laid upon the Table:

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Eleventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, relative to the Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [No 105—85 (GA)], as follows:

V A VOLKER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, relative to the Rules Board for Courts of Law Bill [No 87—85 (GA)], as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Eleventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [No 97—85 (GA)], as follows:

1. (1) The Committee notes that clause 10 of the Bill deals inter alia with the legal proceedings which may arise as the contents of the Agreement of the Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Value Code) and the supplementary documents thereto and the amendments of the Code and such documents. The Committee, however, feels that the presumption that is created as to the contents of the Code and the amendment thereof should be amplified in order to provide for the rebuttal of such presumption in cases where amendments to the above documents have been incorrectly effected or not updated. The Committee recommends that the clause be amended to cover such an eventuality.
2. (2) As regards the amendment of section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act in clause 13, the Committee notes that it is attempted to extend the imposition of liens to other imported goods as well as machinery, plant or equipment in which dutiable fuel is used. The Committee feels that the property of third parties should be protected against a Hen if such third part is innocent of involvement in the contravention of the Act and that the clause should be amended accordingly.
3. (3) As regards the amendments to the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, and the Explanatory Memorandum thereon, the Committee is of the opinion that an official of the Board of Trade and Industries should in future be present when these papers are considered by the Standing Committee on Finance.

C H W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

13 June 1985.

presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture Economics and Water Affairs, relative to the Reports of the Director-General: Water Affairs, as follows:

1. 1. On Report of the Director-General: Water Affairs on the proposed alienation of the Berg River Pumping Station to SA Manganese Amcor Limited: That the Berg River Pumping Station, comprising—
   1. (a) a pump-house;
   2. (b) two old pumps; and
   3. (c) a pipeline 285 metres in length with a diameter of 300 mm with appurtenant valves,
   be sold without guarantee to SA Manganese Amcor Limited in terms of section 69(1)(b) of the Water Act, 1956, as its book value as on the date of signature of an agreement to be concluded by the Minister of Water Affairs and the said company, subject to the following conditions:
   1. That—
   2. (i) the transfer of the works shall be effected on the date of signature of the said agreement; and
   3. (ii) the purchase price, which is estimated at R9 600,00 on 1 April 1985, shall be payable within three months of the date of signature of the said agreement.
2. 2. On Report of the Director-General: Water Affairs on the Kalahari West Rural Water Supply Scheme:
   That a State loan amounting to R15 891 000, equivalent to the completion cost of the Kalahari West Rural Water Supply Scheme, and consisting of—
   1. (a) an amount of R13 864 000, with a subsidy of 66%%; and
   2. (b) an amount of R2 027 000, with a subsidy of 33%%,
      be granted to the Kalahari West Water Board.

P B B HUGO,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

11 Junel985.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr Speaker, on a question of privilege I draw your attention to alleged statements made by the hon member for Brakpan, as reported in an election pamphlet of the Conservative Party in the electoral division of Port Natal, issued by Mr C C Joubert, under the heading “News from Parliament”, regarding the alleged unsatisfactory working of Parliament owing to alleged laxity of hon members.

I ask whether you will allow precedence to be given to a motion for the appointment of a select committee to enquire into and report upon a breach of privilege allegedly committed by the hon member for Brakpan and reported by Mr C C Joubert when they published the alleged statements.

Order! The hon the Minister kindly showed me the pamphlet in advance and I am prepared to allow a motion for the appointment of a select committee to form part of a joint committee to enquire into the alleged breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) That a select committee on a question of privilege be appointed to form part of a joint committee together with committees of the other two Houses to enquire into and report upon a complaint of alleged breach of privilege by the hon member for Brakpan (Mr F J le Roux) and Mr C C Joubert in terms of section 10(3)(1) and 36 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, in that they published the following paragraphs in the pamphlet:
   • “The 308 members of the new tricameral Parliament are doing less work than the 165 members of the old Parliament, says the CP’s guardian MP for Natal, Mr Frank le Roux.
   • Most of Parliament’s time has been taken up with private members’ motions as there has not been enough new legislation to deal with, not to mention all the old legislation which the NP is scrapping.
   • Much time is wasted as a result of the lack of quorum at meetings of the standing committees where each party in each House has to be represented. Lifestyle and cultural differences are also very apparent, says Mr Le Roux, in explaining why it is that Parliament really works only two days of the week. These are Tuesdays and Thursdays, because on Mondays Coloured members are still recovering from the weekend; on Wednesday afternoons many White members play golf, whilst on Fridays Indian members have commitments at their mosques. So the weekend starts on Thursday afternoons and ends on Monday night.
   • A fine state of affairs for a Government which asks us to tighten our belts and improve our productivity.”
2. (2) that the Select Committee of the House of Assembly consist of the following members: Messrs D J Dalling, J H Heyns, J H Hoon, P G Marais, P L Maré, B W B Page, D P A Schutte, S S van der Merwe, Dr L van der Watt, Messrs L Wessels and A P Wright, Mr J H Heyns to be Chairman of the Joint Committee;
3. (3) that it be an instruction to the Committee to complete its business before or on 19 June at 12h00.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we are glad to have the opportunity to discuss the Kannemeyer report this afternoon, although I do wish we had more time at our disposal.

I want to say at once that the Kannemeyer report accepts, as indeed we do too, that the inaccurate statement made by the hon the Minister of Law and Order in Parliament on the afternoon on which the shootings occurred at Uitenhage, on 21 March, was made in good faith and was based on falsehoods which had been told him by the Police in Uitenhage.

However, the blind loyalty which is so often displayed by the hon the Minister of Law and Order does him no credit. In this instance the hon the Minister compounded the harm it does by reiterating this inaccurate statement after he had visited Uitenhage. On returning to Cape Town, he made a statement on 26 March in which he said he was “totally happy” with the first statement he had made and that the information he had conveyed to Parliament was in fact correct. My colleague the hon member for Albany will deal with just how correct that statement was.

Since then, however, the hon the Minister has given an interview to Prof Gilomee which was published in Die Suid-Afrikaan a couple of weeks ago in which the hon the Minister proclaimed:

He said that he himself had personally visited the Eastern Cape during the week prior to the shooting and had satisfied himself that all the necessary equipment was there. Yet, said the hon the Minister, within 14 days of this happening, he was informed that certain officers had decided at their own discretion how things should be done.

Prof Gilomee asked the hon the Minister two $64 questions: How was it possible that the Police could act so flagrantly against the Minister’s own instructions; and would there be disciplinary steps? The hon the Minister replied, inter alia, that one could not generalize; this could be just one case. He added:

This, I believe, was probably the most sensible thing the hon the Minister had said in a very long time. It means, I hope, that the conclusion reached in the Kannemeyer Report on page 165 that—

will not be interpreted by the Government as exoneration of everyone concerned directly or indirectly with the tragic events of 21 March. I hope that it means the Board of Inquiry which the hon the Minister is going to set up, will interpret the Kannemeyer Report as meaning that several people, including some in the highest echelons of the Police Force, could and should in fact be blamed.

Thus I hope that there will be a thorough investigation into the sending of the telex from headquarters in Pretoria on 19 March which contained what turned out to be the lethal message about the issue of sharp ammunition and “eliminating” people—a copy of which was sent to the hon the Minister of his information—if the Police were attacked with acid or petrol bombs.

General Coetzee, the Commissioner of Police, told the judge that this telex was not intended to convey that other equipment not therein mentioned should not be used or issued. Yet that appears to be the very way in which the telex was interpreted to a greater or lesser degree by various officers in the Eastern Cape. So cartridges and R1 rifles were issued in one area instead of the standard riot equipment, while in other areas only some of the standard equipment was issued.

I hope that the Board of Inquiry will ascertain what inquiries the hon the Minister, the Commissioner of Police and the General who sent that instruction made to ensure that that telex was not misinterpreted because, if they did not make those inquiries, they are clearly responsible for the confusion that resulted and the fact that the telex was going to prove disastrous as indeed it proved to be at Langa on 21 March.

The Report concluded that the non-issue was due to—

and:

This reveals a total lack of control and discipline within the Police Force, a scandalous state of affairs, and indeed it is confirmation of the suspicion I voiced during the debate earlier this year that the Police in South Africa had reached the point where their attitude is now: We have stood enough from these Blacks; now let us show them once and for all who is boss.

I hope that the Board of Inquiry will act swiftly to identify those whose actions have been the cause directly and indirectly of the ghastly events at Uitenhage, and that punitive measures will ensure. It cannot be left for the Blacks to say: The Police get away with murder. Let us not have another Biko dogging us throughout the following years. Meanwhile I believe the Police should withdraw all charges against people who were shot during the incident. I believe they ought to be offering ex gratia compensation to the families of those killed, wounded or incapacitated, as a first step towards establishing normal relations between the local community and the Police. Otherwise the unrest will continue.

Finally, I want to say that at the top of my hit-list for punitive action, is the man at the top, the hon the Minister of Law and Order who cannot escape the fact that in the last resort the responsibility for the ghastly happenings at Langa on 21 March rests on his shoulders. He must, in all conscience, resign.

Mr Speaker, I think the hon member for Houghton has made a scandalous attack on the hon the Minister this afternoon.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “scandalous”.

I withdraw it, Sir. It was a most unfair and unfounded attack on the hon the Minister. Obviously other speakers will deal with it, so I shall rather deal with certain of the statements which emanate from the so-called fact-finding mission to Uitenhage which the hon member headed. I shall deal with matters which she raised during the course of my speech.

*The occurrences on Thursday, 21 March, at Langa, Uitenhage, shook our whole community. The prelude to and continuation of the incident was a traumatic experience. I want in the first instance to associate myself with the hon the Minister in his expression of sympathy with the people who have been wounded and with the next-of-kin of those who have died. Loss of life in violent circumstances is generally regretted, although if this happens elsewhere in the world in the maintenance of law and order and the authority of the state, it is considered to be unfortunate but is nevertheless acceptable. However, if the same sort of thing happens here in this country, it is immediately given a different connotation and such occurrence is used to cast doubt upon our whole dispensation. Considerations of objectivity, balance and fairness are then thrown overboard and are clouded by one-sided opinion. Our country has established procedures which guarantee the highest degree of objectivity. We have to keep this fact in mind and guard against making statements which give the impression that we have no confidence in these institutions and procedures.

Those who seek to subvert law and order want to make use of an occurrence of this nature for other more sinister purposes. These forces have no understanding or feeling whatsoever for the maintainers of law and order. Those who have to protect the State and its citizens must be denigrated at all costs. Our society cherishes the highest expectations of these people and, quite correctly so, measures them against the highest standards, particularly when it is a question of the use of force in the maintenance of order. Those who judge and denigrate blindly do not want to see them as people with needs and fears just like ourselves. If we allow this attitude to triumph, we will be leaving them without support and morale which is precisely what they need because of the great demands we make of them.

It is sometimes forgotten that these men who come from all population groups in our society have since last year had to deal daily with violence, intimidation, arson, murder and threats in Uitenhage. This senseless and merciless violence has gradually increased. It has been aimed at the ordinary citizens, the workers, the representatives and the policemen, and in this process 110 buildings and 129 vehicles have been destroyed at a cost of about R790 000. This was only for the period November 1984 to March 1985.

I want therefore to thank the South African Police in Uitenhage and in the RSA and pay tribute to them. On behalf of my community I also want to assure them of our support. In the execution of their difficult duties small groups of them are sometimes exposed to great danger. We have great appreciation for these maintainers of law and order and, of course, for their families as well. The community of Uitenhage expresses its appreciation in various ways. Supportive petitions have been handed to the hon the Minister, women’s organizations and volunteers help them throughout and a full-time chaplain service has been introduced to give them spiritual comfort because each day they work under pressure and in dangerous circumstances.

I also want to mention the control of the White community in these tense times because it does need to be mentioned. The actions of our medical staff also deserve a mention in respect of their treatment of injured persons during the period of the trouble and also subsequently.

We must also not forget that Black members of the Force who were left homeless after hooligans destroyed their homes and possessions are now being assisted and accommodated by the community and the town council. The community is aware of its dependence upon these men and is grateful to them.

