Mr Chairman, before the House adjourned last night, I was pointing out that the legislation under discussion was concerned with bringing into prominence a policy which was decided upon with reference to privatisation, and that considerations which would have received attention otherwise were not taken into account in doing so. I say this in particular because of the fact that the hon member for Nelspruit inter alia appealed to a very great extent to the Government’s view of privatisation in his motivation and used that as a basis for his argument.

We on this side of the house are of the opinion, however, that in respect of privatisation, each case must be dealt with individually. Advantages and disadvantages must be properly weighed up against one another. Decisions must then be taken only in that particular context. In considering this matter, we came to the conclusion in this specific case that the advantages that this could have, probably did not weigh up against the disadvantages this measure contained for those who were actually supposed to benefit from this legislation, viz the Blacks as a whole. We say that, because what is being sold in this case is a profitable going concern. This is being exchanged for a capital sum, and this is where the great problem lies. We can compare the situation with that of an ordinary liquor licence, which is a licence much sought after. This is the kind of licence that people would like to get and which one would only relinquish if one were compelled to do so, or, for example, if one had reached retirement age. Not one of these considerations applies in this respect, because I do not think one can talk about a State institution that is getting old and wants to live on its interest.

The NP wants to retire!

In this case we are dealing with far more than that. We are dealing with a case which one can summarize by saying that the goose that lays the golden eggs is being destroyed. This single capital sum is going to be deposited in a revolving fund, but the same thing could happen to that money and the great profits which obviously have always been earned here.

We need no visionary to show us where these breweries—I am referring in particular to these breweries—will end up. In terms of the hon the Minister’s introductory speech it is clear, and he said it, that tenders will be called for with a view to getting the highest possible price. Inevitably only large financially powerful organisations will want to tender for this, on the basis that the tender is such that it would not look good if it were not accepted.

This aggravates the hon member Prof Olivier’s problem, because he also tried to appreciate that monopolies that existed in the past could be prevented by this legislation, and he spoke about monopolies with reference to local authorities. When one talks about profit margins and about a profit of R104 million, one can imagine what large amounts would be and which people could possibly be involved.

If it does not become monopolistic and end up in the hands of one group, it will end up only in the hands of large financially powerful companies in any case. In the end these companies will also conclude price agreements with a view to maximum profit.

It is not clear whether there was differentiation in the past between profits made by the breweries themselves and profits made at the outlets. What is clear in terms of the proposed legislation, however—this has also emerged from the hon the Minister’s introductory speech—is that in future there will be a very clear distinction between the breweries, which will be treated as a group, and the outlets. It is also clear, therefore, that when these breweries are controlled by one or more groups, their objective will be to make the maximum profit in selling to outlets. As soon as that happens, any chance whatsoever of those profits getting to the Blacks is lost forever.

In addition, it is clear that the hon the Minister wants to try to involve the Blacks only at the outlets, because he is under the impression that that is where Blacks have the best chance of being involved in any case. In my opinion—the hon member for Randfontein pointed this out—there will once again be a connection here and people who are entitled to obtain an interest of at least 49% in this enterprise, are going to become involved at more than one outlet. In this way there will once again be a very large binding factor, which is going to end up in the hands of people who should not derive benefit from it.

If there are going to be only 230 outlets, this privatisation will lead to only a small number of the Blacks becoming involved. The large number of Blacks who benefitted from these profits will have been permanently deprived of them. In our opinion, with this taken into account, privatisation should never have been permitted. One cannot benefit only a few people while other people have to suffer the resultant loss.

It was said that this privatisation would take place according to fixed guidelines, but certain things become clear to us when we look at what the hon the Minister said. He said the privatisation he had in mind was a decision that was being taken in principle. According to him the purpose of this Bill is not to prescribe a method according to which privatisation is to take place. The purpose of the legislation is merely to ensure that privatisation takes place in an orderly way.

It is clear that additional conditions could easily have been included in this legislation. It need not have contained exceptionally long definitions of the way in which privatisation would take place, but could have contained a provision to the effect that it could be sold if at least a certain percentage of the proceeds would end up in the hands of Blacks.

There would be no problem if one tried to rectify this by means of legislation even at this stage. That is where the hon member Prof Olivier’s problem has its origin. He made certain assumptions, but he made them too lightly. It is clear that at this stage this legislation can serve no particular purpose in the sense that one can benefit from privatising in the interests of other people.

It is also a fact that this matter is at present being dealt with by the IDC. The IDC is a competent body which, from the nature of its task, assisted people in the past and still does so in respect of how a business should be run. In our view this matter might as well be left in the hands of the IDC. They can ensure that it is run according to business principles. For that reason we are opposed to this legislation at this stage, and shall vote against it.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon member for Ermelo immediately or directly; I shall come back to him during the course of my speech, though.

I do want to react to the contribution the hon member for Randfontein made to the debate last night. To begin with, I merely want to say I was very sorry to hear that he was ill and that in fact, according to my information, he is in hospital. In all sincerity I want to wish him a good recovery and I really hope that his colleagues in the CP will convey our good wishes to him.

One cannot allow the statements the hon member for Randfontein made and the arguments he advanced in this debate last night to remain unanswered, however. I found it quite an experience to listen to him.

He left this House some years ago. It is clear that since then he has lost touch with certain developments. His attack on the Bill in front of us is quite out of context with the facts and the background against which this Bill came to this House. He attacked the legislation, however, with the confidence of someone who professes to have intimate knowledge of the matter. I found this to be an experience, also against the background of the fact that I did not have the privilege of reporting as a political correspondent on what led up to the departure of the hon member from this House or on his actual departure. When one analyses what he said about this Bill yesterday, it is clear that he has not developed any more respect for the truth whatsoever since then.

Piet, that is petty!

It was indeed a privilege to report on that period, because I learnt a great deal, in the negative sense of the word. I learnt how one should not participate in politics, and how one should not treat this Parliament as an institution.

Order! The hon member must discuss the matter under discussion more closely.

Mr Chairman, I do indeed want to consider certain aspects of the speech made by the hon member for Randfontein last night. He argued inter alia that Blacks would benefit once only from the sale of the breweries, but provision is being made for these funds to be paid into a revolving fund. The Black community will, therefore, derive a constant interest in or benefit from the sale or privatisation of the breweries.

He agreed with us in his speech that the funds had to be used for the upliftment and the development of the Black community. Yet he wants to keep this in the hands of a White authority. By implication he is trying to establish a kind of perpetual guardianship, which reveals a surprising nineteenth-century colonialistic approach.

The hon member for Randfontein also argued that the Government was asking for a blank cheque. Personally I am not surprised that he is so suspicious of blank cheques, but he argued that the project team should investigate the matter first and then return to report to this House. The project team’s directive is not only to enquire into the matter, however; negotiation must take place as well.

When one examines the composition of this project team, one finds that the following bodies are represented on it: The Central Economic Advisory Service attached to the Office of the State President, the Department of Constitutionel Development and Planning, the Department of Finance, the Department of Economic Affairs and Technology via the Liquor Board, the Office of the Commission for Administration—I shall come back to this, because it concerns the position of the staff—the provincial administrations, the IDC, Volkskas Merchant Bank, the Central Management Committee of the Sorghum Beer Industry and Ucasa, the Urban Councils Association of South Africa. Everyone that has a possible direct or indirect involvement in this matter is being represented on the project team, therefore. The project team will have to report back to the Cabinet once it has completed its inquiry and begun certain provisional negotiations with the private sector. The Cabinet will then have to give its final approval. It is not simply a question of handing everything over as a blank cheque, therefore.

The hon member for Randfontein also made very interesting sweeping statements about the position of the staff involved in the sorghum beer industry. He argued inter alia that those who had made the industry their lifelong career were going to be privatised out of the sorghum beer industry. Typically, in the style of the propaganda we had from that party during the election campaign, he said: “They are being thrown out onto the streets. Their pensions are being stopped.”

That is a flagrant distortion of the truth. What are the facts? Officials are protected by the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, which regulates certain guarantees for these officials. These guarantees were negotiated and cleared with Saame, the trade union which represents these officials and takes care of their interests.

We shall argue that point again.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must not make constant remarks.

Mr Chairman, I only made one remark.

Order! The hon member must not argue with the Chair. The hon member must resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, it is also a fact that the Commission for Administration has orders to enquire into the way in which staff and their interests are dealt with in the case of the privatisation of the interests of the State.

There is another very interesting aspect with reference to what the hon member for Randfontein said about the staff. He claimed that a large number of the officials involved in the sorghum beer industry live in his constituency, and had supposedly made contact with him even before the election because they were worried about their future. I looked into the matter, and a very interesting thing emerged. The hon member for Randfontein referred to the fact that there were approximately 5 000 employees in the sorghum beer industry. What he omitted to say was that only 10% of them—that is approximately 500—are White employees.

There are 22 breweries throughout the country. There was one brewery in Randfontein. This brewery was closed at the beginning of 1985 as a result of a drop in demand. The equipment was left as it was, but can be put into production immediately if the need should arise. The building is at present being used as a distribution centre for sorghum beer.

When this brewery was closed, there were four Whites and nine Blacks employed there. The four Whites were transferred to the brewery in Langlaagte at the beginning of 1985. The nine Blacks are still working there, and one of them is in charge of that distribution centre. It is unlikely that one of these nine Black employees would have gone to complain to the hon member.

Of the four Whites—the “large number”— that were transferred, one was promoted at Langlaagte. Another is also still in the employ of the brewery. One employee—she is a lady—resigned, as did one male employee who accepted a post at an adjacent mine where he received a better offer. There are 51 Whites and 500 Blacks working at Langlaagte itself. Where the hon member’s “large number” comes from, is a mystery. [Interjections.]

There was another slip showing in the speeches made by both the hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Ermelo. There is a theme running through the two speeches in that an attack is being launched on so-called big capital. These hon members said that this industry should be kept out of the hands of big capital. This sounded very similar to a letter written by Mr Johan Schutte, the regional organiser of the AWB, which appeared in Die Volksblad on 2 June. With reference to the AWB’s economic policy, he said it was their intention to remove the platinum, gold …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I cannot see what the AWB has to do with this sorghum beer debate.

Order! The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, he said the economic policy was to remove the platinum, gold, diamonds, land and companies of the Stock Exchange from the control of certain people, and to restore it to the Afrikaner people, where it belonged. I cannot understand this problem with capital-intensive or financially powerful companies in South Africa. What is South Africa’s prosperity based on if not on the enterprise of these businessmen?

The hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Ermelo also expressed their anxiety about the regulation of the 49%:51% kind of partnership. How else must expertise be transferred, if we are honest about the development of the Black community and if we are sincere in wanting to involve them in the modern economy? How else must the transfer of this expertise and the creation of opportunities for the Blacks to create capital take place?

I must add that I see a certain problem in the guidelines formulated by a subcommittee of the standing committee which inquired into this Bill. I am referring to the proposal that a certain period of protection be determined to keep financially powerful companies’ hands off the sorghum beer industry, as it were. It does not matter how long one applies that protection measure, because there will be an inevitable stage in the future of the industry when the Black entrepreneurs who take over the industry will have to compete with very strong companies who have the expertise of years of experience. They will be running the risk of bankruptcy.

Personally, I want to advocate the 49%:51% formula, since it creates an opportunity for the transfer of expertise and it gives the Black businessman an opportunity to build up capital in the industry.

By privatising this industry and involving the experts in it, one can in fact, if one handles it properly, effect a really sound development for the Black community, particularly because it will be within their cultural sphere. This kind of development does not have a parcelling-out approach, but rather one of participation.

This will really create an opportunity for the Black businessmen to establish themselves and acquire expertise in the modern economy. In that way they will also get an opportunity to make their contribution to baking a larger South African economic cake.

For that reason I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by saying that I should have liked to keep this debate ad rem, but in the light of the remarks just made by the hon member for Springs, which were purely ad hominem, I think it is necessary, after all, to comment on what he said in his speech.

I question the fellow-feeling, sincerity and seriousness of a person who rises in this House and sympathises with an hon member who is indisposed, and then, in the absence of that hon member, at once proceeds to launch a personal attack on him. Surely this is what the hon member for Springs did. Let me also put the record straight in this regard: A person who is indisposed is not “ontsteld”, as he put it, but “ongesteld”.

In other words, you could be ill tomorrow.

Yes, one could indeed be ill tomorrow, and then one should have the assurance that one will not be stabbed in the back by means of personal attacks which have no relevance to the debate.

Order! Is the hon member insinuating that the hon member for Springs has stabbed the hon member for Randfontein in the back? If so, the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I said “figuratively stabbed in the back” in the sense that …

Order! The hon member must nevertheless withdraw that statement.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I am referring to the allegation that the hon member for Randfontein has no regard for the truth and the oblique reference to the blank cheques as well as the statement which is not in keeping with the hon member for Randfontein’s argument on the question of sorghum beer. It is not the CP’s standpoint that this industry should be kept in White hands; in fact, our standpoint is the opposite, and I shall explain it in greater detail.

Secondly, with reference to the hon member Prof N J J Olivier’s speech, I want to point out that I had the privilege of being his student—fortunately his influence was not as great politically as it was academically. However, I am proud to be able to say that two former students of mine are among the CP members in this House. They are the hon member for Ventersdorp and the hon member for Roodepoort.

