people those rights.

Let us look at the preparation the NP has done to give Blacks a say in the political decision-making process, The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at the NP Federal Congress:

What are the preparations made by this Government? One was the abolition of the influx control measures, with the NP slogan that freedom of movement should be given to all South African citizens. This resulted in there now being 900 000 Blacks on the Cape Flats— 300 000 more than Botswana’s total population. The Black Communities Development Act has been abolished. I quote from the relevant memorandum:

In the third place there was the Restoration of South African Citizenship Act which once again granted South African citizenship to 1,7 million Black citizens of already independent Black states.

The Act giving everyone in South Africa a uniform identity document—it is a colourless identity document—was launched by this Parliament.

In the fourth place I want to refer to the Black Local Authorities Amendment Act. The franchise qualifications for Blacks are spelt out in this Act. The franchise qualifications for Blacks on the level of local government are South African citizenship, the age of 18 years and legal residence. The franchise qualifications for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in terms of the Constitution Act of 1983 are also those of South African citizenship and the age of 18 years. The same qualifications apply to the Whites, Coloureds and Indians on the level of local government. It is very clear, therefore, that the franchise qualifications on the level of local government are exactly the same for Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

If the franchise qualifications on the level of local government are the same for the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, surely I am correct in saying the franchise qualifications for Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians will be the same on the highest level as well. Last year the hon member Dr Vilonel said that was correct.

I still say so.

He still says so; and he has not been repudiated yet and he has not written a letter to the hon the State President yet. Surely that means a system of one man, one vote in an undivided South Africa.

Surely that is a reference to separate voters’ lists.

It will take place by means of separate voters’ lists, just as the Whites in Zimbabwe today are on separate voters’ lists. They are slaves of the decision-making process in their own fatherland, however.

The hon the State President said yesterday the NP was not in favour of a fourth Black Chamber of Parliament. He argued that one cannot box 10 different peoples into the same Chamber, and in saying that the hon the State President admitted the ethnic diversity to which he has to give a say in his plans right up to the very highest level.

Provision is made in the Constitution Act of 1983 for the three Chambers of this multiracial Parliament—one for the White population group, one for the Coloured population group and one for the Indian population group. In clause 1 of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Amendment Bill, the definition of “population group” is amended in such a way that it now reads: “the White, the Coloured, the Indian or the Black population group”. In this Bill, which regulates voting rights on the level of local government for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, the “Black population group” is mentioned throughout.

I now want to ask the hon the State President: Can he treat the Black population group differently in a future dispensation from the White and Coloured population groups? The electoral college which elects the State President gives 50 members to the White population group, 15 members to the Coloured population group and 13 to the Indian population group. I now want to ask the hon the State President and the NP whether they are going to give the Black population group a say in the election of the State President. The hon member for Innesdal has already said “yes”. [Interjections.] I want to know if they are going to give them a say. Are they going to give the Black population group, which consists of 17 million people, less representation than the 13 electoral college members of the Indian population group, while it will take only 12 Blacks to elect a Black State President? [Interjections.]

My time has expired, but I want to say once again today that if the hon the State President continues on this course of his, history will write that he was the greatest betrayer of the Whites in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think it is fitting for the hon member for Kuruman to refer hypothetically to the hon the State President as a betrayer. The hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I said if the hon the State President continued on this course of his, history would write that he was the greatest betrayer of the Whites in this country.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw it.

I order the hon member for Kuruman, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, I had intended referring to the hon member for Kuruman but in consequence of his last remark I believe our best course with such an hon member is merely to ignore him completely. [Interjections.]

Permit me a word of appreciation at the outset for my predecessor in this portfolio of Law and Order. He filled the difficult and demanding post with distinction and efficiency for more than seven years. Over the past two years in particular he carried out a very difficult task effectively and with dignity under the most difficult circumstances imaginable—both personal and in the country. I think South Africa and this House owe him their thanks and I should like to record our thanks and appreciation in this way in this highest Chamber.

