as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, dated 31 August 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, since the last discussion of this Vote in Parliament, several things have happened with regard to the SA Police. Several changes have taken place. My predecessor has become Speaker of Parliament, and we have had a new Commissioner of Police.

Today I wish to take this first opportunity I have of speaking in this Chamber, to pay tribute to my predecessor. He occupied the post of political head of the SA Police for longer than seven years. They were probably some of the most difficult years in the history of the Force. Particularly since September 1984 the SA Police and everyone involved endured merciless and single-minded attacks by revolutionaries and their sympathisers. However, despite serious indisposition he never faltered, but continued resolutely to render service of high calibre to the Force and to South Africa. I pay tribute to him for that today, and we also sincerely thank him. We wish him every success and everything of the best in his new and extremely responsible position.

Hear, hear!

On several occasions recently mention has been made of the outstanding service rendered by Gen Johan Coetzee as Commissioner, and as a policeman throughout his life, to the Force and to his country. I should like to place this on record here today. All these tributes and expressions of gratitude are well-earned. He has served with distinction. I also just wish to convey my sincere good wishes to his successor, Gen Hennie de Witt, and welcome him to this post. A difficult road lies ahead, but Gen De Witt possesses all the qualities to make a success of this task.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, in a report in the Weekend Argus of 22 August 1987 I read, inter alia, the following description of the Police here in Cape Town, and I quote:

Hon members will agree with me…

Who said that?

I read it in the Weekend Argus.

But who said that?

But just give me a chance. Please allow me to finish telling hon members what I want to tell them. Some hon members jump on the bandwagon before they even know where it is going. [Interjections.]

You will agree with me, Mr Chairman, that this is a description of which no police force could be proud. Fortunately, however, Sir, when I read a little further, I noted that this description dated from the year 1820—almost a century before the establishment of the SA Police Force in 1913. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether it was true at the time. [Interjections.]

Order!

A conscience is a wonderful thing! [Interjections.]

Today, almost 170 years later, the SA Police is a proud force with a proud record. Today the Force is a modern force with modern ideas and modern equipment. What is more, this Force deserves the great respect it enjoys among the majority of law-abiding citizens of all races in South Africa and in the world. This is so because the protection and safeguarding of South Africa and all the people living here, is still the highest priority for the SA Police. We strive to achieve this goal single-mindedly and resolutely, despite factors and elements that sometimes seriously hamper our efforts. I want to say to hon members this afternoon that we shall never cease those efforts.

The protection and safeguarding of South Africa and our people falls into two components: Firstly, protection against crime, ordinary criminals and perpetrators of violence; and secondly, protection against revolutionary action by revolutionaries, terrorists and other radicals.

†Referring to the question of protection against crime, ordinary criminals and perpetrators of acts of violence, I want to say that at present, as has also been the case in recent years, the SA Police considers the crime rate in South Africa to be unacceptably high. This is as a result of circumstances and factors about which it is very difficult to do anything but which are being tackled with singleness of purpose by all the parties involved.

Nevertheless, in South Africa the crime rate is by no means higher than in most other Western countries and, what is more important, our success in solving crimes is the highest in the world. This is in spite of the fact that in South Africa the numerical strength of the Force is one of the lowest in the world, namely approximately 1,9 per 1 000 of the population. In some countries this figure is as high as 8 per 1 000 of the population. The recent staggering successes achieved by the Force speak for themselves—I refer to the rounding up of gangs of motor vehicle thieves etc.

I ascribe these successes, firstly, to the ingenuity, perseverance and hard work by members of the Force; secondly, to the application of the most modern technological skills—including our forensic and science laboratories, a small, specialised and extremely effective air wing etc; thirdly, to a sympathetic public who help us by supplying information and providing us with thousands of reservists who, since the beginning of 1987, have effected more than 13 000 arrests, some of them for serious crimes, as well as the neighbourhood watch system which is being established with great enthusiasm throughout the country; fourthly, to the utilisation of special constables, particularly in Black residential areas—here in the Western Cape especially they have managed to reduce the crime rate dramatically; and fifthly, to a responsible Press and other media that play an irreplaceable and extremely valuable role in the prevention and combating of crime.

In spite of the fact that we have succeeded in holding the crime wave in check, we will, however, have to take additional steps if we want to keep up with the times.

*I also wish to refer briefly to the second component, namely protection against revolutionary action by revolutionaries, terrorists and other radicals. It is now generally recognised and accepted that revolutionaries with communist support are currently throwing everything into the struggle, as they have been doing for the past three years, to take control in South Africa. That is their declared aim and they make no secret of it.

Order! Hon members must converse more quietly.

In their path stands the SA Police, supported by other security forces and Government departments. To get us out of their way they use every conceivable method, including terror and intimidation.

As is the case in the rest of the world, acts of terror have been on the increase in South Africa, too, over the past number of years. Once again the SA Police has not budged an inch and our success rate in the combating of terror and the tracking down of terrorists has increased by more than 300% over the past year. That is why there are very few acts of terror that have not yet been solved. Although some of the guilty have not yet been tracked down, we will get them.

Although acts of terror have taken place, the majority of planned acts are foiled by the police before they can take place. In the process a considerable quantity of explosives and arms has been seized which would have been used to murder innocent victims.

Over the past year the incidence of acts of terror has increased by 8,45% as against the previous year. Four hundred and three persons have been victims of acts of terror, 54 of whom were killed and 349 injured.

A total of 509 persons fled the country, 347 of whom joined the ANC and 30 the PAC and other organisations.

During this period 489 ANC and 19 PAC members were eliminated. This includes inter alia—I am mentioning only a few particulars—172 trained terrorists who were arrested. They were trained in the following countries—22 in neighbouring states, 53 in other countries abroad and 97 locally. Two hundred and sixty four other ANC members have been arrested, of whom 80 were trainee terrorists, 8 were recruiters, 18 were couriers and 158 were accomplices. Forty seven terrorists were shot dead and six other ANC members—they were accomplices—were killed in crossfire together with trained terrorists. Ten trained PAC terrorists and nine other PAC members were arrested. In view of the fanatical determination of the enemies of the country to seize power in this country and destroy the existing order and structures, a stepped-up onslaught may be expected. It will increase in intensity before declining, and that must be taken into account.

Two aspects clearly emerge from the above remarks. In the first place, the violence forced on the SA Police by violent criminals and revolutionaries has been totally overemphasised and in recent times, I think, has totally overshadowed the Police motive of service to the entire community. The motto of the Police is “We protect and we serve”, and I think that that must really be given effect to in a meaningful way in the days ahead. In order to show hon members in a practical way what we are doing in the other spheres and to emphasise the other face of the Police, too, for a change, we have arranged a small exhibition which is in progress at the moment in the large auditorium of the H F Verwoerd Building. I cordially invite hon members to pay it a visit.

I believe that it is the vocation of the SA Police Force to protect and serve South Africa and all the people living here irrespective of race, colour or creed, and do so in a dedicated way. The people of our country are not there to serve us; we are there to give them service and protection. We shall do so in a friendly but firm manner, and be fair and just in our conduct towards all as the true protectors and servants of our country and all our people against criminals and revolutionaries.

However I want to issue a warning here and now that friendliness, reasonableness and service should not be regarded as weakness; on the contrary, we shall deal mercilessly with any perpetrator of violence, criminal, revolutionary or left-wing or right-wing radical who disturbs and often destroys the life of the ordinary peace-loving South African. There is no place for such people in the South Africa of tomorrow. The SA Police, in its sphere, will build the future. We have no time for the breakers and destroyers of that future.

The second aspect to which, by way of conclusion, I want to refer briefly, is that of certain elements and factors that have a very inhibitive effect on the efforts of the SA Police to render protection and service. Among these is inter alia the question of the funds and manpower available to the SAP when seen against the background of the specific crime and security situation prevailing in the country.

Although the situation is fully under control, it is evident that the circumstances prevailing in this part of the world make it imperative that the SA Police Force of the future be capable at all times of remaining in control of the situation. This is a guarantee for a future of security, peace and eventual progress.

In view of the above considerations I am of the opinion that the time has come to give in-depth consideration to the matters in question on a comprehensive and accountable basis.

Accordingly I have decided to appoint a committee of inquiry the terms of reference of which will be to carry out an in-depth investigation into and to make recommendations on the expansion, restructuring, functioning, training, management and financing of the SA Police, taking into account the specific current as well as future security and crime prevention needs vis-a-vis the financial, manpower and other resources of the Republic, with a view to the achievement of the statutorily imposed objectives of the Force.

These objectives are the prevention of crime, the maintenance of law and order, the preservation of internal security, the investigation of any offence or alleged offence and the protection of life and property.

In carrying out its terms of reference the committee of inquiry must undertake investigations and hold consultations as it may deem necessary and submit reports or an interim report from time to time should it deem this to be necessary or should the Minister of Law and Order require it.

The committee must investigate and at the same time report on any matter related to the carrying out of these terms of reference.

I appoint Gen H G de Witt, Commissioner of the SAP, as chairman of the committee. I further intend to nominate to the committee knowledgeable persons in the private sector as well as other experts from related fields. A further announcement in this regard may be expected shortly.

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

As the hon the Minister has probably realised, we on this side of the Committee do not have a guilty conscience as far as the SA Police are concerned. [Interjections.] We are squarely behind them, and they know it.

In this connection we can also say that we convey our congratulations to the hon the Minister in his capacity of administrative head of this organisation. We also congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to this post. We do have some slight problems with the hon the Minister’s position as political head of the Police, but we shall come to that in a moment.

We want to associate ourselves with the congratulations extended to Gen De Witt. The truth of the matter is that he is following in the footsteps of an exceptional man, Gen Coetzee, as was apparent from his final speech at the function to celebrate his retirement earlier this year. Knowing full well that the Police have always produced the right man when this has been necessary, we also believe that it is not without reason that Gen De Witt has been appointed to this particular post.

This is an exceptional time for him to find himself in this responsible position, and that is why we should wish him, more even than his predecessors, everything of the best at this time. He is assuming this post at a time when there is unrest in our country and when revolution is fomenting. In these circumstances we know that a great deal is at stake, amongst other things the question of the survival of Western civilisation in this country, the survival of a people, and other peoples in this country, too, alongside ours. The danger that exists is that this system will be replaced by a communist dictatorship. That is why we wish him, and the Force he has supporting him, everything of the best in the struggle that lies ahead. We have confidence in this Force and we shall support it. We believe that the time has come for us to make it clear that those people and forces bent on denigrating our policemen should realise, once and for all, that they cannot and will not achieve anything by what they are doing. We want to say that there is only one basis on which the police can succeed, that they are not in a position to blow their own trumpet and that their success can only be measured by the results they achieve. And one cannot fault the results they are achieving, as we have just heard from the hon the Minister.

We pay tribute to the Police Force for the successes it has achieved, and we say that these have actually been phenomenal successes, if one bears in mind that in comparison with other police forces in the world, ours is, in point of fact, understaffed.

This is an extraordinary achievement, specifically in the light of the fact that their day-to-day task has been made so difficult with the abolition of influx control, owing to the fact that they have been deprived of many of the means with which to track offenders down and owing to the fact that the Group Areas Act is no longer being implemented, and when all this is taken into account, we think that their achievements are miraculous.

That is why we also owe thanks for the fact that more money has been made available for this Vote this year. We appreciate this and we hope that the amount will increase, because we are also very conscious of the fact that a great deal more money is needed for the Police Force to be in a proper position to meet its obligations.

We shall never be able to pay our debt to those people who have sacrificed their lives, in this context, whilst they were members of the Police Force. How does one weigh up a life and the grief of a wife and a child who remain behind? How can we weigh that up in financial terms? We shall never be able to pay that debt, and that is why we are saying once more that there should be an end to this suspicion-mongering about and deliberate disparagement of the Police Force.

The truth of the matter is that policemen have to implement the law. Whether it is a good law or a bad law, it is their task to implement it. In this context people are inclined to equate the police with whomever is governing.

It is strange that there is criticism of the Police from certain quarters. I want to mention an example of this. Recently legislation was proposed in terms of which employers should assist, by way of a garnishee order or a debit order, to deduct money from their employees’ salaries for debt repayments which are in arrears, particularly with regard to services furnished in the Black residential areas. In those quarters from which the most criticism of the Police is forthcoming, we suddenly find the attitude: “No, do not ask us to deduct this money, because then we would be associated with action taken by the authorities, with a Police task.” So there are immediate objections when this task has to be carried out by a private organisation. Although we regret the fact that the Government has allowed a state of emergency to develop, we nevertheless declare…

Oh please, you are talking nonsense!

Who is governing this country? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Ermelo does not need any assistance.

Sir, let them just keep their mouths shut.

Order! The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

We nevertheless stand firm and ask for the retention of this state of emergency. We are making this request because it is clear to us that there is an inclination to bow to pressure. In order to get people to the negotiating table, it is subtly and also quite openly being intimated that this state of emergency should be terminated. The annual report contains data about the state of emergency proving that it is indeed a factor which has facilitated the task of the Police.

If this state of emergency is retained, the Government must use the full power of the sword. We are saying that it is its task, as a government, to do so. Failure, on the part of the Government, to take action against people like Winnie Mandela, a defiant Tutu and Alan Boesak…

Eugène Terre’Blanche?

I am glad the hon member mentioned that. We shall be coming to that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

When someone like Alan Boesak can say in the newspapers in Holland:

and get away with it, without any subsequent action being taken, is unforgivable to our way of thinking.

It is weakness!

It is just as unforgivable, to our way of thinking, that people are allowed to go to Dakar in spite of our warnings about that in this House. I am speaking specifically about my predecessor Mr Theunissen who, in this debate last year, said that people should not be permitted to negotiate with the ANC because they were the murderers and the enemies of our people. Even though the Government knows that such things are going to happen, it does nothing about it, simply allowing those people to go ahead and do it.

Opportunists!

We want to bring it to the attention of the Dakar visitors today that the ANC regards negotiations with people who are members of the system as an act of treachery. They deal with them on the basis of retribution by way of necklace murders. That is how the ANC deals with people it regards as enemies or people who collaborate with the enemy.

What I am saying is that the Dakar visitors should be glad they were met at Jan Smuts Airport by the AWB and not by the ANC. They should imagine how they would then have been dealt with on that specific day. [Interjections.] They should be grateful that it was the AWB that was waiting for them.

One of the hon members opposite referred to the AWB. Let me tell him that we regard it as repugnant, indefensible and humiliating to have the ANC and the AWB compared with each other.

They do so themselves!

We find it an absolutely untenable situation. [Interjections.] Hon members should just bear in mind the example I furnished a moment ago. We also found them comparing the CP to the ANC on a previous occasion.

You have linked yourselves to the AWB! [Interjections.]

We want to warn hon members that that will reflect on them, as surely as they are sitting on the opposite side of the Committee. [Interjections.] Neglecting to take action against the Dakar visitors can only be understood and explained in the light of the fact that the Government was afraid of being judged for any act of condemnation. The fact that in terms of the course it has adopted, the Government will be negotiating with the ANC, is as certain as my standing here this afternoon.

It is also apparent from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s report—he has already said so—that the conditions for negotiation are now open to negotiation and need no longer apply, as preconditions, for people being invited to the negotiating table. In the present situation we are grateful for steps which have been taken, and are still being taken, to establish a neighbourhood watch and to protect our elderly people.

Thanks to the NP! [Interjections.]

Let me quote a single letter to hon members. I have here in my hand a letter from an elderly gentleman who writes:

Let me now quote to hon members from a letter written by a woman who says:

She says they are not asking for money to put burglar bars in front of their windows and doors, but for safe residential areas and White policemen who have the authority to act. And these are the supplications we hear every day. We hear this when we are attending our congresses. The people get up and that is what they ask us. They say that is what they want. Are these requests of theirs so unreasonable? It is strange that I did not hear cries of “racist” when I made these statements.

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

Order! Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to take a question.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take a question. The hon member for Ermelo may continue.

If hon members ask for protection, in this context, let me ask them whom they protect in this House. Are the Whites protected here by people of colour? Who protects them where they live in Acacia Park?

Koos, why were you afraid to go to the border?

Sakkie, as they say in Afrikaans: “Jy is ’n meid!” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must immediately withdraw that remark and apologise to the Committee for having used such language.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on that. The hon member…

Order!

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and I apologise to you, but on a point of order: Is the hon member for Boksburg permitted to tell me that I was afraid to go to the border? Sir, he did not even do military service! [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Overvaal must resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! Before I give the hon member for Ermelo the floor once more, let me seriously call upon hon members of the Committee: We are at the commencement of this debate, and I am definitely not prepared to allow this debate to degenerate. Hon members must confine themselves strictly to the rules of the Committee. The hon member for Ermelo may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I ask you to give a ruling on the point of order of my colleague the hon member for Overvaal on the question of an hon member being afraid to go to the border. Is that parliamentary?

Order! The question of going to the border is not an issue at the moment.

He said I was afraid.

If one is afraid, one is afraid!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order… [Interjections.]

Order!

… the hon Chief Whip of the NP has now joined other hon members in saying that another hon member is afraid. That is an unparliamentary expression, Mr Chairman, and I ask for your ruling in this regard. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, another hon member has just said the same thing. [Interjections.] Whilst I am addressing you, they are roaring with laughter about this, Sir. I do not think, Sir, that that is the way in which a point of order should be dealt with in this House.

Order! The hon member may leave it to the Chair. I have already said this, and I want to say this for the last time: If hon members continue to behave in this way while points of order are being put or while the presiding officer is speaking, they will leave immediately through that door! Let us understand one another very clearly on that score. I am not prepared to have the Committee degenerate into this sort of behaviour. The hon member for Brakpan, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, raised a point of order in regard to a remark made by the hon member for Boksburg about the hon member for Overvaal being afraid. The hon member must withdraw the word “afraid”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “afraid”.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon Chief Whip of the governing party also used the word “afraid”.

Order! If the hon Chief Whip of the governing party used the word “afraid” he must also withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I said that if one was afraid, one was afraid. That is what I said, Sir, and surely that is true. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman. I should like to associate myself with the good wishes the hon the Minister expressed to the Speaker of Parliament, as well to as Gen Coetzee and Gen De Witt, at the beginning of this debate. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to wish the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister everything of the best in the portfolios they have to deal with. I want to tell them that we are expecting rather a lot from them. I believe everyone in this Committee has a high regard for the friendliness and the courtesy of these two hon gentlemen.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister sincerely and also assure him of our support with regard to the appointment of the De Witt Committee of Inquiry. We also support the enquiry with which this committee is going to concern itself.

Mr Chairman, there is an element of tragedy in what has just happened in the Committee. It is with a tinge of sadness that I feel I do not want to allow it to go unnoticed. We on this side of the Committee are not afraid to conduct even the most aggressive and most intense debates with hon members of the Official Opposition on the constitutional future of this country. Nor are we afraid to conduct debates with hon members of the CP on matters which are important to us, matters about which we feel strongly—such as the ANC and the AWB. I regard it as tragic, however, that we should become involved in an altercation about all kinds of things when we have to deal with an extremely important discussion such as the Vote before us, especially in view of the exceedingly critical circumstances prevailing in this country.

Who started it?

Mr Chairman, I am not going to be guilty of that now. I am not going to become involved in a dispute with hon members of the CP, and indulge in petty politicking in reaction to the speech of the hon member for Ermelo.

When shall we have that debate?

Mr Chairman, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis…

Corporal Derby-Lewis! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis would just remain calm, he would be able to observe the debate. In any case, it is a debate that constantly takes place here. There are constant political debates and abundant opportunities for political debates in this Committee. I need only remind the hon member of the discussions of the Votes—that of the hon the State President, for example. Next week we shall be debating the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote. Why, then, must we drag the SA Police in at this stage? It is absolute nonsense! [Interjections.] The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis knows very well that there are many opportunities to conduct that debate.

I am referring to a public debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis must restrain himself!

Mr Chairman, I have not even touched the hon member, and already he is howling. [Interjections.]

Leon, are you white with anger now? [Interjections.]

In 1982 our political paths and those of the CP parted on the grounds of the question of power-sharing. We disagreed on the constitutional future of Coloureds and Indians in this country. That was the reason for our parting of the ways. Something which is very clear nevertheless—it is something which is becoming increasingly clearer; it has systematically crept into the debates in this Chamber, even though we have tried to ignore it—and something which I believe we can declare as a fact today, is that there is another source of disagreement, actually another source of conflict, between us and the CP, viz security action.

I thank the hon member for Ermelo for his kind words about the SA Police. I want to associate myself with what he said, as well as with his good wishes to the hon the Minister. The hon member indicated quite emphatically, however, that he was going to address the hon the Minister as the political head of this department. The CP wants firmer action. Sir.

Yes!

Sir, there are some supporters of the CP who are almost suffering from a kind of shoot-on-sight syndrome. They believe one can solve this country’s problems by force.

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

No, Sir! Definitely not! [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, we do not believe that that is the answer. [Interjections.] That is not the way in which to go about developing a counter-revolutionary strategy.

Do you not shoot the ANC?

We believe that we must regulate this country’s affairs with an iron fist in a velvet glove. We believe we must act firmly, but also fairly, because we are engaged in a war that involves more than merely its physical aspects. We are engaged in a spiritual war that is concerned with winning the hearts and minds of the people in this country. We want to mobilise all South Africans into resisting the revolutionaries and those who commit violence.

One cannot continue to administer this country’s future by means of security action, for the substructure of security action has to be social, economic and political. Security action should have some other object than mere security action. Security action for the sake of security action will not succeed, therefore; one must pursue a loftier goal, viz the realisation of political ideals as well as the preservation of the individual’s life and property. The maintenance of law and order without law—ie, order without law—is lawlessness, which will undoubtedly lead to chaos and anarchy. Without order the laws are not worth the paper they are written on; they represent an exercise in futility.

I should like to discuss one of the remarks made by the hon member for Ermelo. The hon member said that the Government had allowed a state of emergency to develop. He then said that we were yielding to the pressure of the state of emergency. The hon member will have to assume a very strong standpoint in the days ahead, as he began to do today—politicising this debate even further in the process—by telling us to what extent they would act more firmly and would take steps from those taken by the Government.

†Mr Chairman, it is a little awkward for me to debate against the hon members of the CP after a number of years of having had the dubious privilege of following the hon member for Houghton in this particular debate.

*On those occasions I always used to say: “Suzman is my man!”[Interjections.] In later years we began to refer to the hon member for Houghton as the hon granny for Houghton.

Watch it!

She is keen to debate, and I know I am not going to get away with it; that is why I am tackling her right at the beginning. [Interjections.]