I want now to refer to the actions of the hon members of the PFP when almost a quarter of their caucus descended upon Uitenhage on 22 March together with the foreign news media, ostensibly to make themselves aware of the facts at Uitenhage. [Interjections.] I notice that in The Cape Times of 12 June the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went so far as to say:

[Interjections.] I contend that this was not an honest and sincere attempt at fact-finding. There are persons, bodies and procedures available for this purposes, as I have already said, that have withstood the test of time. No, this was an overanxious attempt to derive political capital from the misery of other people. [Interjections.] I do not dispute the right of other hon members to want to investigate occurrences such as this, but there are circumstances and situations in which matters can only be further immeasurably aggravated by actions of this nature. [Interjections.]

However, let us look now at the statements of Mr Justice Kannemeyer.

What did you do?

I was there the same day. [Interjections.] On 22 March, the same day, I was there.

However, let us see what Mr Justice Kannemeyer has to say about this fact-finding.

†The Prog report on their visit to Uitenhage states that their intention was to get a first-hand account of the shooting. They wanted to hear both sides of the story so that they could give a balanced view to their caucus in Parliament. What a laugh! [Interjections.] I do not agree that this was the intention of their visit; rather it is a manifestation of their desire to impute ingrained brutality to our forces of law and order and to our procedures in respect of the pursuit of justice.

I want to refer to the PFP’s …

Who said that?

It is in your report. [Interjections.] Under the heading, “The hospital” the report of the PFP reads as follows: “Improper police behaviour is suggested.” Under the heading, “Deductions”, it says that—“People were prevented from boarding vehicles in Langa, in Maduna Square.” It goes on to say:

Very significant! Their report continues:

that of the fact-finding mission:

These allegations of an extremely serious nature create the impression that the Police were inhuman, brutal and criminal in their actions, and this was the story sent worldwide. [Interjections.]

Let us now see what the commission says about these allegations, because each and every one of these allegations was rejected.

What were the main findings?

Forget the main findings. This is your report which you submitted.

The main findings confirmed our report. [Interjections.]

It was said that there was no improper Police behaviour in respect of patients treated at the Uitenhage Provincial Hospital. No mention is made of people being prevented from getting into motor vehicles in Maduna Square. The commission found that it must be accepted that at least some people were singing a song about killing the Whites in Uitenhage, and it was established that the leader was leading the front portion of the procession in this song.

He found that there was no crossfire between the Casspirs. He found on the probabilities that the Rastafarian was in the lead when the first shot was fired, and that this shot was intended as a warning and was fired into the ground. He found that the crowd was big enough to have overwhelmed the Casspirs and their crews. The commission rejected the allegation that wounded people were shot by members of the SA Police. There is no evidence of a Police conspiracy. Far from vindicating the PFP fact-finders the commission’s findings bring their motives into question. It seems as if, in their eagerness to get at the hon the Minister of Law and Order, law enforcing agencies and the Government, they have struck a low blow against our country. They have done us great harm and they should in fact apologize for the irreparable harm that they have done by making these allegations. [Interjections.]

I say the handling of this unfortunate incident after 21 March redounds to the credit of the Government, the hon the Minister and the country. The judicial commission was appointed with alacrity and Mr Justice Kannemeyer produced a lucid, well-reasoned report. None of our enemies in the world, certainly in Africa, would ever have allowed an enquiry of this searching nature to take place in open court with the calling of whatever witnesses were required. Furthermore, the hon the Minister himself responded to this report by appointing a board of inquiry to deal with the other matters.

Mr Speaker, allow me right at the outset to say that it is not my intention to cross swords with the hon member for Uitenhage. However, I want to say immediately that the terms of reference of the Kannemeyer Commission were rather limited in scope. On page 11 of his report the judge himself says:

If I may make one remark, I want to say that I believe it is a pity that the terms of reference given to Mr Justice Kannemeyer did not in fact include this wider sphere, because this would have contributed towards effecting a better balance in respect of the occurrences preceding 21 March, and possibly also in respect of their actual contributory causes. Nevertheless I want to state unequivocally that the CP does not question the broad findings of the judge and that we are grateful that a thorough report has been presented without delay.

In relation to the PFP which in the person of the hon member for Houghton attacked the hon the Minister of Law and Order this afternoon in regard to the statement which he issued initially—which was not correct in certain important respects—in pursuance of certain reports he had received from his Force, I also want in all fairness to refer to the statements made by the Official Opposition. Immediately following upon the occurrences of 21 March, a phalanx of them went off to investigate. A week later they made their findings known here in this House. Those were serious findings and I should like to refer to just a few of them. Serious accusations were made in regard to the way in which the Police treated wounded people in this specific case. I refer to the verbatim words of the hon member for Houghton in Hansard, col 2834:

It was an affidavit.

It was not an affidavit. This was a factual statement which the hon member made. [Interjections.] Let me refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He was almost moved to tears at the disgraceful way in which the Police had ostensibly treated wounded people. In Hansard, col 2822, he told us that the day after the incident he visited a Catholic Manse at Uitenhage. He also told us that lists were drawn up of the dead, the wounded and the missing, and he told us how wounded people were treated and how bodies were counted there. He went on to say (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 2822):

That was also true.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says that was also true. He went on to say how within an hour he had obtained the services of a lawyer (regsgeleerde)—most probably a “linksgeleerdee”!—to find out what had happened to these two poor wounded people who had apparently been arrested so inhumanely-by the Police without having been allowed to receive medical attention. When they arrived at the police station, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says that all knowledge of the two wounded persons was denied.

That is also true.

The hon member went on to say in his speech:

That hon member tried to create the impression in this House that the Police did not want to take the wounded to receive medical attention but that the Police wanted to lock them up. The hon member says that is true. The PFP had every opportunity—in fact they made it their business—to pillory the SA Police during this investigation. [Interjections.] I have not read this report just once; I have read it repeatedly. If the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central tells us now that those allegations were true, why then did not he and their lawyer, who is also in this House this afternoon, produce that evidence? Before that inquiry was instituted, however, they came to this House and attacked the Police. They made blatant allegations, but when the opportunity presented itself to submit supportive evidence to the Kannemeyer Commission, that evidence was not produced. The judge made his findings known in regard to the treatment of wounded persons by the Police on that occasion. He found that those allegations were devoid of all truth.

That is not all. During the debate at the beginning of April, after the appointment of the Kannemeyer Commission, three hon members of the Official Opposition—if I remember correctly, the hon members for Albany, Houghton and Walmer—also alleged one after the other in their speeches that when the crowd of Blacks eventually congregated in Maduna Square, they boarded buses and taxis on their way to a funeral. The blatant allegation was then made by those three hon members in this House that the Police had then arrived there in a Casspir and ordered those people to disembark. According to them it was this that gave rise to the people starting a protest march. I want to ask all three of those hon members who made those allegations where Mr Justice Kannemeyer’s finding in this connection is to show that what they said in this House was the truth. [Interjections.] No finding in this connection supports those allegations. In fact, there is no indication in Mr Justice Kannemeyer’s report that there was ever any talk of the Police forcing people to disembark from taxis or buses while they were on the way to a funeral. [Interjections.]

In my opinion there is, however, one interesting piece of evidence, namely that of the hon member for Albany in respect of the leader of the march—the man referred to as a so-called “Rastafarian”. The hon member for Albany is apparently an authority in this sphere, and the judge accepted his opinion. In the report we find:

I do not know whether Mr Justice Kannemeyer heard any other evidence in this connection, but we did a little research to find out what this rare cult actually involves. In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica we find reference to them as an organization “of Black militancy”. Among other things it is also stated that that cult “places a taboo on funerals”. [Interjections.] Prof Michael Crowder, a professor in Africa studies, in his book West Africa Under Colonial Rule refers specifically to this cult, and to Garvey’s “Back to Africa Movement”. In this book Prof Crowder spells out the fact that this organization is a militant one. This is precisely the opposite of the evidence given by the hon member for Albany. I can only deduce that that hon member wanted to gloss over the person at the head of the procession as though he were a protagonist of peace and not of violence. Unfortunately for the hon member for Albany this particularly peaceful person was walking along with a petrol bomb in his hands. This was found to be a fact by the Kannemeyer Commission.

Unfortunately my time has expired, but I just want to repeat our point of view. We say that the public of South Africa should be grateful to the Police Force of this country, and this includes all White, Brown, Black and Indian police officers. [Interjections.] This does not at all mean that the Police Force of South Africa is not subject to and must obey the law and the statues of South Africa. However, it is our viewpoint that it is not our function, least of all in this House, unnecessarily to pillory before the whole world those men whose duty it is to maintain and promote peace and security while most of us are sleeping.

I want to conclude by saying that we accept the findings of the commission. We welcome the fact that the hon the Minister has appointed a board of inquiry to rectify shortcomings which in fact still exist. We have full confidence in the officers of the Police Force of South Africa to rectify any possible shortcomings that may exist in the interests of all of us in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, when the hon member for Houghton started her speech, I half expected her to say that the findings of Mr Justice Kannemeyer and the commission were acceptable to her party and that they agreed with them, but instead of her doing so I did not hear a single word of praise for that report from the hon member for Houghton. The comments which hon members of that party have passed thus far on the report of Mr Justice Kannemeyer have in no respect been positive, but have rather found their echo in the words of a man like Beyers Naude who said that he was shocked at the subjectivity of the South African judicial machine and that he was not at all satisfied with what had been said.

Immediately after this report had been published, the hon member for Houghton did comment upon it when she was approached by the SABC. What was that hon member’s reaction? It is interesting to note that her reaction and that of Dr Boesak were the same. [Interjections.] Their reaction or their approach was: “The people want vengeance.” This was that hon member’s approach—they are seeking vengeance. Vengeance against whom? Are they seeking vengeance against the SA Police? Against whom are they seeking vengeance?

Furthermore, their approach was that: “The response of the Government won’t satisfy the Black community.” [Interjections.] Those hon members of the PFP are therefore prescribing to Mr Justice Kannemeyer by saying to him: “Your findings are not acceptable. Your findings should have been much wilder. Your findings should been such—even though they were not well-founded—that they would have satisfied the feeling of the Black community outside as far as vengeance is concerned.” [Interjections.] Those hon members do not want to dissociate themselves from that approach.

What ought in fact to be the purpose of this report? Its purpose should be that in spite of the tragedy that has taken place, use should be made of what is positive in it in order to prevent a possible repetition of such an occurrence; to obtain a basis—and this is what we should actually be seeking today—on which this sober report of Mr Justice Kannemeyer, which is a balanced report that has been drawn up by a balanced judge, can be accepted and used as a departure point. However, this is not the approach of that party. [Interjections.] The Government accepted the report and recommendations immediately. It tabled a memorandum accepting the basis of the report of Mr Justice Kannemeyer. A board of inquiry was appointed immediately in terms of the Police Act to follow up certain findings of Mr Justice Kannemeyer.

We are therefore not here just to say that it is a wonderful report containing good findings. This Government acted responsibly and followed up the report immediately. That party does not want to accept the report; at least, that is how it appears to me.

What did that party do before this report was published? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sits there and shakes his head as though they are really going to defend Mr Justice Kannemeyer’s findings in every respect here today. What did that party do? They did not accept the inquiry by the commission unequivocally. No, they wanted to take over the role of the commission. They did not only want to institute an inquiry; on the contrary, they also wanted to make findings and they wanted to pass judgement. It appears to me—if they could do so—that they would even want to pass sentence. That is in effect what the hon member for Houghton is saying when she asks for vengeance.

[Inaudible.]

Just listen to what that hon member says, Sir! It is very clear that they are not satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the commission; ergo the viewpoint of the hon member for Houghton.

The report and findings of the commission do not satisfy them at all, particularly the hon member for Houghton. Right from the start they had no confidence in that commission. Apparently they had no confidence in the judge either. Not only did they neglect their role as a political party here in this Assembly but they also went to Uitenhage en masse. Immediately then they became investigators and the framers of a report. The strangest things of all to my mind is the fact that they did not simply submit that report to the commission, the State President and a number of other members, and then wait for the commission to consider their report. No, they did not do that.