This afternoon the hon member for Houghton, as we know her, listened to the hon the State President and then proceeded in the old vein to which we have all grown accustomed from her. She took no notice of what the hon the State President had said. In spite of evidence submitted and in spite of facts indicated to her, the hon member simply continued speaking in the old way of suppression by the Government and the ill-treatment of detainees, etc. This just shows me that the hon member is not interested in taking note of evidence submitted to her and acting accordingly. This afternoon the hon the State President provided evidence running …

One-sided evidence. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is typical of that hon member. The hon the State President brought the evidence on the ANC with him and submitted it to the House.

All right, I am not spoiling for a fight with you. [Interjections.]

Order! I wish to tell hon members and also the hon member for Green Point that the hon the Minister requires no assistance from any side to complete his speech, but he must be given an opportunity to do so.

The hon the State President submitted evidence from the inner circle of the ANC on the success we are achieving with the state of emergency. This is ANC evidence, it is not what we are saying. The state of emergency has succeeded in accomplishing certain things in South Africa—rectifying them; they are matters against which not one of us can be opposed; they are matters to the advantage of people in general and of our country. Nevertheless the hon member for Houghton expressed her regret because it appeared to her that the hon the State President did not intend lifting the state of emergency. She is right. The state of emergency benefits many people. It thwarts the enemies of South Africa and we have heard such evidence this afternoon. The hon member should therefore be careful of the choir she joins. Is she adding her voice to the choir of people striving for the welfare of South Africa or the other one?

The hon member also referred to someone who has supposedly said it was very difficult to negotiate while a state of emergency existed. I wish to point out, however, that if chaos and violence reign, it is totally impossible to negotiate with people; they are simply not prepared to come and talk.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why the state of emergency was lifted completely last year if the situation was so serious.

This Government is really doing its utmost to get people to sit peacefully around a table and negotiate. The hon the State President decided to extend an invitation to negotiations to those people making a great fuss about prenegotiating conditions. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member for Brakpan put a question to me but the hon member for Rissik is trying to answer it.

I think the hon member for Brakpan had better put the question to the hon member for Rissik; he will then definitely receive a stupid reply. [Interjections.]

We were of the opinion that we wanted to give those who had requested it an opportunity and that we should all meet around a table. That is also my reply to hon members of the PFP. We gave the country an opportunity and invited the people to come forward for negotiations because the hon the State President and the Government were prepared to do so.

But what happened next? Metaphorically they kicked us in the teeth. Subsequently the Government had the courage to say it would not permit such people to take over the country. In the face of opposition the Government had the courage of its convictions to reintroduce the state of emergency because it was in the best interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is proof of a good government.

The hon member for Houghton asked whether we were creating a satisfied group of people. I want to reply that that is precisely what we are doing. Through conditions of stability we have created in Black residential areas we are in the process of again developing a community in the Black towns which is happy to go to work, to school and to lead a normal life. I therefore wish to reply that the state of emergency in itself is not the ultimate object but only an instrument we use to restore order so that the population may live happily and in contentment. In this way we shall proceed to develop these very people further.

The hon member for Houghton also objected to our detaining children. I want to tell the hon member today—I have said this already but I wish to repeat it—that I am very sorry we have to detain children. I myself want these children to be at their homes and with their parents but we also have a responsibility. My hon colleague the Deputy Minister of Law and Order will add to this reply and provide full details on the children we have to detain. We shall furnish the House with details; we do not wish to keep them from hon members. I wish to assure the House that we scrutinise each case of children who have to be detained to see whether it is not possible to release them because we do not wish to detain children either. Nevertheless we have a responsibility toward the country and other people.

I wish to make a further point here. The hon member for Houghton should query adults of the ANC and the UDF who misuse children to attain their own goals. The ANC uses children in an attempt to achieve its own objectives of violence and a communist takeover in this country. My hon colleague will make further reference to that, however.

The hon member for Houghton also objected to our steps against the so-called civic associations. But is the House aware what these people represent? Does the House know what the civic associations, established under the banner of the ANC and the UDF, do? They are the people who are to take over the local authorities in Black towns. They are the people who are misused by communist organisations to destroy or take over the existing orderly structure and orderly management systems in Black residential areas.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? Does he condone the methods used by the vigilantes in attacking the civic associations?