†I know that the hon member is a person who does not mince her words, and when she adopts a particular stance what she says is always clear and one can always understand what she is implying.

It used to be said that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert had left this Parliament. Later it was suggested that he had deserted Parliament. I think that recent events show that he is not a deserter, but a refugee from Parliament. At the time, the position adopted by the hon member for Houghton was clear: Parliamentary politics is the politics of the hon member for Houghton, and we applaud that.

Now, however, I should just like the hon member to follow my argument for a few moments because I want to debate the issue of violence with the hon member. In 1961, in the course of his speech of acceptance on being awarded the Nobel Prize, Albert Luthuli said, and I quote from an article written by Andrew Pryor:

Somewhat ironically, in the very year that Luthuli dissociated himself from violence, other members of the ANC were planning the establishment of a military group, namely Umkhonto we Sizwe.

After Sharpeville.

In 1969 it became clear that they were not interested in political participation; they were interested in political control. I think that is beyond any doubt or dispute whatsoever.

Since 1969 it has become apparent that the ANC will not allow itself to be manoeuvred into a civil rights movement or change its structure from a liberation movement to a civil rights movement. It is also not interested in a negotiated settlement because then they will actually be conceding that the problems of this country can be solved peacefully and by way of evolution and negotiation.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip of the CP for the opportunity to complete my speech.

†What has now happened is that people like the Foreign Minister of Canada, Mr Clark, say: “I do not condone violence but I understand the frustration. ”

*The hon member for Claremont adopted a similar standpoint while occupying the back benches of the PFP. With reference to the problems that arose as a result of the violence on the campus of the University of Cape Town, he said that he could understand the frustration. He went further, however, and said he blamed the Government for the way in which action was taken on the campus. My question to the hon member for Houghton now is who she blames for the fact that she is not permitted to address meetings on the campus of the University of the Witwatersrand? Does she blame the Government, or someone else?

All that this argument amounts to is that one cannot condemn violence half-heartedly, since that serves as an inspiration to those who accept violence as a vehicle for political change. The argument that one can condemn violence but still have some understanding for it, does not hold water. The future political dispensation in this country is going to be decided at the negotiating table. The obstacles which turned people to violence as a vehicle for political change, no longer exist.

Oh, please!

Since the hon member who is so keen to travel to Dakar has made an interjection, I should like to point out to him that we have not yet forgotten—this was pointed out by the Denton Committee of the American Senate—how the SACP subverted the ANC and used Mabinda as an authoritative figure to do so. That hon member attended Mabinda’s funeral, thus indicating his sympathy and empathy. That is the hon member who groans when I make a comment about violence. Perhaps he can get up in this Committee and read us a lecture on the ANC’s philosophy on violence as a vehicle for change. [Interjections.]

Are you negotiating with the UDF?

Sir, I am sure the hon member for Losberg will get an opportunity to make a speech. If he is not going to get an opportunity, he should rather keep quiet; perhaps he will learn something today.

Impossible!

We are fully aware that Blacks are seeking a political safety valve and that they sometimes use and abuse the labour sphere as such a safety valve. We are not against people’s becoming politically aware and forming political organisations, but we are against the intimidation of people to force them to adopt certain standpoints. I recently reacquainted myself with the facts in the Rabie Commission’s report. The Rabie Commission expressed serious concern about the tendency towards intimidation. In my opinion it is the scourge of our time that people cannot decide of their own volition whether or not to take part in a protest march, a strike or an election. If we do not succeed in cracking down on intimidation, we shall have domestic strife in this country. John J McEwan said that people would turn their backs on terror if they could get protection. I believe that we, as the highest authority in this country, have the responsibility to look very seriously at this scourge and to find methods, apart from severe punishment and heavy fines, to eradicate it completely.

I want to make only one remark about the neighbourhood watch system. I recently had the privilege of being able to witness the establishment of a neighbourhood watch in my constituency, Krugersdorp. It was a special experience.

In my opinion the Police deserve credit and praise for the way in which this neighbourhood watch system is catching on among the public and for the opportunity members of the public being afforded of participating, of being the ears and eyes of the police officers and of assisting in the protection of their own lives and property.

I want to put forward a possible suggestion. These neighbourhood watches have mushroomed, and we must not dampen the public’s enthusiasm. I say this with the full realisation that there are nearly 100 police officials and officers available to give guidance on this of neighbourhood watch system. We should, therefore, carry on making these policemen—they are just as eager—available to the public to establish these neighbourhood watches.

I think it is just as important for us possibly to pool the collective knowledge and experience of these different neighbourhood watches in the country, and then expand them into a meaningful system to support the Police.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Krugersdorp dealt quite effectively with the hon member for Ermelo this afternoon. However there are two facets to which I want to refer. In the first place, I should like to know from him what his attitude is to members of the SA Police who are also members of the AWB. As long as the AWB fails to dissociate itself from public violence, we shall continue to link that hon member as well as the AWB to the ANC. [Interjections.] He owes the country an answer. Therefore he must not whine every time we link the AWB to the ANC. [Interjections.]

He went on this afternoon to refer to the attacks on elderly people. I just want to ask him whether he is aware that this is a trend which is not peculiar to South Africa, but is occurring worldwide. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I am sure the hon member for Houghton is going to speak this afternoon, as the hon member for Krugersdorp quite rightly said. [Interjections.] I am not being a prophet when I tell this Committee what she will be speaking about. I am only pleased that I am not an accused in a case where she is the judge on the bench, because I can already say that were the Police to be in the dock, and she on the bench, they would be condemned to death in advance. There need be no illusions on that score.

That is a disgraceful observation and you should be ashamed of yourself.

On the other hand, I am also sure that if an organisation such as the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee were in the dock, they would already have been acquitted.

You should learn some manners!

I have no illusions on that score. I am going to come back to the hon member, because she owes us an answer.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for George made a point about the hon member for Houghton suggesting that if she were a judge and the Police were in the dock, she would find the Police guilty whatever the situation. I submit that that was in fact imputing dishonesty to the hon member for Houghton, and that the hon member for George should withdraw that allegation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I address you on the point of order? I should like to contend that the hon member for George insinuated nothing more than that the hon member for Houghton is prejudiced against the Police and in favour of the organisation to which he referred, and that that is not unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on the point of order? That is not what the hon member for George said. He did not say that the hon member for Houghton was prejudiced. He clearly said that were she a judge she would give a dishonest judgment. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to give my ruling in Afrikaans since the hon member for George addressed the Committee in Afrikaans. He said that the Police would have been condemned to death in advance. I do not believe that the hon member for Houghton would condemn the Police to death, since she is opposed to capital punishment. [Interjections.] That, however, is no ground for a point of order. The sole purport of the statement by the hon member for George, as the hon member for National Education rightly said, was that the hon member for Houghton was prejudiced against the Police, and I cannot accept that as a ground for a point of order. The hon member for George may proceed.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is wasting my time.

*This afternoon I should like to quote some examples, because I also cannot quite help feeling that it is the right of any society to afford its people the opportunity of establishing monitoring commissions or committees. Any society which seeks to maintain a high moral standard, inevitably concerns itself with the way the laws are applied. I think it is indeed essential that such functions exist in any community.

However one gets some of these watchdog organisations that overstep these limits, and by doing so they do not serve the purpose of reinforcing society’s confidence in the democratic system. By doing so they are destroying those very values, and calling into question the credibility of these so-called monitoring groups. The question occurs to me—I put it to the hon member for Houghton—whether these organisations do not have ulterior political motives; either some political purpose or else a wish to create sensation.

On the other hand, I ask whether their aim in doing so is not to harm South Africa’s image internationally, as the World Council of Churches did in a newsletter recently. I contend this afternoon that the newsletter which contains certain allegations by the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee, published incorrect, false and untrue allegations.

Two incidents are mentioned in that newsletter. In the first place, an official of the DPSC was summoned to come and give evidence. It was eventually found that his evidence under oath contained so many contradictions that it could in no circumstances be accepted.

They also published a report about a young girl who was supposedly assaulted or ill-treated during detention. The fact is that at no stage in the course of her detention did that girl, during visits by her mother, give any sign that she had been ill-treated. After her release, however, under pressure from political activists, she made certain allegations. I ask her this afternoon whether she is prepared to dissociate herself from these allegations, specifically those against the SAP.

I want to come back to the hon member for Ermelo. As far back as 1979 a community project was launched in the USA specifically to define crime against the elderly and to consider methods of protecting them. Hon members will encounter the same trend in a report issued by Assistant Commissioner Kellet of Scotland Yard in 1980. I do not have to elaborate on that.

What is the point?

The point is that it is the standpoint of the Official Opposition that this is an attack on White people by Black people. I object to that in the strongest possible terms. [Interjections.] It is not a simple matter of a Black attack on Whites. We in South Africa are going to find that more and more attacks are being made on elderly people, for various reasons. One is that the elderly population of South Africa is increasing percentagewise per capita.

I just wish to quote one example regarding the White population. In 1960 the percentage of White elderly people in South Africa was 6,7%. It is estimated that by the year 2 000 they will comprise 22% of the total White population.

This afternoon I want to pay tribute to the SA Police for what they have already done, particularly as regards promoting awareness of their own security among elderly people who had not been conscious of the issue. I have posters in my possession, 120 000 of which have already been distributed in South Africa. This afternoon I want to pay tribute to the Commissioner and his staff for what they have already achieved.

Your politics make things more difficult for the Police.

Finally, I want to ask the hon the Minister to use his influence to make representations in an effort to obtain a discount on telephone rentals for all elderly people in South Africa, and to see whether we could not also consider having dog tax for elderly people abolished, thereby making it possible for them to protect themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

I do not intend wasting one minute of my precious time replying to the ridiculous accusations made by the hon member for George.

For once I agree with you!

I just wish to tell him that I think that my international credibility is a little higher than his, and if I deny exaggerated statements overseas, which I do do, those denials are in fact accepted. Where the accusations are justified, however, I say so. [Interjections.] That is the reason why my credibility is high. [Interjections.]

I am afraid that I cannot enter into any arguments with the hon member for Krugers-dorp. Unfortunately I really do not have any time to discuss my position at Wits or anybody else’s position at UCT, or with the ANC. I am sorry, Sir, but there is something else I wish to do. I want to address the hon the Minister and comment on some of the things which he has said. [Interjections.]

I ought to tell the hon member for George, and maybe the new hon members in this Committee, as well as other hon members, that the object of going into Committee of Supply on the Budget is not to shower praise on the department under consideration, or on the hon the Minister, or his deputy, but to obtain redress of grievance before supply of funds is voted. That is the whole idea of this Committee. It gives the opposition members the opportunity of obtaining redress of grievance, and that is precisely what I wish to do.

I was hoping to be able to forestall some of the nonsense spoken by the hon member for George by saying that, nevertheless, we on these benches are well aware of the difficult task that the Police have to carry out, and we commend them when they act with restraint, particularly under the considerable pressures which they are enduring at present because of the unrest. We have no reservations about commending those members of the Force who, as I say, act within bounds in carrying out their duty in apprehending criminals and in preventing crime.

That does not, however, mean to say that we are not going to criticise those members of the Force who are excessive in their use of power and, more particularly, those members of the Force who in terms of the vast powers given to them under the state of emergency are exceeding their power, and more particularly the Security Police.

We should remember that South Africa has been operating under a state of emergency—partially from 21 July 1985 initially and then countrywide from 11 June 1986 right up to the present time, that is to say, for almost two years, less the period of three months when the state of emergency was lifted in 1986.

During that time Government Gazette after Government Gazette has been issued, in each case strengthening the powers given to the Police and officials and extending the very considerable restrictions on the media, right up to last week.

More and more restrictions are being placed on the media and I foresee that those restrictions which have been placed on the so-called alternative Press, which will of course also extend to the ordinary media, the NPU members, are undoubtedly also going to affect even the reporting of the things we say in Parliament. Although it is permitted to report the proceedings in this House, these restrictions are undoubtedly going to have that psychological effect.

I had to smile when I read some time ago in the Cape Times of 26 June 1987 that the hon the Deputy Minister had the gall to say at the passing-out parade of the SA Police Training College at Wentworth:

[Interjections.] At one stroke the hon Deputy Minister has demonstrated his ignorance of the meaning of the phrase “rule of law” and also his interpretation of “democratically elected”.

Unfortunately, he is not alone in his ignorance, for very many people in South Africa today are now so inured to the deprivation of civil rights and to detention without trial, that they are unaware of how far South Africa has proceeded down the slippery path away from the protection of habeas corpus and due process, and towards authoritarian Government. The hon the Minister himself, it seems, is unaware that in such circumstances abuse of power is almost inevitable.

I want to ask him at this juncture whether the commission of enquiry under Gen De Witt, which he announced today, is also going to enquire into abuses by the Security Police under the emergency regulations. The whole question of security regulations is mentioned in clause 4. Is the commission going to enquire into that?

No.

Well, that is a pity, because I believe that an objective enquiry—and it will not be so since it is of course departmental—is necessary at this stage.

Here, whether the hon the Minister likes it not, I agree with what the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee has said in this regard, viz we do need an objective commission of inquiry. The hon the Minister was very angry with them because, he said, they distorted the facts, and so on.

That is true; they were distorting the facts.

That may be so, but that is because the hon the Minister refuses to give us the facts.

That is no reason for them to lie. [Interjections.]

They do not even know whether they are lying. An inquiry would reveal whether exaggerations are in fact being made—they could then be refuted—and this would enable the hon the Minister to take the necessary steps to protect detainees where allegations are found to have substance.

We are considering some 1 200 to 1 500 people presently in detention, not to mention the fate of all future detainees—there is no sign of the state of emergency being lifted—including, I might add, many children under the age of 18.

Some of the people presently being detained have been held for many months without trial. I cite the case of Sue Lund, who has been held for more than nine months. I cite the case of Zwelakhe Sisulu who was redetained—I repeat “redetained”—in December and is still in detention in Johannesburg. There is one detainee whom I know of—he is Johannes Mambe—who is 74 years of age and is being held in Upington. Another is a retarded youth aged 18 with the medically certified IQ of a child of 12.

What is the hon the Minister going to do with these people? Is he going to hold them forever? How long is he going to keep Sisulu locked up? As I have said, the man has already been there for nine months—and his is a case of redetention—and Sue Lund has been there for nine months. Many of the people—we should remember this!—who are locked up and detained without trial have landed behind bars or in police cells through the simple and untested procedure of having been mass identified by an informer. That is all—no evidence, no defence and no normal process whatsoever! It is another kind of people’s court, the kind of kangaroo court or people’s court that the hon the Minister rightly objects to when it is used by the Comrades in the townships.

Let us take the example of what happened at Kwazakhele in Port Elizabeth. I have an affidavit which states that police stationed a minibus in the township. The vehicle was fitted with windows of one-way glass. All the men and boys in the township were lined up in a queue and made to file past the minibus, and from inside this minibus, behind the one-way glass, a voice called “positive” or “negative”. All the people who were deemed to be “positive” were promptly arrested.

The same procedure was followed in Red Location, except that women were also included in that queue.

Now I ask you. Sir, what sort of reliable information is that which lands people behind bars? These people are then taken for interrogation; and I may say that the methods of interrogation have become very sophisticated these days—not that other cruder methods have been discarded! These sophisticated methods, however, are such that they leave no marks on the person interrogated. I have here a number of affidavits which allege some really disgraceful methods used—methods such as pulling a bag over a man’s head, wetting it, pulling it tight and suffocating him, and then releasing the bag when he is half-dead. If that does not work another bag, with electrodes attached to it, is used. In this regard I have batch after batch of affidavits, most of which, I might add, come from the Eastern Cape which appears notorious for the methods of interrogation used on suspected detainees.

The anonymity of the people conducting the interrogation is preserved because the detainee is often hooded before the interrogation commences. Generally speaking, these assaults do not take place in the prisons, for there is much better control in the prisons. They take place in police cells, in police vehicles, and sometimes in secluded spots on the veld and elsewhere.

I believe they do take place whereas the hon the Minister does not believe that they take place. The only way in which it can be established who is correct, is for an objective commission of inquiry to be appointed which will examine these affidavits in detail. That is the only way we can do it. [Interjections.]

I have 37 of these signed affidavits and when one adds these to those which were produced in reply to the hon the Minister’s attack on the DPSC, the conclusions drawn by the criminology department of UCT and the allegations by Namda and other investigators, it seems to me that a cast-iron case has been made out for a proper investigation. This investigation should have special reference to the indemnity clause which, I have no doubt, encourages excesses in the exercise of their powers by the Security Police.

There have been a number of successful applications to court to restrain the Police, the SADF and the Security Police from assaulting people. I also wonder how many of the 221 people who are presently being held under the most extensive provision of our Internal Security Act—that is section 29 (1)—are being held lawfully and how many have been picked up by this sort of mass-identification method I have mentioned. How many of them should not be there at all? I know of one case where Mr Justice Leveson ordered the release of a section 29 detainee on the grounds that the crime he was suspected of committing was a common law crime of murder which was not connected with subversion or anything at which section 29 (1) is aimed.

In the minute or two still at my disposal I want to raise a matter about which no redress has been forthcoming and which I have raised before. I do not agree with the hon the Minister that township police have been so very successful in combating crime. They have been successful—not in putting down crime—but in many cases in intimidating the residents in the Black townships. When I talk about the vicious behaviour of “kitskonstabels” I include “blackjacks”, “greenflies” and any other nickname given to these people who are given six to 14 weeks training and are then set loose in the townships armed with lethal weapons such as shotguns. In the townships they terrorize the residents and regard themselves as above the law. From all parts of the Republic I have copies of applications made to court to restrain these people from assaulting, intimidating, falsely arresting and terrorizing inhabitants in the various townships.

I have reports here from Bhongalethu in Oudtshoorn, from Gompo, which was Duncan Village, in East London in the Eastern Cape and from Botshabelo in the Orange Free State.

The hon the Minister should realise that allowing undisciplined, badly trained men to operate in the townships can only result in retaliatory violence with dire results. I believe, therefore, that the terms of reference of the commission of enquiry should include an enquiry into the manner in which these “kitskonstabels”, “green flies” or whatever, are being used in the townships today. I do not share the hon the Minister’s admiration for that addition to the Force.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton is clearly not the same person that she was 10 or 20 years ago.

I’m a little older!

Besides that, she is not the same in the sense that she does not protest so much anymore or, rather, in the sense that she protests in a more responsible manner. We on this side of the Committee have appreciation for that, and I hope that will not be regarded as the kiss of death! [Interjections.]

*Sir, I just hope the affidavits she has with her have greater credibility than the affidavits which the hon member for Claremont, who is no longer with the PFP, submitted after the shooting at Uitenhage.

To maintain law and order in an unrest situation makes extraordinary demands on a police force. It is general knowledge that ordinary criminal elements flourish in an unrest situation. I feel the SAP deserve a pat on the back for the way in which they have succeeded in maintaining law and order and combating criminal behaviour.

I also want briefly to say a word of thanks to our special guard unit here at Parliament for the fine way in which they ensure the safety of all of us.

Hear, hear!

Sir, these people are even able to open the boot of one’s car in minutes when one has inadvertently locked one’s keys in there, and we want to thank them for this fine service too!

Allow me too, Sir, on behalf of this side of the Committee to express a word of sympathy to the families of those members of the Force who laid down their lives in the performance of their duties.

I should like to deal with two matters connected with regulations which appeared on 11 December 1986. These regulations were promulgated in terms of the Public Security Act, 1953. One of these regulations prohibited the making of speeches by persons against whom steps had been taken in terms of the security legislation of 1982, if it appeared that their speeches could have the effect of delaying the lifting of the state of emergency. My problem is that there are also other gentlemen going around the country making speeches, against whom steps have not been taken in terms of the security legislation of 1982 but whose speeches have precisely the same effect. Their speeches therefore also the effect that they will very definitely delay the lifting of the state of emergency.

I want to voice my displeasure, particularly regarding the fact that there are spiritual leaders who make speeches with one central theme—terrorism as the final option, either to bring about political change or to maintain the status quo. This afternoon the hon member for Ermelo referred to one such spiritual leader. He quoted this spiritual leader speaking Dutch; I would like to quote him speaking English. I am referring to Dr Allan Boesak, who said the following in Germany in June of this year:

If one goes on proclaiming this kind of revolution or terrorism, or paving the way for it, one is gambling with the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] I can understand this spiritual leader making such a statement. What astounds me, however, is the statement of another spiritual leader. I want to refer to the statement of Prof Carel Boshoff of the Theology Faculty of the University of Pretoria. He says that the Afrikaner will have to resort to terrorism as a final way of ensuring his survival, thanks to the policy the Government is now adopting. What is this other than a spiritual leader paving the way for terrorism as a final option?

Carel Boshoff sounds the same as Alan Boesak!

Run, Koos, run (hol)!

The point I want to make, is that a spiritual leader from the ranks of the Afrikaner…

You are a pig!

Order! What did the hon member for Overvaal just say?

Mr Chairman, I am sick and tired of the hon member for Langlaagte constantly telling me that I must run (hol). I am tired of this and I am asking for your protection. I withdraw the words “You are a pig”, and I apologise.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must not use that kind of language in the Committee. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the only point I want to make is that spiritual leaders from right-wing circles talking about terrorism encourages terrorism from the left-wing.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte say that I am a disgrace?

Order! Did the hon member for Langlaagte say that the hon member for Overvaal was a disgrace?

With respect, Mr Chairman, I said so and I meant it too!

The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! I did not ask the hon member for Overvaal to apologise. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall not pursue this matter except to repeat that we in this country cannot tolerate talks of terrorism from the ranks of the left-wing or the right-wing. We are endangering the future of South Africa and all its people.

I very briefly want to deal with a second matter which is also connected with these regulations. In terms of these regulations a restriction is placed on media coverage of events arising from the unrest situation. This restriction has also been greeted as draconian behaviour on the part of the Government. It is seen as infringing the freedom of the Press.

I just want to put this in perspective. Obviously there is a conflict of interests between the objectives of terrorists on the one hand, and the function of the media on the other. The most important objective of terrorism is to influence people. The bomb itself is not important; what is important is the message which must be spread as widely as possible by the bomb. That is why Robert Taber said: “In the war of the flea headlines burst bigger than bombs”. That is why an Arabian terrorist called out: “Don’t shoot, Abdul—we are not on Prime Time”. Put simply, the objective of terrorism is to convey a message. On the other hand it is the inherent duty of the media, in accordance with its function, to inform the public on events as fully as possible. If this does not happen, one can easily find oneself in a kind of “fool’s paradise”.