What did they do? They immediately held a Press conference and released that report. They made statements during that Press conference and released their findings. What is said in this regard in the Evening Post of 26 March? I quote:

They say various other things and come to simplistic conclusions as well as suggesting simplistic solutions. They do not wait for the findings and recommendations of the commission but anticipate them completely. It is very interesting to see what The Citizen has to say in this connection although I know that hon members opposite are not very fond of The Citizen. I want to quote from the issue of 27 March, as follows:

Those hon members did not intend to do that but merely went ahead with their statements. Directly after he had visited the area, the hon member for Albany came to the simplistic conclusion that the incident had been unnecessary and that all the driver of the Casspir should have done when the crowd approached was to have put his vehicle into reverse and driven away. That was his simplistic solution. What was the approach of the hon member for Durban Central? He represented the PFP there. In pursuance of Fouché’s action in shooting because the policemen feared for their lives and the Whites of Uitenhage were in danger according to the message which had been received, the hon member has the following to say on page 1766 of the report:

Those people anticipated the findings of the commission and I think that they must start learning when a commission is appointed what their parliamentary duty and function is which they ought to implement here. They must wait until a report has appeared and they can then debate it here. They must not try to do the work of the judge.

Mr Chairman, I am sure you will forgive me if I speak to the motion which is to discuss the Kannemeyer report.

I think there should be one point on which we are all ad idem in regard to this debate, and that is the clarity and excellence both in the way it is set out and in the motivation of the findings of the Kannemeyer report.

I should like to start from that premise, namely, that this is an excellent report in regard to which there can be no question either of bias or inaccuracy as far as the findings are concerned. There may be a difference in emphasis but no more than that. As the report has been accepted by the hon the Minister and the Government, we do at least have that much in common.

I am aware of the fact that there has been criticism of the hon the Minister in some sections of the Police Force for appointing a commission. I think that criticism or doubt was ill-founded, because the consequences of this report are twofold. Firstly, it establishes the facts of what happened; and secondly, it gives the Police the opportunity to take action in regard to those facts. However, the important point is that by establishing the facts the commission has also eliminated the rumours, allegations and wild statements that were being disseminated. Had a commission not been appointed the public and the outside world would not have believed the hon the Minister’s statement. They would have believed that the Police had planted stones in dead men’s hands; they would have believed that the Police had shot wounded lying on the ground; they would have believed that the Police had delayed the ambulances; they would have believed that the whole threat to the Police had been fabricated; they would have believed that a peaceful funeral procession had been interfered with and that this had caused trouble; they would have believed that a boy riding innocently on a bicycle had been shot through the head.

He was.

He was not. [Interjections.] They would have believed that 43 people had been killed and that some of the bodies had been spirited away. They would have believed that a baby had been shot through the forehead, something which the judge called “a mischievous perversion of truth”.

All these allegations that I have quoted have now been refuted. These are the allegations the public and the world at large would have believed. These were allegations that were quoted from affidavits in this House.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the hon member for Durban Point has said that things were quoted from affidavits in this House which were not in fact so quoted. Is he entitled to do so?

Very well, Sir, I shall withdraw the statement that they were said in this House. [Interjections.] They were quoted from affidavits compiled by the Official Opposition. Whether they were said in this House or outside is not the point. The point is that the commission established what was true and what was not true, and it is important that that should have been established because I want to deal with the allegations and criticisms that were found to be true. I want judgment to be made on the facts and not upon allegations made from affidavits that were published to the world as being the truth of what had happened in this particular case. What I do believe is that charges of perjury should be laid against those who made wilfully false allegations in regard to what actually happened.

Let us look now at the other side of the picture. There is damning criticism of the procedure followed to cancel or postpone funerals. In the Minister’s memorandum it is merely stated that that procedure will be reviewed. I want to ask for more than just an undertaking that that procedure will be reviewed. I want to ask the hon the Minister for a categorical assurance that that procedure will not be abused in future in order to interfere with and incite feelings over funerals. I accept the finding that there was no intention, plan or organization for the people on that march to attack Whites. If I have any question in this regard at all it is that I question the finding that there was no “hostile motive”, because I do not know who walks around with a petrol bomb unless he has some hostile motive for so doing. The judge himself questions this. Although I do not have time to quote it, he says in his finding on page 153 that it was not a quiet and peaceful march. He accepts, in the same finding, that there was cause for alarm. So, I think it must be clearly recognized that there was cause for alarm, that although there was no hostile motive, some of the crowd in fact had hostile intentions.

As regards the stopping of the crowd and the shooting itself, I do not have the time to quote all the findings, but the key finding was as follows (par 4.8, page 156):

I accept that finding and I believe that any reasonable man who has feared for his life and the lives of his colleagues would understand the situation in which that officer was placed. I believe that we should accept the judge’s warning that people should not be armchair critics but should try to imagine the situation he was in.

My concern is how this situation ever arose. I want to ask the hon the Minister for clear assurances that the Board of Inquiry will in particular inquire into and publish its findings on the following: The question of the withdrawal of anti-riot equipment and who, from the top level to the bottom level, was responsible for that; the attitudes to the efficacy of the approved anti-riot and crowdcontrol system, the clear antagonism towards that system and the feeling that it did not work; and the exaggerated Police evidence that was given. It is totally unacceptable that the Police should give evidence on the basis of which the hon the Minister made a statement that was not true in every respect. If they could do that on this issue to try to justify their actions—and that was not necessary, because the commission justified those actions anyway—they will not have credibility when giving evidence in court. Finally, there is the finding of provocation by the Police. That, too, must be enquired into. As to the Minister’s position, he has to explain why, after he had gone to Uitenhage, he came back here and stood by his first statement, which, as has been made clear and has been admitted, was untrue.

In conclusion let me say that South Africa owes the Police a great debt of gratitude for their work in preventing crime and maintaining law and order. It is in the interests of the Police and all of us who are the friends of the Police that these criticisms should be cleared up, cleared out of the way, so that the character, credibility and reputation can be unblemished of those people who have served South Africa under great stress, particularly in recent times.

Mr Speaker, I should like to react to one or two aspects of the speech made by the hon member for Durban Point. In the first instance we are indeed all ad idem that Judge Kannemeyer issued a clear and excellent report in this particular connection. We also agree that the report is very important, because it refutes the lies that were broadcast beforehand and places the actual events in perspective for us.

The procedure followed in arranging funerals has been criticized. I shall, however, come back to that in particular in my speech. The hon member for Durban Point put a few questions to the hon the Minister about how the situation arose, the withdrawal of the riot control weapons that are used and provocation on the part of the police. He requested that these matters be investigated. He said further that the Minister stood by his first statement and in fact did not in the circumstances state clearly, the moment it came to his notice, that the initial information he had received was not correct. However, he immediately went to the State President and requested that a commission be appointed to investigate this particular incident. I therefore think that the hon Minister acted reasonably in all respects in his immediate reaction when it was brought to his notice that the initial information he was given was not correct.

I turn next to the policeman and his duties. Each one of them is expected to conduct himself in such a way that there are never any grounds for lodging a complaint against him or against the Force. If a policeman carries out the duties expected of him, we and the public generally say he was only doing his duty. However, if in respect of his actions there is evidence of faulty judgment or an unfortunate coincidence, the Police are denigrated, reviled and condemned. Unfortunately one also gains the impression from the actions of the hon members of the Official Opposition that they make a point of condemning any police action and denigrating the police.

Every South African should make his contribution to the policing of this country. Why should it always only be the Police who bear the brunt? Every citizen must also make his contribution. It is high time that some members of the PFP realize that they, too, are citizens of this country and must therefore also make their contribution in this regard. They are armchair critics, as the hon member for Durban Point said, who express judgements that do more harm than good.

The hon member for Durban Central allowed himself to be misused by senior members of his party, namely by six PFP members, by appearing before the Kannemeyer Commission. This indicates clearly, firstly, that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition did not, in his capacity as leader of a political party, in this particular respect protect the hon member for Durban Central as he should have done, and, secondly, that the Official Opposition does not have faith in the legal system. They sent a personal observer to the commission, a commission under the chairmanship of a respected judgeof our country.

The question arises: Is that a clear sign from the PFP that they do not have faith in the findings of a judge of our country, or did the hon member for Durban Central go there to try to justify the false account of events given by Mrs Molly Blackburn?

The involvement of the members of the PFP also makes it clear that they want to get at the Police at all costs.

The hon member for Albany, who appears to be an expert on Rastafarianism, personally gave evidence before the commission and described this cult as “a religion of the oppressed”. The members of this cult do not, they say, want to drive the White man out of Africa, but they want to reverse the roles so that the Whites can become the servants of the Blacks. In the first place that is a false ideology because, as hon members know, in South Africa every South African, regardless of the colour of his skin, enjoys the same opportunities.

Secondly I am convinced that the hon member for Albany does not subscribe to the standpoint of this cult, but nevertheless he does everything in his power to support them. He testifies on their behalf and indeed defends them with determination.

If one looks at some statistics for the period 1 September 1984 to 22 February 1985, one can understand Capt Goosen’s applications to the magistrate. This ties in with the question put by the hon member for Durban Point. In that period, for instance, 151 houses occupied by Black members of the SA Police were damaged. The damage involved amounted to more than R800 000. Then, 888 police vehicles were damaged, and the damage in this connection amounted to more than R200 000. I shall not even refer to the damage done to schools, shops, private dwellings, buses and so on.

What did Capt Goosen do? On 20 March he applied to the magistrate to issue an order to the effect, inter alia, that the funerals planned for 21 March and 22 March could only be held on a Sunday. His motivation was based on three considerations. Firstly, Black workers had planned a total “stay away” at the time of the funerals; secondly, such a “stay away” would lead to a total stoppage of all essential services and of industry; thirdly, after such a funeral acts of violence are common and are usually accompanied by damage to property and loss of life. Most responsibly, he at least attempted to prevent the occurrence of the first two events. He initially thought he would be able to limit outbreaks of violence by means of an order requiring that the funerals be held only on a working day when most people would be at work. As a result of the “stay away” his plans indeed came to naught because the funerals would in any event promote the “stay away” and lead to the stoppage of essential services. Less damage would therefore result if the funerals were held on a Sunday. Capt Goosen’s application did have the shortcoming—in this connection I also agree with the hon member for Durban Point—that he did not indicate that his motivation for it was based on his fear that public violence and unrest would occur. The fact must also be taken into account that nothing prevented the magistrate from issuing such an order in the light of his own knowledge of conditions in his district.

The second application for the funerals to be held only on a Sunday was based on the fact that the people who wanted to go to work had received threats that their houses would be burnt down and that they themselves would possibly be injured. He therefore also wanted to protect these people. Although Capt Goosen also testified before the commission, neither the Commissioner nor any of the other parties questioned him on the reasons for his application. On page 162 of the report the impression is created that only Capt Goosen can be blamed for that order being issued and that the magistrate will grant an order automatically. Other members of the legal profession in the House will agree with me that the magistrate, acting in terms of legal provisions, could have rejected the application. The magistrate was aware of conditions in the district; after all, it is his district and he could have issued orders which took the situation and the legal provisions into account. [Interjections.] Capt Goosen is a keen and dedicated young police officer who takes his work seriously and does it well. He can indeed still go far in the Police Force.

In conclusion I want to say that the blame for the incident can be laid mainly at the door of the leaders of the procession who took no notice of the police and ignored official orders to stop. We should help the police to carry out their duties rather than be armchair critics. I accuse the PFP of never having a good word to say about the SA Police.

Mr Speaker, my time is very limited, so I shall only deal very briefly with three of the things that have been said on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

The first thing is that we are in fact debating today the Kannemeyer report and not the PFP report on the Uitenhage shootings. [Interjections.] Secondly, I find it tragic that given the circumstances of 47 people being shot, there has not been one word from that side of the House on the conclusions in this report that were adverse to the Police, and there are many of them. Not one word of apology or sorrow has been spoken on that side of the House. [Interjections.] In the third instance, the hon member for Barberton said certain things about what I had said in this House, and I want to say that I stand by the words I spoke on that day. I want to say that the commission considered whether adequate medical attention was given to the injured at the scene and at the hospital, and I was referring to things subsequent to that. I am prepared to bring affidavits from Roman Catholic clergy, a doctor, an advocate and attorneys all of whom will vouch for the truth of what I said. [Interjections.]