I shall deal immediately with the questions of the actions of the so-called vigilantes. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Walmer also referred to the actions of the so-called vigilante groups in kwaNobuhle and also in Chesterville. I have received a preliminary report on what occurred in kwaNobuhle. I do not have the time now to deal with it comprehensively but I shall furnish the hon member with details. In brief, however, it comes down to the fact that a group of adult Black men who, as far as we could ascertain, have no political links with any party, once acted in a certain way while they were assisted by people from Azapo and others who are known locally as the “Africanists”. According to evidence at our disposal this group of people declare in their credo that they are tired of the influence of the Comrades and the street committees. They say the consumer boycott in Uitenhage should be lifted and scholars should return to school.

These are the three statements they make. Does the hon member object to that? Does anyone object to that? No one!

No!

I am pleased that hon person also agrees, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

According to the preliminary report, in consequence of differences among the divergent factions, including the UDF, Azapo and these people, friction arose between these groups during the past month—that is January—on various occasions. In this way violence erupted on 4 January. Arising from this, two charges of murder and one of malicious damage to property were laid with the police. I wish to assure the hon member that those cases are now being investigated.

On 5 January there was further violence and one charge of murder, one of grievous assault and two of malicious damage to property were reported to us. They are also being investigated.

The hon member for Walmer offered apologies for his absence here this afternoon. He read certain statements here yesterday which I should be pleased to receive from him. Hon members have my assurance that we do not merely ignore these charges but have them investigaged. When a murder takes place, we want to know who perpetrated it. We make as thorough a search as possible to find the culprit.

The other question asked by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition dealt with the matter of Chesterville. What are the relevant facts? I offer them briefly to hon members. On 8 January at 23h20 three houses were attacked with petrol bombs by a group of people. House 532 was damaged but fortunately no one was injured or killed there. House 541 was set alight and two people injured. House 539 burnt down and unfortunately people lost their lives there. I regret this but it would have been even worse if two White police constables had not run into the burning houses and saved a Black child. Charges of murder and arson are being investigated at present; we are looking for these people too.

We are discussing a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet today. This is the supporting evidence the hon member submitted to us here this afternoon. So-called evidence on poor Police action is submitted here but I then present hon members with evidence which explains how well the Police really acted. Nevertheless there is something I find strange. I really want to put it to the hon member for Houghton and other hon members of the PFP this afternoon. Over the past two years numerous houses belonging to moderate Black people in this country have been burnt down. Hundreds of those people have been killed or injured by Black activists and radicals. To my knowledge the PEP did not lay a charge or institute proceedings regarding the actions of these radical activists and request an investigation of their actions on a single occasion. [Interjections.]

That is where you are wrong!

I am prepared to investigate evidence the hon member for Houghton is able to lay before me. When UDF activists intimidate, murder or damage the property of ordinary people, however, there is a deadly silence.

That is not true!

When ordinary people like those in kwaNobuhle, about whom I read to you, become tired of intimidation and of the Comrades and when they do something about it, those hon members lay the blame on the Police! Those hon members then accuse us of improper action.

I want to ask on whose side they really are. [Interjections.]

On the side of civilised behaviour, like everybody! [Interjections.]

Order! I am certain that an hon member of the PFP will presently have an opportunity to speak. I request the hon member to make fewer interjections.

*The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

That is a question those hon members will have to answer in this election. They will have to say on whose side they are and where they stand. Are they ranged with these people or with whom do they stand?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Has the hon the Minister not been seeking to draw an inference by asking such a question? Does he not actually infer that hon members of this party are on the side of those radical elements that destroy life? [Interjections.] Sir, you asked the hon member for Houghton to keep quiet, and she is a good girl, but what about these hon members making such a noise now? [Interjections.] I ask you a very simple thing because, with respect, Sir, when one asks a question, it is sometimes not really a question but is designed to draw an inference. If the inference which the hon the Minister is seeking to draw is to align hon members on this side of the House with those elements, then that is a false allegation. Furthermore, Sir, it is in fact then an allegation which is utterly unparliamentary because it accuses us of unlawful conduct. I, for one, am not prepared …

Order! [Interjections.] I have heard the hon member for Yeoville’s point of order.