This conflict of interests must be settled, and I think this was the aim of these regulations. I can never be the intention to place a total embargo on all news coverage, because in the long term a well-informed public is also the best ally of the security forces. I think the key lies in responsible coverage and this is the objective of these regulations. News coverage can have a dual purpose. It can either sow panic and cause fear which will lead to capitulation, or it can mobilise public opinion against a terrorist organisation. I think that if the Press can succeed through responsible reporting in mobilising public opinion against an act of terrorism, news coverage is then in an alliance with the security forces in the combating of terrorism.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate my bench-mate on his sturdy contribution, as always.

Today I again listened carefully to the hon member for Houghton. Whenever the hon member has risen to speak over the years, one has gained the impression that she regards the police as her enemy. I have never heard her express any gratitude towards them. She and her party nevertheless expect the police to protect them. Even the Dakar visitors had to be protected by the police when they arrived back at Jan Smuts Airport. Yes, even those of them now sitting here. One would at least have expected the hon member for Houghton to express a word of thanks to the Coloured policemen in the Force. Yet even that she has never done.

I do not distinguish one from the other!

That hon member is so obsessed with commissions of inquiry that she wants. Why does she not ask for a commission of inquiry into the intimidation taking place amongst the Blacks on a daily basis?

[Inaudible.]

Why do we not hear her asking for a commission of inquiry into necklace murders?

The obsequious flattery of the White Police in South Africa by the hon member for Ermelo, who had the floor before the hon member for Houghton spoke, was quite obvious. He obsequiously flatters the White Police, but does not say one word about the contribution made by the Coloured policemen in maintaining law and order in this country. He must just tell us what he, his party and the AWB have to say about Coloured policemen and their contribution in this country. I should like to hear what they have to say, Mr Chairman.

I should also like to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for the very difficult task they are carrying out so competently. The new Commissioner of Police, Gen De Wit, is someone one really can take a liking to. He is a practical policeman. He has both feet firmly on the ground. One can talk to him.

Mr Chairman, the actual matter I want to speak about today involves the question of stock theft in South Africa. Stock theft is one of the oldest offences in the annals of this country’s history. At the moment, however, stock theft has increased to such an extent that it has become a serious threat to the survival of our farmers. The contribution of the Police to the combating of stock theft is appreciated. The 46 stock-theft units in South Africa are doing a wonderful job. We sincerely thank the Commissioner and the hon the Minister for that. There are seven of these units in the Transvaal, six in the Free State, fifteen in Natal and eighteen in the Cape. We know these units are appreciated. They are the farmer’s best friend.

Let us take a somewhat closer look at this problem, Mr Chairman. It appears that in the past year 16 432 head of cattle were stolen in South Africa. A total of 32 992 sheep were also stolen during the same period. In cash terms we talking about almost R16 million as far as cattle are concerned, whilst value of the sheep that have been stolen is R4 million. So here we are dealing with a sum of R20 million. That is what needs to be protected here. If we divide up these thefts amongst the various provinces, it appears that almost half of the total number of cattle are stolen in Natal. The largest number of sheep, on the other hand, are stolen in the Cape. The record of the Police in regard to the recovery of stolen livestock is nevertheless an excellent one. They have recovered about half of the stolen cattle. We are grateful for that. Of the stolen sheep—sheep are of course far more difficult to trace—about a third have been recovered. I must say that our farmers must realise that neither the Police nor the stock-theft units are there to act as herdsmen. I want to make that clear to the farmers, Sir. A major percentage of the farmers in South Africa act in a responsible way, but there is a small group of farmers who think the Police and the stock-theft units are there to act as herdsmen. In the process time is wasted. The effective employment of these units is vital. The problem of stock theft should be combated by both the Police and the farmers.

The farmers want to assist the Police, and that is why we want the Police to listen to the ways in which the farmers say they are willing to assist them. In my part of the world for example, which is a very mountainous region, the farmers drive around at night patrolling the area at their own cost. Stock thieves drive away the stolen livestock in lorries. That has indeed become a very iniquitous situation. How can the farmers assist the Police? Firstly they can do so by exercising proper control. On untenanted farms they must also exercise control over the livestock on a daily basis. They must have reliable herdsmen, because in the majority of the theft cases the herdsmen are in collusion with the stock thieves. The time that elapses after the theft is also very important. It is no use only reporting a theft to the Police a month or two later and then expecting them to recover the stolen livestock. Cattle should be branded. Roads should be patrolled, and if the Police cannot do so on their own, the farmers should assist them. Poor fencing does not assist in combating that problem either. There should be regular livestock counts, and the illegal immigrants whom the farmers employ as herdsmen create a further problem too.

If we ask how the Police can help the farmers—regular discussions are, in fact, held on ways in which to solve the problem—let me say that this can be done by taking effective action, because there is nothing so frustrating as to report a theft and have the Police respond three days after the event. In the mountainous areas near Vryheid—the Commissioner knows about this—we should perhaps make more use of helicopters to trace those who have escaped and who disappear into the ravines.

If someone’s shop is broken into in the towns, virtually the whole Police Force is mobilised. When the shop door is opened, everyone in the town is there. We expect the same action to be taken on the farms, even if this is more difficult. Thousands of rands are involved in this, and we want to see the same action taken. The Police should listen to the proposals made to them by the farmers, by way of the farmers’ associations and the Agricultural Union, about methods of rendering assistance in the combating of this major problem in this country. I do not think I can over-emphasise the importance of this to the farmers; we want to assist the Police, but they must assist us too. This problem is being aggravated to such an extent that some of the farmers are being forced from their farms, and I am specifically referring to farmers farming in the border areas of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister very sincerely for the extremely enjoyable party we attended yesterday evening, and at the same time pay tribute, on behalf of this side of the Committee, to the nameless men and women in blue. We appreciate their services, and without them this country would simply not be a place fit to live in.

I want to confine myself to the question of the theft of firearms. I want to express concern at the fact that approximately 10 000 firearms are stolen annually. That is a huge number, and one’s blood runs cold at the thought of these 10 000 firearms each year falling into the hands of the wrong people, for example people committing crimes of robbery and murder. My party is strongly in favour of measures to combat the loss of these firearms.

It is also necessary, however, to clarify the measures. In South Africa there are approximately one million people legally in possession of firearms, and they must know the exact meaning of negligence which could lead to steps being taken against them. In my view the public is entitled to clear guidelines on this issue. I should like to refer to the position of the man in the street who is entitled to possess a firearm and use it for the purpose of self-protection. As we all do, he runs the risk of losing his firearm and consequently, owing to negligence, being declared unfit to possess a firearm.

Section 11 (1) (d) of the Arms and Ammunition Act very clearly provides that if one is in lawful possession of a firearm which is lost through negligence, the Commissioner may, with the concurrence of the Minister, declare one to be unfit to possess an arm. In other words, this is a matter of “negligence”. I should like to say a few words about this, because I am of the opinion that at the moment there are no clear guidelines about negligence in this context. It is a difficult subject, because basically it is a subjective test, since it depends how the person taking the decision evaluates the particular circumstances.

There is a degree of confusion in court decisions involving negligence. There is also a degree of confusion and inconsistency, among the police themselves, about the implementation of this principle. What is more, there is conflict and confusion between what the courts regard as negligent behaviour and what the police themselves regard as being negligent.

I merely want to point out that the one who ultimately suffers is the one who has lost his firearm. Even though he was perhaps not really negligent, confusion could have led to the loss of the firearm.

I should like to refer to a report in Die Vaderland of 7 August. According to this report a former rugby Springbok named Prentiss lost his firearm. He had it in a bag at a restaurant, and after a short absence returned to find that his firearm was missing. The court found him guilty of having lost his revolver owing to negligence. The court nevertheless decided that he could keep his firearm, even though he had been found guilty of negligence.

I had another case—I have taken it up with the hon the Minister—of someone who had lost his firearm in different circumstances, definitely not indicative of negligence. He was declared unfit to possess firearms for a period of five years and had all his firearms confiscated.

There is a police document that one has to sign, giving an undertaking that one will keep one’s firearm properly locked up at all times if one is not carrying it on one’s person. There is consequently no other possibility. In my view that is not desirable, because whilst I am sleeping I surely cannot hitch my firearm to my pyjama pants. I might possibly want to keep it under my pillow, but according to this document I may not do so.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has ever lost a firearm as a result of theft and, if so, what the circumstances were?

Sir, I have only half a minute left. I lost quite a few firearms when my home was broken into. They were properly locked up. The police investigated the matter and did not find me guilty of negligence. At the moment I possess approximately 16 firearms and a safe in which they are locked up. [Interjections.]

I am being told to resume my seat, but in conclusion I want to ask that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Security Services so that relevant guidelines on negligence can be determined. In the meantime the hon the Minister should ask the police to view all cases in a very sympathetic light.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Overvaal. There were two questions in particular which came to mind while I was listening to the CP speakers, and especially to the hon member for Ermelo. I wonder whether they would also give the Police the necessary support if it were necessary for them to act against rightwing radicals. I hope the next CP speaker will reply to this.

I also want to put this question to the hon member for Ermelo: Who all are responsible for our protection? Has he ever given thought to the hundreds of Black, Coloured and Indian policemen and policewomen who help every day to maintain law and order in this country and often risk their lives in doing so? Does he also give them his support?

In addition I want to tell the hon the Minister at once that I have gratefully taken cognisance that the erection of a new police station for Umbilo has already been approved in principle. The inhabitants of Umbilo would truly appreciate it if the planning phase could receive urgent attention because Umbilo has a great need for a new building and the facilities that go with it.

†I had the privilege to attend the launching of the neighbourhood watch in one municipal ward in my constituency on 12 August which was attended by more than 700 residents. The concept of neighbourhood watch was born in the USA during the seventies. In 1983 it was introduced into the United Kingdom and today there are nearly 500 neighbourhood watch schemes in London and as many as 200 schemes are being set up each month. At least one insurance company in London has offered a 5% discount for home-owners who are members of a neighbourhood watch scheme. In the Balham area of London a reduction of 35% in the crime rate was noted by the police division and this has been attributed directly to the success of neighbourhood watch.

In the times we live in crime is ever on the increase, particularly domestic crimes and violence, murder, sexual assault, housebreaking and theft. The victims of these crimes are for the most part urban home-owners and the elderly whose only hard-earned possessions are those in and around their properties. The need for the community to group together and present a common front is long overdue. The involvement of the public is an essential element of crime prevention. It is therefore the policy of the SA Police to encourage and motivate the public to become actively involved in the protection of their property.

Although the organization and administration of a neighbourhood watch should be taken care of by the residents of a specific area, research has shown that police involvement forms the backbone thereof. They provide guidance and advice without which the system cannot operate.

*As long ago as the early eighties the South African Police tried to encourage the idea of neighbourhood watches, which was already familiar in overseas countries, among the South African public. In essence it amounted to a system of good neighbourliness in residential areas. At that stage, however, the system did not gain much acceptance.

Towards the end of 1986 a spontaneous revival of the concept of neighbourhood watches took place in some of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. It was clear that the general public was then more amenable to a neighbourhood watch system being put into operation.

The S A Police immediately took note of this and developed a strategy whereby the potential of this system could be fully utilised. While the police considered and developed methods to try to organise these activities a draft manual was received for comment from the Pinetown municipality at the end of March 1987. During April 1987 the above-mentioned municipality was also informed by the Police that the draft manual was in accordance with the SA Police’s approach to the system. It could therefore be made available as a guideline for neighbourhood watches. During June the chief of detectives of the SA Police also attended the official release of the manual on behalf of the Commissioner.

During May 1987 all the divisional commissioners of the S A Police were instructed to promote the neighbourhood watch system on the basis of principles specifically laid down. A police officer was designated in every police district and in bigger centres and even at station level to co-ordinate the establishment of neighbourhood watches. Active assistance and guidance was given to local authorities and existing neighbourhood watches in order to apply the basic principles in a uniform way and to prevent bodies and individual communities each developing their own interpretation and modus operandi.

Feedback which has thus far been received indicates that 100 officers have been appointed countrywide to examine existing and newly established neighbourhood watches. Up to and including 31 July 1987 322 neighbourhood watches were established. Most neighbourhood watches are still in their infancy but it can be expected that quite a few growing pains will initially be experienced. All possible assistance and advice is at present being given by the SA Police, for which I want to thank them sincerely.

According to Die Vaderland of 21 August 1987 there were, at that stage in Johannesburg alone, 20 neighbourhood watches with only five which were still in the planning stage. In these areas there was a drop in the crime rate. In the case of Lombardy East the drop in the crime rate was as high as 80%.

According to Die Beeld of 22 July 1987 Brig Dries van den Heever, divisional officer of the detective branch of the S A Police on the Witwatersrand, said at a news conference that police reservists would not be actively incorporated into the neighbourhood watches. They could take immediate action in their area if anything happened. He made an appeal, as I want to do now, to members of the community to joint the police reservists. There they receive the necessary training and can, in so doing, render a better service to the community.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by complimenting the hon the Minister for having promoted Col Terblanche earlier this year, long after his retirement from the SA Police. It was a promotion which he did not receive at the time because of his conduct in regard to a crowd of Blacks who marched from Langa to Caledon Square and with whom he negotiated at the time. I think it was a very wise way to act. It is indicative of a more meaningful approach and also of the possibility that at least the hon the Minister himself is more approachable in respect of negotiation in such difficult and tense situations as those prevailing at the time.

Today I find it staggering to think that a Minister who has to deal with law and order or the Police, could at that time have thought that the correct conduct was simply to use strong-arm tactics and the maximum degree of violence. I also find it astounding that the career of that SAP member had to suffer as a result, although I appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister has remedied such a tremendous injustice after such a long time.

His predecessor should have done it. [Interjections.]

I now want to take issue with the hon the Minister at once because his words this afternoon were rather typical of what Government members are inclined say when they are discussing safety, security, defence, law and order and so on. The hon the Minister, like his colleagues in the Government, often tend in these circumstances to exaggerated use of language, exaggerated accusations and the drawing of exaggerated conclusions from specific situations or about specific contacts which exist between various organisations and various people.

Government leaders are very readily inclined to try to make political propaganda from security and defence matters because they, like all of us, know that it is a particularly sensitive and emotional issue and that it is in fact easy to stir up the population and the general public in this regard, particularly when the background is created for them by means of acts of violence, of which we are all aware and which occur very regularly in South Africa these days.

The hon the Minister and his colleagues are inclined to present the public with one-sided versions of situations, organisations, people and so on, and they make no secret of it. I am referring for example to the ANC. I do not think it would do any South African harm to know more about this organisation because it is important in terms of our politics, regardless of whether we despise or hate them or like them or whatever we feel about them. It is an organisation which is important to us.

The Government specifically prohibits any person saying or doing anything which presents a more positive image of that organisation to the public, whatever that may mean, yet at the same time the Government arrogates to itself the right to quote unilaterally from statements issued by such organisations. Furthermore the Government empowered itself during the recent election campaign to give the NP propaganda organs the right to quote the ANC for its own purposes. I think that is reprehensible and it does not help to create a better climate for law and order in South Africa.

The Government is also inclined to monopolise and manipulate the news media. They would like to filter the news in so far as it deals with security and defence matters. Once again it is not going to help us in the long term in South Africa.

The Government is also inclined to issue threats and, last but not least, they are inclined to identify people and organisations as the enemy or to identify and define them unfavourably in one way or another. I wonder whether they are always aware of the possible consequences, and these are what I should like to deal with.

†What are the results of this sort of attitude on the part of the Government as far as a climate of orderliness, fairness and peace in this country is concerned?

First of all, it leads to political polarisation, but I shall not spend any time on that, because it is obviously so. Political polarisation to a large extent benefits the Government as was shown in the last election, but then again, if that polarisation continues it will be at the expense of the Government and they should pause to think about it. It creates tension and fear in our community, and a fearful and tense society is inclined to hide behind the government of the day, so there is a short-term political benefit. In the long run it can only be to the detriment of our society and lead people to act irrationally and foolishly.

A more serious consequence of this sort of action of the Government is that a climate is created which gives rise to irrational behaviour by all sorts of weird and wonderful people. It is a climate in which political freaks thrive and hon members must make no mistake about that. I have a file here full of threatening letters addressed to myself and my colleagues from time to time over the past few years. It is an impressive collection of letters threatening to kill us, our wives and our children and burn our houses. It happens to hon members of my party quite regularly. [Interjections.] I suggest that this sort of climate gives rise to that kind of thing. It creates the impression that certain people can now be dealt with at will and no longer deserve the protection of the law in this country.

We are talking here about hon members of Parliament who are still in a fairly protected situation, but let me refer to the case of an organisation such as Cosatu. Never mind what we think of Cosatu, it is one of those organisations which, with the ANC and the UDF, is very often regarded and defined by the Government and its spokesmen as part of the enemy.

I want to ask the hon the Minister and his colleagues what this implies in terms of the protection that that organisation should enjoy under the laws of this country. What does it imply in terms of action that should be taken against people who conduct violent attacks against Cosatu members, their premises or their offices? It is quite shocking to look at the record. Just in the course of the past few months there have been five or six attacks on Cosatu offices, the last one only a few days ago. A very serious bomb blast occurred on premises occupied, among other organisations, by Cosatu.

I suggest that intemperate language and shortsighted definitions of this kind emanating from the Government give rise to that kind of action. The Government should be careful about what they say in this regard and should be absolutely clear about what they mean when they say that somebody is the enemy, because I would assume that when a simple-minded person hears that someone is the enemy, he thinks it obviously gives him the right to attack and kill or destroy that person or organisation and that such an organisation or person does not enjoy the protection of the law and should not be allowed to function normally in a situation such as we have in South Africa. I believe we cannot tolerate such a situation to prevail.

The final and perhaps the most important question in this regard is the following. What effect does this climate which is created at least partly by the Government, have on the law enforcement agencies themselves? What effect is it supposed to have on the SAP, the Defence Force and other security agencies? Can one expect those people to pursue with the same degree of vigour and enthusiasm the criminals who have perpetrated some kind of crime or violence against organisations or people whom the Government and its spokesmen have defined as enemies of South Africa and the State? In my opinion this is probably the most serious element of all. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the little time available to me I shall consider aspects of the Law and Order Vote as well as a few reasons, which have a bearing on this vote, for the step I took of resigning from the PFP.

For a period of approximately two years I have been directly involved on a regular basis in the monitoring of police activity in unrest situations, and I believe that I probably have a better idea than most hon members of how the Police really act in those situations.

It is my considered opinion that there are certain elements within the SA Police who, through their actions contributed directly to an increase in unrest, polarisation and the spiral of violence. I am referring to elements, not to everyone.

†It is these elements within the ranks of the SA Police that have—more than any of those so-called “commies” from the Kremlin or anywhere else—fanned the flames of discontent and unrest, because of the indiscriminate and excessive violence used against all people in the townships, regardless of whether they were guilty or not and, in doing so, have chased many thousands of people into the arms of the revolutionaries, something that was not supposed to be the aim.

*My complaint against the hon the Minister today is twofold. Firstly, although he is all too aware of the fact that there are individual policemen who act in this way, he apparently does nothing or is unable to do anything, to put a stop to it. For example he is thoroughly aware of the fact that a certain Maj Dolf Odendaal, second in command of the unrest unit here in the Western Cape, and warrant officer Hendrik Barnard, are the two men who are known as the “Rambos of the townships” and have virtually been conducting a reign of terror in Cape Town’s Black and Coloured residential areas for almost two years. I personally have on various occasions seen these people in action and I have seen what they did. I have seen how they conduct themselves…

Interfered! [Interjections.]

The hon member says that I interfered. Someone had to do it! [Interjections.]

That is why I understand why these two people are today probably the two most hated policeman in the Western Cape. It is a fact, as hon members will know if they are aware of what is going on in those residential areas.

You are talking nonsense!

I want to refer to a few cases in which they were involved.

On 5 May this year Maj Odendaal and other policemen were travelling around KTC in Casspirs. I was monitoring the situation inside KTC. While Maj Odendaal had in fact given instructions to policemen over the loudspeakers to broadcast a message that the people should go into their houses and that the police would shoot to kill, warrant officer Barnard prowled about KTC in plain clothes with five colleagues trying to catch people throwing stones—in order to shoot them. It was a trap, which I think was a despicable way to behave. [Interjections.]

Because of his senior rank Maj Odendaal presents the biggest problem in this area. While one needs to remain calm in an unrest situation, Maj Odendaal with his volatile temperament—which reminds one of other politicians—is the wrong person to be serving there. [Interjections.] His uncontrolled and shocking conduct at the funeral of Ashley Kriel in Bonteheuwel on 18 June was in fact, as I said at the time, a “disgusting spectacle”.

†To see Maj Odendaal, virtually out of control and ordering his men to start shooting teargas at almost point-blank range at ministers of religion standing 10 metres away from him at the head of hundreds of mourners, who were peaceful at that stage, and who were preparing to leave the church grounds, and Archbishop Stephen Naidoo, virtually on his hands and knees, overcome by teargas, is indeed a disgusting spectacle. That is how we make enemies of the people in the townships.

How were you able to see it?

I was there. I was in fact standing with the policemen. I was on the right side of the teargas.

Were you not shedding tears?

No, I was on the right side of the teargas. [Interjections.]

It is therefore no wonder that I and many other people asked for him to be immediately relived of his duties. That was the request which I and other people made to the hon the Minister.

Although these requests were publicly refused, I have it on good authority—the hon the Minister must correct me today if this is the wrong information—that Maj Odendaal received a transfer order to Randburg from police headquarters in Pretoria. [Interjections.] I also understand, however, that the hon the Minister cancelled this transfer order after Maj Odendaal had made representations to the hon the Minister via Brig Mellet.

The public of Cape Town are entitled to know whether it is in fact the case that the hon the Minister is keeping Maj Odendaal in the Western Cape.

To keep Maj Odendaal on in his particularly sensitive post would definitely be irresponsible. If the hon the Minister does in fact want to restore order he will have to discharge Maj Odendaal from his post. There are many other duties for which I believe he would be most suitable.

†It was largely due to my intense involvement in unrest monitoring that I started questioning my continued membership of the party which I served loyally for 16 years.

Owing to what I call the PFP’s conservative election campaign, its alliance with the NRP, the antagonistic attitude adopted by many people towards extra-parliamentary organizations and the leadership of the extra-parliamentary organizations, and its unwillingness to my mind to choose unequivocally the side of the oppressed, it became increasingly difficult for me to do monitoring work as a member of the PFP. [Interjections.]