Why did you not give them to the Police?

Because the commission was not investigating that. The facts of the day were being investigated.

I want to start by congratulating Mr Justice Kannemeyer on his report. I believe it is fair and objective, and if anything might be said to be its main characteristic, that would be understatement. I believe this makes the report totally devastating in its indictment of senior officers in the Police and of the whole administration of law and order.

In February I called in this House for a judicial commission into Police actions in the Eastern Cape. That call was ignored. Had it been implemented, and had a judge been investigating the actions of Police in the area, it is probable that there would have been more regard for the proper carrying out of riot control instructions. Loudhailers, teargas, rubber bullets and birdshot would have been issued and this terrible shooting would not have happened. I hope the hon the Minister is going to tell us why they were not issued. For that alone the hon the Minister will stand condemned in my eyes and in the eyes of many. He was warned by the hon member for Albany and by myself that the actions of the Police were causing problems, yet he himself took no action. The State President, who sits opposite me, had two letters—one from me and one from three members of the PFP on this subject before the shooting, but still there was no action. The result was this awful loss of life and enormous anger among the black people of the Eastern Cape. As a result of that anger the violence and the deaths continue to this day.

Violence has been endemic in the Black townships of the Eastern Cape for almost a year. In view of this report, I believe one is now justified in querying whether that violence was caused to a degree by the actions of the Police. Certainly the judge’s report makes it clear that the shooting on 21 March was to an extent due to the actions of the Police. Then we must ask: What about Port Alfred in November of last year? What about Uitenhage in January and February of this year? What about Cradock in February of this year? What about those deaths? What about the whole of the Eastern Cape since 21 March? On 13 February this year, in this House, I said in calling for a judicial commission:

The hon the Minister of Law and Order, and yes, even the State President, must ask themselves: “Had I acted sooner, had I reacted differently prior to 21 March, would this tragic event have happened?” I ask the hon the Minister to think of any 11-year-old girl-child he knows and think of the death of such a child on 21 March. He should ask himself: “Do I share the blame?” That was the youngest death—an 11-year-old girlchild.

They were warned in speeches and letters. Affidavits were sent, but nothing happened, and the violence continued in the Eastern Cape.

After the event the State President at least acted correctly, and he appointed a commission.

At whose request?

I have no idea at whose request he did so. I was the first person to call for it.

He did so at the Minister’s request. [Interjections.].

Without doubt I called for it first.

The reaction of the hon the Minister of Law and Order was to issue a report in the Press which was incorrect. That hon Minister believes everything the Police tell him, including what they tell him about events relating to detentions without trial, and if the Police information was as incorrect concerning detentions without trial as it was in this instance, then every man detained should be released. Can we then believe the reason for those people being put inside?

He then went to Uitenhage and, with the whole official apparatus behind him to get at the truth, he confirmed that false statement. Then—and I find this very bad indeed—he hid behind the skirts of the Commissioner of Police. He sent the Commissioner of Police to testify at the commission that he, the Minister, had been misinformed by the Police. He ducked the blame and laid it on his Police. I want to contrast that action with the actions of Lord Carrington at the time of the Falklands War. I want to contrast it with the actions of the Japanese Minister who resigned after a mid-air collision involving an airforce ’plane. It is correct for the Minister to accept the blame for the actions of his department, and this Minister did precisely the opposite. [Interjections.]

Go to Hyde Park. You will be happy there!

I wish now to quote the words of a well-known son of the Eastern Cape some years ago:

Those were not the words of Steve Biko; they were the words of B J Vorster, former Prime Minister and State President of this country. He was talking of the acts of violence perpetrated by the Ossewabrandwag. [Interjections.] How true they are in the context of the violence in the Eastern Cape.

Maduna Road has cost South Africa dear. This Minister must not be allowed to resign; I believe he must be fired. South Africans and the world community have their eyes on this debate today. They are waiting to see what action this Government will take. The response thus far has been totally inadequate. Interdepartmental enquiries are not the answer. We can help to restore the credibility of the Police. It is their credibility which is important, not that of the Minister. We can help to restore the credibility of South Africa by removing the Minister from his post.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has now entered the debate with a great commotion and said, for instance, that the Government is not even prepared to express its sympathy in respect of what happened. I want to ask the hon member whether he read the memorandum. In the first paragraph of the memorandum it is stated:

The hon member also demanded that the hon Minister resign. Let me tell the hon member—now that we have heard his speech—that the State President appoints Ministers to the Cabinet, and that hon member is the last person from whom the State President will seek advice concerning whom he should appoint to or retain in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] That hon member makes allegations concerning certain matters he says he discussed with the hon the Minister prior to the incident. The hon Minister took action on that and that hon member will still be made to look foolish this afternoon for making those allegations.

The report of the Kannemeyer Commission is now available in South Africa and throughout the world. It has been discussed, debated and analysed. It is interesting that the PFP have come down on the police with fire and brimstone this afternoon. They rage at the police about what happened on 21 March. They strongly condemn the Police Force despite the balanced findings of the hon judge of the commission. They speak with vehemence, but display an unbelievable lack of insight and perspective in respect of this whole affair. We hear only one side of the matter from them.

I want to state clearly: A wrong can never be condoned or simply overlooked. No servant of the State, and therefore no servant of the public—in this case the police—who knowingly ignores orders can claim protection. However, where the commission found that the police were in the wrong, steps have already been taken by the Government to rectify the position. A board of inquiry is considering what further steps should be taken, and such steps will be taken. The hon members of the Official Opposition conveniently ignored that this afternoon.

A large organization like the SA Police Force, which has to carry out an extremely important and, in these days, a particularly difficult task, cannot be sensitive enough about criticism, nor are we. The corrective steps taken will have an ennobling effect on the Police. Constructive criticism of the kind we got from the NRP, the CP and Judge Kannemeyer will facilitate this task for us. Constructive debating here in the House also helps. What do we get from the PFP, however? We merely get a one-sided attack on the Police. When the servants of our State and Parliament are at fault and this has serious national and even international consequences, we must, in debating such an incident in Parliament, do so responsibly. We must do so with a greater sense of responsibility than the PFP displayed this afternoon. Decades of good and loyal service by the Police Force—by thousands of policemen and women—must not simply be forgotten and denigrated. [Interjections] The Police Force protects all of us. They protect all the people in South Africa—White and Coloured and black; Nationalists, NRP members, CP members and also PFP members. We are all protected. We must not simply forget that and debase a whole Police Force in this fashion. That is our submission, but it has fallen on deaf ears as far as the hon members of the Official Opposition are concerned.

The years ahead are still going to make great demands on our Police Force. We saw again two days ago what is happening in our country. This incident must therefore please not be used for purposes of trying to make political capital out of it and scoring political points. It must not be used to denigrate a Force we cannot do without in South Africa.

I contend that the motive spurring the Official Opposition on in their negative approach to the police—they see no good in a policeman; we have experienced that over many years already—is purely of a political nature. Just as the Russians have tried to capitalize on Black consciousness since 1960 already, the Official Opposition is trying to capitalize on Black unrest in 1985. They maintain that Black unrest is a spontaneous, purely political reaction of our Black population to the present dispensation. That is what they maintain. The truth of the matter is, however, that we are dealing with a campaign involving the systematic massacre of moderate Black leaders and a most abhorrent intimidation in the Black residential areas. The goal is revolution, not peaceful evolution. However, the hon members of the Official Opposition are silent as the grave about this revolution being stirred up and about the fact that people in the Black residential areas are being massacred.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

This situation is cast in the self-same mould commonly used elsewhere in the world—a Gemayel who is shot and killed in Lebanon; a Kapuuo who is shot and killed in South West.

Order! Did the hon member for Green Point say that that was a lie? If so, he must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. I say it is a gross untruth.

Numerous traditional Black leaders are being killed in our country at this time. Two days ago we saw a leader in the Parliament of South Africa attacked in this way. Today we are faced with Black against Black, and the Official Opposition is irresponsible enough to attempt to exploit that for political gain in White politics.

The Police Force finds itself in the midst of these problems, a Police Force that is debased by leftist elements and by the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] Our police do not have an easy task. It is essential for them to be there. If only White police are used, it is polarization between White and black. If Black policemen are used, the police are accused of using Xhosas against Zulus. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. That is why we ask for insight and perspective on the part of the Official Opposition.

There is something I want to put clearly. That hon member said a while ago that we can be blamed for the mistakes made there. However, this tragedy would never have taken place but for the people promoting revolution in our country. The police have a superhuman task to perform and deserve the support of every well-intentioned South African.

I should also like to address a few words to the hon member for Durban Central. He is going to take part in the debate shortly. In an interview published in the Hague he is alleged to have said—I am not saying that he did say it; I say that it is alleged that he said it:

That hon member appeared in his capacity as advocate before this judge. His description of the judge’s report is that it is a tame report. Is that the measure of the respect he has for that judge and the commission? The hon member will get his opportunity to speak shortly and I should like him to reply to that in his speech. At the same time he can tell us what he means by saying that the Black people will be disappointed. With what will they be disappointed? What does the hon member want? Does he want the truth to does he want the disappointment of people? We wanted the truth.

I am not intent on covering anything up, as you are!

I believe we have obtained the truth. [Interjections.] The hon member says he is not intent on covering anything up as I am. We on this side of the House laid evidence before the commission. [Interjections.] Those hon members can laugh if they want to, but that is the truth. They were not prepared to submit certain evidence; we submitted everything, we did not cover anything up. That was also the finding of the commission.

I want to ask that hon member why he did not lead all the evidence he had at his disposal. The reason is that he knew it consisted of lies. We saw ourselves what flagrant untruths were sent out into the world. Let me give a few examples.

In the documents submitted by the hon member there was reference to the “mood of the crowd”. It was said: “Evidence is that the crowd was peaceful”. We know what the judge’s findings are.

A second flagrant example relates to the Casspirs. One reads: “Evidence given is unanimous that when the shooting occurred there was at least one Casspir ahead, blocking the road, and one Casspir following behind. Shots were fired from both Casspirs. In other words, people were caught in a crossfire between the two Casspirs.” That is the evidence submitted by that hon member.

The suggestion is very clear: A crowd of innocent, singing people were caught in a cross-fire between two armoured vehicles, and the people were mown down by brutes. That is the suggestion the hon member sent out into the world. I want to ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition what he has done to put the matter to rights. Nothing. We expect a greater sense of responsibility from the Official Opposition of our country.

Mr Speaker, in his speech the hon member for Uitenhage made certain allegations about our report and I quote his speech from his own copy which he kindly sent to me he said:

The hon member goes on to quote Judge Kannemeyer:

I sent a note to the hon member asking him from where he had got that quote of Judge Kannemeyer. The hon member replied to me that they were not Judge Kannemeyer’s words, but his own comments. [Interjections.] I think that was a disgraceful attempt to mislead this House and the hon member ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.]

As compiler of the PFP report on the Maduna road massacre, I find it significant that our report, which draws attention to certain serious inconsistencies between the official Ministerial statement on the incident and our own on-the-spot findings, has been more than vindicated by the findings of the Kannemeyer report.

I will return to this aspect but first I must say that I find it extremely sad that because of the hamhanded administration of the Law and Order portfolio by this hon Minister and his top officials, the good name of the Police Force and, what is even worse, the good name of this country has been sullied and dragged through the mud. I have great sympathy for those good and decent members of the Force who are so constantly let down by their superiors and who, despite their best efforts, are forced to share the collective responsibility and opprobrium for the blunders of those whose orders they have to obey. [Interjections.]

With regard to our report, my colleagues and I as MP’s have a particular aversion to being misinformed, particularly by a Minister of State. While we accept that we are all fallible and that we can all make mistakes, we also accept that mistakes, once made, should be set right at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the case of the misinformation given to us here in Parliament by this hon Minister this was not done, and we consequently charge the hon the Minister with the following: Firstly, that he gave this House incorrect information. Secondly, that after due personal investigation he stood by this information, refusing to change a word of it.

Thirdly, during the subsequent commission of inquiry, counsel for the Police, instructed by the hon the Minister, made every effort to establish the misconceptions given to this House as representing the true facts rather than to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies which were so glaringly obvious.