Thirdly, I should like to emphasize that this side of the House is not trying to score political points with our standpoint on sorghum beer. We wish to deal with the matter on merit, and on that basis of merit we want to make it quite clear that we cannot support the Bill. When one considers the objects of this Bill, one sees that they can be divided into two categories. This Bill seeks, firstly, to prevent the creation of so-called regional monopolies, and, secondly, to privatise this industry.

The first question I should like to ask in this connection is whether, by combating one form of monopoly, we are not in fact encouraging another. By this I mean that if we say that a regional monopoly was created in the sorghum beer industry in the past, we must immediately ask ourselves from whom and to whom it is now going to be transferred. The hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech gave us no reply to this question, although it did contain references to outlets as well as to the brewing of sorghum beer.

Examining the hon the Minister’s remarks in this connection in his Second Reading speech, we find the following, and I quote briefly:

Mr Chairman, it is our standpoint on this side of the House that outlets account for only a small part of the profit to be made in this industry. The real profit is of course made by the brewery. Relating to the brewery, we find the following passage in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech which was made available to us:

Upon analysing the sentence I have quoted, I submit that the Blacks have actually been added here as an afterthought. That is why the reference to them appears between brackets. It is our standpoint on this side of the House—we believe that the hon member for Springs has misunderstood it—that if the interests of the Blacks are to be promoted, it should in fact be done in a way which will be apparent from the relevant legislation itself. Nowhere in this Bill are the interests of the Blacks in any way entrenched, much less protected. I say this for the following reasons. Clause 5 provides that the Administrator may with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance sell any sorghum beer interests. Then we find the crucial words: “to any person”. It does not say “to any Black person”. If it had said “to any Black person”, we on this side of the House could have taken the governing party’s standpoint seriously. However, it says “to any person”, and that means anyone at all. It would mean that if tenders were to be called for, the hon the Minister would naturally have to sell these sorghum beer interests to the highest tenderer.

Now we on this side of the House ask what chance a Black individual who is interested in the retail trade has of competing in this modern economy of ours—our Western-style economy—with the large financial interests already existing in the liquor trade in South Africa, in terms of his infrastructure as a retailer as well as his financial capacity, creditworthiness and expertise. Surely the answer is self-evident. If the hon the Minister really wished to sell on a tender basis, he would have to sell to the highest bidder. This would naturally represent the interests with the greatest financial capacity; certainly not those of the retailer.

This is why the Conservative Party is not prepared to support this legislation. We are unable to support it for a number of reasons, because the very end that the legislature has in view, namely the combating of monopolies, will be frustrated by this measure, which will in fact promote monopolies.

Although this may be the impression of the casual observer, we are not dealing here merely with a piece of legislation relating to sorghum beer. Certain other factors are involved; important factors which must be seen in conjunction with this. The economic climate must be taken into consideration. The oft-proclaimed policy of the Government that healthy competition must be encouraged is in fact being subverted here. I want to state categorically that the CP agrees with the following paragraph. I want to read it to the House to have it placed on record:

The Minister—

This side of the House, too, is anxious for Black people to come forward as small business entrepeneurs. Precisely because this is our standpoint, we say that this legislation will not promote it because it will be placed in the hands of big business.

The creation of monopolies is a serious matter. When one investigates the situation and finds that one company controls 52% of the total South African economy, while four others control 80% to 81%, one concludes that South Africa is probably the country with the most extensive forms of monopoly. One could also phrase it differently: One company already has a majority shareholding in the total South African economy. In view of this, the CP would like to know what safeguards have been built into this legislation.

We are not trying to score political points off anyone over a glass of sorghum beer. This legislation has important philosophical, economic and social facets which we must bring to the attention of the public. [Interjections.] Some comments are best ignored, [interjections.]

We submit that no safeguards have been built into this legislation. I have already referred to clause 5 in this connection. The present liquor trade in South Africa is guarded—if I may call it that—by a statutory body, the Liquor Board. People have to apply and this board, as an independent board, must then consider those applications. There is a measure of protection, therefore, but I venture to say that it is not nearly enough. However, when we consider the legislation in this light of, I submit with all due respect—this is the standpoint of this side of the House—that the hon the Minister is doing himself a disservice by taking upon himself the responsibility for deciding, in consultation with the hon the Minister of Finance and the administrator, to whom the interests should or should not be sold.

We contend that constitutionally, it is not a sound principle to allow such important decisions to be taken by one or two people. On the contrary, a sound principle would be to take it away from the people who made the legislation, so that there may be a distance between those who legislate and those who have to administer the laws. In this case there is complete identification, however, and this side of the House argues that it is constitutionally and economically unsound. Consequently we cannot approve of it.

The hon member for Randfontein—who was supported by the hon member for Springs— mentioned the fact that sorghum beer forms part of Black culture. I should like to emphasize this very strongly. We now find that hon members on that side of the House, who recognize that we are dealing here with a product which forms part of the Black cultural heritage, wish to deprive the Blacks of that as well, both economically and socially speaking. The economic power in this regard is to be shared on a basis of 49% as against 51%. [Interjections.]

We want to ask which side of this House is the true guardian of the Black peoples’ interests in the sorghum beer industry. [Interjections.] It is not that side of the House, for they say that in this situation, too, there should be power-sharing on a basis of 49% as against 51%. This side of the House, on the other hand, says that we are dealing here with a cultural product—it belongs to the Black man—let us give it to the Black man. Let us put him in control of it and let us not allow the moneyed interests to gain a foothold in this market as well, to share power and to cause chaos, as has already been done in the constitutional field.

Let them have it, Fanie!

The hon member Prof Olivier mentioned the fact that the standing committee—he used the term “vaste komitee”, and I should like to commend it from a linguistic point of view, but I shall refer to the “standing committee” for purposes of the record—has canvassed the matter so thoroughly that little purpose would be served by a discussion from this side of the House. The logic of this, with all due respect, is that when someone has rested his case, a third person cannot advance a better argument.

This side of the House has done its homework; this is our submission, our well-considered standpoint. We say that matters must be allowed to take their natural course. Let the sorghum beer interests, which form part of the Black man’s culture, remain under the control of the Black man. Let us not introduce economic power-sharing here where it does not belong, and where we are in fact taking it from the Black man in order to give it to the powerful financial industrialist. Furthermore, if this legislation must be passed, we want to ask the hon the Minister quite seriously—not only from a party-political viewpoint, because we think we can score a few party-political points, but because this is indeed our considered standpoint—to consider introducing a few safeguards. Some people will say that safeguards are not necessary. Our standpoint is that safeguards relating to a statutory board should be introduced and that care should be taken to ensure that the Black retailer does benefit from this, for in terms of the Bill in its present form, those who deserve to benefit will not do so.

Mr Chairman, the CP’s statement that they were discussing the matter on merit made me realise that it was perhaps imperative that I rise again to defend the interests of the farming community.

In the first place, I want to express my concern about the hon member for Randfontein, who is being troubled again by an old injury, it appears. We hope that he will soon recover, but the fact that I have expressed this hope does not mean that I am not allowed to attack his ideas and statements. [Interjections.]

Although the hon member for Losberg said that their approach to the matter was based on merit, I am not quite convinced of the merit of their case. Just as people have been talking about the “New Nats”, it seems to me that there are “New ‘Capies’ ” too these days. [Interjections.] Hon members should take note of what has happened here.

Koos disagrees with him.

The hon member for Overvaal said that he was speaking only on behalf of the White workers, while the hon members for Randfontein and Losberg were anxious about only one thing, and that was that the grain sorghum beer interests should be placed in the hands of Black businessmen. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon member a question. The South African co-operative movement, Union Grain, has undertaken a thorough investigation of the practicability of the co-operatives being given a share in the brewery business in order to protect the interests of the farmers. They would then be able to guarantee that the farmers’ product would reach the consumer and that opposition beer groups or other liquor groups—my tall friend, the hon member for Wellington, belongs to another liquor group—would not take over the market and kill the sorghum beer market. Now I want to ask this hon member what his standpoint is. Does he envisage the co-operative movement being denied any share in the Black beer trade? [Interjections.] Surely he has a chance to reply now; there is no need for him to look away. He is afraid to reply, because he has a fundamental problem. His reply would be in conflict either with the wishes of the farmers or with what he said in his speech. Whether he replies or not is up to him, but he will remain silent.

Another interesting question is where they want to promote the development of the Blacks. Where do they want to promote the ownership of the Blacks?

In Morgenzon. [Interjections.]

Are there any breweries in the homelands? If so, which ones? Are the breweries they want to give to the Blacks not perhaps situated within South Africa as we know it today?

In Southland.

Are they situated in Southland, perhaps? [Interjections.]

I want to say quite seriously that those hon members who have spoken have done so only in order to criticise the Government. They never investigated the industry and the reasons for what has happened. To be sure, the hon member for Losberg examined the legislation and its objects very diligently and he read the various clauses. However, he does not have the faintest idea of what it is all about. The same applies to the hon member for Randfontein. I want to have it placed on record here today that it is not the tradition of the Black man to drink beer every day. To anyone who says it is, I want to say that that is a blatant untruth.

Who says it is?

I have here the Hansard report of the hon member for Randfontein’s speech. [Interjections.]

Read it.

I shall give it to the hon member for Overvaal, but I do not have time to read it.

No, I can get a copy myself; you read it.

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

No, Sir, the hon member must please forgive me, but I am not prepared to answer a question now. [Interjections.]

I should like to state the standpoint of the National Grain Sorghum Board on this matter. Unfortunately, I have to tell hon members of the CP that I am a member of this Board. The National Grain Sorghum Board has asked me—I have the minutes with me—to attend to this matter and to lend assistance in this connection.

The standpoint adopted by the hon member for Randfontein, namely that an unjustified attempt is being made to have the Bill rushed through, is fully in line with the standpoint adopted by people in commerce in Finansies en Tegniek as well as the Financial Mail. I believe that in the latter publication, they speak of an “unseemly haste” to have this legislation passed. Now I want to make it clear that it is the standpoint of the National Grain Sorghum Committee that we must not drag our feet with this legislation. They want us to pilot it through Parliament as soon as possible.

We shall speak on behalf of the farmers.

That is right; we shall speak on behalf of the farmers. They may try to cheat the farmers, but we shall speak on their behalf.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I understood the hon member correctly, he said that we were trying to cheat the farmers. Is that permissible?

Order! The hon member must allow me a moment or two to ascertain precisely what was said.

My decision is that the hon member for Heilbron may continue.

This matter is much more important to us as farmers than hon members may realise, since at least 80% of the grain sorghum industry of South Africa is dependent on the malt industry. Two years ago, the UDF began distributing pamphlets. What was said in these pamphlets? They said that the Whites were poisoning the Blacks as a result of the tannin content of the GD class of grain sorghum used by the commercial breweries for brewing the grain sorghum beer. We subsequently experienced strong resistance to grain sorghum beer and there was a very marked downward tendency in the per capita consumption of the beer. We must be careful not to kill a market by using that market as a political football. That is why the National Grain Sorghum Committee and the grain sorghum industry as a whole felt that we should privatise so as to remove this industry from the political arena.

I want to go further. I should like to say a few words about privatisation and the creation of monopolies. I think the present Act provides that six litres of beer—I am not quite sure of the volume—in any event, only a certain volume of beer may be privately brewed at home. This has made the shebeens illegal. It has imposed a great additional burden on our Police Force and has had yet another negative effect. If we were to privatise this industry, we could repeal those provisions prohibiting the private brewing of beer. This would revitalise the grain sorghum beer market. It would expand. The latest findings available to us indicate that the consumption of commercial grain sorghum beer is declining, but the sale of the malt which is used for …

Hops!

No, Sir, not hops, but grain sorghum malt used for home brewing has increased tremendously. It is of great importance to us as farmers and to the Blacks, therefore, that this legislation be passed as it stands. Those hon members may not be aware of this, but there is an unutilised production capacity of between 40% and 50% at the moment in those breweries which they allege to be so enormously profitable. What effect does this unutilised capacity have on the price of that grain sorghum beer? It has only one effect. It forces up the price of that beer, and in doing so, it causes a decrease in consumption. That is why I want to say that we as farmers are very grateful for the fact that this Bill is now being passed, in accordance with the request put to me by the Grain Sorghum Committee.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by saying that what has struck me most as a new member is that in every passage of this building, I have seen the friendly faces of officials. I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to the service officers. Having come here as a stranger, it is most gratifying to experience such friendliness.

I regard it as a great privilege today to be able to support the Sorghum Beer Amendment Bill. As a young man I am truly privileged, too, to be able to make a contribution at this important moment in our history, and I sincerely hope that it will be a meaningful contribution to the new South Africa that awaits us.

Furthermore, I am greatly privileged to be able to represent a particularly beautiful constituency, the constituency of Swellendam. Many forms of agriculture are practised in this constituency, and it has a rich cultural heritage.

This amending Bill is obviously based on the principle of privatisation. I believe that if privatisation is brought about in the right way, it can be an important stimulus to growth, especially in the rural areas of South Africa. It is very interesting, in this connection, to go back in history and to consider the origins of the Republic of Swellendam. The ideas and activities of the Cape patriots, who had reached the Overberg via Graaff-Reinet in particular, were well received by the farmers in this region. The farming community was very unhappy when Commissioner General Nederburg summarily terminated a long-standing agreement which had existed between the old Cape government and the Swellendam farmers since 1787. In terms of this agreement, the farmers in this area had been able to supply wheat at a fixed price to the Dutch East India Company, which shipped the grain from the Mossel Bay harbour each year. Owing to an economic measure adopted by the old Cape government, however, this agreement was summarily terminated. The farming community felt very unhappy about this.