One cannot on the one hand be part of the UDF-, Cosatu-, the ECC- and Tutu-bashers and on the other hand expect the people in the townships—people who overwhelmingly support these very same organizations and leaders—to take one seriously or to continue to accept one. To be truly involved in the extra-parliamentary field has certain consequences—consequences which I believe the PFP does not want to accept.

However, my fight is not with the PFP. I still share their principles and policies, and I will always see them as allies, not as opponents. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must allow the hon member to make his speech.

Sir, my fight is with the NP Government. It will continue to be my objective to contribute towards the creation of a broad non-racial, anti-apartheid front in South Africa in order to get rid of this Government once and for all. [Interjections.]

Order!

We shall never stop the unrest in this country until this Government and the policy which this Government supports is removed, because the root of the unrest is a political problem and this Government is using the Police to do its dirty work for it.

Mr Chairman, even the Dutch would not have allowed the hon member for Claremont to say in Holland what he said today in South Africa. I almost thought I heard a member of the ANC addressing this Committee. We have just been listening to the most extreme leftwinger walking the streets of this country.

Maj Dolf Odendaal is known to other hon members besides the hon member for Claremont. This member of our Police Force has performed his task over the past two years in extremely difficult circumstances. Some of his men have even been shot dead in his presence. That hon member is aware of the successes achieved by Maj Odendaal in very difficult circumstances, and that is why he wants to get rid of him.

You are talking nonsense.

We all know the story of the respectable Dutch gentleman who could not get a dog out of the church because it growled at him. What is less well known is that that respectable Dutch gentleman was the father of the hon member for Claremont. It is not just a story; it actually happened in the Robertson area where the hon member comes from.

Eventually, when the hon member wanted to go to university and also had to fulfill his military obligations towards the country, he gave up South African citizenship for Dutch citizenship in order to further his own ends. I therefore do not find it strange that he left the PFP, because he is even prepared to leave his own country when his obligations towards it are involved.

For a while he was chairman of the PFP’s Unrest Monitoring Committee. What did the hon member then do in the Cape Provincial Council? On Monday, 24 February 1986, he made a speech which was virtually identical to the one he made here today. He said:

Then the hon member went further and said, in column 387 of the same day, that people in the Western Cape needed protection against the police. I quote:

Then the hon member went even further—I read from the same page—and said:

This refers to the violence which he said the police used -

That is the hon member for Claremont for you, Sir!

At the end of that speech, the hon member for Claremont showed his true colours. Up to that point he had still qualified his statements by saying that there were also policemen in the Force who did not use violence, but he revealed his true colours at the end of that speech when he said (col 400):

Now, Sir, we know what foreign television reported about conditions here in South Africa—an exceptionally one-sided picture! That is all the hon member wanted reported! Yet the PFP was so fond of this hon member for Claremont.

But love is blind. [Interjections.]

Then they made the hon member angry. A couple of them left for Dakar, and they omitted to invite him. That was the beginning of the dispute between that party and the hon member for Claremont. [Interjections.]

With reference to the speeches from the ranks of the PFP as well as those of the hon member for Claremont, when we go to see the conditions in Crossroads today, we are struck by the goodwill of the Black people towards us as Whites and even as politicians. One is struck by the friendliness on their faces as one drives through. Today we can walk around the area without fearing for our lives. If, as the PFP persistently alleged, the police had to be withdrawn before calm could return, how was it that the police played such a major role in the establishment of peace and order in those same areas? [Interjections.]

The hon member has attached himself to those who believe that individuals have more negotiating power than political parties. He has therefore become one of those who believe that Parliament is in the process of becoming irrelevant. The step he has taken by leaving the PFP is merely the first on the way to diluting the authority of Parliament.

That hon member’s role in the history of South African is far from over, and I want to predict that the step he has taken will later prove to be far more significant than we in this House can appreciate today.

It is also the beginning of the final disintegration of the PFP, because the real split between those who are bedfellows in the PFP, that between those who share the beliefs of the hon member for Claremont and those who believe that Parliament will determine the political future of this country, will have to start taking place from this point.

A few of the friends of the hon member for Claremont are still sitting in the PFP. I see the hon member for Greytown is particularly pale and silent today. He is one of them. There are a few more still sitting in the party and there are some among the ranks of the supporters of the PFP. The step which the hon member for Claremont has taken will force the remaining members of the PFP to reflect on the role they want to play in future in the parliamentary setup of this country. There is therefore a lesson which the PFP should learn from what has happened to them. I now call on the loyal South African citizens within the PFP.

That is all of us!

I call upon them to show loyalty towards the SA Police and to stop the unnecessary denigration and disparagement of the very same people who have to look after us in this House every day.

Well done, bore the Committee to tears!

We would not be able to debate in this House with the degree of security we enjoy if it were not for the sacrifices of the members of the SAP.

Mr Chairman, I wanted to make a speech dealing with the question of crime, the Police Reserve to which I wanted to pay tribute and with the circumstances which exist in which crime arises. I hope I shall have time to say some of those things. However, I find myself in the very interesting situation where both the hon member for False Bay and the hon member for Claremont have somewhat changed the nature of this debate. Therefore, I think I have some other things that I would like to say if I may.

In the first instance, I would like to say to the hon member for Claremont that we do not need him as an ally in the PFP and that we do not want him as an ally. [Interjections.] I just want to set the record absolutely straight in that regard. He took the step of leaving this party. He took the step and has found it necessary to say certain things. He must live with that.

I want to point out a few things so that the record will be absolutely clear. I have no problem with the fact that the hon member for Claremont decided that he was leaving the PFP. I have no problem with the fact that he has not resigned his seat. However, I think the public of South Africa should know a few things in relation to that issue. Firstly, I read the following which he is reported to have said and he can correct me if I am wrong. He says that for him the turning point was when the PFP made an alliance with the NRP. He says:

That is what the hon member for Claremont said. Let us deal now with some of the facts about the turning point for this hon member. He was at a congress of the PFP and he was the person who seconded a motion which stated inter alia:

The hon member for Claremont seconded that motion! However, that is not enough. On 9 January 1987 the alliance between the PFP and the NRP was announced before the hon member became a candidate for the PFP in Claremont.

That was the turning point for him. However, in the full knowledge that this was something unacceptable to him, he accepted the nomination of the PFP in Claremont. He did not say to that constituency that that was the turning point for him. He also did not say to the Candidates’ Committee that that was the turning point for him insofar as the PFP was concerned. He accepted the nomination, and he sits here in Parliament today—next to the NRP, interestingly enough—having accepted the nomination after the turning point came, knowing that he could not stay in the PFP. [Interjections.]

I am not sitting with you.

That is for sure! He will never have the chance of sitting with me; that I promise the hon member. [Interjections.]

The reality is that the hon member accepted that nomination on the basis—in his own words—that he could not stay in the PFP.

You are talking nonsense.

Well, Sir, if I am talking nonsense, what are the facts? Is it correct that the alliance was announced on 9 January? I want a reply from the hon member, since he says that I am talking nonsense. [Interjections.] If I were permitted to say that he is lying, I would say that he is lying! [Interjections.] The hon member must not tell me to join the Nats, Sir, because that is just the sort of stupid remark I would expect from him.

They won’t have you!

This is the reality. This is the man at bay. Let me take another example. This hon gentleman says:

In other words, he refers to people who have “emotionally identified with the struggle”. He says that in the South African situation one has to align oneself with one of those broad movements. In other words, one is either in favour of violence and one identifies oneself emotionally with the struggle, or one is on the other side. That is what this hon gentleman says.

He also says:

He has chosen the side, Sir, of those who are emotionally identified with violence. Now, I do not mind if he does that, but then he must take the consequences. Then he has no right to draw a parliamentary salary. [Interjections.] Then he has no right to be part of the system. [Interjections.] That is the truth, because the reality is that if one is part of the system and wants to change South Africa by peaceful means, then one is entitled to be here and to draw one’s salary. However, if one is emotionally involved with those who want violence, then there is no place for one in this House.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

It is as simple as that.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must come back to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Yeoville is implying that I have chosen the side of violence, which I reject. That is the implication of what the hon member said.

That is correct. Sir, I read what the hon member had said. I have only been quoting him.

Order! I am listening to the hon member. The hon member for Yeoville may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

I have another problem, and I am pleased that the hon member for Krugersdorp is here.

Not yet! [Interjections.]

No, not yet. Well, I refer to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, who is almost the hon member for Krugersdorp. I want to ask the hon member whether he is connected with P O Box 41159, Craighall, 2024. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, I do not know what the hon member is ashamed of, because there is a pamphlet from the CP which emanates from that box. Is that right?

Make your speech.

The hon member says I must make my speech. Well, Sir, he does not want to tell us whether he is connected with that box number. I understand that he is connected with that post box. I do not say he lives there; he is a little too large to be in there! However, there are pamphlets which emanate from that box number which are from the CP. I have no problem with that; it is absolutely legitimate.

However, there are also other documents which emanate from that post box number, and I wonder whether the other hon members of the CP know about this. It is by something called “The Right Books”. Does the hon member tell his colleagues that he uses that post box number to publish documents for “The Right Books”? The post box number 41159 is the same.

Why is the same box being used for this?

Go for it, Harry!

“The Right Books”is an organisation which publishes ultra-rightwing literature—far to the right of the CP, and my goodness, they are to the right! [Interjections.] Let me read out some of the titles of these books: Controversy of Zion; The Jew, Gypsy and Islam; Who Shall Inherit the Earth?—and I can name the authors—Proofs of the Conspiracy; Open Letter to Any Minister who Preaches Jews are Israel; The Hoax of the 20th Century. Does the hon member send out order forms for books to be bought?

Make your speech.

“Make your speech”, he says. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members something, and I want to make this very clear…

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Well, Sir, I think I have said enough to show where that hon member sits! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, after having listened to the hon member for Yeoville I should like to remind the hon the Leader of that party of an editorial which appeared in Business Day of 18 August, after the resignation of the hon member for Claremont. Under the headline “Reborn Radical” the newspaper stated that the departure of Mr Van Eck promised to do his party—ie the hon member for Sea Point’s party—more good than harm. Having listened to the hon member for Yeoville I think that was good advice, after all, to the hon member for Sea Point.

I apologise to the hon member for Yeoville, but I am not going to follow up on what he said, because I should like to mention two particular subjects.

*May I just say, first of all, that it is a great pleasure for me to participate in the discussion of this Vote. It is indeed a very great privilege. I have not yet been in this post for very long and can therefore speak of my brief experience of but a few months, but it has indeed been a very pleasant experience to be associated with the SA Police. I very much wanted to get that off my chest. It has also been a great pleasure for me to experience the warmth and cordiality one does experience in the Police Force. I should also like to say this here in public. Along the way there have been interesting experiences. I once arrived at a police station where a sergeant asked me what my rank was. On another occasion a colonel addressed me as: “Young man”.

Constable!

I have no quarrel with that. It is all done in a very good spirit. Those are, however, the kinds of interesting experiences I have had.

I should like to touch upon two aspects, the first relating to a matter to which the hon member for Krugersdorp referred, and that is the question of strikes and, more specifically, intimidation relating to strikes. I think it is necessary, in this Committee this afternoon, for us to touch upon a specific matter relating to the question of strikes, because the SA Police find themselves involved when strikes take place. I think it is necessary for us to make certain pronouncements about this.

The involvement of the SA Police in the labour field should be judged in accordance with the openly declared objectives of the revolutionaries and radicals, ie the mobilisation of the South African labour force for revolutionary purposes.

The most important revolutionary and radical organisations involved in this are the ANC, the SA Communist Party and the Sactu Alliance, and also organisations such as the UDF, Azapo, the PAC and the Marxist Workers Tenancy of the ANC.

The ANC openly declares the so-called national freedom struggle to be dependent on obtaining the support of the Black workers and trade unions. The ANC, and also the other revolutionary and radical organisations, foresee that as soon as the Black workers are mobilised under their wing, they will be able to disrupt the economy and political stability of the RSA at will.

The first step towards mobilising the workers is the establishment of one trade union or trade union group for each industry. The Congress of South African Trade Unions, or Cosatu, to which the hon member for Green Point referred—I shall come back to that in a moment—endeavours to achieve the same objective, having succeeded in amalgamating several trade unions and reducing the number of trade unions in a number of industries from 35 to 13 trade union groupings. This is in line with the aim expressed by the ANC.

If the establishment of one trade union in each industry were aimed at increasing the negotiating power of the workers when it came to benefits and so on, and this negotiation power were handled in a responsible fashion, no one would have any objection—let me make that clear—to such developments in the labour field. The revolutionary and radical forces, however, have other motives, and they are, on the one hand, to damage the economy of the Republic and, on the other, to exert political pressure on the Government, with the ultimate aim of overthrowing the existing machine of State.

In the literature of the SACP, the ANC and Cosatu it is openly stated that the mobilisation of the workers is aimed at a long-drawn-out strike. We also saw this, with the recent miners’ strike, in the statements specifically made by Cosatu in this regard.

Against the background of the revolutionary aims described above, the SA Police cannot but become involved and monitor the situation in the labour sphere to a certain extent. If necessary, action is also taken against individuals who contravene the law in this regard. Normally the police do not involve themselves in labour disputes, because in the first place a labour dispute is an aspect involving, or a relationship between, employer and employee in which trade union involvement is, in fact, also permissible.

A provision of the Labour Relations Act regulates the relevant labour relations. The view of the legislature is also that there are only two parties involved in a dispute between employers and employees about normal labour matters.

Experience has taught us, however, that labour disputes contain an emotional element that can easily degenerate into violence and endanger life and property. With this in mind, the SA Police is compelled to take note of labour disputes, and strikes arising from disputes, so as to be prepared for any eventuality. Liaison between employers and the police does take place when labour disputes are being dealt with, but this is always done on a professional basis, without siding with one party or the other. The police are quite aware of the fact that labour disputes are extremely tense and delicate situations involving employers and employees.

The larger employers have their own security staff, but for smaller organisations situations often become unmanageable and employers are compelled to call upon the assistance of the SA Police in an effort to protect life and property.

In this connection I want to emphasise an aspect to which the hon member for Krugersdorp specifically referred, ie the increasing degree to which forced strikes are being initiated by way of intimidation, whether the strikes are legal or illegal. Workers who do not want to participate in the strikes are intimidated by striking workers who force them to stay away from work. In many cases intimidation manifests itself in acts of violence and there are cases of murder and aggravated assault. One could say that in many cases strikes could not take place without the use of intimidation, and I think there are examples in the recent past to which we could refer in support of this statement.

In such cases it is the task of the SA Police to take action. According to the monitoring done by the police, in the RSA there is an increasing frequency of strikes involving trade unions. Over the past year, up to the end of June of this year, there have been approximately 1 156 strikes in the Republic. This gives one an average of approximately 96 strikes per month over this period.

An unstable security situation in the labour field inevitably has nation-wide repercussions. Against that background we must also view the nation-wide state of emergency, which was necessary to regulate activities in the labour field as far as these related to the subversion of public order. When, under the guise of labour practices, activities take place which endanger the security of the public and which are a danger to public order and lead to the state of emergency being prolonged, the Police have to intervene. It must be made very clear, however, that action has never been taken, and will never be taken, against any trade union leader or trade union member engaged in legal trade union activities. Action has always been taken because of a contravention of the law or on the grounds of conduct necessitating action in terms of legal provisions. The SA Police can never neglect the task imposed upon it by law, and as long as activities endangering the State take place under the guise of recognised labour practices and labour disputes endanger law and order, the police will unfortunately have to take action in the labour sphere with a view to doing their job.

Secondly I should like to deal with a reference made by the hon member for Houghton. The hon member referred to a speech which was apparently quoted. I have not read the quoted speech and can therefore not comment on it. I would nevertheless very much like to let the hon member have a copy of the relevant speech. Of course I do not have it here with me. I would nevertheless very much like to send her a copy. I am quite certain that as far as those specific aspects are concerned, she will agree with the content of the speech. If she has any problem, however, with my saying that we are a democratically elected Parliament, I am afraid I cannot understand her problem at all. Let me then say that she should rather vacate her seat.

I am talking about the fact that the majority of the population do not have the vote. That is what I am saying.

Mr Chairman, I cannot debate the issue with the hon member for Houghton at the moment. I would, however, very much like to make the aforementioned speech available to her. I can also give her a further assurance. I am now referring to the event at Wentworth, in Durban, where I had a chance to be present at a passing-out parade. Incidentally, it was a wonderful occasion. I would be very glad if she would do me the honour of accompanying me next time. In fact, she could attend all the other passing-out parades too. They are wonderful occasions.

On the specific occasion at which I made the speech to which the hon member referred, I referred to the “rule of law” and the system of democratically elected members of Parliament. There were, amongst others, legal men present on that occasion. I am not going to mention their names here now; it is not necessary. Two of those legal men specifically came to me afterwards and congratulated me on what I said in my speech. I can say this here now, because I did not write the speech. I was, however, very glad to deliver the speech there.

[Inaudible.]

I should like to debate the issue with the hon member, because I think I know what the “rule of law” is all about. It is nevertheless unnecessary for us to attempt to iron out matters here and now.

What about detention without trial?

I am going to speak about that now. That is quite correct, Sir. The hon member says I am going to speak about detention without trial.

The hon member for Houghton made a few statements about that subject to which I should like to refer. She also raised specific complaints about the hon the Minister’s reference to the DPSC’s distortion of the facts. The hon member had some complaints about that. She went on to say that we should give the detainees the necessary protection.

Of course!

That has, of course, previously been dealt with here. I nevertheless think it is necessary for us to place it on record once more. It is necessary for us to note once more the measures embodied in the emergency regulations for protecting the position of detainees. It is therefore a question of the restrictions placed on the police and all other law-enforcement agencies when it comes to their conduct in given circumstances. I think it is necessary, for both local and overseas consumption, for us again to place on record what, in fact, all these restrictions are. The hon member knows what they are. I am nevertheless going to repeat this for the sake of the record.

Let us take note of the following. There is the Internal Security Act which lays down specific provisions with regard to the detention of those detained in terms of section 29 (1). The hon member is familiar with them. Then there are specific provisions relating to detainees in terms of emergency regulation No 3. On 11 June of this year the hon the Minister of Justice, in terms of the emergency regulations, again ratified that list of regulations and provisions relating to detainees. It contains provisions relating to the circumstances in which, amongst others, detainees should be detained in terms of emergency regulation No 3. The provisions it contains relate, amongst other things, to certain matters. It prescribes that someone shall not be detained for more than 14 days without the permission of the Commissioner of Police or the Divisional Commissioner of Police. The hon member Houghton knows about that. Then there are the references to sections 82 and 83 of the Prisons Act in which it is specifically provided that everything applicable to an awaiting-trial prisoner shall be made equally applicable to a detainee in terms of the emergency regulations. This applies in terms of the provision which, I think, was issued by the hon the Minister of Justice on 26 June. Amongst other things this contains the following: Lenient provisions and rules for detainees relating to the following matters—letters, visits and food; prison garb; mutual social intercourse amongst prisoners; searching; stationery and reading matter for prisoners; personal possessions; private property and so on. What is also very important, of course, is emergency regulation No 4, which was promulgated on 26 June and which contains specific provisions relating to medical treatment. I do not have the time to quote all these provisions in detail now, although I would like to do so.

In my opinion it is necessary for one to have this on record as a whole in order to deal with all this criticism.

What has any of that got to do with the sort of interrogations that take place and that I have mentioned here this evening?

I am coming to that. I am just referring to the full record, but I am coming to that as well.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member apparently does not want to hear of the good things that are happening or about the specific restrictions placed on action that is taken.

Order! There is a loud drone of voices in the Committee and it must stop. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, in connection with allegations relating to action taken against detainees, may I again remind the hon member that the hon the Minister of Justice requested the Judge President in his province to designate one or more judges of the Supreme Court specifically to hear any complaints, requests, etc, relating to detainees and to report on this to the Commissioner of the SA Police. That hon members knows that in the Transvaal she can approach Mr Justice Goldstein, in Natal Mr Justice Kumleben, and in each of the other provinces a specific judge and ask their advice about their experiences when visiting detainees in prison.

In my opinion, by disseminating this kind of information abroad, the hon member is unfortunately participating—I do not want to accuse her of wilfulness—in the sort of irresponsible criticism that one encounters in the ranks of the DPSC and others of their ilk.

On the question of detention I specifically want to make the following point. The hon the Minister of Law and Order gave a certain police officer specific instructions to give special attention to the cases of any juveniles under the age of 18 years and to advise the hon the Minister, on an on-going basis, of the necessity for the further detention of such juveniles. Wherever possible juveniles are released into the care of their parents and/or local clergymen. The hon the Minister has already said that in public; I am confirming it here once more. In my view it is extremely important for that officer to report to the hon the Minister on a regular basis, keeping the hon the Minister up to date, specifically in regard to the consideration of any case involving the detention of juveniles of 18 years and younger.

†As regards complaints of supposed assaults by Security Force members—Police in particular—on detainees detained under the emergency regulations, I should like to say that of the total number of detainees, including those who were detained under the first state of emergency which ended in March 1986, a limited number complained of being assaulted while in custody. Of these complaints, nearly 68% were found to be either false, undetected or withdrawn. A number of cases are still under investigation, and are at present awaiting the Attorney-General’s decision. So far, in only 1,4% of the reported cases were members of the Security Forces charged for what were mainly minor offences.

There are indications that detainees are being forced by radicals to bring charges of assault and torture against the Security Forces with the purpose of vilifying and discrediting the Security Forces. Telling examples of this are the unfounded allegations by two youthful detainees whose names have been mentioned here, Lydia Babelishwa and Reuben Makundu, which were sent out into the world by the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee. This prompted the hon the Minister of Law and Order to issue a Press statement that was referred to in this Committee earlier this afternoon.

Since the start of the unrest in September 1984, youths and even children have been playing leading roles in the commission of acts of violence. The fact that youths and children are easily influenced has been ruthlessly exploited by the radicals for their own gain. These atrocities and acts of lawlessness by the youth are inexcusable, and the SA Police are still continuing their investigations to expose the guilty and bring them before court for punishment. The State dare not allow atrocities committed by the youth and children to go unpunished. I am quite sure the hon member will agree with me on that.

Absolutely.

One of the objectives of the detention of the youth and children under the emergency regulations is to protect the community against these lawless elements. Where it is clearly indicated that parents or other members of the community can exercise the necessary control over children or the youth, they are released into the care of such a parent or member of the community.