Fourthly, by refusing to accept the incontrovertible evidence which was before him, both in loco and as contained in our report, he was either effectively hoodwinked by his officials or else he allowed himself to become a party to an attempt to perpetuate inaccuracies and pass them off as the truth. Either way he is deserving of censure. [Interjections.]

I claim that we, within three days, with limited resources, and with little or no assistance from the Police, were able to present Parliament with a far more accurate reconstruction of the event than the hon the Minister himself was able to do. [Interjections.] Allow me to substantiate my claim. According to the hon the Minister’s statement, an armed and hostile crowd was marching on Uitenhage when it was confronted by a small detachment of Police who were attacked with sticks, stones and petrol bombs by the crowd after having been suddenly surrounded by them. The Police were left with no option but to fire in self-defence. [Interjections.] This is the story which, after his visit to Uitenhage, the hon the Minister defended in the Press by saying that he was confident it was the correct version—here are the Press cuttings—and that he would not have issued his statement to this House five days earlier if “he had not been totally happy with it.” [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, our report disputed this statement. Our report claimed that evidence suggested that the crowded had not been marching on Uitenhage but was en route to a funeral in kwaNobuhle; that they were not armed; that they had not surrounded the Police unit; that they had not attacked the police with sticks, stones and petrol bombs; and that the police had not been forced to fire in self-defence. Our report also raised the question why tear-gas and bird shot had not been used. In my speech later that week I made the statement that the killings need never have occurred. That is, in fact, the first conclusion that the Kannemeyer report draws.

What does the Kannemeyer Commission say? It accepts that the crowd gathered at Maduna Square and started on its way, not to Uitenhage but to kwaNobuhle, with the intention of going to a funeral there. It states that there was no reason to accept that there was a planned march on Uitenhage in order to attack the Whites there. It rejects allegations of a heavily armed crowd as an exaggeration and dismisses the hon the Minister’s report together with its inaccuracies as—

[Interjections.]

Perhaps the worst inaccuracy of all was the conclusion that the Police had no alternative but to fire in self-defence. One very simple headline in the Press negates that claim: “17 out of 20 shot in the back”. Let the hon the Minister explain how only one victim, a 16-year-old youth, was killed by a shot from the front. Let the hon the Minister explain how the bodies of those attackers, whom he claims had surrounded the unit at a distance of 5 metres, were all found 18 to 30 metres away in one spot on the road. This was not self-defence, but a calculated act of violence made inevitable by the blundering ineptitude of this hon Minister and his department. [Interjections.] It is they and not the ill-trained, ill-equipped and overworked policemen who were sent in to sort out the mess made by politicians, who are primarily to blame. [Interjections.]

Unless the hon the Minister can give this House a satisfactory explanation for his failure to correct his inaccurate report, we can only accept that the hon the Minister was not only satisfied with it but also went on to brief his counsel at the inquiry to do everything in his power to persuade the commission to accept this faulty version of events, however much at variance with the facts it might have been!

In any event, we believe that the hon the Minister has acted irresponsibly and has, during this incident and during many other incidents in the past, shown himself to be incapable of handling his portfolio. Therefore, we feel that he ought to resign.

Mr Speaker, in recent times the unheard-of situation has arisen that the Official Opposition in the White Chamber has made itself part of a commission of inquiry in the sense that it was present there as a prosecutor of the SA Police,.

What did the hon member for Albany try to do? What his advocate could not succeed in doing before the commission, he is today attempting to achieve here. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said he has piles of affidavits from people about the incident, but in paragraph 3.5.3 on page 6 of the commission’s report the following is stated:

If one looked at television the other day, one would almost have said, judging by how they carried on there, that the PFP had taken over the investigation. What the hon members opposite have not referred to yet, is that Judge Kannemeyer says in his report that Adv Chris Jansen, who led the evidence, made available to the advocates of the people represented all the affidavits he had at his disposal.

Our affidavit went to the Minister.

Why did they not submit the evidence to the commission? The commission was in session for 21 days and they had enough time to do that.

One of the most important consequences of the Kannemeyer Commission is that, if the commission had not carried out its investigation and recorded its findings, the following stories would still have been going around—this appears in a pamphlet that was circulated at a meeting at the University of Cape Town on 25 March:

Had it not been for the Kannemeyer Commission, Mrs Molly Blackburn would still have been searching for secret graves along the road and stories of this sort would have spread far and wide. There is just one more thing I would like to say to the PFP. I want to say to the hon Leader of the Opposition and the front-benchers of his party that in my opinion it is unheard-of that a political party should involve itself in this way in an investigation by a commission of inquiry into an incident of this kind. That is an unbalanced and prejudiced action.

The commission made certain findings to which the SA Police will have to give serious attention. I accept that they have already begun to give serious attention to those findings. In the light of the attack on them that has come from the side of the PFP and others, the police actually came through very well. It must be noted that the media excelled themselves during this investigation in that in their articles and photographs they feasted the public on articles about evidence that had neither been tested nor weighed up as though that reflected the factual situation. I believe that any news medium should refrain from such practices, because that does not contribute to orderly investigation and calming pent-up emotions and will lead to certain sectors of the public becoming prejudiced one way or the other. I want to say that, seeing this as a public enquiry into the police, gave rise to a tremendous reaction from the South African public.

Another important thing which in my opinion we can deduce from this report is that the image certain people tried to create that the police in this case moved out in force to mow down the Blacks has been totally repudiated. I think that that is a very, very important point to which attention must be drawn. Another important aspect is that the judge, in his subjective judgment of Lt Fouché, concluded that that lieutenant acted as could reasonably be expected from him under the circumstances. If one looks at the sequence of events as set out from page 19—and I think this should briefly be placed on record—one sees that the witness Pentz, who commanded one of the Casspirs, said the following (page 19, par 3.4):

Then the crowd began to walk. The Rastafarian led them and in the front row there were between 20 and 25 people. Eventually the number of Black people increased to a few thousand. At a given moment the Rastafarian produced a black book after a shot had been fired past him. He also produced a petrol bomb. A woman picked up a stone and threw it. After that the shooting started. If one places oneself in the identical position in which those few policemen with their two vehicles found themselves, facing that vast crowd of worked-up people around them, one must ask what action one would have taken oneself. Then one can say that a reasonable man would have acted as Lt Fouché did.

Before my time expires, I still want to refer to certain other matters. It is significant that, although 21 March was a school day, of the people who were shot dead 9 were children of 16 years and younger; 45% of them were children. Of those injured, 6 out of 23, or 26%, were children of 16 years and younger. One asks oneself: What were children doing in such a situation on a school day? That is the first point.

They were going to the funeral.

“They were going to the funeral”! I am coming to the question of funerals. We see that in South Africa children are used in situations of this kind by faceless people to achieve certain ends.

Another matter to which attention must be given is the exploitation of funerals for blatantly revolutionary purposes. A third matter worthy of note—I am putting this very briefly—is that many inhabitants of the Black residential areas are peace-loving people who oppose violence. Then there are also, as my friend has said, the loyal Black policemen. These people are continually subjected to intimidation. The Kinikini’s are the people who have to pay the highest price. Mr Kinikini, that Black councillor, and his sons had to pay that price. He was the man who refused to resign from the council. We must take care that those people do not become an intimidated community who are entirely lost in the process.

In conclusion I want to say that the people who died there, as also the rioters and the police are all really the victims of faceless agitators. We must support the Police in South Africa to remove those people from those communities.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Soutpansberg’s speech and it is gratifying for me to say that I agree with the standpoints he adopted here, and particularly in regard to the standpoints he adopted concerning the criticism of hon members of the CP, I am in complete agreement. I should like to express my appreciation for the relevant statements he made.

I want to link up with one remark the hon member for Soutpansberg made when he referred to the fact that it appeared to be an investigation focussing on the Police. I think it is terribly important to note the fact, reflected on page 8 of the report, that the judge expressly stated:

So never once, in the course of this investigation, were the Police in the dock, and there was no onus on them which they had to discharge.

The aspect of this report which I think is of importance is that it is a particularly balanced report in which the judge fearlessly expressed criticism, but in which he also rejected standpoints involving certain allegations. I think that the unimpeachable way in which the judge acquitted himself of his task, should fill everyone in this House, in fact all South Africans, with pride. [Interjections.]

That is why two aspects come to the fore. I find it tragic that a constructive debate between this side of the House and hon members of the PFP, on the subject being dealt with, is no longer possible at all. In the role the hon members of the PFP are playing, they are not only jeopardising the image of the SA Police and the Government, but the way in which they are now reacting to the judge and to his report compels me to predict that they are also placing the prestige and status of the judiciary in jeopardy. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Central will definitely be getting an opportunity to speak in a minute. For weeks the hon member took part in the proceedings of the Kannemeyer Commission. I find it regrettable that the hon member—ie if he is reported correctly—was furnishing negative comments on this report even before having said a single word in this House.

The hon member for Albany has again thought fit to launch a personal attack on the hon the Minister of Law and Order. It was an unfounded attack on the hon the Minister because it does not fit in with that hon member’s memorandums, sworn statements and previously adopted standpoints to adopt any view other than a critical one in regard to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. The fact that the hon member is making these remarks about people who were injured, wounded or killed—some had wounds in their backs—proves to me that the hon member takes no notice whatsoever of paragraph 4.5 on page 151 of the report in which the judge explains, in a legally based scientific manner, how such a state of affairs is possible.

Since the commencement of this debate hon members of the PFP have been indicating, by way of interjections, that they stick to their standpoints that by implication they do not, in any way, accept certain of the judge’s findings and that they want to reiterate this. They adopt the standpoint that the SA Police is above the law. “The Police Force in the Eastern Cape are a law unto themselves” is the standpoint they adopt. In the period during which it has been my privilege to serve in this House I have never heard of a single judge’s view that those hon members endorsed if it did not suit their previously adopted standpoints.

The country’s Chief Justice carried out an investigation into the country’s security legislation, and the first to criticize this were the hon members of the PFP. Here the judge adopted a standpoint as a result of his terms of reference requiring him to make a finding based on fact, and the first to criticize this are the hon members of the PFP.

The evidence and the case of hon members of the PFP rest on sworn statements and nothing but sworn statements. In no uncertain terms the judge warned the hon member for Durban Central. After a discussion had taken place between them, as reported on pages 1766 and 1767 of the record, the judge states:

That is the danger we are faced with. These members went along and took down uncontested sworn statements and presented them as gospel. When the hon member for Albany was cross-examined, he acknowledged that the sworn statements he had taken down had not been subjected to cross-examination. Those uncontested sworn statements, however, are disseminated abroad as gospel.

If one looks at how they set about things, and look into the sworn statement of Kelman Befele, one sees the following allegations he made in his sworn statement:

Does that accord with the commission’s findings after the judge had had the privilege of listening to the relevant cross-examination?

What role did Mrs Molly Blackburn play in this connection? Here I want to refer to Exhibit “XX” handed in to the commission. Under cross-examination Mrs Molly Blackbur acknowledged that the views attributed to her here were a correct reflection of her views or standpoints. She was confronted by the following statement:

Mrs Molly Blackburn responded in the following terms:

Facts, as reflected in this report, attest to the very opposite. [Interjections.]

†Nowhere is there any credit given to the Police for any positive finding mentioned in the report. No, the Minister is made out to be a liar, while those who actually spread grossly exaggerated facts, were praised. The headline of the leading article in this morning’s Cape Times was: “Ministerial Misinformation”. Then The Cape Times goes on to misquote the Minister. In no way did the Minister accuse the media of publishing grossly exaggerated facts. The Minister said that facts were relayed to the media.