The upshot was that on 17 and 18 June 1795, while the Raad van Landdroste and the Heemraad were sitting in the old Swellendam Drostdy, the patriots, later known as the national citizens, unseated them. In this way the old Republic of Swellendam came into being.

Although it was not a republic in the true sense of the word, it was a clear attempt by the citizens of this region to move away from government control and to obtain greater local autonomy. For this reason I make bold to say that the commendable principle of privatisation and greater local autonomy originated in Swellendam when the citizens unseated the Heemraad and the Raad van Landdroste in the old Drostdy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the old historians referred to Swellendam as follows:

It is not surprising either that the oldest farmers’ association was formed in Swellendam in 1832.

Privatisation has met with success all over the world. In Britain alone, it has caused the local output of the British government to decline from 10% to 6%, and 400 government workers have been transferred to the private sector. In addition, it has caused the number of British shareholders to double to nearly 2,8 million, or 5% of the total population.

In America, privatisation has not only made a great difference, but has started an international trend. Privatisation creates room for growth. In its ideal form, a larger variety of participants will perform functions which at present have to be performed by the state. The rural areas, which have an urgent need for new opportunities and development, could make excellent use of this opportunity. However, the rural areas will not be able to respond satisfactorily to privatisation way unless it is accompanied by deregulation or incentives provided by the Government.

For this reason, I want to plead with the private sector today to invest more in the rural areas, especially where this is possible because the primary product is produced there. The Government should also contribute by providing the necessary incentives. These measures should not be limited to the growth points in the rural areas; the entire platteland should enjoy those benefits.

The sorghum beer industry is worth R250 million at present. The development boards have never been market-orientated. With proper marketing, however, this industry could increase its turnover to R400 million. This benefit of the expanded industry belongs to the platteland, which cultivates the sorghum grain, after all.

There is another very important reason why privatisation is a sensible step. The fact that Blacks are going to derive considerable benefit from the privatisation of this industry is of material importance. Many of them are wise enough to recognise the advantages of the free market system. This could have a beneficial effect on the process of constitutional development in South Africa. I want to suggest, therefore, that the bigger organisations, the ones with knowledge of this industry, should enter into partnerships with the Blacks in order to transfer their entrepreneurship in this field to a very important sector of our population.

The rural areas are the backbone of every country. Each and every one of us has some connection with the platteland. Usually it is a pleasant one. Therefore everyone in South Africa should help to develop and strengthen the home of our forefathers. Hon members must judge for themselves the importance of this part of South Africa, in the light of the human material it has already produced.

In conclusion, I want to say that there is a small place in my constituency called Hoeko. It is the birthplace of C J Langenhoven, in the Ladismith district, and the famous Langenhoven had the following to say about a member of Parliament:

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to speak here this afternoon. To begin with I want to congratulate the previous speaker, the hon member for Swellendam, on his maiden speech. It is good to listen to young men like him. It was good for me—almost a has-been—to listen to him, and I want to wish him every success in his career in this Parliament.

I said it was a privilege to be able to speak in this most important Chamber in our country and to participate in the discussions that are in progress. Almost every resident of our country has the desire to be here at some or other time. Parliament has a very strong attraction, and that is why everyone would like to be able to participate here. Unfortunately few people have that privilege. There are few of us who eventually do.

It is an exceptional privilege to be able to represent a constituency here. We should appreciate the fact that the voters have sent me and all the other hon members to Parliament. One cannot ignore the responsibility we have been given. It is important, and it is a privilege to be able to say that Meyerton’s voters sent me here on 6 May. I appreciate that a great deal.

It was the first opportunity they had had to vote since the split during February 1982, when certain elected NP representatives broke away to establish their own party. The voters—and Meyerton’s voters in particular—once again had the opportunity to decide whom they wanted to send here as their representative, and which party should be represented here. The result has become history. They elected me, and I am here. [Interjections.]

The result in my favour of the election in Meyerton is of great importance to me. I shall try to handle that responsibility to the best of my ability. I accept, however—I am quite satisfied to do so—that I represent not only those who voted for me, but also Meyerton’s other voters. My door will always be open for them to come to me with their problems and, as far as it is possible for me to assist them in my capacity, I shall do so.

I want to say a few words about my constituency. It has approximately 26 000 voters of whom 11 000 are urban-dwellers from Johannesburg South. This includes the areas of Brackenhurst and Brackendowns which are adjacent to Alberton. The people who live there are city people who maintain city cultures. They link up with the rest of the constituency, which is an urban area.

Meyerton itself—viz Meyerton and its surrounding suburbs—has approximately 6 000 voters. To the east of Meyerton there are 600 or 700 farms which are occupied by bona fide farmers. These people earn their living from farming.

A small section of the Meyerton constituency is in Vereeniging, where we have approximately 800 voters. The rest of the voters, of whom there are approximately 7 000, live on smallholdings and agricultural holdings or, as some people call them, plots. These approximately 7 000 people cause one a great deal of problems, because they are the ones who want a lot, but do not want to pay tax. Things cannot continue in this way, but many of those people voted for me and even they will be welcome to bring their problems to me.

I should like to continue my career of loyal service to my community. I was Meyerton’s MPC for eight and a half years. In addition I served on the Vereeniging City Council for 10 years, and my membership of that council expired when I was elected as a member of this House on the morning of 7 May. For eight of those 10 years, I served on the management committee. I believe that I am reasonably well-equipped to do the job expected of me here, and I look forward to doing so.

I want to confine myself to the point we are dealing with, and I support the idea of privatising the manufacture and distribution of sorghum beer. One wonders why there should be a debate on something like sorghum beer, but it is necessary. The development is such that the Black areas are going to get self-government in the form of their own local authorities. We do not want to stand in their way. It will be a problem to manufacture sorghum beer in future, and that is why it is essential that it be privatised. I merely want to say that when one thinks of sorghum beer, one can accept it as being the national drink of the Blacks. We also had a national drink—mampoer—which almost disappeared because of problems. Other nations have their national drinks as well. The Scots have built up an almost unassailable world market with their whisky, of which they are very proud. The Germans are a beer-drinking nation; the French have their cognac and the Russians have their vodka. Liquor is, therefore, an important factor in our society.

We know that the Blacks are watching us, and that the way in which we are going to manufacture and distribute their national drink is going to cause a problem. I want to address a word of warning with reference to privatisation—which I support wholeheartedly—in this regard, and that is that it is very easy to produce sorghum beer. They can brew it in every kitchen in the Black areas. If this matter were to end up in the wrong hands and be dealt with in the wrong way, private breweries, which will promote illegal trading in liquor and will not be good for us, may come into existence again.

I really do not believe that the problem will be so great that we shall not be able to deal with it. If the brewing of sorghum beer ends up in private hands, it would be a good thing if it were privatised. I have no doubt that with good management, it will be a flourishing business. We should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

It is my privilege to introduce the motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, I think it is a general realisation among all of us that South Africa is going through serious times. For anyone who is carefully following the events in South Africa it is also very clear that there are persons and bodies that have a direct interest in guiding their actions according to a pattern of violence.

It is common knowledge that the ANC and its fellow-travellers are bent on committing violence in this country in a revolutionary way. I think one can safely say, without over-emphasising the matter or being an alarmist, that if we were to take the wrong decisions, the danger even exists that we could lose this country.

I do not think any government can in any way tolerate the distortion and disruption of normal democratic political and economic activities by acts of violence.

It is in this extremely difficult and sensitive climate that the security forces, collectively and separately, have to perform their demanding task. Each in its own field is performing a vital task. The object of this motion is to pay tribute to members of the SA Police Force, the SA Defence Force and the SA Prisons Service. It was their competent actions which in the past frequently averted very serious conditions. I believe that we are paying tribute to all these members, regardless of their rank or colour. We are paying tribute to them all, from the most junior member to the most highly, decorated general.

Heroic deeds are frequently mentioned with appreciation. However, there are also numerous activities that have to be carried out with the greatest meticulousness. If this does not go hand in hand with great loyalty, I think we are In certain respects disaster in the face. In discussing this motion today we must certainly also salute those members of the security forces who carry out what appear to be the most trivial task with the utmost responsibility and loyalty.

Politicians definitely have the right to demand for themselves the luxury of differing politically with one another. However, I think it is in South Africa’s interests that the politicians who participate and believe in the democratic processes of this country, should pause for a moment to pay tribute to the security forces who give them the very important room for manoeuvre in which they can indulge this luxury of debating political issues with one another.

I think it is certainly important to acknowledge the fact that owing to these actions of the security forces, politicians are being placed in a position to take the cardinal decisions required by the circumstances.

Let us debate the political philosophy within which these forces function. The security forces do indeed owe loyalty to the Government which entrusted them with their task. However, I do not think we dare aggravate their task by refusing them the favourable conditions of service and the comforts to which they can lay claim, because under difficult circumstances they are performing a very important task on behalf of all the inhabitants of South Africa.

I think it is also fitting for us to pay tribute for a moment and give recognition to the families that so frequently have to do without the comfort and support of a father, husband or wife at home, since some of these security force members are absent from home for long periods.

I should like to consider another facet of this motion. The political philosophy within which the security actions of the Government are embodied is to re-emphasise that the Government is committed to continue with its politics of reform. Experience has shown us that one cannot discuss politics with a person who fears for his life and property. Nor does it help to tell a person that he is safe if he is not experiencing that safety and if he feels threatened in his own field of experience. The Government cannot therefore compromise when it comes to the protection of lives and property of the inhabitants of this country.

†It was Niccolò Machiavelli who said:

We in these benches would love to see a constitutional arrangement which will accommodate the aspirations of the inhabitants of this country but at the same time successfully instil a feeling of security among all its minority groups. It is important to have both these elements at the same time. One will not have a success story in this country if one has one of these without the other. It is of paramount importance that we realize that.

We also firmly believe and we echo the sentiment that a constitutional dispensation should come about in a peaceful, evolutionary manner. The Government is prepared to negotiate with citizens of South Africa provided that they do not resort to violence as a means of achieving their political or other aims or call in foreign agencies to support them.

However, I sincerely hope and trust that the day will come when all South Africa’s security legislation will fall into disuse. It was stated by the Rabie Commission, and it is appreciated by the Government, that one cannot build the future on security legislation and security action alone because a vast number of legitimate grievances do prevail. Circumstances, however, have caused the Government to deem it necessary to declare a state of emergency. Nevertheless I trust that all South Africans will reach out to understand one another’s fears and aspirations in order to make such action completely redundant in the long term. In the short term we shall have to deal with this vicious cycle of violence. There are forces at work that do not believe in the sharing of power but are only interested in the seizure of power. That, certainly, is not conducive to a negotiating process.

We have to strike a balance between the maintenance of law and order on the one hand and the negotiating process on the other if we want to keep the reform vehicle on the road. I sincerely believe that there is still enough goodwill among all South Africans to achieve this objective.

*I now want to concentrate specifically on the SA Police. During the course of the debate my hon colleagues on this side of the House will furnish specific details and make observations on the Defence Force and the Prison Service. I think it is fitting, on this occasion, to take leave in a certain sense of Gen Johan Coetzee, retiring Commissioner of the SA Police, who, after a long career in the Force will enter into service in another department. It is no mean achievement to be able to retire with honour and with grace from the SA Police after such a long career. I believe that our very best wishes accompany him, and we have appreciation for the life-long task which he performed in the SA Police.

While we are taking leave and saying farewell to Gen Coetzee, we are at the same time welcoming Gen Hendrik de Witt. To occupy this high office is no mean achievement, but I trust that this office will entail not only obligations and responsibilities for the Commissioner Designate, but also a great deal of satisfaction.

In this connection I should like to associate myself with an interview Gen De Witt conducted with the Press, which was reported in one of our Cape Town dailies, the Cape Times, on 2 June 1987. I shall quote him.

When we consider the SA Police, I think it is commendable—I think it is almost astonishing—to observe that in spite of these additional duties and obligations that have been entrusted to the Force, namely to combat unrest and deal with the unrest situation, and also despite the fact that various relatively low ratio between the number of policemen and the total number of the population— approximately 1,8 policemen for every 1 000 members of the population—such a high degree of success has been achieved in combating and preventing crime. I readily concede that the increase in crime is a world-wide tendency. It has almost become a world-wide phenomenon. However, I believe that South Africa compares well with the best statistics which we can use for comparative purposes under these circumstances.

With a view to the successful combating of crime I should like to request the attention and support of this House in regard to two matters in particular. In the first place I think this House should strive not to place any obstacles in the way of the Government, or of responsible Ministers when they envisage expanding the SA Police Force from its present approximately 55 000 to 90 000 police officers. I think that it is of cardinal importance that we succeed in having police officers visibly present in all our residential areas.

In the second place—in fact I think it will be missing the purpose if this appeal is made only from this House or from the ranks of the SA Police Force—I think we must all, collectively and enthusiastically, try to get the public more involved in the problem of crime prevention and crime-fighting. The man in the street must not only shoulder a greater responsibility in regard to the protection of his property Last year approximately 10 000 fire-arms were lost primarily owing to negligence. I think that the man in the street, members of the general public, should also join the SA Police Reservist Force in larger numbers. I think that communities ought to organise themselves under the guidance of the Police Force to safeguard their immediate environment against crime.