*Can the hon the Minister of Law and Order tell me which specific question he put? What were the words he used?

Mr Chairman, I said that, when UDF activists intimidated, murdered and destroyed the property of ordinary people, hon members of the PFP were dead quiet. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a bit, let me repeat what I asked. When the ordinary man, who is tired of intimidation and violence, takes steps against UDF activists and the Comrades, those hon members accuse the police. I then asked hon members to state on whose side they were. [Interjections.] I am prepared to reassure the hon member for Yeoville, however; I know where he stands; I have no doubt about that. He need not be concerned but … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, I have already wasted so much time on replies that I do not wish to answer further questions now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister did not repeat the question that he put which led to the point of order raised by the hon member for Yeoville. If he did not mean to refer to the hon member for Yeoville, then it implies that he means that other hon members in this party …

Order! I heard the point of order. I shall look at the Hansard closely when I receive it tomorrow morning. The hon the Minister may continue.

Thank you, Sir. If I have offended hon members, I shall withdraw my words. [Interjections.] I told the hon member for Yeoville I accepted his word. Other hon members who wish to put forward a tender of declaration on where they stand are welcome to do so. [Interjections.] I shall give them the opportunity; they have a great deal of time to do so.

You haven’t got the guts to say what you mean! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition must withdraw those words.

No, Sir, I am not prepared to do that. [Interjections.]

Order! Then the hon member, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, will have to leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it actually unparliamentary to say of an hon member that he does not have the guts to say what he wants to say? What is unparliamentary about that? [Interjections.] I do not think it is unparliamentary, Sir.

Order! [Interjections.] Order! I may mention to the hon member for Yeoville that it was already decided in 1944 that it was unparliamentary to say that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Houghton also referred to the incidents in Grahamstown and I should like to give her a reply on that too. In this regard I am also in possession of a preliminary report on the unfortunate incidents which occurred there. I should like to express my sincere sympathy with the relatives of the people who died in that unfortunate incident. According to the Commissioner of Police three of these special constables were on guard duty at a school on the evening of 2 February. It is alleged that they were fired upon with firearms. In this crossfire four people were fatally wounded. Police are conducting urgent investigations into this. The three special constables have been suspended from service and are being detained. Something has therefore already been done in the interim and the case is being investigated. So that is my reply to the hon member.

[Inaudible.]

I have listened to the evidence submitted to this House during the no-confidence debate over the past few days. I have already referred to part of it this afternoon. I had hoped that we should see an alternative government here but it does not exist. Perhaps this is the case because these two parties are fighting among themselves to establish who will be the Official Opposition after 6 May. They do not wish to take over the Government; they are too frightened of the consequences if they should do so. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Yeoville now wishes to draw inferences and make certain acknowledgements, I have no objection.

The hon Leader of the Opposition and the hon member for Yeoville further referred to a certain matter which they also submitted as evidence on which a motion of no confidence is now being proposed. That is the increase in crime in South Africa. The hon member for Yeoville became very agitated about this; he even wrote to a newspaper about it. For the sake of interest I paid a visit to his own constituency of Yeoville. On 1 July we opened a police station there. Crime statistics for the past six months, from 1 July to the present, appear as follows: Incidents of housebreaking increased from 63 cases in August to 104 in December; there was a decline in vehicle theft; there was a decline in theft; robbery remained constant; rape remained constant; common assault remained constant and there was a decline in serious assault.

A poor MP!

I do not wish to comment on whether he is a good or poor MP but the fact of the matter is that these are statistics on the state of affairs in his own constituency. They do not look bad at all.

Crime has increased in South Africa, however. This concerns me too; this concerns us all and we do not wish to see this. We wish to improve the situation but I think we should place the matter in perspective. I have received a report of an international conference on crime and related matters held in Italy in September and October last year. I shall read only one quotation from it:

In other words, crime is not only increasing in South Africa but worldwide. In the year 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986 crime in South Africa increased by 6,9%.

Influx control was abolished.