*Those are the facts of the matter. The Cape Times and their fellow-travellers, the PFP, see fit to give a certain image to, or put a certain construction on, the standpoint the hon the Minister adopted here, in spite of the fact that the commission states that in no way can any sinister motives be ascribed to the hon the Minister. I think their criticism is extremely unfair.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Krugersdorp once again subjected the PFP report to a close scrutiny, for which I thank him. We are proud of that report, because a day after the incident we in the PFP had a better idea of what had happened than that hon Minister who is head of the SA Police. [Interjections.] Because of that report we were able to form an idea, and could give the country an idea, of what happened there. I should like to give the hon the Minister and his Deputy the assurance today that we in the PFP will go on monitoring and critically examining police action throughout the country, in so far as we are able to do so. He can carry on making a fuss and trying to denigrate us as being anti-police. It will not deter us from instituting the same type of investigation if something like this occurs again. In the end we in the PFP will have contributed much more to building up respect for the Police Force than the hon the Minister himself is achieving by his total neglect to exercise control over his policemen. [Interjections.]

Who is to blame for the 20 people who died and the many who were wounded? Who is to blame? If we look at the last paragraph of the report it is apparent that there are two categories of persons who are to blame. In the first place, it is the police officer or officers responsible for the funeral being prohibited, and in the second place, the police officer or officers whose decision resulted in the standard equipment not being issued. On page 113 of the report it states that the judge found that:

Now I ask the hon the Minister whose decision that was. If he has control over his Police Force, if there is discipline, he should be able to tell the House this afternoon whose decision that was. We want to find out whose decision that was. [Interjections.]

†How is it possible that in a police force, which is supposed to be disciplined, a decision like that is taken, particularly if, according to the hon the Minister, it is taken directly contrary to his instructions? I believe it is due to two factors, and this relates to the Eastern Cape specifically. The first factor is poor discipline among the Police in the Eastern Cape, and the second factor is a command structure in the Eastern Cape which needs a drastic overhaul.

Why do we say that? The evidence showed that there was a complete lack of coordination and a complete lack of communication between the different levels of Police structure. On 21 March, Lieutenant Fouché who was in charge had no idea of who was in charge of the temporary base. He did not know to whom he had to report. The other officers who arrived with Casspirs from Port Elizabeth did not know whom to report to or who was in charge. They did not know what they were supposed to do except to drive around and patrol the area. There was no co-ordination whatsoever. A policeman arrives with a Casspir from Port Elizabeth and is merely told to go to the charge office and someone will tell him what to do. When he went to the charge office, someone told him to go and patrol the area. That is how things operated in the Eastern Cape under the control of this hon Minister. There was no decent command structure.

If there is one thing that we have not found reason enough to criticize the Defence Force for recently, it has been the aspect of discipline. We have criticized the Defence Force for many other things. However, time and time again, this hon Minister’s failure to act and act openly has led to suspicion in our ranks and among the public that the discipline in the Public Force is not what it should be. The very fact that, by his own statement, his direct instructions were ignored and disregarded is proof of a complete lack of discipline.

How far does this lack of discipline and the lack of communication go? Does it only include the Eastern Province or does it go right up to Pretoria? I believe the problem is evident even at head office. One should not only deal with Captain Goosen and the local officers but I believe that one needs to look at the senior officers in Pretoria as well.

Policemen who were normally doing ordinary charge office duties were suddenly hauled in to do riot control. Many of those were not properly trained for that task. In fact, there was a member of the Port Elizabeth riot control unit—these are people who are supposed to be specialized and have undergone special training—who was 21 years old with no riot control training whatsoever. That is on record. How can that be allowed to happen? He was a 21 year old, inexperienced policeman with no riot control training. I believe the whole question of training for riot control needs to be looked at again. We cannot have senior Police officers in Pretoria talking about rioters and those who are involved in unrest as the enemy, “die vyande”. This hon Minister knows that that is how they talk about them. Those policemen who go for training for border duties are taught to deal with the concept of “the enemy”. When we deal with internal unrest situations, we are dealing with a different category of persons. That distinction between those two situations is not drawn clearly enough in their training programmes. We need to take a detailed and critical look at their training programmes.

What has the response been to this report from the hon the Minister? He appointed a departmental board of inquiry to consider the findings of the commission. That is not going to defuse the disquiet among the public about police discipline and the lack of control which exists. Such a departmental board of inquiry is always shrouded in secrecy, and the same will happen here. It will disappear behind the cobwebs; no one will find out. It may well result in some of those senior officers on that board sitting in judgement upon themselves. Why does the hon the Minister not open up? We have asked them to open up on numerous occasions in the past. Let justice be seen to be done particularly in respect of this incident. The hon the Minister still refuses to take the public into his confidence.

Let us look at the Defence Force—a similar organization in many respects. When members were suspected of being or were found to be sympathizers of Renamo the hon the Minister of Defence openly told the public of South Africa that five had been dismissed and others had been transferred. That gives one confidence in the ability of the Minister of Defence and his senior officers to control the Defence Force. That is lacking with this Minister because he is not prepared to tell the public how he effects control and how he disciplines his own Force. He can take an example from the Defence Force.

*In the latest edition of Die Suid-Afrikaan the Minister says the following in an interview:

Now I ask the hon the Minister: What action has already been taken? We want to know, and the public wants to know, what steps have already been taken. The public has the right to know this. [Interjections.] If action has already been taken, what is the purpose of the departmental board that should investigate the same aspects?

†The Minister must open up. There needs to be a visible shake-up in the command structure of the Police Force, specifically in the Eastern Cape. Some senior police officers in Pretoria also need to be looked at.

We believe that a proper response to the report of the commission would be the establishment of a permanent, statutory Police Commission responsible to Parliament and consisting of Police and civilian experts as well as members of Parliament in order to look, on an ongoing basis, at Police action, training, equipment, discipline, etc. Such a commission should have an independent chairman and should have the right to co-opt members in order to deal with ad hoc situations if, for example, unrest situations occur in particular areas.

We cannot afford to find ourselves in a situation where Parliament quite patently has lost control of the Police Force, where it has been misinformed and where the public has no idea of what is going on in the Police command structure. Such a commission would be open and would be required to table an annual report to Parliament which could then be discussed. Unless this hon Minister takes action which the public can see to be relevant and decisive, a departmental board and assurances will not resolve the matter.

We played a fundamental role in assisting in sorting out the mystery which shrouded the incident initially as a result of the hon the Minister’s statement. We are going to continue to try to investigate police action from all angles. We are proud of our role in this instance and not for a moment will we attempt to adopt a different attitude in this regard.

Mr Speaker, I cannot but feel sorry about the hon member for Durban Central having returned, so frustrated, from the Kannemeyer Commission sittings. He vented his frustrations in the House this afternoon. Only his party is to blame for that—no one else. Professionally and otherwise the hon member conducted himself quite correctly, but that is not at issue now. Any criticism I may express has nothing whatsoever to do with that aspect of the hon member’s life. I am speaking about him as an hon member of this House. He sits there frustrated; and he knows, too, why he is frustrated. He was presented with a report, more than a quarter of which he could not present to the commission because he knew it would not have any leg to stand on. He knew that his hon colleagues had given him a report that contained a number of lies, and as a professional lawyer he was not prepared to present those lies to the Kannemeyer Commission. [Interjections.] The hon member presented that commission with four statements, even though he had a large number in his possession. [Interjections.] As a competent lawyer he was not prepared to submit all that nonsense to the commission.

That is not true.

It is true, and the hon member knows it is true. [Interjections.] In the course of my speech I shall be replying to certain aspects relating to particular matters raised by the hon member.

I should now like to confine myself to matters involving the report, and then I want to come back to matters involving the Official Opposition. Before getting round that, I should nevertheless like to express my thanks to all hon members of the House—except those of the Official Opposition—who supportively and critically participated in the debate. I shall also be coming back to the hon member for Durban Point. The interest that all hon members have shown in these events, and the positive criticism they furnished, are appreciated.

Mr Justice Kannemeyer’s report relating to the events in Langa, Uitenhage, on 21 March is of very great importance to the Government. I should again like to thank Mr Justice Kannemeyer for the thorough, expeditious and irreproachable manner in which he carried out his terms of reference. His report is clear and descriptive.

The memorandum tabled in conjunction with the report was drawn up as factually and correctly as possible and contains a summary of the foremost matters dealt with in the report, including the findings based on those matters. What is more, the Government standpoint in regard to a few important aspects are also clearly set out, these being: Firstly, that the procedure in connection with the application prohibiting funerals would be reviewed; secondly, that in addition to what has already been done, the South Africa Police’s manpower, equipment and training needs—to enable them to carry out riot control more efficiently, but with the least possible danger to themselves and the public—would continually be reviewed; and thirdly, that a board of enquiry has been appointed in terms of the Police Act to consider matters in connection with certain of the commission’s findings relating to the Police.

The report is therefore receiving the necessary attention that it deserves, and in essence it is acceptable to the Government.

The hon member for Durban Point asked me for two assurances. I should like to give the hon member the assurance that the matters he mentioned will, in fact, be given positive attention. At this stage, however, I am not prepared to give the hon member the assurance that the departmental report, which will eventually be presented to me, will in fact be published. [Interjections.] Attention will, in point of fact, be given to those matters to which the hon member referred. He can accept that fact. [Interjections.]

This unfortunate incident at Langa has, in the process, also injured the Police. The criticism we have to endure is not a pleasant experience. We are not shying away from that, however, nor are we allowing ourselves to be stopped in our tracks. What we are, in fact, insisting on is that the incident and the report be judged in the proper perspective, and not with the hysterical emotionalism with* which certain leftist politicans and newspaper editors conduct themselves.

The cardinal question consistently posed by everyone is whether the police will be entitled to fire on the crowds, and in this regard the commission has found that the decision of the officer in command to maintain his position, and his consequent order to fire, were understandable, and that he cannot be criticized for that. It is interesting that not a single member of the PFP has the courage to refer to this decision. The Commission states that the officer concerned had a tremendous decision to take because a command to fire would definitely lead to people being killed, whereas on the strength of the information he had available, to have withdrawn would have endangered the inhabitants of Uitenhage, and moreover he also had to take the men under his command into consideration. After considering all the contributary factors, the Commission acknowledged the correctness of lieutenant Fouché’s decision.

On the other hand the Commission also came to the conclusion that if the funerals planned for 21 March had not been prohibited, the incident would not have taken place, and also that the police were not equipped to handle the confrontation. The commission commented on the fact that riot control police should never land up in a position in which any action they are forced to take, inevitably leads to the death of agitators.

I am not surprised about the Commission’s criticism of this point and have already expressed my opinion about certain aspects relevant to that. The board of inquiry appointed in terms of the Police Act will give further in-depth attention to this.

There are two other important findings of the Commission that should not be lost sight of either. They deal firstly with the fact that a large number of those who died and were injured had been shot in the back and, secondly, with the use of sharp-nosed ammunition in certain circumstances. The Commission speaks of “skerp ammunisie”, whilst in my view the correct term is “skerppunt-ammunisie”.

In regard to the shots that struck people from the rear—I am referring to these matters in order to place things in perspective—the Commission concluded that most of the shots were fired after the crowd began to scatter and ran away, but the Commission refers to the fact that reaction time should not be lost site of, this being a concept well known to all legal men involved in the litigation resulting from motor vehicle accidents. No hon member of the Official Opposition would refer to this fact.

According to the hon member for Barberton they are not “regsgeleerdes” but “linksgeleerdes”.

Yes, they are “linksgeleerdes”.

The commanding officer would have had to respond to the fact that the crowd was in the process of turning before he gave the command to cease fire, and his men would have had to react to the command before the firing was stopped. In such a very brief timespan shots could have been fired, and one shot with an SSG shotgun cartridge can cause widespread injuries, according to the Commission.

Secondly—this is very important—the Commission found that the use of sharpnosed ammunition—this is taken from the Report—and heavy shot might be necessary under certain circumstances, for example when someone is on the point of flinging a petrol or acid bomb or firing a shot. These two matters should not be distorted by critics or judged out of context.

Many questions are asked about the fact that at the time of the incident the Police were obviously not fully equipped for any eventuality that might arise from a situation of unrest. Although the board of inquiry will also be giving further attention to this aspect, I want to emphasize what has already been set out in the memorandum, ie that planning in connection with riot control and the control of mobs is an on-going process as far as the Police are concerned and that urgent attention has been given to this during recent years.

Attention is being given to the formulation and publication of suitable orders, provisions and guidelines for police officers involved in crowd and riot control. Attention has also been given to the availability and use of all types of control equipment and the training and retraining of staff in its use. Continuous research has been done into new equipment and its use.