The second passage to which I wish to refer from the Press interview given by Gen De Witt deals with the image of the SA Police. I shall quote again:

It makes no difference what the surrounding circumstances or what the facts were that gave rise to this statement by Gen De Witt, but What I think is of importance is that he deserves the support of all of us when he strives to build up an image of a helpful and friendly South African Police Force.

We realise only too well that this is no public relations exercise, but a serious attempt to establish and build up the image of the SA Police through the actions of the SA Police. That is why he deserves our appreciation and support. I think we shall endeavour to support him when we build up a Force which is geared to helping the public to protect the lives and property, regardless of the status or the political convictions of the person being protected, or the person against whom steps are being taken.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate the CP with the ideas expressed by the hon member for Krugersdorp about certain individuals.

I want to begin by referring to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, who on this occasion is replying to his first debate. We want to wish him everything of the best in the very important task he has shouldered.

I do not know whether the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence is also going to participate in the debate, but if that is the case, we also want to wish him luck in his new task.

We should also like to associate ourselves with the hon member for Krugerdorp’s moving words of farewell to the retiring Commissioner of Police, Gen Coetzee. We on this side of the House want to attest to the fact that not only do we have the utmost respect and regard for him as a person, but also for the way in which he has carried out this important task entrusted to him. We wish him success in his new endeavours and we hope he will not be lost to public life and to us. Our wish is that he be equally successful and happy in the future tasks entrusted to him. [Interjections.]

We in the CP also want to express our sincere congratulations to the new general on his appointment and tell him that we offer him every support and all the goodwill and encouragement he may possibly need in this important task.

The hon member for Krugersdorp referred to the general’s Press Statement, but in actual fact he did not mention the best part of it, and I shall not do so either. I nevertheless think that if one becomes a policeman in the way he did, nothing can ever go wrong with the SA Police.

We are also glad that the hon the Minister of Finance has thought fit to increase the money to be voted for Law and Order from R1,071 billion to R 1,530 billion, ie by more than 40%. This is to be welcomed, and we hope that this money will firstly be employed not only to increase the Force, because at this stage it is only slightly bigger than London’s metropolitan police force and has to serve the whole country, but also to improve the resources that the SA Police have at their disposal. This also applies to salaries and remuneration, because as Gen De Witt said in his statement, the truth of the matter is that a policeman is never paid what he really deserves; for him his job is a calling. We accept the fact and we appreciate it, but I think the hon the Deputy Minister will certainly see to it that a very watchful eye is kept on this aspect of our security forces.

At this point in our history, where not only South Africans, but also foreigners, are closely scrutinising the actions taken by all our security forces, it is imperative, in such a milieu, for us to state the standpoint of the Official Opposition very clearly and unequivocally, and to affirm it. In the censure debate my hon leader categorically stated:

He went on to say that the Government did not need a mandate to ensure security, order and stability—that is the duty of the State. He said that it was, as far as we were concerned, not a point of dispute, but a duty.

Two years ago, when we made a plea for the Police Force to be allowed to enforce the laws of the land, we were accused of wanting bloodshed. We then issued the warning that things would get out of hand if one allowed them to go unchecked. If there are people in South Africa who want to subvert the existing order and authority in the country by means of violence, and they think they can do so, it is not only right, but also the bounden duty of the Government, to counter this unlawful violence with lawful force, if necessary.

That is why we pay tribute to our security forces, and are concerned that Gen De Witt said, on accepting his post as the new Commissioner of Police, that he was worried about the image of the Police which had been tarnished in the unrest. A former Commissioner of Police, Gen Mike Geldenhuys, also expressed the same concern in a letter to a Sunday newspaper:

Gen De Witt also says:

How many hon members sitting here have paid a visit to the fingerprint section of the SAP to see what phenomenal work is being done there? Who of us have been to the forensic laboratories of Gen Neethling to see how crime is combated by the steps taken by those staff members of the SAP? We want to give the security forces the assurance that right-minded people still see them in this light. They must not allow their morale to be weakened by the newspapers and leftist radicals. Their motto is servamus et servimus and they are worthy of that motto in every respect.

Although we support the gist of the hon member for Krugerdorp’s motion, we want to add the following, which I move as an amendment:

Which bodies complicate the work of the police? Firstly there are the newspapers. Here I have Gen Geldenhuys’s recently published letter in which he states, amongst other things:

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Sir, such a remark is not worthy of a reply.

I now come to a cutting from the Sunday Times of 31 May. A certain Harald Pakendorf made certain statements in an open letter to Gen De Witt, and I want to ask hon members on the Government side whether they agree with this type of statement:

†Does the hon member for Krugersdorp agree with the sentiment expressed in this article by Harald Pakendorf? About trade union leaders he says, amongst other things;

Perhaps the answer lies in being less confrontational without being less strong, perhaps give and take, ducking, weaving and then coming forward is better than just coming out of the corner like a shot and letting fly.

Does the hon member for Krugersdorp agree with Mr Pakendorf on the matters that he has raised in this article?

Did I not make a lovely speech?

Order! I take it that the hon member for Brakpan is merely asking a hypothetical question.

Yes, Sir. If he wants to accept the hypothesis, he merely has to nod his head, if he is able to do so. [Interjections.]

The second body complicating matters for the police and the security forces is the Government itself. Here I want to refer to the imposition and the lifting of the state of emergency. I quote from a document entitled “Die Veiligheidsituasie en die RSA”:

Is that a government which is in control of the situation, which is aware of the circumstances in which the ANC and the SACP operate, a government which is acting in the interests of the security of South Africa? Surely the Government is aware of the ulterior motives behind the projected plans of the SACP. When the hon the State President announced the state of emergency in June 1986 he quoted from the “SACP Directive/Discussion Document”. Just to remind ourselves, let us look at what this document states on page 3 in paragraph 5.3:

The end of paragraph 8 of the same document reads:

The Government knew all this when it declared the state of emergency, lifted and reintroduced it. That is, amongst other things, why we say that the Government is complicating the task of the security forces in South Africa.

When I wanted to know from the hon the Minister of Law and Order, in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year, why the state of emergency had been lifted if there was such an urgency in the plans being made by the ANC and the SACP, he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 279):

The state of emergency was therefore lifted so that those who wanted to negotiate could attend a round-table conference. That is the standpoint of the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

And what happened then? They proverbially kicked us in the teeth. What is interesting, however, is what the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said in the same debate. I quote (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 360):

So the one hon Minister is saying that the state of emergency was lifted for the purposes of negotiation, whilst the other hon Minister says it was used for the purposes of negotiation. [Interjections.] Those are two Ministers in the same Cabinet blowing hot and cold in the same debate. What we are sying is that the task of the security forces in South Africa is being infinitely complicated as a result.

The second way in which the Government is, in our opinion, complicating the task of the security forces is by lifting influx control.

After 40 murders of old people in our country had taken place, the hon the Minister of Law and Order—it is a pity he is not here now— spoke at Senekal during the election campaign and, in an NP propaganda effort, said: “Ons gaan hierdie moordenaars van ons ou mense vasvat.” These days it seems to be the habit of hon members of the Cabinet to speak, at party-political meetings of “we” who are going to do certain things. The security forces do not belong to the NP; they belong to the State. [Interjections.]

We state categorically that the abolition of the Influx Control Act is one of the major causes contributing to the increase in crime in South Africa. Hon members need only examine the figures. Potential criminals dare not be confronted before they have actually attempted to commit a crime. Mr Chairman, you are a legal man and you know how difficult the doctrine relating to the attempted commission of a crime is in criminal process. When does preparation cease and when does an attempt commence? A criminal dare not be confronted before he has commenced with his attempt. How does the average policeman, the “bobby on the beat” to whom my friend, the hon member for Krugersdorp, referred, know whether the Black man walking the streets of Brakpan or Johannesburg West, is a Shangaan from Gazankulu with friendly intentions or a Shangaan from Mozambique and a potential terrorist? How does he know whether he is a Tswana from Bophuthatswana or a potential terrorist from Botswana?

So one could continue. We read that car thefts have increased by 86% in the past two years and housebreaking by 30%. This is what Beeld, of all newspapers, published under banner headlines on 24 March: “Maak, Breek”:

So it continues. We are saying that one of the most important reasons for this is the abolition of influx control.

Absolute nonsense!

We have been informed that during the period 16 to 25 December 1986 a bloodbath was averted. Our standpoint is that if that was when the Government had its first intimations of this, they are not in a position to handle matters properly.

To conclude I just want to say that the CP would take certain steps. We would have an overall plan which would include measures neutralising revolutionaries economically, socially, administratively and militarily. It is no use strong military action being taken against an enemy when compromises are entered into at the political level. General De Gaulle found that out to his great cost during the Algerian war. There are other things we shall be mentioning in other debates, but we want to take this matter further by saying that the CP Government would have a clear and well-defined political objective. It would return to the policy of separate development and partition which was the very fabric of this country from our very first contact with Black people approximately 300 years ago. That is the solution that was accepted in Europe more than a century ago. It is the guarantee that self-determination will be fully satisfied by our people being governed by its own people in its own territory.

Hear, hear!

Proud, high-sprited and free! This is the policy which Pres Matanzima praised at the termination of his rule, which he claimed had made his people free. He paid tribute to the Government of 1948… [Interjection.]…which made the independence of his people possible.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by saying that I regard it as an exceptionally great privilege to be able to speak in this House today. It is a privilege specifically because I am able to support the hon member for Krugersdorp’s motion, involving as it does a matter which has been dear to my heart throughout my lifetime.

I do not, however, think that any new member stands up in this House for the first time without experiencing some tension or even the jitters. I do, however, think I hold one record in this House. As far as my knowledge goes, I am the first member in history who has had the privilege of occupying a place in the Press gallery, has had access to the officials’ benches and has had access to the private secretaries’ bays. You will therefore understand that under those circumstances I feel today, in Biblical terms, like a sheep before her shearers, particularly when I think of the criticism that sometimes emanated from the ranks in which I found myself. I want to say it once that I naturally did not participate in that criticism. And I wonder whether, in the light of what I have just said, I should not follow the hon member for Greytown’s example and Table the rest of my speech? I should nevertheless like to make my own humble contribution in connection with the tremendous role played by the security forces in South Africa in order to keep this country of ours safe, in spite of a revolutionary onslaught which is becoming fiercer and more relentless every year.

Mr Chairman, with your permission, however, I want to refer to an aspect of this onslaught which I have come to know fairly intimately during the past 10 years. I am referring to the propaganda onslaught which has also increased in ferocity in recent years, although the rhetoric has always remained the same. This onslaught is monitored and counteracted by a small group of people in these departments to which we referred and in the relevant ministeries. This small group is waging a struggle in which it is not evenly matched, numerically speaking, because those people have to use truth to counteract fabrications, half-truths and lies which are published, on a daily basis, in South Africa’s front-line states and disseminated throughout the world with the aid of Marxist-controlled news agencies.

The struggle being waged by the information and public relations divisions of the security forces is an uneven struggle because its clients consist of the free mass media, whilst the front-line states have newspapers solely under state and party control in one-party systems of government.

The news agency Angop, if I may say so, is not worthy of being called a news agency because it is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece of the Angolan government and the KGB. If anything goes wrong in the sphere of security, in the present international climate it is the easiest thing on earth to place all the blame on the South African security forces. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated as much here the other day. For this the leaders of these front-line states use these controlled mass media to disseminate media reports which are detailed, but without any foundation, throughout the world. I want to pay tribute to these divisions, this small group of people, who stand ready, 24 hours a day, to wage this war of words on behalf of the security services, with the limited support of the media of the free world. This includes the international media which in many respects, in the present world climate, hardly has a market for reporting which could ever be positively be disposed towards South Africa.

From this one should not deduce that I am arguing for greater control of the mass media; on the contrary, I regard a free Press as one of the greatest assets of democracy. A free Press, of which South Africa has the freeist on this continent, is a great asset in the sense of having credibility in those circles where this does still matter. My plea is that we should make increasingly more use of the mass media with a view to using the truth in our fight against the propaganda onslaught on South Africa.

I believe in the principle that a well-informed public is also a well-motivated public. That does not, in turn, mean that I am advocating that revolutionaries and terrorists should simply be allowed to exploit the free-market principle for use for their own publicity. I do believe, however, that our public should continue to be informed in the sense that as much information as possible should be released as quickly as possible. I am also advocating greater co-ordination and better resources for the security force’s divisions of public relations and the Bureau for Information so as to combat the propaganda onslaught even more efficiently. I think there is even more proof of this inequality if one thinks of the phenomenal amounts which the UN alone spends, compared with the means we have to fight with in this country.

The rhetorical statements and claims by the leaders of neighboring states are sometimes so predictable that one can virtually record them word for word before they are made. With any particular visit by any world leader or regional leader to any of the front-line states or any other Southern African states I am, even before the time, able to record the main theme of the speech he is going to deliver at the very first opportunity he has, and I would, for the most part, be right on target because it would be about South Africa. Our counter-propaganda effort must be mindful of this, and we should be more pro-active than reactive. We probably have no hope of convincing the masses in Africa of the truth after the kind of brainwashing they have undergone. We do, however, still have an opportunity to reach members of the thinking public in the Western world who do matter, and that is something we must dedicate ourselves to doing.

Before I conclude, I should like to express my thanks to the voters of Germiston District for the confidence they have placed in me. My wife and I will, within the limits of our human weaknesses and capabilities, do our utmost to serve the interests of the constituency. I have come to know the people of the constituency as a diversity and wealth of human material. They deserve to be served.