I should like to see it decline but I think we should pause a moment and examine the possible causes of this. For the past two years the Republic has experienced a serious revolutionary onslaught accompanied by unrest and violence and this is a condition in which ordinary crime flourishes and reigns supreme. Riots serve as a stimulus for lawlessness. A great percentage of crime is actually related to riots. For example, it frequently happens that it is difficult to distinguish whether certain types of crime are purely normal crime or whether they are riot related. We find during riots, for instance, that looting and damage to property—which we find have increased greatly—take place widely. They are usually entered as common crimes and this causes crime figures to escalate. [Interjections.]

In addition, it is also true that controlling and combating riots takes up the time of large numbers of policemen—withdraws them from crime prevention. In some cases it was necessary to use 8 000 policemen in combating and controlling riots. Our work force is inadequate.

South Africa is experiencing—and the world should take note of this—a serious unemployment situation in the country in consequence of economic sanctions against our country. Unemployment creates problems; it results in crime—that is a fact.

In some respects the urbanisation process in South Africa—as regards our Black population—also has certain negative results. Tribal customs and habits and parental authority have disappeared in some cases. Respect for authority is disappearing among a large proportion of the Black youth in particular.

Revolutionary forces in the country also contribute to crime. The perpetual casting of suspicion on the State and setting up of stumbling blocks on the way to effective policing definitely have a result.

Technological developments also create crime; computer fraud is one example.

Drug traffic engenders further problems too. It is increasing throughout the world and then spilling over to South Africa.

In addition, we have a growing population. Obviously there is more opportunity for crime and a resultant rising tendency in this.

A final point: Firearms are a great source of crime. Last year more than 10 000 firearms were lost or stolen. People are negligent with firearms on a grand scale. In this regard legislation will have to be introduced to deal with this situation properly, but I do not wish to enlarge on this now. [Interjections.]

The test of a government and the test whether a motion of no confidence is justified is: What is the Government doing? Are its members sitting still in acceptance or are we doing something about it? Let us examine briefly what has been done.

The Government has adopted a programme to extend the Police Force and increase the complement. In spite of our serious financial problems, we are trying to employ and train more policemen and policewomen of all colours and races. We want to establish the bobby on the beat again in South Africa as far and as fast as possible. I wish to point out, however, that we on this side of the House have been accused of having a police state for years. [Interjections.] There have been objections to the numerous policemen we supposedly have. What is more, what happened when we tried to stretch available finance by employing special constables? What did we experience then? [Interjections.] I saw in Beeld of 23 September 1986:

That is right.

These are the people, these instant constables, whom we want to use as the bobby on the beat in Black residential areas. They are the people we want to use there in preventing and combating crime. [Interjections.]

That is not a bobby on the beat.

The use of these special constables here in the Western Province …

Order! Too many interjections are now being made on my left. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The use of these special constables here in the Western Province, together with the announcement of the state of emergency, resulted in an almost immediate decline in crime statistics and we have figures to prove it.

We did something further. We instituted special police units throughout the country and also have evidence that this works; works most successfully! In addition there was the institution of intensive training courses to put this scarce labour force of ours to better use.

Our finance is inadequate but we apply what we have to the best advantage of South Africa and its people. Special information and programmes on crime have been compiled and brought to public attention. That is the evidence we are able to submit on what we are doing from our side. That is the evidence of what a good government does when there are matters to be dealt with. This is evidence of how the Government has dealt with the security situation.

I wish to inform hon members we are aware of our responsibility and shall continue performing our task in this way in the interests of all the people of South Africa!

Mr Speaker, I must admit that in my opinion the hon the Minister of Law and Order did not make a responsible speech. I should like to refer to the question he put to the PFP. He spoke of revolution, intimidation, arson, and acts of terrorism. He then asked the hon members of the PFP where they stood.

We oppose revolution, terrorism, and arson. I challenge the hon the Minister to prove the opposite. I challenge him to prove that any hon member of my party said that we did not support it.