Moreoever, on 19 February 1985 I personally, together with the Commissioner of Police, visited Port Elizabeth and its environs where, for hours at a stretch, all relevant senior officers in the Eastern Cape and I gave attention to all matters relating to the unrest situation and, in particular, to the question of supplies and their use.

What is more, during the week of 18 March 1985 I had all riot unit commanders at Maleoskop in the Groblersdal district come together for a special refresher course in all aspects of riot control. There I personally …

Mr Speaker, if it is true, according to Die Suid-Afrikaan, that in February the hon the Minister issued special instructions in the Eastern Cape on the use of methods and equipment for riot control, why was this information not presented to the Kannemeyer Commission?

The hon member had an opportunity of putting his case to the Kannemeyer Commission and cross-examining the witnesses. If the hon member now has fleeting intimations about that, he must please not interrupt me with such nonsensical questions. [Interjections.] Before the Kannemeyer Commission—and I shall be coming to that—I was represented by a senior advocate who is a competent advocate who was complimented by the judge on the capable way in which he dealt with all aspects before the commission. I want to appeal to the hon member not to interrupt me unnecessarily with such nonsensical comments.

As I have said, during the week of 18 March 1985 all riot unit commanders were brought together at Maleoskop for a special refresher course in all aspects of riot control. I visited the spot. I satisfied myself that everything possible was being done and all possible plans put into operation for effective action to be taken, but nevertheless always with the least possible injuries or loss of life to all concerned. I took the trouble to take the members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Order along to inform them about and brief them on all the trouble being taken by the Police. During that week virtually all the members of the standing committee also paid a visit to Maleoskop, and they had every opportunity to exchange ideas with all the officers. [Interjections.]

What is more, during the few months prior to the incident I paid several visits to various places in the Eastern Cape and personally gave thorough consideration to all prevailing circumstances.

Another matter that must also be placed in perspective relates to my statement in Parliament on 21 March 1985 and the appointment of the commission of enquiry by the State President. In passing I just want to tell that hon member and other hon members in the Official Opposition that in this connection I did not make a second statement referred to here today. En route to the airport in Port Elizabeth a journalist did put a question to me, a question to which I replied. [Interjections.] Since the hon member for Durban-Central is so interested in the commission’s activities, what is interesting, according to my information, is that before the commission he did not ask a single question about this. He did not submit any evidence about this. It was not part of his case. [Interjections.]

The circumstances that gave rise to my statement, and the reasons behind the facts it contains, are fully dealt with by the commission, and I leave it at that.

The question, however, is what a Minister’s conduct should be when it appears that a statement he made in Parliament was based on faulty information about which he had no prior knowledge. I am of the opinion that a person—I am now speaking of a member of the Cabinet—should then immediately inform the State President about it and, moreover, ascertain the correct facts in the best possible manner.

That is exactly what I did. On the morning of 22 March I became aware that contradicttory facts had been made available to me, and I immediately went to inform the State President about that. I did that early that morning when this came to my attention. [Interjections.]

What about Parliament?

I also went further. Let me just tell the hon Chief Whip that at that stage I was not yet satisfied about the real accuracy of all the facts at my disposal. At that stage I was therefore not justified in entering into a dispute by way of a debate in Parliament, nor was I prepared to do so. I was, however, concerned about the facts at my disposal that I furnished to Parliament. I immediately expressed my concern to the Head of the Government, asking him that very morning please to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry immediately to investigate the matter, notwithstanding the fact, as the hon Chief Whip knows, that two days previously the State President had told the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he would appoint a commission of inquiry into the situation in the Eastern Cape, but then law and order first had to be restored to that area and other areas in the country.

May I ask the hon Minister a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer any further questions. That same day the State President ordered the appointment of a commission of inquiry, this being announced by the Minister of Justice. In the statement issued it was stated that I had asked for the commission to be appointed. This fact was conveniently omitted by most newspapers, notwithstanding the fact that it is contained in the first sentence of the memorandum tabled in conjunction with the report. Even the Leader of the Official Opposition deliberately omitted this in his statement to the Press on 11 June 1985 in which he was being purposely hurtful in saying the following:

Surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knew that that was incorrect, and I do hold that against him. What is more, by way of a senior advocate, I submitted all possible information at the disposal of the State to the Commission, and in the report the Commission also expresses it thanks and its appreciation for this. Then the hon member for Durban Central says we were covering something up. He says the Commission did some covering up. [Interjections.] What allegation did the hon member level at the hon the Deputy Minister?

The police cover up, not the Commission.

That is not what the hon member said. Surely he knows that is not what he said.

I am satisfied that on this point I did my duty as a member of the Cabinet, honestly and with bona fides, and I know that on the basis of these facts I have the full support of my colleagues, and consequently I pay no attention to the frivolous demands, by a small leftist group in the PFP, for my resignation as a member of the Cabinet. It is not all the members of that party who feel that way. I pay no attention to the hon member for Houghton’s small leftist group and their equally leftist newspaper friend The Cape Times. The State President decides who will serve in his Cabinet and not those leftist light-weights who represent a small group of people in the country. I have every confidence in the State President’s judgment, and he knows it. I want to assure the House and the country—I am sure this also includes most of the other hon members in the House, even some members of the PFP—that notwithstanding the Langa events and the criticism of those events—something which is being given serious attention—every member of the NP caucus wholeheartedly supports the SA Police in the difficult and very demanding task with which it is entrusted, ie that of maintaining law and order and ensuring the safety of all of us.

Let us look at the role of the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition’s role in regard to the Langa events is not above suspicion. On the contrary, their conduct is disturbing. On the strength of press reports on 22 March 1985 and the memorandum which they—actually just the small leftist group in the party, because there are hon members of the PFP who are ashamed of that memorandum—made public at a press conference on 25 March 1985, they are trying to create the impression that they took a bona fide interest in the events and wanted to hear both sides of the story. My question to the members of that small leftist group, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his small leftist group—although I do not believe he is all that much of a leftist—is: Where does the sudden interest come from? They have never been interested in the death of any member of the Force. They have never tried to justify any police action. They have never been interested in any incident in which parties other than the Police have been involved.

Let me give them some examples. In the Vaal Triangle last year there was serious unrest in which there were some gruesome murders perpetrated by Blacks against Blacks, but where was the PFP? Where was the PFP when the Van der Stel Commission of Inquiry launched an investigation in that area? Where was the PFP when it came to the courtcase which began yesterday and in which 22 people in Pretoria were arraigned on charges of murder, high treason and other charges? It is not, after all, the SA Police who are being charged there; other people are.

Let me give another example. In Uitenhage a Black councillor, Mr Kinikini, and two of his sons were brutally murdered. At a funeral parts of their bodies were flungabout in Kwanobuhle, miles from there. Where was the PFP? [Interjections.]

At Cradock a Black member of the Police Force was brutally murdered, and after the police had tried to bring the riot there under control, the hon member for Port Elizabeth, the hon Hyde Park soap box orator, went along to investigate the so-called Police atrocities, but showed no interest in the facts that gave rise to the constable’s death. He did not even mention the fact in the House. On the contrary, the hon member presented the events that gave rise to the constable’s death as indicative of a peaceful scene. It has previously been discussed in the debate, but nowhere, in any of the hon member’s statements, did he mention that an attack had been made on a policeman’s house and that the policeman had been brutally murdered. He has no interest in that.

The hon member for Albany, who was so excited this afternoon and who made such a fuss, enthusiastically if not fanatically tried to give evidence before the Kannemeyer Commission against the SA Police—and not to ascertain precisely what the facts were. In just such a way he investigated events in Port Alfred, which I take to be part of his constituency. Again, if one reads those documents, one sees the absolutely distorted picture of the credibility ascribed to the complainants concerned. Meanwhile 16 of those same sanctimonious complainants of his were found guilty in court on serious counts of public violence. [Interjections.] In that case, too, the hon member showed not the slightest interest in any merit as far as the Police were concerned.

If those hon members are so eager to institute investigations, let me give them an example of a way in which they can help us with an investigation. They are, are they not, the professional investigators in South Africa. On 4 June of this year, at six o’clock in the afternoon, in the St Phillips Anglican Church at Graaff-Reinet, Dr Boesak addressed a small group of young Black people, a meeting at which, amongst other things, he appealed to them to observe a day of prayer for the fall of the Government on 16 June of this year. They should observe an hour of prayer for the fall of the Government—that is his usual theme these days. After these events—and I want to qualify this by saying that I am not imputing anything to Dr Boesak—in the church where he addressed the young people—I take it with good intentions—these young people gathered outside the church, singing freedom songs, and began shouting that a certain Black policeman called James was “impimpi” and must be killed—that is a term that means something in some or other Black language. Subsequently those young people went directly to the house of the Black constable concerned, flinging stones and setting the house alight. He tried to defend himself with his revolver, but did not succeed. He then fled from his house, and the following day his body was found approximately 500 yards from there. He had obviously been stoned and then set alight. We have thus far arrested 13 Black youths between the ages of 12 and 22 years.

Let me now tell members of the Official Opposition that if they are that keen on instituting investigations, they are welcome to investigate that matter. They are welcomes to investigate the involvement of all the various parties, including that of the Police. [Interjections.]

The important question members of the Official Opposition have to answer is what their attitude and conduct would be if a number of members of the force were to have been killed at Langa that day. Would they then have investigated the matter with equal enthusiasm? Would they have gathered information with as much enthusiasm? Would they even have appointed an advocate to go and assist the Commission? Let me tell the hon member for Durban Central that he would not have been instructed to do so, and I am sure he would not have acted on that instruction either. No one in South Africa would believe them if they answered this question in the affirmative. [Interjections.]

In the memorandum made available to the Press by the Official Opposition several allegations are made which were proved to have been false by the evidence presented to the Commission and which was rejected as untrue by the Commissioner himself. The hon member for Durban Central says he stands by those false items in their report. He stands by that whole series of falsehoods found to have been false by the Commissioner. I have the report before me and I have studied every word of it. What I am saying is that in the Official Opposition’s memorandum there is a whole string of falsehoods that have been proven to be false by the evidence and have been found to be false by the Commission. The hon member, as a member of the Bar, nevertheless tells me he stand by those falsehoods. Is he not ashamed of himself? [Interjections.]

Let me mention some of the worst examples. There is the question of the number of Casspirs involved. There is the allegation that firing took place from a Casspir supposedly positioned behind the crowd. Is that not ridiculous! There is the allegation about there having been no warning shot. It was alleged that the young man on the bicycle was the first to have been shot dead, that his brains lays spattered in the street. That is what those hon members told the Commission, but there the boy stood in the courtroom and said: That is my bicycle; give it to me so that I can go home. [Interjections.] Let me also refer to the allegations that those who were wounded were shot whilst trying to escape. It was also alleged that long before the shooting began—this is according to the report:

There are several other examples in that report by the PFP about which they ought to hide their heads in shame. The role they played, and their conduct, is lamentable to say the least.

Some people, such as Dr Allan Boesak and Mrs Molly Blackbu, stated categorically, on the BBC and the other international news media, that 43 people were shot to death with automatic weapons that day. Those are those hon members’ friends. Nowhere have I seen them reprimanded. No, that will not be done. The SA Police will be attacked on the smallest of particulars, but not those friends of theirs.

I want to ask the hon member for Houghton whether she took part the other night in a programme on the BBC in which she said:

Did the hon member say that. [Interjections.] Well, I have a transcript here.

I did.

Would the hon member mind telling the House what she meant by:

That is what she told the British public.

I meant retribution.

That is the calibre of person who now conducts herself so sanctimoniously here.

The commission rejects a whole series of rumours and allegations, some of which cannot solely be ascribed to the hon members of the Official Opposition, but also to their trend-setting friends, but they were all rejected by the Commission. Let me mention a few of them. It was alleged that 43 people had been killed; that the police had improperly disposed of some bodies; that a baby had been killed; that the police had subsequently shot people who were injured; that some members of the police were guilty of heartless conduct towards dead victims; that the police purposely delayed the arrival of ambulances and that the injured were given inadequate medical care. These are all allegations emanating from their ranks, or which their friends supposedly made, but about that they do not wish to express any opinion.