I conclude by giving my full support to the hon member for Krugersdorp’s motion.

Mr Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon member for Germiston District on his maiden speech. I think the last time I saw him was in a ’plane going up to Angola on an army visit. I only hope that executing his political career will be as efficient as his bridge-playing proved to be on that occasion. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate the hon members on these benches with the good wishes which have been extended to General Coetzee on his retirement from the very demanding job which he has had as the Commissioner of the South African Police. I think he is probably taking on an even more demanding job, but that remains to be seen. We hope that his replacement, General De Witt, will succeed in his intention of improving the image of the police, as he has remarked.

I want to say to the hon member for Brakpan that one of the reasons why the image of the police is so bad in the Black community is because they had to enforce the pass laws and influx control, and as a result they were looked upon as oppressors by the Black community. I believe that the hon member for Brakpan is absolutely wrong when he attributes the increase in crime to the fact that influx control and the pass laws have been abolished. I think he would do far better if he looked to two other reasons. The one is the increased unemployment in South Africa, a factor which is always accompanied by an increase in crime, and the other reason, of course, is the preoccupation of the Police Force with township unrest situations, rather than being able to devote themselves to their normal duties of combating and preventing crime. Those, I believe, are the reasons.

I want to tell the hon member whose motion we are discussing today, the hon member for Krugersdorp, that there is much in his argument with which we are able to agree. We are certainly willing to express our appreciation to those members of the security forces who have exercised their vast powers with restraint; to those who have performed their exacting duties of protecting the public from criminal elements; to those who prevented crime from being committed; and to those members of the security forces who have in many instances displayed courage beyond the normal call of duty while carrying out their demanding tasks, often under conditions of extreme provocation, of danger and discomfort and, indeed, sometimes risking and actually losing their lives. For all these people we have unreserved appreciation which we can express. We cannot, however, unreservedly support the motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp, because unfortunately the security forces do not consist entirely of the sort of members I have just described; and secondly, because of the legislative and political framework within which the security forces operate. I therefore move the following further amendment, which is almost a speech in itself, namely:

1. (1) expresses—
   1. (a) its appreciation to those members of the security forces who have performed their duties in conformity with normal procedures; and
   2. (b) its concern at the number of violent incidents and manifestations of lack of discipline in which elements of the security forces have been involved;
2. (2) condemns the use of violence as a means of achieving political objectives;
3. (3) disapproves of the manner in which the role of the security forces has been distorted by the legislative and political framework within which the forces operate;
4. (4) deplores the manner in which democratic procedures are being circumvented, inter alia by the establishment of the National Security Management System; and
5. (5) reiterates its conviction that lasting security will not be ensured until the Republic has a contented population governed by consent.”.

I must admit that it is almost a speech in itself, and I do not think a number of the paragraphs will need very much embellishment. There have been too many instances of unrestrained force being used against defenceless people, of excessive and needless violence being employed by both the police and the army against people engaged in peaceful protest.

I can cite the example of Uitenhage in 1985, and Mamelodi and Alexandra in 1986—all cases where numbers of people were killed without good cause, often as a result of the police being ill-equipped, ill-trained or ill-disciplined and therefore unable to deal with mass protest. I can cite Crossroads in Cape Town, where there is much evidence to point to police and army collaboration with “Witdoeke” in violent actions which resulted in the death and injury of many people and the destruction of their pitiful shacks with their contents.

There are instances of the police supporting vigilantes in many of the Black townships where residents have been resisting removal into Black homelands. I can also cite the recent outrageous events in kwaNdebele where “kitskonstabels” have been on the rampage, unrestrained; indeed rumour has it that they have been actively encouraged by the so-called independent kwaNdebele police force under a brigadier seconded from the South African Police.

So I can go on citing numerous instances of police and army firing from Hippos and Casspirs in the townships and teargas cannisters being hurled into houses, into schoolrooms, and even into churches in the Black and Coloured townships in the urban areas. There are also the ugly scenes that I have seen on television of the police attacking students on campuses.

I think it is relevant, at this juncture, to reiterate our objection to the indemnity clause in the emergency regulations which indemnifies any member of the police or army or any official who commits any act in the service of the State “in good faith” in the course of his duties. We believe that this is tantamount to giving carte blanche to the police and the army and officials to act without any concern for the legality or otherwise of any of their actions. It is bad for discipline and it exposes the public to the unrestrained exercise of vast powers by the security forces and other persons in the service of the State.

I could cite many statements made under oath in court regarding the treatment meted out to detainees held without trial—many of them under the age of 18—by the Security Police under the emergency regulations. As proof of this, I cite the large amounts that were paid out to the public by the hon the Minister of Law and Order in 1985 and 1986—a total sum of R2,5 million—in settlement of claims, both in and out of court, in regard to assaults by the police on the public. The second leg of the amendment condemns the use of violence as a means of achieving political objectives. I hardly think it is necessary to go into this again, but I want to place on record for the umpteenth time that hon members in these benches are opposed to the use of mindless force and violence in an attempt to attain political objectives. We are therefore opposed to people’s courts, neck-lacing, petrol bombs, limpet mines, stoning and all the other manifestations of the mindless violence that is unfortunately being employed today. We are totally opposed to that.

I now turn to another main reason why we cannot support the motion as worded by the hon member for Krugersdorp, and that is the legislative and political framework within which the security forces operate. The dominant legislative framework within which the security forces operate, is the Public Safety Act of 1953, as amended, and the far-reaching emergency regulations emanating from the state of emergency, including the most stringent restrictions on the media. The legitimate expression of political grievances is confused with so-called objective security considerations and so the thin red line between legitimate dissent and subversion grows ever fainter. What follows is the detention without trial of thousands of people, most of whose transgression is their fundamental disagreement with the status quo. I cite the recent case of the Coloured schoolmaster, Mr Swart, who was held for nearly a year and who, upon application to court, was discharged because there was no evidence against him except the possession of certain T-shirts and periodicals which the judge said were not unlawful anyway. The man was therefore released.

The dominant political framework within which the security forces operate is of course the Government’s perception of a “total onslaught” against the Republic. This has resulted in a “total strategy”, in the course of which distinct and different responsibilities of the Defence Force and the Police Force have become fudged.

The Defence Force’s task is essentially non-political. Its task is to guard our borders. It belongs to all of us, as the hon member for Brakpan has said, and it is there to prevent infiltration from beyond our borders. [Interjections.] It should perform this task irrespective of which government is in power. It should be non-political.

The task of the Police Force is to prevent crime and to apprehend criminals. However, because it must, as I have said, uphold the ordinary law of the land—such as the pass laws when they were enforced—its role is much more overtly political. I believe Gen De Witt will find this to be the main stumbling block in his task of improving the image of the Police Force.

The fudging of these two tasks of the Defence Force, which should be non-political, on the one hand and the Police Force, which is more overtly political, on the other, is evident in sending the army into the townships to quell the unrest there, and in the emergence of the National Security Management System. That is primarily the creation of the security forces and it is intimately involved in political decision-making. It is certainly circumventing democratic practices. We consider this to be a sinister and disturbing development, for the people involved in the National Security Management System make political decisions on the basis of security considerations. What is more, the process of decision-making takes place in secret and thus criticism of the decisions that have been taken becomes virtually impossible because one does not know the basis upon which those decisions were made. This represents a sort of creeping coup d’état by consent in which accountable politicians have voluntarily abdicated their powers and responsibilities to non-accountable persons including those who have been appointed to the Joint Management Centres across the country drawn from the police, the army and from officials, and this co-opted establishment exercises considerable powers over the local elected bodies, although I must tell you that there is an absence of any statutory authority to dictate to them.

There is no doubt in my mind that since the Botha administration took over in 1979, the Republic has been subjected to an executive despotism which functions in close association with the security establishment and less and less with Parliament. [Interjections.] The State Security Council takes many policy-making decisions. It bypasses the NP caucus—the hon member must admit that—and those Cabinet Ministers not on the council. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Houghton may continue.

It is accountable only to the State President, the State President is accountable only to himself, and that is undermining the whole democratic system. For those reasons we are unable to support the motion.

Finally, I want to reiterate our firm conviction that if true and lasting security is to be obtained in the Republic, we must have a contented population which is governed by consent. That is the only way in which one can ensure lasting security. That means the redress of genuine grievances; it means participation in the political structures by Blacks; it means reducing the vast differences in the standards of living between Black people and White people in South Africa. I believe that without such changes, in fact without the total dismantling of apartheid, the most efficient security force in the world will be unable to ensure lasting security in South Africa.

As a young man, it is a great privilege to be able to make a contribution in this House. You will allow me to convey my sincere gratitude to the voters of Pretoria Central, who contributed to making this privilege possible for me and assisted in bringing it about. It is indeed a privilege to be able to represent such wonderful people in this House.

In the time I have been here, I have realised that this is a place where select people sit and that it is a place of which one would like to be and remain a part.

I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Adv Louis Nel, for the rich heritage he has helped to create in the Republic of South Africa. At all times he strived to help establish a peaceful South Africa. He has also built bridges of friendship for this country which, I believe, still exist. I know that he will also build bridges of friendship for South Africa in his new position, thereby helping to support the humanitarian aspects of the security forces.

Adv Nel achieved another distinction as well, and that is that he twice won the newsmaker of the year award, and I want to tell you that that is a prize few members in this House have been privileged to win twice in a row, and few will receive it.

The Pretoria Central constituency is an area which houses wonderful people, businesses, institutions and head offices. One such place is the Defence Headquarters. Not only is it a remarkable building, but it is also a building where remarkable people work—men and women we owe a great deal of gratitude. As a former member of the Defence Force, I know that the security services serve the people and democracy as a whole. The security community is always prepared to render service which benefits the whole population. It is during times of emergency in particular when we realise the value of these people, since it is in times of emergency that the assistance they offer knows no bounds. It is the security forces who use the Air Force, for example, to save lives in floods or when lives are in danger.

It is the men and women of our security forces who maintain and extend the machine at all levels, for the safety of us all. It is these people who are even prepared to go down in our country’s history as having sacrificed their lives for our country.

The SA Defence Force and Police Force are not only prepared for warfare, but their staff are competent, well equipped and always willing to serve. They deserve all praise.

It is true that our community does not consist only of angels; there are members of the community who find themselves behind bars. I am privileged to be able to represent the Head Office of the SA Prisons Service, as well as the Central Prisons Service in this House. The SA Prisons Service is responsible for the safe custody of, and dealing with, criminals who are not there because they did the community a favour or because they served it, but because they committed crimes. These crimes range from theft and armed robbery to rape and murder. Because South Africa has a heterogeneous population, the prisons reflect this. Our prison corps is in daily contact with different language and cultural groups which are all unique. To some of these people robbery is an achievement, and for others the severest form of corporal punishment is simply an everyday and normal occurrence. On occassion Dr Wessen Ashford had this to say about such prisoners, and I quote:

This House will therefore understand that the men and women of our prison corps are sometimes exposed to extreme provocation. Nevertheless this corp strives to create a climate in which those prisoners who wish to do so can improve themselves.

It is significant that our prisons are not characterised by uprisings and violence. What makes this achievement even more remarkable is the fact that in Ireland, for example, there is one member for every 0,8 prisoners, whilst in South Africa there is one member for every 5,9 prisoners. The ratio of warden staff to prisoners is 1:13,7. This is therefore clearly an achievement for this corps.

The Prisons Service offers its members a wide spectrum of careers, for which the single most important requirement is the willingness to serve the community and protect it against hardened criminals. To protect and run such an extensive and complex organisation efficiently, requires skilful management and a dedicated corps. One can find no fault with the calibre of men and women of our security services; on the contrary, they deserve to be praised.

Mr Chairman, you will allow me to conclude with the words of the poet, writing about our security services and security forces. I should like to quote Danie Stegman where he wrote:

I am privileged to give the motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp my full support.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by congratulating the hon member for Pretoria Central on his maiden speech. In opening, I want to say it is clear to me that his attitude toward the security forces is the same as mine. I foresee therefore that, in discussing this subject in the House in future, he and I at least will have a corresponding point of departure. Consequently we shall be able to debate very well with each other. As we are all aware, meaningful debate can be conducted from the same points of departure.

I find it a particular privilege to begin debating in this House on an occasion when the security forces are under discussion. Over the past 17 years I have been involved with the security forces to an exceptional degree: Firstly, as a national serviceman with the South African Defence Force, then as a member of the Citizen Force and later, in particular, in various capacities with the SA Police because of my profession. It therefore gives me pleasure to enter the debates at this stage.

The motion under discussion contains certain key words and I wish to refer to some of them. There is mention of “appreciation to all members of the security forces”, “the exacting task performed by each of them”, “developing” and lastly “moral support”.

I want to start by referring to the duties of the SA Police. These duties are defined in the Police Act, No 7 of 1958, as being inter alia: The preservation of the internal security of the Republic; the maintenance of law and order; the investigation of any offence or alleged offence, and the prevention of crime. In terms of the same Act police officials may be used as messengers of the court or deputy bailiffs to serve or execute any summons, warrant or other process. They may further be instructed to act as public prosecutors on behalf of the State in criminal cases before inferior courts. In the case of a state of emergency or war the State President may also use the SA Police in a military capacity. The nature of the activities performed by the SA Police is therefore very wide and comprehensive.