The hon the Minister is making another mistake. We also oppose the racist policy of the NP Government. That is the major cause of terrorism, of arson, of foreign interference in South Africa and of the problems of our country. [Interjections.] The South African Government— I listen to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the State President—describes the problems and gives its reasons for them, but has it ever considered that the country is in its present state after 39 years of NP policy? Why did the NP Government not prevent that? Why does South Africa suffer revolution, terrorism, and intimidation after 39 years of NP government?

I want to ask the hon the State President whether it is not possibly the laws that the NP Government passed in this country that made it possible for the ANC, the communists, and everybody who wishes the downfall of South Africa, to succeed? Why are they so successful? Why do we have to keep our security forces on the borders? Why must the Police and the army be in our Black residential areas? Is it merely as a result of the external onslaught? Is it merely as a result of the evils of communism, or is it because they find a fertile breeding ground in these parts of our country as a result of the NP’s laws which I am almost inclined to describe as being unchristian. They make laws discriminating against people because of their colour, laws according to which people are divided up into groups and forced into locations. They are not permitted to be free in their own country.

To my mind it is the National Party which is mainly to be blamed for this situation in South Africa. We have all these problems as a result of the laws of the Government of South Africa. I challenge the hon the Minister to prove that this is not the case.

Once again I ask why the communists and the ANC are so successful in South Africa. Is it as a result of the practices of the Black Sash, Cosatu or any other movement of this nature? Tell us what the cause is.

Their aim is to seize power, yours and mine … [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon the Minister, but why is it possible for them to do so? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister put a question to me, but now I want to ask him something. He may use my time to answer the question: Why are they so successful? Why is it necessary to incur such great expenditure for Defence? Why must there be such a large Defence Force? Why must there be such a large Police Force? Why must a state of emergency be proclaimed if it were not as a result of the National Party’s laws? Tell me that. I give the hon the Minister the opportunity to answer this question.

I am speaking tomorrow.

Order! The hon member may not call upon the hon the Minister to speak; I do that. The hon member may continue. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I cannot be here tomorrow, but I shall read the hon the Minister’s speech.

The hon the State President spoke a great deal about the ANC. He described their successes in South Africa. Have hon members ever considered that some of their greatest successes have been as a result of the Group Areas Act?

During the period 1 May to 16 June I stayed in the hospital where I work in Johannesburg. Almost all the Black staff members—including nurses and other staff—stayed away from work during that period. A few did come to work. I asked the first ones why they had to be on duty. One woman answered that she lived in Hillbrow. What does that mean? She was outside the sphere of influence of those people, the intimidators and the arsonists, whose actions hon members on that side of the House are so worried about. The process of intimidation would never have been so successful in South Africa had it not been for the Group Areas Act. The existence of the Group Areas Act makes it possible for the powers, which the National Party is so worried about, to intimidate those people. They can confront and intimidate people in one area. There are the “people’s courts”, “people’s education”, and “people’s justice”. Sir, the existence of the Group Areas Act is one of the major causes of the power which these people have and which one has to combat on the borders and in the urban areas. A large Police Force and Defence Force is necessary for that. Just think about that. Would the intimidators have achieved what they have at that hospital, for instance, if we had been allowed to build a nursing home for all the different race groups in the country? I put this question to the hon the Minister who wants to blame everyone for South Africa’s problems.

More and more people in South Africa realise that apartheid legislation is the major reason for the success of the ANC in the communist onslaught against South Africa. I oppose them. I can tell the hon the Minister that I am utterly opposed to communism. I am probably one of the few people in South Africa who have spent six months in a communist country. I detest that type of system! What, however, does one see there? Everywhere one goes one sees policemen and soldiers. Morning, noon and night one hears only government propaganda on television. There is neither freedom of the press, nor of the individual. Does it not remind me of the country I am living in? Do we not move in the same type of country? We find ourselves in the same circumstances.

You besmirch your own country! [Interjections.]

The hon the State President used words here today to imply that the Progressive Federal Party—he used the word “progressive” so cleverly—might be making plans with the help of the ANC. If I remember correctly, it appeared to me he meant plans for acts of terrorism. I challenge the hon the State President …

He did not say that.

There was the insinuation … [Interjections.]

Order! Perhaps we can debate this point at greater length tomorrow. It is time for the House to adjourn.