It must be stressed that the State is not unsympathetic towards the youth and children in particular but is, at the same time, responsible for the safety of the public.

*I should now like to make one or two points in this connection. The sensitivity surrounding the detention of juveniles—here we are speaking specifically of those of 18 years of age and younger—in terms of the emergency regulations has repeatedly been stated in public. It should be realised that depriving a child of his freedom is not only a traumatic experience for the child concerned, because also creates negative emotional perceptions in the parents and the community at large. Unfortunately, however, the fact of the matter is that when children are guilty of atrocities such as necklace murders and stoning, amongst other things, this poses a threat to all law-abiding people in the community. From an educational point of view such a situation is quite unacceptable. The Government has a bounden duty to ensure that juveniles, in this case the detainees, but also the community as a whole, are protected from and safeguarded against such atrocities. The negative effect of such atrocities on a child is obvious, and as parents we are all deeply concerned about this specific matter.

In every case of a juvenile being detained, the case is judged on merit. Where alternative steps can be taken, for example those involving parental care or dealing with a child in terms of the Children’s Act, there is no hesitation in implementing those steps. That is why each case is continually reassessed, and when there is no longer any need for detention, there is no hesitation in adopting an alternative course.

Lastly I just want to refer to the hon member for Houghton’s allegation about atrocities. The hon member surely knows that she has the right to lodge complaints about that at any time. I have indicated to her that every case is investigated if complaints are received. I have also given her the statistics to indicate that in only 1,4% of the cases was it decided to prosecute and were the necessary steps taken in the normal way, in other words by way of normal court procedures. I think it is time for the hon member to put this aside for a while and realise that this is being used, by people who are in fact the enemies of our country, in an effort to incite people, because it goes without saying that it is very easy for children to be used to incite people. I want to ask the hon member to allow us to stop debating this subject now. Whenever she has any reliable information or any proof at her disposal, she has every right to submit this for thorough investigation. There are certain channels for doing so.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is to be congratulated and thanked for his dynamic approach and action in appointing a commission which is in the interests of all South Africans.

I also want to congratulate Gen Hennie de Witt on his appointment as Commissioner of the South African Police. He is a specialist policeman and a gentleman.

The motto of our country is ex unitate vires—from unity comes strength. That unity which is the very cornerstone of this nation, a nation born in bewildering diversity and complexity, is under assault on all fronts. The first line of defence, the preservation of the life, limb and property of all our peoples, is what I call the thin blue line of the South African Police. Just how much this nation owes to the SA Police—many of whose members have made the supreme sacrifice to preserve our liberty—who continue to toil ceaselessly day and night to combat crime, cannot be quantified. One thing is clear: Without the SA Police I very much doubt whether any law and order would exist here today.

Regrettably, apart from being the first line of defence, the SA Police is also the first line of attack by terrorists; by uninformed people whose sole task in life seems to be to inject as much venom as possible into the corporate body of the SA Police; and last but not least, by criminals and forces which seek to politicise the Police. The roll of policemen who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty is a long one. The total number for the period 1913 to 1987 is a staggering 938.

The Police are here to protect all people without fear, favour or prejudice. They are here to enforce laws duly enacted by Parliament and other lawful authorities whether they agree with them or not. The Police have not been slow to respond to the revolting wave of attacks on our senior citizens.

Special registers have been established at police stations and policemen on patrol drop in on these folk from time to time to see if they are alright and to assess the possible threat to their security. Inevitably this means again an even greater demand on the SA Police’s manpower resources.

It is in this area that I see the Police Reserve making a valuable contribution protecting the areas they know best and the people they know best. For such a system to work properly, more people must come forward to join the Police Reserve and help fight crime coupled obviously with the setting up of neighbourhood crime watch organisations. The days of non-involvement are over.

On a recent visit to the vice dens and problem areas of central Johannesburg and Hillbrow with the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order to see and get firsthand information on what needs to be done, I witnessed the most appalling scenes of decadence and debauchery. Children as young as 13 years were lying around in a drunken or drugged stupor; prostitutes touting for trade; drunken orgies—scenes enough to turn the stomach of any decent citizen. As the hon the Minister rightly remarked at the time: “The Police are doing their best to control these seedy palaces of lust but ultimately the answer still lies with the community itself. ”

One wonders why licences for such establishments are so readily granted by city councils and why licences are not revoked on the recommendation of the Police. At the heart of it all lies the problem of licensing procedures and lack of inspection and on-going policing.

The Police by themselves cannot solve a problem of this magnitude. It is time for every decent citizen to take action and then we can launch a three-pronged attack. The licensing aspect is the pivotal point. By all means, if such sleazy places are what some people want, then let them open up far away from decent areas and homes.

Citizens must be taught to care for their children. The Police should have more power given to them to do what is necessary—even to close a place down and not merely be asked to make a recommendation.

I regret to say that far too many people expect the Police to wave some kind of magic wand and do away with crime, terrorism and social problems in an instant. They cannot, but they are doing their level best. It is high time that people started according the Police the recognition which they so rightly deserve and which is so unjustly withheld from them.

The very people who venomously attack the Police at every turn, are the first to call the men in blue whenever anything goes wrong. The Police must and will protect the life and peace of mind of even their most bitter critics some of whom are even sitting in the opposition benches as we have heard.

It is also high time that certain people and organisations stopped sowing division in the Police Force with false and unrealistic promises. I am speaking from experience as one of the founders of the Police Reserve who at one time had no fewer than 20 stations under my command. Contrary to allegations in the Press and in certain political quarters this was a voluntary and unpaid position. I am proud still to be an unpaid colonel in the reserve. [Interjections.]

As far as the regular Police Force is concerned, I wonder how many people would be prepared to work an 18-hour day and after 20 years still receive only a salary of R2 200 per month. How many hon members would like to be on stand-by 365 days of the year; to let their families take a back seat; to be transferred at the drop of a hat and lose all the benefits that they have accumulated; and be called out in a hurry to quell a riot or to attend to a murder, an accident or a terrorist attack? Probably none. For far too long we have come to expect too much from the Police and we have not rewarded them sufficiently.

I do not have to tell you Sir, that crime is becoming more and more sophisticated and widespread and that the criminals are becoming more and more brutal to the point of sadism. How can we expect the Police to deal with all fronts without furnishing them with the tools they need.

Mention the magic formula—salaries not keeping pace with inflation—in the business sector and ten to one one will get a salary increase or a trade union to negotiate an appropriate increment. Yet the Police cannot go on strike if their employers do not meet their demands. They cannot withhold their labour. Most of them have chosen their profession out of sheer idealism to serve and to give their lives if necessary to protect the community and all its people. We should be ashamed of the paltry reward that they get.

I know that there have been improvements in salary and working conditions and I am grateful for that. Yet I fear that some of those have come too late and they are in some cases too little.

One cannot compromise when it comes to law and order. It is the right of every citizen to demand protection of the Government against the criminal elements. For this to be done effectively, we have to institute a crash plan to upgrade salaries and numbers and improve the quality of equipment in the Police Force.

I am not making a political appeal because I am a fervent believer in the principle that politics must be kept out of the Police. Invariably the opposition will reply that the Government have put politics there already. What the opposition will not tell one is that they would probably order the Police to do the impossible if they ever—God forbid!—came to power.

What of the crash plan that I have proposed? Crime is becoming more sophisticated and more widespread and criminals more brutal than ever, to the point of slaughtering innocent senior citizens for the sake of a few miserable possessions. To my mind, the answer is for the Government to make large sums immediately available, not only to improve salaries and working conditions, but also to attract greater numbers of people to the Force, and to furnish the SA Police with the latest equipment.

In the past, inadequate funds have been voted for the law and order budget. One should not regard such expenditure as money down the drain, but rather as an investment in the security of individuals of all races and of the country as a whole. Security does not come cheap.

Given the vast geographic areas involved in the South African context, saturation coverage to combat crime is virtually impossible. Some people say that the bobby on the beat is the answer. This is an unrealistic and romantic notion. We shall have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that if we want as much protection as we can feasibly be given, we will have to pay for it.

The morale of the Police requires constant upgrading and the elimination of grievances. Problems must be identified, the entire Police structure and equipment investigated from top to bottom, and ways and means of raising pay and service conditions and upgrading equipment devised as rapidly as possible.

Among the worst grievances is the mountain of paperwork which can be done away with through the use of computers, thus effecting sufficient savings in man-hours and resulting in a more streamlined modus operandi. Clearly, computerisation will provide some of the solutions.

I believe that the computer crime cases reported in the newspapers represent only the tip of the iceberg. The need is to form a special Police branch to deal with computer crime. For this we will obviously have to get computer specialists and pay appropriate salaries.

There is a need to upgrade equipment and introduce state-of-the-art communications equipment. There is a need for appropriate input from the Police and other organisations. This will go a long way towards solving this pressing problem.

In conclusion I wish to say that we have to move fast to provide the Police with the more efficient tools they need to enable them better to perform their tasks.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and in particular to speak after the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I want to associate myself with what he said, and I want to thank him for his service as a police reservist. I have had the honour of serving as a police reservist, and I know what sacrifices this entails. I know that he has had to make important sacrifices over the years, and we want to thank him for doing so.

In association with this, however, I must refer to the reply given by the hon the Minister yesterday in connection with the position of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister rightly pointed out that this hon member was a member of the reserve police, but that is not the point. The hon the Minister also said that in his opinion the hon member was not subject to section 54 (e) (iii) of the Constitution.

I am not saying I am correct in this respect, but I do want to put something to the hon the Minister in that connection. The intention of the exclusion in section 54 (e) (iii) is that there should be a division between the executive authority, the legislative authority and the judicial authority. That is why judges who had been reservists resigned the moment they became judges, because they could not fulfil the function of the executive authority—in other words, play at being policemen—and be judges at the same time.

The hon the Minister indicated yesterday, however, that we had moved a long way away from the Westminster system. He acted as a member of the executive authority, he has sitting here as a member of the legislative authority and he acted as a judge by stating that this hon member was not subject to section 54 (e) (iii). I do not want to say anything about that, but possibly the hon the Minister was incorrect if this is how he sees the matter.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is in the service of the Government. He is a reserve member of the Police Force. Section 34D of the Police Act determines very clearly that despite the fact that he does not receive remuneration, he is in service of the Government.

Are you the judge now?

No, I am reading the hon member the section of the Act which I suppose he could read as well, if he can read that is. [Interjections.] Whether one receives remuneration or not, one is in the service of the Government.

The next question is whether or not it is a profitable position. Profit does not depend on whether or not one receives a salary, but merely on whether or not one receives a benefit. According to HAT the meaning of the word “wins” (profit) is “voordeel ontvang” (receive benefit) from the Government. [Interjections.]

A further question is whether one should be appointed to that position by a representative of the executive committee or by the committee itself. Here it is clear that the hon member is appointed by the Commissioner of Police acting as a representative of the Minister. He is indirectly linked with the executive authority, therefore, but is also subject to that authority in every respect. If the Commissioner of Police, as the representative of the executive authority, instructs him to stand to attention, he must do so.

That is what you do with Eugêne Terre’Blanche.

He must obey instructions. Provision is even made in the same section 34D for the commissioner to amend the rules so that he can get a salary. The fact that he has never asked for a salary and has never received benefits is not the test, after all.

We know of a case in Natal in which a person was a member of a board and therefore could not be elected if he received an allowance of more than R15. The allowance was R35 and the member refused to take more than R15, but they said that was not the test. The question is whether or not one is entitled to it, not whether or not one wants it. [Interjections.]

We do not want to exclude that hon member from this House; on the contrary, we think he can make a contribution and he has made a great contribution for South Africa already. We do not want to exclude him from the House in this technical way. We propose that legislation be submitted to entitle him, like members of the Defence Force, to sit here. In terms of section 54 (e) (iii) of the Constitution, a member of the Defence Force, whether he is an officer or whether he is in service of the Government full time or only part time—at most we have a part-time employee of the Government here—may serve here, but that exception is not made for the police. The legislature therefore made an exception in the case of those people in the Defence Force who fill profitable positions in the Government service, but no exception was made for anyone in an equivalent position in the police.

It does not matter whether or not that person receives money from the Government. An assessor does not receive money from the Government, nor is he in service of the Government. He is an independent person. The question is whether or not he can be influenced in his position by the executive authority.

This hon member is under the direct authority of the executive authority, and has to obey orders. He also receives benefits such as the benefit of a uniform. I received that benefit as well. I know one has to give that uniform back when one leaves. Perhaps one could ask for food. In certain circumstances one could be called up for service and could then be remunerated. [Interjections.] It is not a question therefore of whether one gets or does not get certain benefits, but there is a possibility that one can get these benefits, and that puts one in the position that as a legislator, one might not be able to act completely independently towards the executive authority. That is what we wanted to say on this point.

I want to say something briefly about another matter. A number of insinuations and accusations have been levelled at me. I do not advocate violence. I shall join the hon the Minister in fighting violence.

Are you against the AWB?

I shall try to influence every person, including members of the AWB, not to practise violence. I am not anti-Semitic either.

Are you a member of the AWB?

At least it is clear from my record that during the war I was not on the side of those who were pro-German. Can we say the same about the hon members on the opposite side of the Committee? Who are the people who shout out today, “Reject anti-Semitism”? Where do they stand now, and where did they and I stand at that time? I am not ashamed of that. Let us be honest about it.

A lot is said about the AWB. The AWB does not prevent Jews from becoming members, and the strangest thing of all is that there may be Jewish members of the AWB. [Interjections.] Let us ask the members of the NP with their Afrikaner-Broederbond whether there has ever been a Jew in the Broederbond. Can a Jew become a member of the Broederbond? Who then are the people who are really anti-Semitic? Give the name of one Jew who became or could become a member of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Bethal but since I want to deal with a specific topic, I do not want to devote much time to him. I merely want to single out three points. In the first place I want to tell the hon member that the hon the Minister will definitely deal with his argument about the question of police reservists.

Secondly I want to ask the hon member whether he has ever read the constitution of the AB, since he had so much to say about the AB. To the best of my knowledge, the AB is an Afrikaner cultural organisation and that is why the membership of this organisation is restricted only to Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

As far as the rejection of violence by the hon member is concerned, I should like to know whether he would be prepared to come out against statements of the AWB in which they propagate violence, or at least imply that they will use violence where necessary, in public.

If they want to propagate violence, yes!

While I am on the subject, I should like the hon member to explain his own position in respect of the AWB to us, and to give us an indication of where he stands in respect of the organisation. [Interjections.]

It is a great pleasure to associate myself with previous hon members in expressing my thanks to the SA Police for the great task they have performed during the past almost 75 years in maintaining law and order. We live in rapidly changing times which require great adjustments, not only of the private sector, but also of public servants and the Police in particular. Training that was both effective and sufficient 10 years ago, no longer complies with the demands of the present juncture. Because of a lack of time, however, I want to confine myself to only one aspect of training, viz management training.

We should be very grateful to take cognisance of the self-examination and research done in 1985, which led to the establishment of the Management Development Section in 1986. In this connection I should like to mention the name of Gen Ben Stephens in particular. The need arose to improve the management skills of officers, who in most cases had done only a candidate officer’s course on entering the officers’ cadre, to comply with the greater demands associated with promotion so that they would be equipped for more important posts.

The main objective of the Management Development Section is to improve the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the Police Force in respect of management, and to bridge gaps in the various management levels. There is a secondary objective as well, viz the identification of future mid-level and senior level managers, and the consequent determination of the merit of such officials in a more scientific way.

At present this section is staffed by four senior officers, who have made their mark in both the practical and academic spheres. It is my opinion that these people deserve thanks from all of us for their willingness to be withdrawn from their functional sphere in order to act as lecturers. The academic staff are assisted by a small administrative substructure.

Courses are offered in the junior, middle and senior management levels. In the junior management cadre there is a course lasting five weeks for captains, and in the middle management cadre there is a course lasting five weeks for lieutenant-colonels. In the senior management cadre there is a course lasting three weeks for colonels and brigadiers.

Because of the extensive nature of the training needed on the management level, courses in the following disciplines are offered: Public Administration, Police Science, Sociology, Political Science, Industrial and Personnel Management, Riot Control, Criminology and the National Security Management System.

During the respective courses, those on the course are expected to attend a management development programme offered by the SA Police Institute for Behavioural Sciences. This comprises the following: Evaluation and development of managerial abilities; psychological evaluation and counselling; and selfdevelopment seminars.

The Police realised that despite expertise in their own ranks, outside knowledge is essential, and for this purpose much appreciated assistance is received from academics at various universities and other tertiary institutions. In addition, good use is made of experts in the sphere of managerial development from other Government departments.

Thanks to thorough planning and utilisation of the available sources, this training has been very successful and those attending the courses are satisfied with the way in which their frame of reference is being extended.

In order to ensure that management training programmes remain need-oriented and of good quality and serve as barometers to determine remedial management training programmes, as well as to ensure that newly acquired knowledge is applied in the daily task of management, there is an evaluation of the course and the study material after each course and adjustments are made where necessary.

The following figures give an indication of the number of officers involved in management training since 1986: Junior management cadre, 206; middle management, 124; and senior management, 19.

Hon members must please take cognisance of the fact that this training is given to officers of all race groups. The purpose of management development is not to replace academic tuition. A great deal of success has been achieved since 1972 with the BA (Pol) degree, and in addition, many police officers have other applicable academic qualifications. Members of the Police Force are encouraged to continue their academic studies.

In view of the present political and social milieu, a unique managerial ability is expected of officers of the SA Police. Modern management practices are the instruments with which these requirements can successfully be met. The SA Police accepts its task and the challenge involved with great diligence and enthusiasm, and will not disappoint the Government and the population by giving in to negative and unjustified criticism.

We should like to wish General de Wit and his management team every success in this great task they are performing in our interests.

Mr Chairman, the SA Police deserves high praise indeed for the degree of success they have achieved in various spheres in the fight against crime, as has already been pointed out in this evening’s debate.

One of the many areas of success is that of roadblocks, which are erected from time to time and by means of which, in my opinion, valuable results are achieved. The roadblock also serves as a deterrent simply by demonstrating the presence of the SAP on the roads of South Africa.

Recently we have received reports of disturbingly serious road accidents in the vicinity of Pietersburg involving microbuses in particular. Such an accident took place over the past weekend—a weekend close to the end of the month, as usual—and claimed nine lives. Some of the victims were mere children with their lives still ahead of them. According to the regional head of the provincial traffic department of the Northern Transvaal, 72 people have died since January on our roads north of Potgietersrus. One can single out the road between Potgietersrus and Pietersburg in particular. [Interjections.]

It is true that the most important reason might well be the tremendous traffic flow from the Rand and Pretoria, which abruptly converges into a single lane in the vicinity of Middelfontein, causing frustration and a…

Order! Hon members must lower their voices! The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

This is a matter which my colleague the hon member for Potgietersrus has already raised here under another Vote, but reports of the most recent incident make specific mention of the fact that a quantity of dagga and alcohol was found at the scene of the accident.

I wish to request the hon the Minister kindly to do something, because this kind of thing is causing concern among our people there in the north. We know that the work of the police is very demanding and that they have their hands full, but would it not be possible, by means of an intensified roadblock campaign or perhaps other more ingenious measures the Police might come up with, effectively to eradicate this evil which, judging from reports, has been a contributing factor to accidents, so that our roads there in the north may be safer during all weekends?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg must excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I have no fault to find with what he said, but there is another aspect I should like to touch on.

On 14 August, during the discussion of the Vote of the State President, the hon member for Losberg accused the SA Police of not paying attention to the complaints that the Group Areas Act was being contravened at Suurbekom.

The hon member called upon the hon the State President and the Commissioner of the SA Police to:

The hon member also called for a public investigation:

The hon member said that the SA Police were not doing anything about the legitimate complaints of the Whites. I must come to the rescue of the Police in this regard. Every complaint brought to the attention of the Police is investigated properly, and it is reported on. The hon member for Losberg apparently does not know what is going on in his own constituency. [Interjections.]

To indicate how difficult the task of the Police is, I want briefly to outline the circumstances prevailing at Suurbekom. In the first place we must take note that Suurbekom is a controlled area and that there are approximately 600 agricultural small-holdings within the peri-urban area of Suurbekom. The smallholdings are on average 5 ha in size.

Suurbekom is situated in the Bank water compartment and to the west of the area there are a few small-holdings within the dolomite area. The subterranean water resource of Suurbekom plays a very important role in the provision of water to the Rand, and the conservation of this water resource is of course absolutely essential. [Interjections.]

In order to prevent pollution of the subterranean water, industries cannot be established in Suurbekom and the agricultural smallholdings will have to be retained with a limited number of residents. [Interjections.]

Order! I find it very difficult to follow the hon member. I appeal once again to hon members to lower their voices. The hon member for Maraisburg may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

Bore-hole water may not be used, and the residents must therefore purchase water from the Rand Water Board. This water is too expensive to use for agricultural purposes and it has become uneconomical to do any farming at Suurbekom. An increasing number of owners are selling their small-holdings and there is virtually no demand for these agricultural small-holdings. The only buyers are owners of agricultural small-holdings who want to protect their vested interests.

There is a primary school at Suurbekom. It used to be a dual medium school, but the number of pupils declined to such an extent that the school is now an Afrikaans-medium school. If the numbers decline any further the school will have to close. There are no business undertakings at Suurbekom and only about 40% of the area is developed. There are no street lights and under the circumstances it is of course very difficult to combat crime. A house standing empty at Suurbekom is plundered and squatting is a problem when properties are unoccupied.

The hon member Prof Jacobs singled out conditions at Suurbekom during the election, and after the election too, in an effort to show that the SA Police were not taking action against people contravening the Group Areas Act and that the hon the State President is aware of this state of affairs but is doing nothing about it, because the Government wants to turn Suurbekom into a so-called grey area, naturally with a mixed school as part of their integration image. That is what the CP is saying everywhere.

Go and speak to the school principal. He will tell you.

The hon member Prof Jacobs said the following in his speech regarding the implementation of the Group Areas Act at Suurbekom…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member keep on referring to the hon member for Losberg as “the hon member Prof Jacobs”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Maraisburg must address hon members as hon members. I assume this was merely a slip of the tongue, but the hon member must bear this in mind.

In his speech on the implementation of the Group Areas Act at Suurbekom the hon member for Losberg said the following:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I inquire under what heading in the Budget Vote of the hon the Minister of Law and Order the hon member is speaking? He appears to be speaking on the Group Areas Act.

Order! No, as I understand him the hon member is describing the circumstances at Suurbekom which make it difficult to enforce law and order. The hon member may continue.