One need only examine a few statistics emerging from the annual official reports of the Commissioner of Police to realise the extent of these activities. In the 1983-84 year under review 1 230 360 offences were reported and a further 892 118 technical contraventions of the law which did not require the involvement of or investigation by the SA Police. In the 1984-85 year of review 1 312 885 offences were reported and an additional 838 703 technical transgressions of the type to which I have already referred. This amounts to almost 3 596 crimes per day, excluding the more technical contraventions.

Statistics on some of the more commonly known serious crimes—I shall mention figures for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 years under review in sequence without referring to the years again—are as follows: Murder, 9 462 and 8 959; robbery, 37 755 and 39 302; rape, 15 785 and 16 085; housebreaking, 153 440 and 166 812; shoplifting, 27 245 and 31 450; theft of motor vehicles, 44 372 and 48 584; stock theft—excluding poultry—19 138 and 20 453; serious assault, 125 002 and 123 100; acts of terrorism, 56 and 86, and illegal strikes, 53 and 47. The statistics are illuminating in that incidents of public violence amounted to 164 in 1983-84 and 4 408 in 1984-85.I shall quote further statistics: Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, 3 871 and 3 650, and other forms of theft, 279 307 and 311 488. These few statistics illustrate the enormous extent of the activities of and the necessity for action by the SA Police.

To indicate the effectiveness of the Force, mention must first be made that its total strength was only 23 206 White and 21 490 non-White members in the 1983-84 year under review. In the 1984-85 year under review it ran to 24 192 White and 21 367 non-White. Furthermore one should note that, in spite of this negligible figure compared with the enormous number of crimes to which I referred, impressive investigative results were achieved. I shall cite figures for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 years of review: Supreme Court cases concluded, 2 450 and 2 497; regional court cases, 54 633 and 55 960; magistrates’ court cases, 1 751 895 and 2 224 382—an increase of 473 861 criminal cases.

It is a fact, however, that escalating crime as well as the incidence of acts of terror are making increasing demands on the Police Force. In this regard I wish to point out that members of the public in my constituency, Roodepoort, have been the victims of acts of terror on at least three occasions—two bombings in the city centre of Roodepoort and the explosion on the Roodepoort station a few days after the election. Our public is therefore in direct confrontation with misdeeds and acts of terror and therefore has the greatest appreciation for SA Police action in this regard. Nevertheless it is a fact that police numbers will definitely have to be increased to keep pace with mounting crime and acts of terror.

On the subject of the SA Defence Force, the so-called “troepie“ on the border has become a household word in South African vocabulary. The activities of the Defence Force are so well known to the public already owing to the direct involvement of South African families in the system of national service that it is hardly necessary to indicate the importance of this duty of the SA Defence Force.

There are two aspects I should like to raise in closing. In addition to the fact that the security forces should receive moral support—I hope to make a contribution more specifically on this later—we should also ensure that the working conditions of members of the security forces are such that they will really have the feeling that their actions and fulfilment of their duty are appreciated. Here I wish to refer briefly to the compensation paid to members of the Defence Force injured during military service. With every respect, there is a void here and I shall expand on this at a later occasion when time permits.

Finally, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Brakpan on the subject of salaries. It is true that a frontline fighter likes to feel that he is being adequately remunerated for the risks he runs and I should therefore also like to associate myself with what the hon member for Brakpan said in this particular regard. I hope that the hon Minister responsible will also turn his mind seriously to this aspect of the case.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of extending my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Roodepoort on his maiden speech in this House this afternoon. Whilst I sat here listening to him,—in fact, not only to him, but to the numerous maiden speeches from members of the legal profession—I realised that the legal men apparently have a headstart on those of us versed in the Scriptures when it comes to a place such as this.

It sends a shiver up your spine, doesn’t it?

We fully endorse the fine words the hon member addressed to the national servicemen and the police. He gave an interesting explanation of the scope of crime in South Africa. I think that is a matter that deserves the urgent attention of the community. Like myself, the hon member for Roodepoort is also someone who comes from the West Rand. What we have in common is that Transvaal is going to win the Currie Cup this year and that Roodepoort and Randfontein are a very important component of that Transvaal team. [Interjections.] We wish the hon member everything of the best for his stay in this House.

Mr Chairman, for my return to this House I exclusively have to thank my Transvaal colleagues, and I am therefore now taking the opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to them.

Hear, hear!

It is our privilege!

It is my privilege, Mr Chairman, to give my full support to this motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp in which he expresses thanks and gives moral support to all members of the security forces. We on this side of the House cannot accept the amendments moved by either the hon member for Brakpan or the hon member for Houghton.

As far as the hon member for Houghton is concerned, just the following. When one thanks an institution, one says thank you. One does not attach all kinds of provisos to the thanks one is expressing in appreciation for work which has been done.

With regard to the CP’s motion, which reads that on the part of the Government there is a lack of vigour and zeal when it comes to combating terrorism, let me simply say that that is not true.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to the situation involving the state of emergency, but when the first state of emergency was proclaimed, surely it was members of the CP who blaimed the NP for having proclaimed that state of emergency. The argument used by the hon member at the time was that normal security measures were sufficient to combat the situation. He went further and said that with the proclaiming of that state of emergency we had now incurred the displeasure of countries abroad; the hon member who is always reproaching those of us on this side of the House for paying heed to pressure from abroad! When that state of emergency was lifted, they blamed us for lifting something which, in their view, should never been instituted.

You are now fishing on dry land!

I am not fishing on dry land! Those were statements, if my memory serves me, which were made in this House, and they were statements freely made by CP members outside the House.

Sir, I just want to ask the hon member for his reference to where the CP acted as he says it did?

My reference is what the hon member for Randfontein said in Randfontein. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am sure you will permit me, in the time at my disposal, to turn my attention specifically to members of the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is able to make his own speech. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, in the time at my disposal I specifically want to confine myself to members of the SA Defence Force. I think that over a period of 75 years the SA Defence Force has built up a very proud record of service to South Africa and its society as a whole. The SA Defence Force made its mark in two world wars and also in Korea. Deeds of valour by individual members of the SA Defence Force on the Angolan-South West African border already border on the legendary, and I therefore think that an institution such as the SA Defence Force very definitely deserves the thanks of every inhabitant of the Republic, and very definitely can claim the moral support of every one of the Republic’s inhabitants.

I think it is particularly fitting that an institution such as Parliament should express its thanks and appreciation to all members of the security forces, and specifically to those of the SA Defence Force.

It is not without reason that I emphasize Parliament. It is Clausewitz who said that war is an extension of politics, though simply using other means. If that is true, it means in effect—here I associate myself, in part, with the hon member for Krugersdorp—that all military involvement, in fact all military campaigns, are the direct result of political decision-making. Political decisions therefore generate military involvement. I do not think anything illustrates this better than the inscription on the grave of two soldiers in Randfontein who died during the Jameson Raid. The inscription contains the following words:

In the light of this I want to state that I believe that an institution such as Parliament has a moral obligation to accept an expression of thanks and appreciation to all members of the security forces, and I regret that we have not been able to do so this afternoon without certain reservations.

I just want to refer to one aspect which I believe, in particular, all members of the SA Defence Force should be able to rely on, and that is the support and gratitude of everyone in South Africa. On a short-term basis—I want to emphasize the short term—there is only one institution in South Africa that stands between the Republic of South Africa and a Marxist take-over, and that is the SA Defence Force. In this connection I want to refer to a statement made by Lenin, as quoted by Shapiro in his book The Russian Revolution:

The formation of such a bulwark between the Republic of South Africa and a Marxist take-over has, as the years have gone by, gone hand in hand with sacrifice, privation and even loss of life. I therefore think that a motion of thanks to the SA Defence Force is the least that can be done in this context.

It goes without saying that the Defence Force, as a result of its effectiveness, has also become the target of subversion and denigration. A very efficient method of denigrating a defence force is to make the struggle, in which that defence force is involved, appear to be suspect. It happened in Vietnam and in South America, where it is still taking place. It is also happening in South Africa.

I therefore want to mention, in passing, that this is one of the things I have against a film such as Salvador, which is on circuit here in Cape Town at the moment. Established security forces, which are involved in a struggle against Marxist-inspired revolutionary forces, are depicted very one-sidedly as malefactors, whilst the Marxist-inspired revolutionary forces are presented as the angels of light. That is precisely what is happening in certain circles in South Africa.

Here I want to refer, in particular, to the End Conscription Campaign, and I want to take this matter up with the PFP. Last year I attended a meeting of the End Conscription campaign here in the city hall, and there I could not ascertain whether it was the PFP, Cosatu or the End Conscription Campaign that was holding the meeting. [Interjections.] In these circles the security forces in South Africa are presented as malefactors, whilst the Marxist-inspired revolutionary forces in South Africa have a cloak of respectability draped over their shoulders. The impression is created that the SA Defence Force is nothing more than the military arm of the NP, which is in the process of forcing a policy of injustice on people.

We cannot allow the SA Defence Force to be besmirched in this manner. It is our responsibility as politicians to correct this image and to emphasize that the SA Defence Force is not merely the defence force of a specific party or of the Whites. It is a defence force comprised of members of all population groups, which acts in the interests of all population groups.

It is on record that Black people have supported the police in public. One of them appeared on television with the hon member for Houghton, and in public expressed his gratitude for the presence of the SA Defence Force in Black residential areas because, according to him, that presence had normalised the way of life in the Black residential areas.

The assistance granted to commuters recently—regardless of their colour—by the SA Defence Force on the Witwatersrand, elicited the gratitude and appreciation of all those commuters. We must eliminate this misconception about the Defence Force and, by adopting this motion of gratitude and moral support, we shall perhaps partially succeed in doing so.

When all is said and done, however, we cannot merely stop at a motion of gratitude and moral support. Here again I associate myself, in part, with the hon member for Krugersdorp. I think that everyone in this House is agreed that it would be vital to South Africa if we found a political solution in this country which was acceptable to all. If we do not find such a solution, we are wasting valuable time which the security forces have bought us.

Right.

I support the motion as moved by the hon member for Krugersdorp.

Mr Chairman, I consider it a good thing that this debate should take place today and that the hon member for Krugersdorp, who is the chairman of the standing committee concerned, should be the one to present this motion to the House. It is also interesting that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, who has resumed his seat, made comments at the end of his speech which indicated that he could possibly have supported parts of the hon member for Houghton’s amendment. I am pleased about this and appreciate the degree of uniformity which exists.

It has frequently been said in this debate that the task of the security forces in South Africa is an unenviable one and I wish to associate myself with that. One often becomes aware that the life styles of these people are disrupted to a degree unknown in all other professional groups. No cognisance whatsoever is taken of the fact that these people have families, that they may participate voluntarily in community life, that they have need for rest and recreation and that they are exposed to hardships nobody would wish upon them. Unfortunately this is the duty of a police force, so much more so in a country like South Africa. For the past two and a half years these people have been under exceptional pressure in consequence of developments in South Africa. They therefore deserve our praise, appreciation and thanks. They deserve more of us, however.

Yes but …

The hon member for Langlaagte says: “Yes, but … he knew this was coming.

They deserve more of us. Ordinary policemen deserve more than mere lip service as thanks. They deserve political decision making in South Africa to be of such a standard that they are not unnecessarily exposed to loss of life, injuries and disruption of their lives. That is why it is necessary for a debate like this to take place in all seriousness; that is why I also think it a pity sometimes that a debate on security matters is somewhat sterile because it is of such political nature. It therefore becomes a political question and a matter of taking sides rather than having people argue the case analytically. The policemen deserve this, they may lay claim to it and I think they may demand it of us that nothing done at executive level is of such a nature that they are unnecessarily exposed to problems.

I wish to state immediately that I have the utmost contempt for people who utter boastful threats to others in Parliament, while they are well aware that they are incapable of such action themselves. This is finally left to the security forces to carry out, whether it is the S A Police or the S A Defence Force. We should not conduct ourselves arrogantly here in the full knowledge that, if the consequences of our words were to be realised, they would not affect us because we are in a protected position whereas they do affect people outside. For that reason a debate of this nature is very useful since it provides us with the opportunity not only of saying thank you but also—it is an opportunity of which one should take advantage—of making a constructively critical examination of Police Force and Defence Force actions; of not only how they conduct themselves but also of how the security forces are used by the Government. The security forces are instruments of the State; they do not function on their own initiative.

Because this is so, it is important that we analyse and discuss their role so that they may be applied correctly in consequence. It is true that a parliament, a government or an executive power may have very little influence on the conduct and expectations of people acting unlawfully. As we sit here we have little influence on the actions of criminals; we have little influence on the conduct on the perpetrators of political violence, but we have a more direct political say in the actions of the SA Police and the SA Defence Force. That is why we should not descend so easily to petty arguments on choosing sides or why one cannot blame one while one is permitted to blame another. We have a duty to ensure that the SA Police in particular acts as an instrument of the State, preserving the peace, and we cannot permit any element of our security forces in South Africa to degenerate to the position of one combatant or another in a conflict. This is especially not the role of the Police nor of the Defence Force.

We should bear in mind that 99% of Police action takes place in a community consisting of citizens of this country. In the majority of cases its members do not act against an easily identifiable enemy. They take action against certain people, it is hoped people like agitators, certain people who contravene the law to a lesser or greater degree. It is not always easy to draw the line but almost without exception they act in a situation in which we are dealing with citizens and taxpayers of our own country. It is frequently very difficult to distinguish between criminals and inciters on the one hand and ordinary, innocent and inquisitive bystanders or other people on the other. For this reason it is enormously important that care be taken that their actions are 100% disciplined and 100% correct. Therefore it is our duty as members of this House, particularly also as members of the Opposition, to adopt a constructively critical attitude to the role of the S A Police and that of the security forces in general, just as we should to the role of every Government department or every other State instrument. If we omit to do this, we are failing in our duty. It is of no avail to say thank you and utter fine words if we do not take this further, if we do not contribute further by furnishing advice and criticism where it is required. In so doing we fulfil our proper political role.