The hon member for Losberg went on to say:

The hon member then qualified this by saying—

That was disgraceful! Why do they drag his son into this?

I am continuing to quote—

He is serving on your divisional executive!

He went on to say:

Here we now have two institutions which are giving financial assistance for illegal transactions.

The hon member went on to say, and I am again quoting him:

That is all I am going to quote from the speech of the hon member.

Can you believe that a lawyer attached to the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys is alleging that a Black woman, who cannot defend herself in this House, has been guilty of an offence in terms of the Group Areas Act, although the SA Police thoroughly investigated the complaint and submitted the findings to the Attorney-General? There had been no infringement of the law and the Attorney-General therefore refused to prosecute them. [Interjections.] The Attorney-General also refused to prosecute the persons who were supposed to have sold the land to the widow Hlongwane.

Sir, why is the hon member for Losberg misusing the privilege of this House to slander people who cannot defend themselves here in the House or outside?

And he is not even ashamed! [Interjections.]

Sir, I believe the hon member owes that Black woman an apology. [Interjections.] The hon member need not apologise to Mr Bartmann. Mr Bartmann can reinstate his name in this House himself. He need only ask the hon member for Losberg to repeat what he said outside this House…

I did this time and again during the election!

… repeat what he said under the privilege of this House. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg need not shout it at Ellispark or at Loftus; he need only whisper it here in the lobby. He need merely repeat what he said here under the privilege of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to questions. I want to finish discussing what the hon member said. [Interjections.]

The SA Police have already investigated 33 of the alleged infringements of the Group Areas Act at Suurbekom. There were seven unfounded complaints, and 19 of the complaints were withdrawn. There are a further seven cases which remain for further investigation.

How can the hon member for Losberg question the honesty and credibility of the SA Police, the hon the State President, a Black widow and the father of a well-known rugby player under the privilege of this House… [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to accuse an hon member on this side of the House of violating the privilege of the House—in other words, that he abused the privilege of the House?

Order! I did not hear the hon member for Maraisburg say that he had violated the privilege of the House. I heard him say that the hon member had insulted those persons under the privilege of the House. [Interjections.] Order! Did the hon member for Maraisburg mean that the hon member for Losberg had deliberately abused the privilege of the House to attack those people?

Yes, Sir.

Order! No, then the hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, since this afternoon we have had a very interesting debate here. I could in fact call it an unusual debate. Some hon members discussed constitutional matters under this Vote, and others referred to the last election. Some dragged the Broederbond and the AWB into the debate and some of the hon members chose this Vote to settle political differences. I am referring now to the dispute between the PFP and the hon member for Claremont. I see that the hon member is not here. I hope he comes back, because I should like to say a few words to him.

To begin with I should like to convey my sincere sympathy to the next-of-kin of the policemen and women who died recently in the service of the Force and of South Africa. I am glad that a quite a few hon members also referred to that this afternoon. We greatly appreciate that.

Furthermore I want to refer to the hon Deputy Minister of Law and Order, who spoke here in that capacity for the first time this afternoon. I am grateful and pleased to have a colleague of his calibre with me in the team. He is an asset to the Police Force. He is rendering an exceptionally valuable service to the SA Police and to South Africa. I think this afternoon he reacted superbly to some of the statements and accusations which were made here and I should like to thank him for that.

I shall reply as fully as possible to the many interesting debating points which were raised. We shall examine those that remain and provide hon members with written replies.

First of all I want to say that various hon members who referred to the situation of the aged and that they were concerned about the high incidence of assaults on elderly persons.

I want to thank hon members for expressing their concern for our aged in this, the highest council-chamber of our country.

Hon members said that they were concerned, and I should like to give them the assurance that we are equally concerned, that we have as much compassion for the position in which our aged find themselves and that we, on the part of the SA Police, are going to do everything in our power to see whether we cannot safeguard the position of the aged and whether we cannot in fact protect them from these people who perpetrate acts of violence on our aged in an unscrupulous way. I want to warn those who commit these acts of violence. We shall hunt them down mercilessly if they do not treat our senior citizens with respect.

We ask the aged to co-operate with us. We visit the people. We compile lists of where they live and we visit them regularly. We suggest what they could do to safeguard themselves because we are not able—and never will be—to look after every senior citizens in this country personally. It is not possible. That is why they must help us to look after them.

I want to begin with the hon member for Ermelo, who was the main speaker of the Official Opposition. I want to thank him for his congratulations as well as for his support for the Police. We appreciate it. The hon member took the Government and myself severely to task for having abolished influx control measures, and on account of a few other matters which he mentioned.

It is in fact the Influx Control Act which caused many problems for the Police. It gave the Police a bad reputation among millions of people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Two years ago the President’s Council issued a report in which they indicated that over the past 50 years, 17 million people had been detained and imprisoned in terms of the Influx Control Act. Who were the people who had to do it? The South African Police. We had to do it! [Interjections.] Be quiet and listen, you might learn something!

That is why I want to say this to the hon member: Let us accept that the Influx Control Act was obsolete and no longer worked. Its time was past. We must move on and see whether we cannot deal with this situation in another way. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said, however, that the Government had been responsible for the state of emergency having developed in the country. There are many factors which contributed to a state of emergency arising in the country—overseas action, unemployment and the conduct of revolutionaries who see South Africa as a target because they want our country. The criterion, however, is not whether it came. The criterion for a good government is what the government has done. This evening I want to say that we had a situation in the country, and this country had the courage of its convictions to stand up and say that we were not going to tolerate it, that we were going to take steps—even though they were unpopular—because we wanted to ensure peace and security for all the inhabitants of South Africa. That is why the state of emergency was proclaimed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg North is making too many interjections.

I want to suggest to the hon member that that is the criterion he should apply. I want to tell the hon member, however, that while I was listening to him I got the impression that he thinks with his blood and not with his brain. He said the Government and the Police, and these were his precise words, “must apply the full force of the sword”. But the hon member and his party have not told us precisely what they mean by that.

My predecessor, who also put this question to the CP in this Vote, has not received a reply to it yet. We have received no reply. This debate is going to continue for a while yet tonight. Those hon members must rise and tell us this evening what they mean by that. Do they mean the Police and the Defence Force must shoot or what. They must tell us what they mean. They must not make this kind of statements and then say nothing further. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Ermelo also referred to the provocative remarks by Dr Boesak, Bishop Tutu, et al. This hon member is a senior advocate. He has often appeared in court. The so-called remarks which these people make, are usually made abroad. If we want to prove a case in court we must present evidence. Surely the hon member knows that that is the problem. Where do we find the evidence? Where do we find the evidence to prove that people said certain things abroad? How do we get it here? That is why I merely want to tell the hon member that all alleged statements of this kind are investigated, and we submit them to the attorneys-general. They then see whether we are able to succeed with cases against these people if they have contravened laws. That is the problem, however, and I should like to say so to the hon member.

The hon member was very annoyed with the Police because we did not take action against the people who undertook the Dakar safari. This hon member sat here when the hon the State President dealt with this matter on behalf of the Government. I need not say anything more about it. As far as we are concerned the matter is closed.

Subsequently the hon member read a letter to us from a person who had written to say they were looking for White policemen to look after them. This hon member said he had also heard this being said at his congress. Then he asked what was wrong with that after all. This evening I want to tell the hon member something. I want to put in a good word for the thousands of policemen of colour in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

These members of the SA Police look after all the people in this country, regardless of their skin colour.

Hear, hear!

This evening I am telling the hon member for Ermelo that if we lose these policemen from our Force, we cannot guarantee the safety of the inhabitants and this country.

Hear, hear!

Now the hon member is very indignant, Sir. He did not, however, say it a while ago. The Black, Asian and Coloured policemen also sacrifice their lives for him, hon members of the CP and for all South Africans, regardless of their colour.

This evening I should like to pay tribute to those members of the Force.

Hear, hear!

With that I have disposed of the hon member for Ermelo.

I now want to come to the hon member for Krugersdorp. I should like to thank him for his kind words. I think he made an excellent contribution. He made one point which I should like to emphasise. He said the security of the country was greater than party politics. I say “hear, hear!” to that. It is of the utmost importance that we do not involve party politics in the security of the country. If we were to do so, we would lose the security of South Africa.

The hon member also touched on another important thing, namely the question of intimidation. The hon member is correct. If we cannot succeed in putting a stop to the terrifying intimidation which is rampant in South Africa at the moment we are not going to make it through the rapids.

This evening I should like to mention a single example of intimidation. Radicals use the terrorists against South Africa to commit acts of violence. It is the scourge of our time. The hon member also said intimidation was a scourge of our time, and I agree with him. The radicals also use the reprehensible method of intimidation in order to realise their objectives. It is a further scourge which we have to eradicate.

I could keep hon members occupied for a long time with examples of intimidation with which we have to deal. This evening I want to mention one shocking example. On 22 August—just the other day—someone phoned a hyperama in a certain city in our country and said that he objected to the security measures at the hyperama and the fact that people of colour stood guard at the door and applied security measures. He then said inter alia: “Go and look in the shop. There are abandoned trolleys and I hope you will enjoy unpacking the trolleys until late at night.” The manager of the shop went and found 52 trolleys in the shop, spread around the shop floor. They were full of meat, perishable goods and groceries. Inside the trolleys there were pamphlets with a certain insignia on them, as well as the words: “Die Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging van Suid-Afrika”. I brought them along. I have them here with me, Sir. [Interjections.]

I want to go further, Sir. The estimated value of the contents of these trolleys was almost R20 000. Cheese to the value of approximately R500 was sliced into little squares at the request of the people concerned, with assorted cold meats in slices to the value of R700. I have already said that this was the note we found in the trolleys.

Moolman’s pals!

Now I want to ask… [Interjections.]

Order!

These people are not represented in this House. [Interjections.]

They are the CP’s buddies! [Interjections.]

Order!

They are not in this House, Sir. Here, from this House, a message must be conveyed that intimidation of this kind, regardless of its origin—whether it be from the left or from the right—is reprehensible; that it is going to destroy our country unless we put a stop to it.

Hear, hear!

We must all say it, Sir. We must all make our voices heard on this matter—the members of the AWB as well, the hon members of the CP, the hon members of the PFP and the hon members of the NP. Tonight I am saying it on behalf of the Government. It is reprehensible and we must put a stop to it. We must help to eradicate it.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Krugersdorp also referred to the neighbourhood watches, which are doing very good work. He made a few suggestions, which we shall take further and see whether we can have them implemented.

The hon member for George asked us to negotiate for a discount on telephone tariffs and dog taxes for senior citizens. I think it is an idea which we could take further. We can see whether we can help the hon member in this regard. The hon member furthermore put certain questions to the hon member for Houghton about the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee. He asked her whether she supported them. The hon member for Houghton said nothing, but did in fact reply to that question subsequently in her speech.

I now want to deal with the speech by the hon member for Houghton immediately.

†The hon the Deputy Minister referred to certain of the issues raised by the hon member for Houghton. He replied to her questions in relation to those issues. I therefore do not intend to waste any more time on that.

The hon member also referred to section 29 detainees. The provisions of section 29 of the Internal Security Act clearly stipulate the conditions under which a person may be detained. These provisions are strictly adhered to by the SA Police when applying this section of the Act. This fact is supported by the following factors. There are at present 223 people in detention in terms of section 29 of the said Act. From 1 January 1987 to date nine cases have come before the Supreme Court for the release of detainees. Of these nine cases three were rejected with costs and in three cases the applications were successful. Two cases are still pending. In one case the application was withdrawn after the detainee had been charged. In the three cases in which the applications were successful the Police held the bona fide conviction that the evidence at their disposal justified the detention. There are therefore no grounds on which the Police can be accused of malice or of abuse of their powers. The SA Police have appealed against these findings. These appeals are still pending.

In other words, Sir, if there are allegations that we are abusing our powers the people making those allegations must also take us to court, and the courts will decide on these allegations—not the SA Police. The courts decide who the guilty party is. And we are prepared to take our stand before a court of law in this country. We are also prepared to answer such allegations before a court of law.

Furthermore, Sir, the hon member for Houghton referred to certain other persons in detention. I want to ask her please to provide me with the names and particulars of those persons. We shall then investigate those cases. The hon member knows I am friendly to her… [Interjections.]

That still does not mean you will release the detainees!

No, I will not do that.

The hon the Minister is not stupid!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton knows that I listen to her requests. I have allowed her in certain circumstances to see certain people, which she consequently did. I think the hon member can trust us. If she furnishes us with the names concerned we shall give further attention to these matters.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware of cases in which people have been detained for more than a year in terms of the emergency regulations and in regard to which the Attorney General has already indicated that he was not going to prosecute those people, and whether he is still of the opinion that there is no case to be made for releasing those people?

Mr Chairman, I cannot give an impromptu reply to the question of whether there are such cases; I shall try to furnish him with a reply during the course of the debate.

†Mr Chairman, I also want to come back to the hon member for Houghton. She referred to 38 affidavits that she had in her possession. I would like her please to submit the affidavits to me as well. I promise her that we shall investigate each and every one of them. If need be, we shall take the policemen—or anyone else who is involved—to court.

*At the moment there are cases in progress here in Cape Town. We are really not trying to cover up these things. As I said this afternoon, we do not intend to conceal matters of this nature because we know that it would be preferable to shed some light on them. That is why, when there are such cases, the judge must enlighten us in this regard and we shall look into them. That I can promise the hon member.

The hon member also mentioned complaints she had received and which we also receive often. I now want to present the hon member with an example of a complaint which we investigated thoroughly, and I also want to illustrate to this Committee what happened.

†We received a letter from a former member of this House which read as follows:

The name of the lady in question is given here—

a certain part—

*This letter was sent to me, accompanied by a further letter from the hon member—not this hon member, but a former hon member of this House:

We then investigated the matter, as we usually do, thoroughly. On 29 April 1987 the same hon member wrote to me as follows:

I merely want to say that we receive quite a few such letters. I accept the hon member’s bona fides, but we must not go too far with matters of this kind before having made an investigation into whether the case does not perhaps have another side to it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Houghton also had quite a lot to say about special constables. Let me just say immediately this evening that the word “kitskonstabels” is a word we might as well forget. There is no such thing as a “kitskonstabel”. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon the Minister a fair chance to make his speech.

These people are special constables which we have taken into our employ, and the complaint on the part of hon members is that they have not been well trained. I should now like to tell hon members how we train them. We train them for six weeks in the following matters only: Police administration, handling of weapons, unrest drill, use of gas masks, training in teargas and teargas grenades, certain aspects of the law such as criminal law and the Police Act, roadblocks, searching of persons, searching of vehicles, parade drill and physical training.

What do they have to get to pass?

Pierre, you would not pass. [Interjections.]

Order!

All the special constables are very carefully selected and the hon member for Parow is correct in saying that we would not accept the hon member for Greytown.

After the special constable has completed his training, he is placed in an unrest unit of a division by whom he is employed. Further in-service training under the direct command of a White member of the division’s unrest unit occurs afterwards on an ongoing basis. According to the evidence there were some of these people who initially caused problems but these were solved. I am able to tell hon members that these people are at present rendering an extremely valuable service. They are only used for tasks for which they have been trained. They do not investigate crime, but we place them in Black residential areas which means that through them we have a presence there.

I receive many complaints about them. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the important work which these people are doing for us.

The hon member for Houghton said she received many complaints, but I want to tell her that we receive many letters and telephone calls expressing appreciation for these people in our service.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys made a sturdy contribution for which I should like to thank him. I agree with him that terror from the left is as reprehensible as terror from the right. We must say that loudly and clearly to one another.

I appreciate the kind remarks the hon member for Vryheid made about the South African Police. This evening I should like to put in a good word for our stock-theft units. These people work under very difficult circumstances as a result of the places in which they have to operate. I am glad the hon member thanked them. He also gave us a few good suggestions. He asked that the farmers become involved and assist the police. Again, we do not have enough people to look after all the livestock and livestock theft is a very serious matter today because a bovine animal easily costs R1 000. If cattle are stolen a farmer loses a lot of money. I join the hon member in his appeal which he made to farmers and I thank him for it. The hon member said police must listen when farmers ask for help and make suggestions. I agree with him. We must do as Langenhoven said: One has two ears and one mouth and that is also the ratio in which one should use them. I want to give the hon member the assurance that we shall listen twice.

The hon member for Overvaal asked us to excuse him for not being able to be here this evening. [Interjections.] He raised the important issue of firearms. I agree with what the hon member said. During the past 10 years 35 776 firearms were stolen or were lost in South Africa.

It is a shocking figure. The fact of the matter is that more than half of these firearms have never been retrieved. They are in the hands of criminals and perpetrators of violence, and this is the kind of thing which makes it all the more difficult to safeguard our elderly people against this kind of thing.

I want to state that we shall have to take the bull by the horns. We shall have to take stringent action against people who lose firearms or allow them to be stolen through negligence or by not taking the necessary care or the reasonable steps necessary to look after their firearms.

I have already asked for suggestions in this regard. Later this year I intend to have a Bill published for comment so that it can be referred to the standing committee where the matters which the hon member for Overvaal mentioned as well as the representations which other hon members made, can be examined.

I am glad I have received support from this Committee, and I am sure we shall receive it from Parliament as a whole… [Interjections.]… when we say that firearms should be controlled and looked after more diligently. We cannot allow them simply to lie around and get lost, as is happening at present.

The hon member for Umbilo referred to representations made for a new police station and other buildings. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon member. I wish I could build police stations for all the hon members who make that request to me. But our funds are limited. Yes, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare has also asked for one; in fact, he asked for two. We are now acquiring an old house with which we might be able to help him.

Our funds are limited, and we have to ask each other in wanting to determine priorities, where the greatest need for police stations exits at the moment. It is in the Black areas and in the Coloured areas as well as among the Asians. We can forget about being able to live peacefully in the White towns if we allow terrorists and criminals free rein in the Black residential areas. That is why we have to admit this to one another. We are making a careful evaluation of this and then we shall see to what extent we can render assistance. I sympathise with the hon member, and we shall see to what extent we shall be able to be of assistance to him.

Before I come back to the hon member for Green Point, I am first going to resume my seat. I have a few other matters which I shall discuss presently. Other hon members may proceed for the moment.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon the Minister’s speech, which was in the main a reaction to previous speeches. He spoke with enthusiasm. One can now see why he was so sought-after as a speaker during the election campaign. He is one of the few hon Ministers who at least give the impression of handling their portfolios with enthusiasm. [Interjections.] He certainly spoke like someone who had self-confidence. However, I do not intend to react to his response. It is sad that this hon Minister…

Get to the ANC! [Interjections.]

Now there is an hon Minister who creates precisely the opposite impression… [Interjections.]… an hon Minister who occasionally yawns and perhaps comes out with silly statements like that. There is precious little enthusiasm or leadership of any kind from that hon Minister. If he wants to talk about the ANC, I am prepared to discuss the ANC with him at any time and at any stage. I do not mind. I want to discuss the security legislation now. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, it is now five years since we passed the Internal Security Act. It is therefore opportune to take stock and to try to establish whether the Internal Security Act has met the demands of our complex society.

When I look back over the past five years I can come to two conclusions. Firstly, our security legislation has a major flaw in that it stands divorced from an overall political, social and economic strategy. It is therefore retarding and undermining the chances of achieving political stability and accommodation. That is my first conclusion.

My second conclusion is that our security legislation is in the process of discrediting our entire legal system; that is a fact. Our security legislation is undermining and discrediting our entire legal system because it has trampled on accepted legal procedures and thrown out the principles of the rule of law. The exclusion of judicial control has resulted in serious excesses committed in the name of law. [Interjections.]

I should like to try to motivate those two conclusions. The Rabie Commission, on which the Internal Security Act was based, took a formalistic and legalistic approach in arriving at its recommendations. It shied away from making a political or sociological analysis, and it therefore ignored the possible political consequences of its recommendations.

Our society is far more susceptible to instability and violent conflict than most others. We are a plural society with significant racial, religious, ethnic and linguistic divisions. Our political system excludes the majority of our people from political decision-making, thereby exacerbating the divisions which already exist.

In addition to all that, there is a significant urbanisation process taking place which means that large sections of our people are only now experiencing the industrial revolution. They are experiencing a disruption of traditional patterns of life, and they have rising expectations.

All these factors create a political and law-and-order powder keg which can only be prevented from igniting by a carefully considered strategy which simultaneously addresses the political, social and economic as well as the security problems in our society.

The Rabie Commission and the Internal Security Act failed to take that into account, and as a result our security legislation operates on its own like an unguided missile. While the Government’s failure to introduce fundamental political change is a major contributory factor towards instability, it would be difficult to introduce more fundamental change even if the Government wanted to do so, because the security legislation polarises and radicalises.

The security legislation has ridden roughshod over legitimate dissent. Its wide and vague definitions of security offences have enabled the State to use it against opponents of apartheid and not only against opponents of freedom. It is being used to preserve minority rule and apartheid and to repress the reasonable aspirations of the majority of the people.

As a result of this, opposition is being equated with subversion. They have become synonymous as a result of our security legislation. In his book called Freedom, State Security and the Rule of Law, Prof Tony Matthews correctly states the following:

We live in a fast-changing society, and our laws need to respond to such changes. I therefore believe that a new look at our security legislation, a new comprehensive investigation with inputs not only from lawyers but from other disciplines as well, is necessary.

It is critical, when one looks at our security legislation, to try to be realistic and to take the realities of our country into account. When we debated the Internal Security Bill in 1982, I stated that we had to accept that during a stage of transition it would be difficult to rely exclusively on common law or on normal legal procedures. I still believe that, and I regard those people who call for the repeal of all security legislation as unrealistic. Our strife-torn, complex and changing society clearly has the potential of sliding into chaos. In order to prevent that from happening some exceptional measures are needed, provided that supervision by courts is reintroduced and that the closest possible adherence to the principle of the rule of law occurs.

Preventative detention, for example, may well be necessary provided that it is for short, fixed periods and that, as in Israel, courts have the right to set those orders aside if they regard them as unjustified. Right of access by lawyers and strict rules governing the conditions of detention and interrogation should be provided for. Any extraordinary measure should always be temporary and subject to annual reconsideration.

I want now to return to the two points I tried to make initially. Our present security legislation is retarding and undermining the chances of achieving a political accommodation in South Africa, because it is not part of any overall strategy.

Secondly, our legal system is being discredited because our security laws lack legality and they lead to serious excesses.

An article that appeared in the Cape Times of 31 August clearly illustrates the points I am trying to make. The article quotes from another article in the Sowetan under the heading: “Detention without trial is bad, bad law”. I quote from this article:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, a few of the remarks made by the hon member for Durban Central cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. In the Committee this evening the hon member intimated that the greatest stumbling block to peace and progress in South Africa was the security legislation because it stood in isolation. In one way we want to lead the country towards a peaceful future, whilst apparently doing nothing at other levels.

I want to know from him this evening what is happening in the economic sphere. What is our greatest stumbling block in the economic sphere? The answer is boycotts. It is the way in which South Africa is being stabbed in the back on the local front and by the outside world that makes it impossible for us to make proper progress in implementing an overall strategy. [Interjections.]

He also implied that we did not have a strategy in terms of which we either wanted to or could solve our internal political problems. Every effort made by this Government to move forward and make contact on a peaceful basis is blocked or made suspect by those advocating violence and by their fellow-travellers. I put it to hon members this evening that it is these fellow-travellers who are probably the major enemies of peace in South Africa today. [Interjections.] Those are the ones who, under the guise of fine-sounding words such as “rule of law” and all kinds of high-faluting, academic platitudes, make it impossible for us to bring the true message, which the Government wishes to convey, to the attention of our people.

What is the message?

Order! Hon members must not turn their backs on the Chair and then interrupt the hon member who is speaking.

The hon member would not understand it, because he is looking for the message in the wrong place. The hon member is looking for the message in Dakar instead of looking for it here.

No, but tell me what the message is? Everyone wants to know what the message is.

This evening I want to speak about a matter which is more important than a reply to the—I do not want to use an ugly word—allegations made by the hon member.

The police are at the forefront when it comes to maintaining order, and they are actually responsible for the first image the public gets of the important concept of “justice”. We do not always realise how difficult it is for the police to have to take important decisions in highly complex situations. When we consider the errors in judgment that politicians are guilty of, I wonder how politicians find it in themselves to make such snap judgments about the police who have to make vital decisions in crisis situations and under critical conditions. [Interjections.]

This evening I want to state that in the light of the increasingly important decisions that police officers and other policemen have to take in given circumstances, and will still have to take in the future, we should help the SA Police to draw its rightful share of the top-level manpower available in South Africa. There are many ways in which top-level manpower can be attracted. One sure method is to open the door for prospective university students to prepare themselves at university level for a career in the police. They must be able to prepare themselves there and take a degree course focusing on a career in the Police Force. I want to call upon the hon the Minister to give serious attention to the establishment of a full-time degree course with a concomitant bursary scheme which would enable selected young men and women to study at a university with a view to a career in the Force.

It is a great pleasure for me to say this evening that the University of Port Elizabeth, which is a dual-medium university, would be pre-eminently suited to this and that it is ready and able to accommodate such a step. It is ready and able to develop, in time, into a full-fledged police academy that we could be proud of. [Interjections.]

The foundation for such development has already been laid by the police themselves. I think few of us realise that apart from the virtually 1 700 internal diplomas already obtained by the police, there are other tertiary qualifications which have been obtained by members of the Police Force. There are 154 three-year diplomas, 539 bachelor’s degrees, 73 honours degrees, 25 master’s degrees, 12 LLB degrees and five doctor’s degrees. I am asking us to take a serious look at a further step forward in the development of the South African Police.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sundays River referred to a very interesting aspect, and that was the training of police at universities. I think it deserves special support.

I now want to come to other aspects which are important and which the hon the Minister and other hon members questioned us about. Firstly the hon member for George questioned us about the AWB’s statement on violence. The hon member for Umbilo asked us whether we would grant our support to possible police action against right-wing radicals. Let me again quote to hon members the statement my hon leader issued on 4 March 1986 after having held discussions with Mr Terre’Blanche. I shall quote this again in the hope that we shall then be able to put an end to this matter once and for all.

[Interjections.]

May I have a chance to speak?

Order!

I quote further:

They certainly do not want that. [Interjections.] In regard to whether we would support the police action against right-wing radicals, let me say that we would, at all times, support police action against people who are breaking the law. In this connection the hon the Minister spoke about our wielding the power of the sword and simply shooting left, right and centre. Those are the kinds of attacks made against us by left-wing newspapers and so on. He more or less said: “People would simply want to shoot everything in sight” or words to that effect. [Interjections.]

Firstly the hon member for Krugersdorp said, on 30 April 1986:

In other words, a degree of violence is justified in a reform situation. He states:

Their leader, who tells them, does he not: “Reform by stealth”:

In other words, a degree of violence is permissible in a reform situation. It is justified, and the NP agrees with that, but we do not. We say that the police should be allowed to do their work as they have been trained to do it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, we say there are enough laws.

Thank you very much.

The hon the Minister is welcome, and he need not pay for it either.

We have always said that.

Now we know that you are in favour of far more violence.

Order!

The hon the Minister must not allow the Police to be insulted, must not allow them to be spat upon and their status to be affected. What we are saying is that they can then not do the work that they have been trained to do. We are also saying that there are laws in terms of which the Police can be prosecuted if they break the law. Why must a commission of enquiry be appointed each time the police take action at places such as Uitenhage? There are enough laws to deal with a policeman who has exceeded the bounds of the law.

We are saying that the Government does not offer the S A Police enough protection in the conditions in which they have to operate. That is our indictment against the Government.

Then the hon the Minister says that if a man of the cloth like Bishop Tutu or any one of them makes certain inflammatory speeches abroad or commits certain acts for which he can be prosecuted in terms of South African law, nothing can be done, because those acts have been committed abroad. An hon Minister of the State says that.

But that is a stupid Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

I merely want to refer him to the Internal Security Act, 74 of 1982. Section 54 (1) mentions terrorism committed in the Republic or elsewhere. Section 54 (3) mentions crimes committed in the Republic or elsewhere. Section 68 also refers to crimes committed outside the Republic, for which a person can be prosecuted in South Africa, but the hon the Minister says it cannot be done. [Interjections.]

We greatly appreciate the fact that the Police are explaining to the aged what they should do to protect their lives and property. That is merely treating the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The cause of the problem is firstly the abolition of influx control. It is not merely a question of the crime against South Africa implicit in the abolition of that legislation, because it also has to do with the fact that nothing has been introduced to replace that legislation.

Are you people going to re-introduce it?

Most certainly! We shall very definitely do so! [Interjections.] We have heard that legislation is pending on “orderly urbanisation”. Where is this “orderly urbanisation” going to take place? At Khayelitsha? At Norweto? In Brakpan? Where is this “orderly urbanisation” going to take place? [Interjections.] As yet no infrastructure has been established for orderly urbanisation. Nor is it a question of the Police having been given a bad name because they brought charges against people who did not have passes. It is a question of crimes that were committed because those people could not be controlled. They committed robberies, burglaries, they stole cars, etc. Those people illegally entered the White areas in droves.

It is not only that Act, however, but also chapter 4 of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936. This chapter provides inter alia for the appointment of labour control boards responsible for determining the number of Black workers for agriculture. So labour quotas were also repealed. The Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act has been repealed. The Black Labour Act has been repealed. The Black labour regulations of 1968 were repealed, and all that remains is the Aliens Act. Although the Aliens Act is administered by the Department of Home Affairs, there are no guidelines for action to be taken by the security forces.

Whilst tribute is being paid to the Police in general, allow me to make special reference to the security forces. In these times they are doing an exceptional job of work for South Africa. [Interjections.] We say that although the Aliens Act is administered by the Department of Home Affairs, there are no guidelines for the action taken by the security forces. Once an alien has entered the RSA, he first has to fall foul of the law before it can be determined, quite by chance, that he is present here illegally. That is the situation in which South Africa finds itself at present owing to the fact that the various Acts I have mentioned here have been repealed.

In this connection I wanted to refer to the Rivonia case. I think it would be a good thing for hon members of the PFP to study the judgements in the Rivonia case. Let me just quote one point:

Then they ended up by saying it was not a question of apartheid or anything else, but merely because they were inspired by the communist doctrine. That was why they acted the way they did.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he has ever heard of the resettlement at Khayelitsha. It took place in a completely orderly fashion, and that hon member must remember, too, that this phenomenon of people streaming to the cities in droves is a world-wide phenomenon. And has the hon member not heard of the fact that we have economic problems and unemployment which have resulted in people streaming to the cities? [Interjections.]

This afternoon and this evening there have been lengthy discussions about the increasing unemployment in our country. It is a fact that our people feel uneasy and insecure, and we would be naïve if we did not want to acknowledge this. The men and women in the blue in the Police Force are there to maintain law and order. They are there to make life safer for us. We simply accept that those people are there, and whatever they did, hon members on the opposite side of the House would still not be satisfied. At times they supposedly act too forcefully and at times they apparently do not act forcefully enough. This evening I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all those men and women in blue. On behalf of all the hon members in the House this evening, and also on behalf of John Citizen, I want to thank them.

Historically speaking, South Africa has a paternalistic system, and it has always been accepted that women represent the weaker sex, that they should be protected and that their role is chiefly that of wife and mother. To see a woman in a police uniform, therefore, with a revolver and a baton strapped to her belt, was virtually unthinkable. As far back as 1944 representations were made to have women admitted to the Police Force. At that stage, however, the requests fell on deaf ears. In 1966 The Federation of South African Women also wrote asking for women specifically to be admitted because there was such an increase in juvenile crime, incest and, in particular, prostitution. Again this fell on deaf ears. A seed had nevertheless been sown, and on 1 January 1972 the first two female officers were appointed to the Police Force. Today I want to pay tribute to Brig Duveen Botha who is actually the mother of the women in blue. In March of that same year the first 102 women reported to the Police Training College in Pretoria.

The question that may perhaps arise is whether there is a place for women in the Police Force. I probably need not give hon members an answer to that question. Women have a proud history in our country, and this evening I am proud to be able to say that I am a woman.

Hear, hear!

We women assisted the men when they trekked into the hinterland and said we said we would accompany them into the unknown in an effort to make this country habitable, rather than remain where tyranny was rife. Had it not been for those women who lifted our people up when they were down on their knees, I wonder where we would have been today. We cannot allow their hard work, their competence and their brain power to go unutilised.

There was talk this evening of White policemen who had to be everywhere and look after everyone. In reality we do not have enough White men in this country to do all the work in the Police Force. We therefore need White women and women of other population groups to assist them. The women, with their neat blue uniforms, their alertness and their femininity have introduced empathy and humanity into the Police Force. We commend them for that.

It is exceptionally important, to my way of thinking, that these women should not be discriminated against in the Police Force today. They have the same training opportunities, pension and leave benefits, opportunities for promotion and—this is important—they receive the same salary as the men because they do the same work. The only items omitted from their training are boxing and wrestling, and this for obvious reasons. [Interjections.] Women entering the Police Force are carefully selected. They must be mature women and must have a Std 10 certificate. They are subject to certain rules which they have to obey and they must give their undivided loyalty to their country, its people and the Police Force. Such women must be able to maintain their composure and to act in difficult circumstances. They must be prepared to work on public holidays and over weekends in both good weather and bad. At all times they must be an example of propriety, decorum and respectability in all circumstances. Women in the Police Force give outstanding service, not only at the administrative level, but also in the prevention and investigation of crime, routine police and administrative work, the taking down of statements, the receipt of complaints and when dealing with traffic fines.

It is true that a woman is never used in the Black unrest areas, but she is used for patrol work on which she is sent out with her male colleague. In particular she is very successfully employed in cases of assault on the aged, crimes involving children and the investigation of cases in which women have been raped, specifically because of her sympathetic approach. A psychological approach to these victims is of vital importance.

It is not only White women who serve in this capacity, but also women from other population groups. Since 1981 Coloured women have been trained at Bishop Lavis. Since 1982 Indian women have been trained at Wentworth. In 1983 the first Black women were trained at Hammanskraal.

The revolutionary forces want to employ lawlessness for the psychological destruction of our State. They want to destroy our country, and their specific strategy is one aimed at discrediting the Police Force in the eyes of the public. Hon members need only think of how successfully this is done in a country such as Ireland. For that reason it is so very important to maintain confidence in the police.

This evening I merely want to focus on a few problem areas for the hon the Minister. Could we not think in terms of more day-care units for the young children of married women in the Police Force? They get six months’ unpaid maternity leave without interruption to their period of service. Could we not consider giving them three months’ paid maternity leave, specifically to help them over that period?

Do not overprotect women in the Force, but let them do their work and pull their weight. They are competent to do so.

There is a great shortage of single quarters, particularly for our Coloured, Asian and Black women.

It is important for us to be informed on an on-going basis and for our men to be trained, particularly when it comes to dealing with urban terrorism. In this regard let me just ask what progress has been made with the mobile patrol centre envisaged for the East Rand. We need facilities, and I should like to know whether I can be given an answer at this stage.

John F Kennedy said:

Mr Chairman, although I am in favour of Women’s Lib I am sure the hon member for Edenvale will forgive me if I do not comment on her speech.

Firstly, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the hon member for Houghton regarding her attitude towards the SA Police. I associate myself 100% with those comments.

There are three matters which I wish to raise with the hon the Minister. The first concerns the apparent inability of the SA Police to deal with crime in the suburbs. I know the hon the Minister touched on this matter earlier this evening but an analysis of the statistics published in the report of the Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1986 reveals a situation which will no doubt prove fascinating to sociologists.

It appears that the incidence of crimes of passion such as rape, infanticide and the abuse and neglect of children has reduced, as has the incidence of infringements of the law, as opposed to an increase in the incidence of serious crime. I note that the Commissioner comments on the deteriorating economic situation, and mentions the increase in the incidence of robbery, housebreaking, fraud, forgery and theft. I have no doubt the figures for the year to 30 June 1987 will confirm this trend. I await their publication with great interest.

I also have no doubt that many hon members of this House have been contacted by their constituents concerning the deteriorating crime situation in our suburbs. It is this aspect of the situation to which I would like the hon the Minister to give his attention. There is an alarming increase in crimes affecting people—particularly the elderly—going about their daily business. I have had endless complaints regarding robbery, theft, housebreaking, bag-snatching and assault. Elderly people are afraid to move away from there homes, particularly at night, because they fear for their safety.

One reads of endless meetings—this has also been mentioned here today—arranging for neighbourhood watch groups to be established in our suburbs so that people may adequately protect their homes and possessions. In addition there are the tragedies of elderly people being murdered in their homes. This is happening more and more frequently, and is causing a great deal of concern.

Crime is no respector of persons—be they Black or White, young or old, rich or poor—and there is no doubt that the policies of this Government have led to a situation where the crime rate has increased to such an extent that people no longer feel safe in their beds, secure in their homes and sufficiently confident to take a stroll down the road without watching who is following them.

The current situation indicates that the SA Police are not in control of what is happening in our suburbs, in spite of the extra number of recruits referred to in the annual report. More policemen—of any colour, I must add—are needed in the suburbs to contain crime and to reassure the general population that their safety and well-being is secure. I hope the hon the Minister will deal with this matter when he replies.

Earlier on he did mention the problem regarding influx control. However, I must say that I have recently spoken to a policeman who told me that with the abolition of influx control and the pass system, it was difficult to control the flow of vagrants and criminals to the urban areas. Now, Sir, that is an astonishing observation because, as far as I am aware, no other police force anywhere in the world relies on influx control measures to combat crime. I hope the hon the Minister will also deal with this matter when he replies later in the debate.

The second matter I wish to deal with—I shall do so briefly—concerns Brig Lerm, who was seconded to the KwaNdebele Police, and has become a very controversial figure indeed.

On 19 June 1987 he issued an order prohibiting Prince James Mahlangu from, inter alia, participating in any campaign, project or action aimed at disrupting or delaying the contemplated independence of KwaNdebele. Independence for KwaNdebele is contemplated by some people in that self-governing state and a large proportion of the people, if not the majority, are opposed to independence. They regard Prince James as their leader and for him to be precluded from the debate on independence is totally undemocratic. The KwaNdebele Government has been told by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, on behalf of the Government, that they have to demonstrate popular support for the concept of independence, and there is no way that a fair test of opinion can be arrived at if one of the main players is forbidden to participate in the proceedings.

Further, may I ask the hon the Minister whether an investigation into the activities of Brig Lerm was conducted by a senior police officer from Natal and, if so, what the outcome of that investigation was?

The third matter I wish to raise concerns Father Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, the Secretary General of the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. I appreciate the comments of the hon the Minister earlier this evening regarding detainees. However, although the Government may not like Father Mkhatshwa, I can tell the Committee that he is a senior priest of the Roman Catholic Church. He has been appointed to a very senior position and he is regarded with a great deal of affection by many Catholics both inside South Africa and outside the country.

Many hon members of this Committee are members of their particular churches and they will know that ministers of religion are treated with respect. Now I must tell hon members that Catholics have a special regard and respect for their priests as they are regarded as men who have dedicated their lives and their bodies to the glory of God. I include bodies because hon members will be aware that Catholic priests take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

It is very distressing therefore to hear that someone of Father Mkhatshwa’s standing has set out in a five-page closely-typed affidavit the treatment he was subjected to on 21 August 1986 while being interrogated. In his affidavit he states, inter alia, that:

1. 1. I was left standing on the same spot for at least 30 hours—a blindfold and handcuffs were always on.
2. 2. My genitals and buttocks were left exposed for at least 29 hours.
3. 3. A watery substance was smeared on my legs and thighs—this together with the cold air caused much discomfort.
4. 4. Twice during the interrogation shots were fired from behind and just above the back of my head. I have no idea what instrument was used to fire the shots.
5. 5. A creepy creature or instrument was fed into my backside. From there it would move up and down my legs, thighs and invariably ended up biting my genitals. When I cringed with pain they would laugh.
6. 6. The interrogation was punctuated by a string of insults, most of which would be unprintable.
7. 7. One of them threatened to kick my backside; and finally
8. 8. I was humiliated in various ways.

Here we have a situation where a priest of the church was kept standing for 30 hours, handcuffed, blindfolded, naked and his genitals interfered with. I want to ask the hon the Minister what his reaction would be if one of his dominees was treated in this manner.

Catholics are outraged that one of their priests could be treated like this. They are equally outraged that, as the hon the Minister announced in reply to a question by a colleague of mine, the hon member for Pinelands, on 25 August 1987, six accused were to stand trial on a charge of crimen injuria, and the Attorney General decided that if one of them paid an amount of R200 admission of guilt, the other five would be absolved. The six acknowledged guilt but they remain anonymous. Who are the six persons involved in this incident? Are they still employed by the State and, if so, why? Were the procedures as described by Father Mkhatshwa standard methods of interrogation? If so, are those methods still being pursued?

I think the hon the Minister owes a substantial explanation, not only to this Committee but to the general public as to how an outrageous incident like this was allowed to happen.

Mr Chairman, I trust the hon member for Johannesburg North will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech. In the limited time at my disposal, I think I will only be able to refer to certain other matters.

Before I come to the matters I have in mind, I wish, in emulation of other hon members, to pay tribute to those people in uniform who give us as citizens the security in which to carry out our daily tasks in peace. I should also like to pay tribute to those members of the Force who, in the past year, had to sacrifice their lives in the performance of their duties. In fact, I see in one of the American police journals that the Americans have a “hall of fame” in which are recorded for all to read not only the names of those policemen who died in the course of duty, but also the relevant dates as well as the incidents which led to their deaths. Perhaps the hon the Minister should consider something similar for our policemen.

I regard it as a privilege to be able to participate in this debate in the House today, especially in the presence of a new Minister, a new Deputy Minister and a new commissioner, of whose credentials no one can be in doubt. I should also like to congratulate them. This is the first time for all three gentlemen, and I should like to join with previous speakers in wishing them everything of the best for the very sensitive task which lies ahead of them. In all the charges which are constantly being made against the Police—in this House too—of which some are probably justified but most are not, these back-seat drivers and armchair critics utterly ignore a few realities. There is probably no group of people exposed to more provocation than the Police. These people, who have to be the personification of order and have to provide all members of society with their constitutional safeguards, are also simply people, with human frailties and human emotions, people who can stumble, as each one of us sitting here can also do.

In the work situation in which the policeman finds himself, he is often exposed to degrading comments, criticisms, insults, arrogant attitudes and taunts. Yet he is also expected to keep calm and even to be helpful. These forms of provocation are at their worst in unrest situations, in which policemen are also targets of stones, firebombs and even hand-grenades and firearms. The policeman is then expected to remain a diplomat, a leader and to give a friendly helping hand, otherwise he once again becomes a target to be condemned by the very same community in whose interests he is acting.

We even experienced examples of this during the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill. In this regard I, too, should like to direct my attention towards the hon member for Claremont. I do not think anyone has had a go at him yet since supper this evening. In that debate, the hon member said that Black children had run away from him when they saw him in the Black residential areas. I think he said the children were between two and four years old. [Interjections.] I refer now to Hansard: Assembly, 17 June 1987, col 1732. He was trying to imply—he admitted as much—that the security force actions had apparently aroused fear in the children. I think it is quite absurd to insinuate that they had to undergo great hardship as a result of security force actions. Surely those arguments do not hold water. I am tempted to call them silly, if I may put it like that, because the hon member was certainly not wearing a uniform. I think he has always evaded wearing a uniform. I do not think he likes wearing a uniform very much.

Yes.

I think the hon member actually proved that those Black children flee from White faces in civilian clothes. Perhaps they associate such people with agitators and people who come to cause trouble.

The hon member also mentioned an incident which took place on 5 May—he referred to it tonight—in which the Police allegedly warned that they were going to shoot to kill. He neglected to add, however, as he alleged at the time in the issue of the Cape Times of which I have a copy here, that the Police then ran away from him. I think the hon member suffers from a syndrome which leads him to believe that everyone runs away from him. I think he should be careful; the ANC and the UDF are also going to run away from him. [Interjections.] According to a Police investigation, it is therefore not true… [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont is living in a dream world. When it is not Black children, it is policemen; and when they are not running away from him, he is the one who is running away. Now I understand why he has to run away from his voters after having run away from his party. [Interjections] I think it is uncalled-for interference by the hon member for Claremont which makes it impossible for the Police to perform their task, and I ask the hon the Minister to consider taking action against such interference—interference such as that which occurred on 5 May—regardless of the status of those involved.

The incident in which Maj Odendaal was involved—the hon member referred to this too—took place on the occasion of the funeral of a trained terrorist, Ashley Kriel, and it happened after the ANC had tried to hijack the coffin of the deceased. According to a video recording made there—the Police have it in their possession—it is clear that Maj Odendaal acted quite correctly, and did so after the Police had received information that hand-grenades were going to be thrown at them and that snipers were on the point of shooting at them.