I mentioned the position of onlookers with whom we are often involved in crowd control. What struck me over the past two years on a number of occasions when I was an observer of such action was how difficult it is to distinguish between people who are true provocateurs and those who are innocent onlookers. But unfortunately I have to add how frequently no really serious efforts were made actually to draw that distinction. I wish to add immediately that at an early stage in the past—it is almost but not quite ended— two and a half years of political violence in South Africa it became clear that there was a need for more training, more discipline, better control in the Police Force in general and perhaps even better selection, although I do not believe that is the fundamental problem.

It became clear to us that there were early indications that more of this type of input had become necessary and was not necessarily available. It is a pity this was the case and I want to make it very clear that I feel, especially at this stage while there is something of a lull, that more money and effort should be expended on better and more intensive training and that more discipline should be exercised to ensure that in general the command structure in the Police Force and the Defence Force functions effectively.

If this is not the case, this instrument which is supposed particularly to preserve the peace may function in a totally counterproductively way, and that is something we cannot afford. I therefore wish to advocate at this stage that the hon the Deputy Minister, who is to react to this debate, give attention to this matter. There was earlier mention that an appreciable increase would be voted in the S A Police appropriation and we hope that finance will be applied to that very end.

I hasten to allude to the increasing use of what are usually termed “kitskonstabels” and express my alarm at this. At the very stage when it became clear that improved training, more discipline and better control were necessary, we employed a new category of policeman whose selection was not as strict as usual, whose training was dramatically abbreviated compared with the norm and whose discipline obviously could not be of the same quality and, finally, who did not have the same level of proper control exercised over them. I deplore this fact and hope something will also be done about that category. I really wish to advocate that efforts be made toward further training of those people who are now in the Police Force to ensure their functioning on a high level and that they carry out their taste properly with an adequate degree of discipline and skill.

A further aspect which has caused me concern recently—we are now talking about the administrative manner in which riots and political developments were controlled—is the way in which tension was being introduced into the situation rather than being removed from it. I am referring especially to cases in which unnecessary restrictions were placed on certain political activities and certain groups, such as restrictions on meetings, publications and even on funerals. In the Kannemeyer Report Mr Justice Kannemeyer referred to this matter only two years ago. I quote from page 158 of the report which reads:

The judge continued:

Precisely what the judge regarded as unthinkable at the time did happen. Those very restrictions on funerals were instituted to bring about that “unthinkable” situation. On numerous occasions this led to the need for a greater police presence to ensure the restrictions were obeyed rather than to see to the preserving of the peace while maintaining a low profile. I regret having to voice that type of criticism today but this does take place. In consequence, I have no moment’s hesitation in supporting the hon member for Houghton’s amendment fully.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp. I also think it is fitting to pay tribute to our security forces in this way. I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Pretoria Central who made a fine maiden speech today. I, too, want to confine myself to the Prisons Service.

As far as the two amendments are concerned, I want to make it clear that I cannot support them. In this regard I associate myself with the hon member Dr Geldenhuys: If one wishes to say thank you and confirm one’s moral support, one does so unreservedly. This could be an indication of the seriousness of one’s intent. If one wants to attach a condition, the sincerity of one’s genuineness in confirming that gratitude and moral support could be called into question.

The Prisons Service celebrated its 75th anniversary in 1986. On behalf of this side of the House I pay tribute to prison staff who have made a contribution of inestimable value during this three-quarters of a century to establish a prisons service of which South Africa and all its inhabitants can be justly proud. Despite increasing demands, an increase in crime and criminals who are becoming increasingly hardened and sophisticated, this service has adapted and has continued to concentrate on efficient service to the community with the aid of almost 18 000 members.

The administration and control of prisons in the RSA is based on legislation drawn up on the basis of guidelines provided by the international standard minimum regulations, which were passed on 30 August 1955 during the first UNO congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders.

In terms of this, the primary short-term aim is to protect the community by isolating offenders temporarily from the community in safe custody in a prison, and in the long term to return a better person to the community through treatment and training—and I want to emphasise training.

I think the community has a role to play in this regard. The community can take preventive measures by not only placing the responsibility on the Prisons Service, with its process of rehabilitation and training, of returning a member of the community, towards whom the community did not fulfil its responsibility, to the community as a better citizen of South Africa. This means that the community is not being protected at the expense of the prisoner, since the purpose remains to equip the prisoner to resume a normal, productive life after his release. In order to succeed, a dedicated Prisons Corps has been established which has an absolutely professional approach to its task.

Approximately 45% of the staff are involved full time in essential administrative work in prisons and in rendering specialised and other supportive services. The staff are therefore expected to maintain an orderly and disciplined prison community system.

For these reasons this side of the House asks that appreciation be conveyed to the Prisons Service; not only for what they are doing, but also for the way in which they perform this task.

One may well ask the question: Do we know this important service? Since the vast majority of the activities of the Prisons Service take place behind closed doors, the community are to a certain extent uninformed about what precisely goes on inside our prisons. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to refer briefly to a few matters.

According to the data as at 1 April 1986, this service was responsible for a daily average of 116 000 prisoners in 244 prisons. This means 24-hour service seven days a week. What is remarkable, is that at each of these prisons the head of the prison is available every day to hear complaints from any of the prisoners being held there.

Over the past 20 years a number of prisons have been built in accordance with international standards, with adequate space, ventilation, light and facilities. The purpose of this is to provide accomodation which will promote the rehabilitation of the prisoner. Good living conditions contribute to the prisoner retaining his dignity and self-respect. This is important for the day he has to return to the community.

The prisoners also follow balanced diets which are revised from time to time by professional dieticians of this Prisons Service. Depending on circumstances at a particular prison, ample provision is made for extramural as well as intramural sport and recreation. Professional health services are available to every prisoner at all times. Every prison has well-equipped hospital facilities, but in serious cases public hospitals are used for treatment.

In principle the treatment of all prisoners is aimed at discouraging negative behaviour and inculcating socially acceptable behaviour, such as self-discipline, self development and moral responsibility. Every prisoner serving a sentence of two years or less is referred to an observation centre as soon as possible after admission, where the purpose of imprisonment is explained to him, as well as the aims of the treatment he will receive in prison. He is informed of his rights, his privileges and disciplinary measures which could be implemented and the advantages of good behaviour. The main object during the period of observation, however, is to gain information about his background, social and psychological functioning and personal make-up. This is done by social workers, psychologists, educationists and religious workers.

Finally, the commissioner authorises the placement and classification of all prisoners. During his detention the prisoner can be promoted or demoted to a higher or lower group, depending on his behaviour. This classification leads to the separation of hardened criminals and first offenders, or those who have been sent to prison for minor offences.

The internal social worker works with the prisoner for the full period of imprisonment, and concentrates on more effective social functioning. Even when there has been a rift between the prisoner and his family and those ties have been disturbed, it is the task of this internal social worker to try to restore those ties. The service also has a team of clinical psychologists who study and treat abnormal behaviour.

Educationists see to it that the prisoner receives tuition and is qualified to lead a normal and productive life after his release. The formal training full-time members give prisoners can be divided into three categories: vocational training, specialised training and training for suitable, constructive labour. As far as the spiritual care of the prisoner is concerned, there are 1 678 part-time and eight full-time religious workers, as well as 24 full-time departmental chaplains.

In conclusion I want to say that the prisons emblem can be explained on the basis of what I have said. The scale stands for justice; the protea for protective community service being rendered; the key at the back of the emblem stands for the removal of the offender from the community for safe custody; the book means the treatment, training and development of prisoners during their period of detention; the lifebuoy stands for the opportunity the prisoner is given of helping himself; and the key in front for the return to a free community.

South Africa can be justly proud of a Force such as this which serves the community inside and outside of prison. I take pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr Chairman, as the CP spokesman designate on law and order I think it advisable at this stage to react to certain allegations made in this House and elsewhere against my person. I am referring to newspaper reports alleging that I am a member of the AWB. From the overeagerness of some hon members on the opposite side to get at the CP, it is clear they have let no grass grow under their feet—the hon the Minister of Manpower started this—in implying that I was supposedly an enrolled and recognised member and that the hon member for Sasolburg regarded me as a proven member. Notwithstanding the fact that I could not react to this under parliamentary practice and was consequently silenced, I was also speechless at the irresponsible way in which those hon members made factual allegations in this House. It is clear not one of those hon members had taken the trouble of checking the truth of the allegations about me in any way. [Interjections.] I am not and have never been a member of the AWB. [Interjections.] This conduct is disquieting and simply reckless because it transmits reports from this House which are totally untrue.

I prefer, however, to be linked to an organisation like the AWB which works for a free, independent Afrikaner people with and in its own country. [Interjections.]

Order! I have permitted the hon member to give a personal explanation and he has been doing so for quite a few minutes. Will the hon member please revert to the point under discussion.

Mr Chairman, may I complete my sentence?

We shall listen carefully.

Mr Chairman, I prefer that association to being linked with an organisation which feels free to accept even a Black president and will be satisfied to have only a joint say in its own country under a multiracial government.

Order! I think the hon member has now completed his sentence. [Interjections.]

While we support this motion—particularly the version according to the hon member for Brakpan’s amendment— we want to say that we too would like to thank reservists in this regard. Those people, who strive for maintenance of order and combating crime in country districts and elsewhere, should be thanked heartily.

We should like to see police concentrating to a greater degree on their original duty—the curbing of crime. At the same time this would mean, however, that the Defence Force would have to shoulder a greater task— especially regarding terrorist activities—to enable the police to carry out their duties. We wish to argue that the police and members of the Defence Force—as professionally-trained people who have to act according to their discretion within specific circumstances— should be given more freedom and scope to act in their professional capacities within legally prescribed limits. It should not be necessary for them to look over their shoulders because some commission of enquiry or other will be their lot even if they have acted properly.

We should like to associate ourselves with the State’s using the power of the sword—using it in full—in combating crime and maintaining order. We also believe, however, that it is essential for these terrorist activities to be curbed at the point of origin and that we should not only control the symptoms which become obvious within our country but also examine the basic causes and deal with them.

Permit me to say this in brief. We do not believe these problems are capable of solutions and that the combating of unrest can be carried out successfully by means of a so-called process of reform because that reform can end in only one way—the surrender of power to a Black majority government in this country. Failing this, there will be no peace and harmony in this country of ours unless we pursue our approach, which is the recognition of the existence of peoples and of their respective national goals by giving them constitutional substance.

Mr Chairman, I really hope the public will take note of how the hon member for Ermelo, a so-called chief spokesman on this matter—and who should have confined himself to the motion or amendment—had to devote the greater part of his speech this afternoon to extricating or not extricating himself from the AWB. I still do not know whether he has extricated himself. [Interjections.] If the hon member were to take note of the restrictions imposed on members of the SA Police in regard to AWB membership, he would, if he were an honourable person, have extricated himself from the AWB irrevocably this afternoon. [Interjections.] Sir, I withdraw the comment on integrity.

To my mind this was a degradation of this House. We came to this House this afternoon with the idea that this motion would not be turned into a party-political game.

Unfortunately I can no longer claim this at the end of this debate. This applies particularly to hon PFP members because to me they seem to regard the position of the police in much the same way as happens in education—if the child does well, he is clever but if the child does badly the teacher is bad. It seems to me we have many people in this country who react in this way to the SA Police.

It is quite clear to me, especially if I cast my eyes over certain hon members, that they use the SA Police merely as cattle. They then come here and agitate with empty words for higher salaries for the Force. Let me tell them, however, that they should thank their lucky stars for such a Minister and Deputy Minister who work their fingers to the bone daily to negotiate a better deal for the SA Police.

Go and ask policemen.

I do so daily. [Interjections.] I do not merely utter empty words in council chambers but move among the members of the SA Police and know their feelings. [Interjections.] I take pleasure in supporting this motion moved by the hon member for Krugersdorp but if each of us in this country is not serious about the SA Police, specifically within our security framework, we have no future. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is my wish that we give the SA Police an elevated portion in our daily lives and that the Force will ultimately be the elevated symbol of stability which will be acceptable to all people—White, Black, Brown and Asian.

†The SAP, like any other police force in the world, cannot perform its duties if it does not enjoy the trust and co-operation of all parties.

Or if it is restricted by the Government.

The hon member should be grateful that he still has a stable Government in this country which permits him to live in peace, thanks to the SA Police.

That is why we have had so much instability.

Order!

The disparagement of the image of the SA Police has obviously become the policy of certain people in this country. It is because they realise that, if they could sweep this system of authority from the table in South Africa, they would ultimately be able to overthrow the Government of the country. It has therefore become necessary for certain people to belittle police, to victimise and finally discredit them. That is why attacks take place on the houses, families and persons of members of the SA Police. Let us examine a few statistics. Since 1 January this year a total of 17 members of the SA Police have died as a direct result of discharging their duties. I am not even referring to the members who were injured.