Have you seen the video?

We shall come to that. The hon member will just have to try to get another turn to speak. The hon member for Claremont remained among the ranks of the ANC supporters throughout. It is interesting that this hon member was also to be seen among the ranks of ANC sympathisers on the occasion of a recent court case in which 13 ANC people were tried.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon member for Claremont should simply tell the House tonight where he stands. He does not represent the Claremont constituency any longer. He does not represent his voters either. They have already rejected him. The PFP certainly does not want him as an associate any longer. The hon member for Yeoville spelled that out clearly this evening. Whom does he represent?

Even Wynand does not want him!

Does he represent the UDF or the ANC?

Does his wife still want him? [Interjections.]

I wonder in which circles he moves. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, it seems that my time has almost expired. I do not want to suffer the wrath of my whips because I have wasted too much time. I hope, nevertheless, that the hon member for Claremont will give us the answers to the questions which I have put to him this evening.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Germiston District sincerely. In my opinion he made a very meaningful and constructive contribution.

We are at the end of the debate and still the Official Opposition has not given us an answer via any of its front-benchers and/or any of its young Turks to the question of whether it is true, as the hon member for Yeoville alleged, that the AWB, or rather extreme rightwing, publications and CP publications came from the same postbox. In my opinion they still owe us an answer in that regard.

The hon member for Bethal, in typical Eugene Terre’Blanche style, threw up his hands and asked where we had stood during the Second World War. I want to tell that hon member—he has been around much longer than I have—that the NP dissociated itself from the Ossewa-Brandwag during the Second World War. When the Ossewa-Brandwag started walking the path of national socialism our chief leader, Dr Malan stood up and said that we would not walk that path. Neither that hon member nor the CP have the guts to stand up and to dissociate themselves from the AWB. [Interjections.]

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

I do not reply to their questions, Sir; They can rather put their questions to Mr Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is indicating that he does not want to reply to any questions. The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

Secondly, the hon member asked…

Do you support the “moffies”! [Interjections.]

It would be better if that hon member kept quiet about “moffies” because as far as I know the wife of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was apparently a big…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order… [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Mr Chairman, I presume you heard what the hon member for Barberton said. I should merely like to know whether you could not ask him what he meant by that. What was he insinuating with that?

Order! The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

I merely want to tell the hon member, “moffie, maar man! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bethal also referred here to the question of whether Jews could become members of the Afrikaner-Broeder-bond. The answer is very clear. The Afrikaner-Broederbond is a cultural organisation for Afrikaners. The fundamental difference between the Afrikaner-Broederbond and the AWB is that the AB is not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish as is the case with the AWB, which states that we must get rid of the British imperialist colonial system.

Hon members have probably heard of this new kind of glue they are making these days—they call it “Afrikaner-Weerstandsbe-weging”, because: “It keeps rocks together”. [Interjections.]

I should like to come to my subject for the evening. It concerns the primary task and purpose of the SA Police—the prevention of crime. [Interjections.]

Order! The levity must first subside.

Hon members think they are in Hillbrow, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

My time has now been very much limited because of a few uncalled for interjections, yet I want to pay tribute to the SA Police for the superb way in which they guarantee not only our security but that of the community as well in Hillbrow and in the Johannesburg area. We know it is a difficult area to operate in. The demographic constitution of Hillbrow—and I am referring to its socio-economic and political constitution—is a nightmare for any policeman.

Incidentally, I should like to extend a word of sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for their visit to Hillbrow. It created a climate of hope in Hillbrow and I know that the subsequent reactions will be followed up by more police actions.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order will agree with me that we do in fact have a problem in Hillbrow as far as the manpower situation is concerned. Can we not perhaps ascertain whether it is possible to increase the manpower there by a third? Hillbrow is one of our most densely populated areas and I am sure that Hillbrow needs more policemen.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether an “Operation Clean-up” could not be launched in Hillbrow.

†Let us get rid of the undesirable element in Hillbrow, whether it is white, pink, green or yellow. We need a clean-up in Hillbrow. We need to bring back law and order to Hillbrow and I am sure the hon the Minister and the Department of Law and Order are committed to bringing law and order back to the area.

Thirdly, I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider a regional allowance in order to keep policemen in more difficult areas like the Witwatersrand. This will bring about a more stable force because at the moment many of our policemen prefer to work in an area which is quieter and easier to control. They work at the Hillbrow police station for only a year and then ask for a transfer.

In conclusion I want to say that we know that the prevention of crime is not only the task of the Police but is also the responsibility of the public. Let us get the public involved in the activities of the South African Police and assist the Police by joining the Police Reserve. We, the public, will then become part of the South African Police’s main objective of servamus et servimus—to protect and to serve.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow must excuse me if I do not follow his line of argument.

At the outset I want to place on record the position of the Independent Movement with regard to the subject of State security and public safety. We believe that lasting security and safety cannot be attained without the application of the principles of fairness, justice, equality, freedom of association and effective protection of basic rights and freedom of association in a new constitution freely negotiated and agreed upon by all South Africans.

Secondly, we repudiate all forms of violence as a political instrument and endorse the need for protecting the safety of the public and the security of the State through measures of law enforcement.

Thirdly, we recognise that in the South African context circumstances can arise, and are likely to do so in future, which may necessitate the exercise of emergency powers on the part of the State.

Fourthly, we believe that such powers should only be exercisable as nearly as possible in accordance with the due process of law and, in particular, subject to monitoring and control by the independent judiciary in order to prevent abuse, hardship and the intensification of confrontation.

Fifthly, we believe that the root causes of violence as a political instrument should be urgently addressed and counter-acted by a purposeful process of negotiation.

Sixthly, that the freedom of the Press and a free flow of information should urgently be restored so as to ensure due knowledge on the part of all South Africans of the facts and circumstances affecting our country and our own destiny.

And lastly, in accordance with these views, we believe that the lifting of the present state of emergency should be treated as a matter of the highest priority, being a prerequisite for real and substantial progress through negotiation as well as for political peace and economic prosperity.

*Underlying this standpoint there is the acceptance of South Africa as one country and the South African nation as being one which includes all South Africans, whatever their race, colour, culture or origin may be. We do not believe it is possible to make progress on the road towards a peaceful future without accepting that fact.

This requires a strategy which views South Africa in its entirety, which co-ordinates and integrates security action and political activities and which is focused on a political process. To give meaning to this process there have to be clear, general, overlapping goals. The goals formulated in terms of this can in turn only have validity if they simultaneously satisfy the divergent expectations the various sections of the population.

In this regard I want to associate myself with the speech by the hon member for Durban Central. He made an excellent speech, and as far as this topic is concerned he could just as easily have been an independent. [Interjections.] It is the first time that I have heard, from the ranks of the former Official Opposition, so strong a standpoint on the necessity of the principle of emergency powers.

This brings me now to an argument I have previously put forward here, but from another angle and in another context, to hon members in the Committee in general and to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, in particular, with whom I wish to discuss a few matters.

In order to understand what it means when we speak of an integrated and an interlinked strategy regarding security action, politics and the political process, it is necessary for us to change our way of thinking about this over a broad spectrum in this House. All the time we have adopted the same patterns of thought. We continually speak of everything on a basis of “more of the same”. We speak of the conflict and of terrorism, and merely say that we shall have to take more forceful action.

I want to elucidate this with an example.

Great civilisations, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans, found themselves unable to measure time. They worked with the hours of daylight and the hours of darkness. As the seasons changed and the nights and the days became longer or shorter, they merely extended or restricted their daylight activities or extended or restricted their nighttime activities in order to accommodate the patterns of day and night, something which obviously did not work. This was the situation until someone said at one stage: “Let us add the day and night together and divide it up into equal periods of 24 hours. ”

What I am trying to say is that to really be able to deal with State security and with politics the two have to be counted as one and dealt with as such. It can subsequently be broken up in terms of the twenty-four-hour approach. They must then both be geared to the same overall goal.

I spoke to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister on two occasions before I eventually left the party. I addressed that matter then, and said throughout that my objection was not against the security forces or the Police, but against the politicians; ie the Government, which was not prepared to view this as a whole and which discussed security action in isolation and without any integrated strategy, without relating it to reform, negotiation or whatever. At one stage, when the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister intimated that it was, in fact a matter which had to be addressed by the politicians, I almost thought they understood me.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that to accept his obligations as a politician as well as a member of the Cabinet and of the Government in a broader context than merely that of merely accepting responsibility in his role as political head of this department and, in his participation in that Government and in the Cabinet, convey the message of a totally new pattern of conduct being necessary in any integrated approach in the future which would include both these components and in which the one will not be in a position to counteract the other.

Tell us about the pattern. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Randburg an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon member says I should tell him about the pattern. I have said that the pattern involved not thinking merely in terms of security action being taken. Conflict cannot be overcome by conflict alone. One can, in fact, counter conflict with conflict, but one must also have a political approach. [Interjections.]

But the Government is doing that!

The State’s way of countering violence must not conflict with the State’s political initiatives, and its political initiatives must not conflict with the necessity to counter violence. However, in the absence of an overlapping, national goal which operates inclusively, one would not be able to formulate a strategy. The Government must move away from this method of merely dealing with conflict by way of conflict. One cannot build up one’s knowledge of English by improving one’s Afrikaans. One must switch over to the other language pattern.

I appeal to hon members to think in terms of coping with problems in their entirety. One cannot isolate one aspect and address it in isolation because everything that one does has an effect on something else. It is like moving a marble around on a plate full of marbles. When one moves one, this causes all the others to move. There is an effect which I am afraid hon members are not examining properly.

I want to make a final observation here with reference to the speech by the hon member for Krugersdorp. The hon member said we could not reject violence on the one hand and, on the other, say we understood the origins of violence and why people resorted to violence. Again I refer to an inclusive pattern of thought. If we are unable to understand people’s conduct—it does not matter what their conduct is—we cannot deal with it. It is no use saying that one must reject violence but that one may not understand why it occurs and why people act the way they do.

We can look at our own history. Two or three years ago, when I still sat on that side of the House, I made a speech in which I quoted Afrikaner leaders on the issue of violence. Initially I did not mention them by name, but most hon members—hon members on this side of the House will remember—were under the impression that I was, in fact, specifically quoting the so-called enemies of our country and that I was referring to Bishop Tutu or Dr Boesak. Our people lived by the same patterns, and if we do not develop our ability to comprehend and understand why people are the way they are, we shall never be able to deal with this. It still means, however, that we must continue to reject violence.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is not true that the reasons why those people, to whom he referred, advocated violence have changed and that there is consequently no longer any reasons for violence? [Interjections.]

The hon member must examine why they think violence is necessary. I am not saying there is reason for violence. All that I am saying is that we should determine why other people that there is reason for violence. I myself reject the idea that there is reason for violence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to react at once to the speech made by the hon member for Randburg. Initially the hon member spelled out the principles on the basis of which he and the independent movement stood. They sound very fine, but I should like us to take a close look at them before commenting on them. I get the impression that these are things that have cropped in the mind of a man who walks with his head in the clouds and he is going to stumble over the rocks of the hard realities of South Africa.

The hon member said there was no coordination between political and security action. This evening I should like to say to the hon member once again—he came to speak to my hon colleague and myself—that that is exactly what is taking place in the country. I, the hon the State President and the other hon Ministers have said in the past in this House that the solution of our problems does not lie solely in the option of violence. We do not simply apply violence. I gave a lecture on this in the caucus when the hon member was still there. We said that the solution was threefold and that security action was only one element of it. Sound government also forms part of it and it is very important that at the same time one should find a political solution. The Government or administration of South Africa is based on this very foundation. The Cabinet is at the head of the administration, but there are also Cabinet Committees—an Economic, a Political and a Social Cabinet Committee, as well as a State Security Council.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon member for Houghton is making a further point. They also combine these things. It seems to me she understands it. I think that those hon members should now go and hold their discussion.

I think the trouble with the hon member for Randburg is that he does not want to understand us, and now he keeps repeating these stories. I want to give the hon member the assurance that we on this side of the House realise that we cannot win the struggle by security action alone. We believe that co-ordinated action across the entire spectrum of the domestic economy and administration has to take place. That is exactly what the Government is engaged in doing.

I want to thank the hon member for Hillbrow for the tribute he paid to the Police. He told a few jokes as well, which I shall not comment on. [Interjections.] He said that we needed manpower in Hillbrow. Perhaps he wants to help us recruit a few reservists in Hillbrow. Well, he is welcome to help us.

Nevertheless I think he is right. I will by all means undertake to see whether we cannot station more men there. I know we have a shortage of manpower there and the people are working in very difficult circumstances. I myself saw that that evening. We shall see whether we cannot help the hon member.

The hon member stated that we should begin operation clean-up. I think he is right about that, too, and I can tell him this evening that we are going to do so. We are going to send people in there at various times of the day and night and we shall do so on an on-going basis in an effort to clean up the area.

The hon member also asked us to pay an allowance for areas where it is difficult to work while others work in easier circumstances. We shall look into that as well.

The hon member for Germiston District also paid tribute to the Police and asked whether we should not consider a “hall of fame” for the Police. I think that is a good idea and I shall ask my people to investigate the matter to ascertain whether we could not get something of the kind under way in South Africa as well.

It seems to me as if the hon member for Johannesburg North has now taken up the mantle of the hon member for Houghton as the main critic of the Police. This evening he did not say a single positive thing about the Police except at the start of his speech when he said that he agreed with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Houghton. He then went on, and hon members should have seen what a fuss he made! He then said: “The SA Police are not in control in the suburbs”. Surely that is simply rubbish, Sir.

No, no! You can talk to my voters!

It is utter nonsense! I want to tell him it is utter nonsense! Where does the hon member get hold of the idea that we are not in control of the situation?

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Johannesburg North has had an opportunity to speak.

The hon member was probably sitting sleeping when I initially spoke about the crime rate and what the Police had achieved and what good progress we had made in combating crime. I also said to him that we regarded it as unacceptably high and we were doing our utmost to reduce it. The hon member nevertheless maintains that we are not in control of the situation. [Interjections.]

†The hon member also asked questions about Prince James Mahlangu and Brigadier Lerm. I replied in full to those questions here in the House, and I have nothing to add to that. [Interjections.]

*I have nothing to add to that; I have replied to the hon member’s question. The hon member spoke about Father Mkhatshwa, and I want to say that we too have the utmost respect for priests but he should also know that this priest has in the past appeared in court on very serious charges. The hon member should just mention that as well.

†I have also replied to questions in this regard in the House and I have copies of them here. If the hon member is not satisfied, I can give him copies of what he wants. If he has further questions to ask me now I suggest that he puts them on the Question Paper and then we can look at them to see whether we can help him.

*The hon member for Edenvale said a fine thing. She said: “I am also a woman.” I just want to say that I am not surprised; that is what it looks like. [Interjections.] She paid tribute to the women in the police and I want to thank her for that because we are very proud of these women in the blue uniform. They do outstanding work and I should like to see us increasing their numbers in the Force. We could certainly use more women. She asked a few questions about day-care units for the children of policewomen, three months’ paid maternity leave, single quarters and mobile patrol centres. I should like to tell her that the land has already been obtained on which the mobile patrol centre is to be built and we are implementing this with the greatest possible speed. I also wish to thank this hon member for her fine words about the women in the SA Police.

The hon member for Brakpan made a fuss again here this evening. I do not know what is troubling the hon member, because he always used to be such a pleasant hon member. Something has bitten him somewhere and he has not yet recovered. He deals out blows right, left and centre and gets personal. There are statements to the effect that it is a stupid Minister and that that fellow is so “stupid” and that kind of thing.

This evening the hon member said something here and we want to speak seriously about this because the hon members of the CP support the security forces, and we greatly appreciate this. Nevertheless, I want to tell the hon member that he is engaged in something dangerous in this regard because he says that we must permit the security forces to wield the full power of the sword. I should like to know what he means by that.

The hon member also referred to what the hon member for Krugersdorp said and in addition he quoted something and said: “That implies a certain degree of violence.” Did I understand the hon member correctly?

Reform does.

“Reform implies a certain degree of violence.” The hon member then said they rejected that, and I thought that was a good thing. Perhaps they are now close to us. In other words, one can say that one stands for a certain degree of violence which is relevant when there is reform, in order to handle the situation. The hon member says they reject that. Surely one can only stand for less or more violence. Surely there is nothing else. Now they are shaking their heads, but what are we to understand now?

Where do you get that from?

In fact, I hear them shaking their heads, but I cannot understand it to mean anything else. [Interjections.]

The hon member also objected to the Kannemeyer Commission and said that we should not have appointed him. He said that we were constantly appointing commissions, but we have only had that one commission. There may be criticism of the fact that we had the commission, but the fact of the matter is that that commission put paid to lies about the Police which would still have been in circulation had we not had that commission. Those are the facts. [Interjections.]

The hon member also attacked me on the issue of charges against people who said certain things abroad. I never said we could not charge them. That hon member should just wake up. I said that the problem was the burden of proof. It is pointless taking a man to court if one cannot prove that he said that. Do hon members want to tell me that we shall get witnesses who will hurry to South Africa from abroad to come and give evidence against these people? That is our problem. However, the hon learned friends over there apparently do not understand this.

The hon members for Sunday’s River and North Rand spoke about training and said that we should also obtain the high-level manpower. I should like to support them wholeheartedly, and I also want to thank them for having focused on that. I wholeheartedly agree.

†The hon member for Durban Central said we should be realistic about South Africa. He then said something very important. He said some exceptional measures were needed. If I understood him correctly he said that preventative detention was necessary in South Africa. In other words, the hon member accepted a very important principle tonight. So they are not against preventative detention.

*They simply object to the degree to which we do so. I do not know whether the hon member realised that after he had been to Dakar. Perhaps after he had seen his “pals” there, he saw how powerful these fellows are. He probably thought: “We had better detain them, otherwise they will take over the world”. [Interjections.] I just wish to place on record that the hon member did say that.

The hon member for Maraisburg made a sound contribution concerning the gossip put about by the hon member for Losberg. [Interjections.]

The hon member for “Loskop”. [Interjections.]

That hon member is capitalising on something… What did you say, the hon member for “Loskop”? No, he is the hon member for Losberg. [Interjections.] That hon member is trying to make political capital out of a subject concerning which he should rather not do so.

Order! The hon the Minister must not allow himself to be sidetracked. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

The hon member for Pietersburg spoke about roadblocks. I shall see whether we cannot establish them on a more regular basis.

The hon member for Bethal really made a big fuss here about the Broederbond and the AWB. I do not wish to argue with the hon member, but my interpretation of section 54 is that it concerns an office of profit. However, he blurted out all kinds of things here. I think that that is a complex argument that we ought not to take further here this evening. [Interjections.]

†With regard to the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I want to thank the hon member for his work as a reservist. He has done sterling, excellent work over many years. I agree with him that parents should look after their children and I want to thank him for his supportive speech and his valid contribution in this regard. I will consider his suggestion carefully.

*The hon member for Yeoville made a good speech this afternoon. He really settled the hash of the hon member for Claremont and I should like to thank him for doing so. He did, however, touch on another point which I want to come back to—the story of the post-box which the hon member Derby-Lewis

General!

The story that apparently involves General Derby-Lewis… [Interjections.] The Police are concerned about the possibility of violence that could result from this. That is why we say that where it is a matter of incitement of people to bedevil race relations, it must be stopped. I want to link up with what the hon member for Yeoville said and say that we cannot tolerate the kind of thing he referred to in this country. There are too many possible explosive situations here.

The hon member for False Bay gave the SA Police a fine testimonial, and I want to thank him for that. He also discussed an important matter, namely what is going on at Crossroads at the moment. The practical test is how things are going there. At ground level we have succeeded in checking the situation and preventing it, and that is where we are winning.

The last hon member on whose speech I want to comment is the hon member for Claremont. I am sorry that my time has almost expired because I really wanted to have a good talk to the hon member. First I want to ask him something.

Take another three minutes.

It seems to me as if the hon the Leader of the House is going to give me a little time.

I read the following brief report in Sunday’s Rapport:

The hon member for Claremont told us this afternoon that he had been monitoring this unrest for two years now.

Does the hon member for Claremont recall these events?

No.

The report goes on:

[Interjections.]

That is not true!

I do not know whether it was the hon member, but I should like to know, since after all he monitors these things. Perhaps he wants to tell us. Can the hon member not recall that incident?

It is untrue.

There sits the hon member for Claremont who, as the newspaper says, is a “reborn radical”. [Interjections.] He is the saviour of this country. I think the hon member is angry because he was not also invited to Dakar, and now he is courting them for all he is worth in order to be invited next time.

Jan the Crusader.

Let me tell hon members that that hon member is well and truly on the slippery slope to radical perdition. I do not know how he is going to handle the situation, because he maintains that the Black people do not want the Police in their residential areas. He does so despite the fact that independent agencies carried out a survey recently which indicated that 79% of the inhabitants of Black residential areas do want the Police there. They believe we can combat the unrest and give them a safer and quieter life. That hon member says that the Police should not be there. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon member maintains that the actions of the Police chases the people into the arms of communism. I read in this newspaper: “Van Eck should resign seat, says 57% of the calls.” The people no longer want him, and he does not represent that constituency any more. He should rather take his things and go, and I believe the hon member for Yeoville will be grateful that I said that to him. [Interjections.]

There is only one hon member to whom I have not yet referred and that is the hon member for Green Point. I listened carefully to what he had to say, and the impression I got was that he was accusing the Government of overblown propaganda, overblown use of language, threats and intimidation. It is notable—I want to mention this to the hon member—that in this entire argument of his in which he accused the Government of these things, he did not once make mention of the other side, which does exactly the same things. What does the ANC do about intimidation? After all, they are using the necklace, Sir. [Interjections.] What is the ANC doing about threats? However, that hon member is now silent as the grave about that. [Interjections.]

Finally I just wish to point out that the hon member made the statement that Cosatu was not protected. I now want to say to the hon member that I reject that with contempt. There is one thing that he must bear in mind.

†Cosatu has close relations with Sactu—the SA Congress of Trade Unions—and the latter openly supports terrorism. There is therefore a strong possibility that terrorists are also active in the ranks of Cosatu, with all the implied dangers therein. Violence breeds violence.

*I should like to say to the hon member that he must not lay that at our door. We investigate every charge—coming from leftists or rightists—submitted to the SA Police. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we are satisfied that the report can be adopted.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches support the adoption of the report.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we are satisfied that the report can be adopted.

Mr Chairman, in the 30 minutes I have at my disposal this evening I am merely going to say that I support the adoption of this report on behalf of our party. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.