When one looks at the bomb explosions of 20 May in Johannesburg, one sees that Constables Wilkens, Botha en Duvenhage died— later Constable Botha too—while various policemen were injured. I should like to take the opportunity this afternoon of paying tribute to the memory of these members of the Force who paid the highest price for the ultimate maintenance of democracy in South Africa. We laud their families and their memory.

It is not only the Whites in the Police who pay a price; we know this. Permit me to quote briefly from a letter the widow of a Black policeman wrote in Servamus last year because it summarises and is typical of the attitude of members of the SA Police and their families:

Those are the kind of people who wear the blue uniform of the Police Force. Today I am proud to be associated with the SA Police, having once worn that uniform.

I wish to close with the words of the poet G A Watermeyer in the lines:

When we are sleeping peacefully, they are on duty and we honour them for that.

Mr Chairman, in a certain sense it was a newcomer’s motion in the House this afternoon. The hon member for Krugersdorp, who introduced the motion, has been newly appointed as chairman of the Standing Committee on Protection Services, which is a more comprehensive standing committee than the previous one. Other participants in the debate made their maiden speeches. The hon member Dr B L Geldenhuys is the newly designated spokesman on defence matters of the NP. I want to congratulate the hon members on the respective positions to which they have been appointed. I also want to congratulate three hon members who made their first speeches in this House today. The contributions made by the hon members for Germiston District, Pretoria Central and Roodepoort testified to good preparation and I wish them success with their careers.

I said it was a newcomer’s debate because I now have the privilege, for the first time, of reacting to a motion such as this one. Perhaps I should explain the position in which I find myself in respect of this motion. This motion is directed at all the security forces, including the SA Defence Force, the Police Force and the Prisons Service. If all the Ministers responsible for these departments had made a contribution this afternoon, there would definitely not have been much time for other hon members to make contributions. I am responsible for the security management system and I therefore deal generally with all these departments. That is why it was decided that I should react to this motion. I am therefore stating my position in this respect, and furnishing the reason why I am reacting to this motion.

I should also like to associate myself with the words of the hon member for Krugersdorp pertaining to the Commissioner of Police, Genl Johan Coetzee. I think it is premature of us to take leave of him at this early stage; after all, he still has two months of service left. Consequently there will still be ample opportunity for that. In any event it is for the hon the Minister of Law and Order to convey those thanks to him. However, I should like to associate myself with the words of the hon member for Krugersdorp in thanking Genl Coetzee in advance, and also congratulating Genl Hennie de Wit. I also want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his kind words and congratulations he addressed to me.

I should like to thank the hon member for Krugersdorp for moving this motion. I think it has been moved at an appropriate time. It is an appropriate time because all three security departments we are discussing here find themselves in a phase in which their 75th anniversary is being commemorated. The SA Prisons Service is in fact the oldest of these three components, because it commemorated its 75th anniversary last year. This year it is the turn of the SA Defence Force, and next year of the SA Police. In the middle of this eventful period for the three security forces this is therefore a good time to convey our thanks to them in this House as well. In that connection I consequently want to convey our general thanks.

There is a second reason why this is a suitable time to discuss this subject. Almost a year has passed since the national emergency was proclaimed on 12 June 1986. It is appropriate that we review the actions of the security forces during the course of the past year on an occasion such as this. We must see what was accomplished by the actions of the security forces under the emergency. I shall make a few observations about this in a moment.

Perhaps I should first react, though, to the two amendments that were moved. I do not want to split hairs on this occasion. I really want us to conclude this debate on the note on which the hon member for Krugersdorp began it. He tried to lay a foundation on which this House can agree and on which we can convey our thanks to the security forces that are the security forces of all of us. They are not the responsibility of this side of the House or of that side of the House; they are the responsibility of all of us. I shall try to close the debate in that spirit this afternoon. However, the two amendments compel me to make a few observations about them, but I am not going to spend a long time doing so. Yet I do want to say a few words on the matter.

The amendment of the Official Opposition, moved by the hon member for Brakpan, referred to the Government having failed to utilize the defence forces with the necessary vigour and zeal to destroy terrorism. I think it is the desire of all of us to destroy terrorism— not only in this country, but universally …

Do you accept our amendment?

I do not accept the amendment as it stands here, because that hon member knows as well as we do that he is referring here to a single facet of a total, more comprehensive revolutionary onslaught which this country has to deal with. When we refer to a revolutionary onslaught it is surely not only terrorism that we have to contend with. We have to contend with a total, comprehensive onslaught.

Let us now analyse terrorism itself. That hon member knows as well as I do that it is not possible to combat terrorism overnight. Even if he and I decided to go to the Commissioner of Police and the Chief of the Defence Force now to arrest every terrorist in this country tonight, he knows as well as I do that it is not possible. This is simply the factual situation. Does he believe for one moment that the security forces would not have acted in advance to deal with the bomb explosion at the magistrates’ courts in Johannesburg if they had known about it? Surely it is absurd to say that the security forces are not receiving the necessary support from the Government in respect of the elimination of terrorism. If the hon member would only give some thought to the matter, he will realise that it was a very naïve statement he included here in his amendment. He is not dealing with all the facets we have to deal with, nor is he dealing with the entire reality we have to deal with.

Do you know where the source is situated?

Let us discuss the record of the hon member and his party for a while, in respect of the misgivings expressed in the past. We had these again as recently as the past election campaign.

When the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a warning to the effect that there was information at our disposal which indicated that attempts would be made to disrupt the election, the leader of that hon member, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, was the first person to get up and say that it was an election ploy. [Interjections.] What kind of support is that for the Government?

It was an election ploy!

Must we now produce the evidence to prove that it was not a ploy?

Order! The hon members need not like what the hon the Deputy Minister is saying, but he is entitled to say it, and I am going to give him the opportunity to say it. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, but it seems to me the hon member for Barberton was really not present in this country during the two months prior to the election. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that, however, because I do not have the time now to go into it and in any case there will be an opportunity later to argue these matters further within departmental context. The Votes, and so on, are still to come under discussion later, and I do not have the time to go into this matter any further.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

Mr Chairman, I really do not have the time. I am very sorry.

I want to tell the hon member for Houghton that I find it utterly tragic to find again this afternoon—this is something that confirms the existing suspicion—that the hon member’s party is moving ever more radically to the left, particularly if I consider the amendments she brought to this House. [Interjections.] She said she seriously questioned the actions of certain members of the security forces. This is a suspicion she is expressing about the security forces. Furthermore she said she questioned the legitimacy of the actions of the security forces. Those were the two legs on which her argument rested. She then came forward with a feeble rejection of violence which was inspired by the radical elements. I think that simply confirms once again why that party finds itself in its present position and why it will from now on simply continue to dwindle. [Interjections.]

I want to make only one point in connection with her speech. As has happened before in the past, the hon member for Houghton made a series of statements here about the alleged sinister security management system in this country, but she did not introduce one shred of evidence for those statements of hers. She did not substantiate them at all, which indicated to me that the hon member was speaking in total ignorance. If she had known anything, she would probably have furnished the proof. However, she had no proof. That hon member knows as well as I do that she can come and talk to us. She has the facts in any case. All she need do is go into them. The security management system is nothing sinister at all; the way it functions is known. We have discussed security aspects in public on numerous occasions.

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

No, I do not have the time now.

In the remaining few minutes I should like to make a few observations about the national emergency during the period that is behind us. At the announcement of the emergency more or less a year ago the hon the State President envisaged three objectives: Firstly, the restoration of stability in this country, secondly the return to normality and thirdly the creation of circumstances conducive to development in the constitutional, economic and social spheres in South Africa.

In the nature of things the restoration of stability is primarily the task of the security forces. During the past year, in the performance of that task, the security forces have been subjected to various kinds of attacks. Attacks with firearms, petrol bombs and stones on security force members were at times a common occurrence. In the process a number of security force members were killed, and others were seriously injured.

In addition the security forces were subjected to a vehement propaganda onslaught from all quarters, both at home and abroad, for their actions under the circumstances.

Furthermore the security forces were subject during the year to long and irregular hours, without any additional remuneration and without having the benefit and comfort many of us enjoy when we arrive home at night to be with our families. The disruption this entails for the family life of security force members is something I do not think we always give sufficient recognition and appreciation to.

†One of the most important sacrifices the security forces had to endure was the burden placed on their families, and the danger to which they were exposed. Several hundred Black policemen’s homes were destroyed and their families came under constant attack from arsonists and assailants, mainly at night. Many of the families lost all their belongings and treasured valuables and were placed in circumstances which we ourselves would not accept.

One can hardly visualise the agonies these families experienced, being constantly threatened and intimidated, and yet loyalty towards the SA Police and the loyalty displayed by wives towards their policeman husbands never faltered. Many a day and night they had to fend for themselves while their husbands and fathers fought to restore and maintain law and order in the country.

*Under emergency conditions the SA Defence Force received orders—and we made no apology for this—to act in support of the SA Police in attaining stability, particularly in the Black towns.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member is protesting. Yet the question is this: Did he want the instability in those Black towns to continue? Did he want that instability which prevailed in May last year to be still prevailing in South Africa today, as a result of limited manpower?

The problem is the misrule of the Government!

That hon member is not prepared to react to it. [Interjections.] The conclusion one can arrive at is that that hon member and his party are constantly bent on one thing only, and that is to listen to their own rejected, leftist ideology, which causes them to go about in blinkers and fail to take the realities of our circumstances in South Africa into account at all. [Interjections.]

Fortunately the sacrifices of the security force members were not in vain. By the end of April this year, unrest-related incidents had already decreased by 84,8%. An increase, therefore, of almost 85%. Deaths, primarily as a result of attempts on the part of revolutionaries and radicals to intimidate moderate Blacks, decreased by almost 82%. The security forces restored control over the situation to such an extent in this way that attacks on the security forces had decreased by 89% by the end of April 1987.

We can therefore say that in spite of the situation in which they found themselves, and the sacrifices they had to make, their efforts were all worthwhile. For that we can thank the security forces today. As a result a great measure of stability has in fact been achieved, and visible unrest at this stage is occurring only in a few Black towns. This does not in any way imply that the revolutionary climate has now ended or is coming to an end. The maintenance of the state of emergency is essential to restore normality. The maintenance of the emergency is also essential to create favourable conditions under which development in the constitutional, economic and social spheres can occur. Without the unselfish contribution of the security forces in this connection it would not have been possible to have achieved the present measure of stability as a result of which the other development in the constitutional, economic and social spheres was able to occur.

†An aspect that I feel is equally important to mention, is that not only did the security forces deal with lawlessness, but they were also primarily responsible for ensuring that essential community services did not come to a complete standstill.

I wish to refer in particular to such services as the supply of water, essential medical services, sewerage and construction works, and also to a great extent public transport and deliveries.

In the ill-fated bid by the radicals to render the townships ungovernable these essential services became prime targets and had to be protected by the security forces. Although huge losses to vehicles, construction equipment and other material were incurred because of damage, a great deal more was saved from destruction.

Special thanks must also go to those members involved and attached to essential services who, although protected to an extent by the security forces, have also had to endure much hardship in a bid to fulfil their valuable tasks to society.

*It must be emphasized, though, that in spite of the difficult circumstances, the actions of the security forces were characterized throughout by efficiency and expertise that testified to good training. The propaganda onslaught on the security forces testifies to the effectiveness of this training.

I should like to associate myself with previous hon members who referred to the role Black SAP members and their families were playing in this connection. I am thinking in general now of the members of the security forces who were seriously intimidated, particularly members of the other population groups. In spite of extensive attacks on them, they carried out their task and continued to improve their morale, thus making a contribution of a high standard in the South African security forces.

During the past few months I have had the opportunity, together with the hon the Minister of Law and Order, of visiting many Police Divisions in South Africa. In that way we succeeded in making contact with literally thousands of policemen. There were previous occasions as well on which one had an opportunity to make contact with other divisions of the various security departments.

There are three matters I now wish, at the conclusion of this debate, to convey as a message from this House. I hope these are matters on which we will be able to agree. My message from this House to all the members in all the divisions of the security forces is that in the long run we who have a specific responsibility to the country here, and the security forces who have a specific responsibility to the country elsewhere, form a team to the benefit of this country.

We in this House have a responsibility to try to govern the country, and we have a responsibility to make laws. The security forces in turn have the responsibility of ultimately implementing on the ground level the plans that are drawn up on this level. This is a fact which I have literally experienced on the ground during the past few months. We can formulate the best plans, the best laws and the best policy in this country, but it is not possible to realise them in practice if they cannot be implemented on the ground level. The security forces are an important component in this implementation.

[Inaudible.]

I am talking in a co-ordinating sense now, if the hon member for Barberton would only try to understand it.

Parliament has a great responsibility to the country in this connection, but the responsibility of the security forces to make it possible for us to ensure a secure future in this country is equally great.

A second message I want to convey from this House is that we all serve our country here, in our representative context here in Parliament. Similarly the security forces outside serve our country. We are all therefore committed to service to our country, and therefore I should like to convey this message and say that we have a joint responsibility with the security forces of rendering a service, regardless of who asked for it in the country, and regardless of peoples’ sex, colour, income or age. We are committed to rendering a service to this country.

Finally I want to say that difficult times lie ahead for this country, for our security forces as well. Their task will in certain respects be almost inhuman. I think it requires of us, on this level of responsibility, the greatest possible dedication on the road ahead. I think we can say to the security forces that we shall make certain, on our part, that they have the best possible equipment, whether human or in the form of resources, to carry out that task.

We therefore pledge, on this side, our support to the security forces, wherever they may find themselves in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendments lapsed.