Let me rather conclude on a positive note. I want to conclude with the last paragraph of the memorandum that I tabled:

That is precisely what the Government, with the support of the SA Police an the other security forces of our country, will continue to do.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

laid upon the Table:

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Water Research Amendment Bill is not of a contentious nature, although its Afrikaans title is one of the longest words I have ever seen, and contains 35 letters. The gist of this measure is that the office of chairman of the Water Research Commission and that of Chief Executive Officer, which have been vested in one person since 1974, are to be separated.

Further consequential amendments will be required to implement this separation of offices and to confer certain responsibilities and duties upon the respective incumbents.

Provision is also being made in this Bill for the appointment of an acting chairman and an acting deputy chairman, should circumstances require it. It is the policy of the Government to separate the offices of chairman and executive officer of all bodies such as the Water Research Commission, whenever it is possible to do so in practice. This implies that the daily routine of the Water Research Commission will in future take place under the direction of the executive director, but that the chairman of the commission and the commission per se will exercise a controlling function over the activities of the executive director and his personnel. The chairman, who will in future perform his task on a part-time basis, will devote special attention to the formulation of policy proposals to the commission. In future the commission per se will also be able to make decisions concerning any complaints, grievance or any official act or omission brought to the attention of the chairman by the executive director or any officer or employee of the commission.

†To ensure that the close liaison that of necessity has to exist between the commission and the Department of Water Affairs is maintained, the Director-General: Water Affairs will remain ex officio a member of the commission. The appointment of members of the commission will no longer be done by the State President but by the Minister of Water Affairs. The reason for this amendment is obvious. Since the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation it is not necessary to burden the Executive State President with appointments of this nature. The revised means by which members are to be appointed is only a more practical arrangement, and members who are appointed will, as in the past, still be the most competent persons capable of making positive contributions to water research in the RSA, an area in which South Africa enjoys worldwide recognition.

*Since the Water Research Commission was established approximately 14 years ago it has made a significant contribution to a wide range of water matters. Research projects deal with aspects such as rainfall stimulation, water purification and reclamation, eutrophication, water economizing methods for power stations, irrigation matters and surface hydrology, to mention only a few. The results the commission has thus far attained are of great importance to all consumers of water in our country with its scarce water resources, and I am confident that the commission will equal and better the valuable contributions made in the past.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, as has been explained in the memorandum attached to this Bill, the purpose of the Bill is to separate the position of chairman of the Water Research Commission from that of the chief executive officer. Up until now both positions have been held by a single individual. Although this party is opposed to the creation of extra bureaucratic posts, we shall be supporting this Bill. We believe it is wrong in principle to create a situation in which an executive officer is accountable to an authority of which he is also the chairman. Such a position of power can lead to corruption, dishonesty and inefficient administration.

It is an unfortunate fact that one of the main reasons for introducing this Bill, arises out of the behaviour of the immediate past chairman and chief executive officer of the commission. Following the filing of 24 complaints against him, the Attorney-General found that five were justified, and the individual concerned then retired on 1 January 1985. Hopefully, once the measures suggested in this Bill have been implemented, such a situation will not arise again. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, since we are now in calmer waters, which are rippling only slightly, I merely want to say the CP gladly supports this legislation. We are not going to refer to certain occurrences which the hon member for Albany asserts were the reason for the passing of this Bill. I do not believe that was the only reason. I think it was merely ordinary common sense that one should not be one’s own master in a public body, and that there had to be a division between the position of chairman of the Water Research Commission and that of the chief executive official. That is mere sound practice.

With these few words we should like to support this legislation. We are aware of the immensely important work done by the Water Research Commission for South Africa in particular and for science in general. That is why we should like to support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to agree with the train of thought of the hon member for Barberton, and we support the amending Bill. It is a very important commission. Its activities have expanded immensely. If one merely looks at their estimate of expenses, it is clear to us that it had become necessary for the Act to be amended. That is why we should like to support the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to make it quite clear from the start that we in these benches will be supporting the Bill. However, I want to make certain comments in regard to the legislation before us. I want to refer to the fact that, when the Bill was first presented to the standing committee, it appeared to be a very innocent document. It was only on receipt of the Advocate-General’s report that it became apparent why the proposed amendment to the Act was now necessary. It is regrettable that the indiscretions of the erstwhile chairman and chief executive should have cast a cloud over the excellent work that is carried out by the Water Research Commission. Arising from the Advocate-General’s report, I feel the hon the Minister is obliged to give the House an explanation on certain issues relating to the Advocate-General’s report. I want to make it clear right at the outset that it is not my intention to cast any reflection on the Advocate-General.

First and foremost, the question I would like to raise is that of the appointment of the committee which investigated the alleged irregularities, in that it was comprised of members of the Commission themselves. By appointing members of the commission to sit in judgment on a colleague, and a senior colleague at that, obviously placed this committee in a very invidious position. Without casting a slur on the investigating committee, its credibility immediately becomes suspect and questionable. I wish to make it clear that we in these benches feel that the hon the Minister should have appointed an independent committee to carry out this investigation. Furthermore I consider that the final recommendations of the committee carry with them a tinge of sympathy, and this is an aspect which gives us cause for great concern. I would refer to the committee’s recommendations that are contained in paragraph 3.5.12 of the Advocate-General’s report.

Now, the first question I would like to put to the hon the Deputy Minister is: To what degree were the committee’s recommendations accepted and implemented? The second question I would like to put is whether any further action was taken against the official concerned, apart from the fact that he was required to take leave and then later tendered his resignation. I also want to make it clear that we in these benches are not satisfied that the committee’s investigation was carried out correctly. I call upon the hon the Minister therefore to appoint an independent committee to reinvestigate this matter.

In the meantime may I express the hope that stricter control measures will be exercised in the management of the affairs of the Water Research Commission in the future, and we look to this proposed legislation to give effect to this.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Albany, Barberton and Humansdorp, as well as the hon member for Mooi River for their support.

I do not know what the hon member for Mooi River is unhappy about because what happened here was that it was brought to the attention of the Advocate-General that certain irregularities had occurred due to the actions of the former chairman of the Water Research Commission who was also the chief executive officer. The advocate-General carried out a thorough investigation and I cannot prescribe to the Advocate-General how he should go about his investigations. I have sufficient confidence in the Advocate-General to know that he carried out the investigation to the best of his ability. I therefore do not want to make any comment whatsoever on the methods employed by the Advocate-General. I do not think it is for me to do so. If the hon member for Mooi River feels unhappy about the actions of the Advocate-General he should not complain to me about it.

I was speaking about the committee.

It is a pity that we have to waste time on this now but the committee was appointed after the Advocate-General had made a certain statement to the former chairman and chief executive officer, that certain of his activities would be investigated. The former chairman then reported to the commission that such an investigation was pending. At the very next meeting of the Water Research Commission he decided to inform the Minister concerned of the situation. The Minister then told the commission that it had to take certain steps in pursuance of the allegations that had been made about the former chairman.

What happened then? It was decided to request the chairman to take leave from 14 November 1984—it was brought to the Minister’s attention on 13 November—so that the necessary investigation regarding the complaint could be carried out and finalized. The Minister immediately appoint an acting chairman. It was then recommended that a committee of enquiry be appointed to investigate the background to the complaint lodged with the Advocate-General as well as the general executive and administration of the Water Research Commission. It is only logical after all that if a complaint is lodged with the Minister about the operation of part of his department he will immediately—I would also do it and I think any Minister would do so—issue instructions that an investigation be carried out.

The committee was then appointed and it was a very responsible committee when one looks at the people who served on it. The Advocate-General accepted the evidence that this committee submitted to him.

†If the hon member for Mooi River is not happy with the acceptance by the Advocate-General of the evidence put before him he must not complain to me but to the Advocate-General.

Actually this Bill is not of a contentious nature. The Water Research Commission enjoys a very high standing and I think the commission performs exceptionally well. When one looks at the latest report on the activities of this commission, it is evident that they perform a very, very important function. When we deal with water affairs, we deal with very important matters. Water is a strategic commodity and this commission has a co-ordinating function as well as a function to determine research priorities with regard to the optimal utilization of existing water sources and the establishment of new water sources.

*There is no doubt that we cannot spend too much money on water research.

An aspect of the work done by the Commission which I like is that it does not do the work itself but gives it out on a contract basis to various bodies such as universities and the CSIR. It has been said that this amendment is being proposed as a result of the irregularity that occurred. The Advocate-General described it as being of a limited nature. May I add that the State did not lose a cent in the entire process. All the money that was involved—and it amounted to only a few rand—was returned. The former chairman has now been given leave to retire. In any case he is out of the picture now. However, this was not the only reason which moved us to separate these two posts.

†I would say that this amendment—and I want to say this to the hon member for Mooi River—is in line with the general policy of the Government, namely to separate the office of chairman from that of the executive officer of all bodies like the Water Research Commission.

*I simply think that it will lead to better administration if these two posts are not vested in the same man because we are all human. If, for example, I were to be the chief executive officer and the chief policy-making officer as well—if I may call it that—I could easily formulate policy to suit the executive function. We are all only human. Consequently I think the administration will be of a better standard if the two posts are separated from each other.

I want once again to thank hon members sincerely for their support and I want to give the House the assurance that all the irregularities that took place have been cleared up without the State suffering any loss.

In conclusion let me say that the relevant former chairman and I would really like to mention his name here—Dr M R Henzen, was a man who did excellent work for South Africa for many years. He was a person who was held in tremendously high esteem internationally. At many international congresses, he was given recognition for the work he had done, but as a result of the fact that he allowed himself certain liberties in the administrative sphere…

No, you are being kind.

Yes, Sir. People who occupy a post for many years and who are scientifically inclined also sometimes rebel against certain minor details of administration. Let me assure hon members that there are probably few people in administrative posts who do not at one time or another commit a minor offence if one wants to go strictly according to the letter of the law. As he has now retired I should like today to give recognition to this former chairman for the fine work he did for South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Chairman, before the House adjourned yesterday, I referred to a statement which the hon member for False Bay made here in the House in 1983 (Hansard: House of Assembly, Monday, 6 June, col 8697):

At that stage it was the standpoint of the Government that all the Black people of the Cape Peninsula would be settled in Khayelitsha.

I also stated that the decision on, the planning of and the appropriation for the railway line were based on the assumption that all the Black people in the Cape Peninsula would be settled in Khayelitsha. I should again like to ask the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to listen to me. [Interjections.]

I also indicated that if all the Black people of the Cape Peninsula were to be settled in one consolidated Black town, it would be a logical step to construct a railway line to Khayelitsha, as was described in this Bill. I indicated that under those circumstances it would also be possible for the CP to support such a Bill.

I also indicated that the Government had abandoned its standpoint that Khayelitsha would be the only consolidated Black town in the Cape Peninsula. The railway line to Khayelitsha will now serve only one of five Black residential areas in the Cape Peninsula.

The logical deduction from the Government’s decision that the people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu will no longer be shifted to Khayelitsha, is that Khayelitsha will now have a far smaller population than the 300 000 people for which it was planned and according to which the railway line was planned. Basically it would only be the surplus of the illegal Black people of Crossroads who would be settled in Khayelitsha.

To construct a railway line for these people at an estimated gross cost of R62 million, the loss on which will total R20 million in the first year, is surely absurd. The railway line as it is described in this legislation, would be an uneconomic project for Khayelitsha with its 300 000 residents. The report of the SA Transport Services Board says so. To construct a railway line at the same cost for a reduced number of people in Khayelitsha, will increase the uneconomic position of this project tenfold.

The real meaning of this Bill is that the Government has completely thrown in the towel. The Government has now decided that the 250 000 residents of Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads can stay where they are and where they also have a railway connection and that they will now also have both political and leasehold rights. The Government has decided to continue with the planning of Khayelitsha to accommodate 300 000 Black people eventually. The viability of the ralway line to Khayelitsha is based on this. The Government has, therefore, accepted that it must build this railway line to create the necessary infrastructure to meet the requirements of an eventual Black population of 600 000 people in the Cape Peninsula.

If this is the case, then today the hon the Minister is asking the House’s approval to construct a railway line and finance its loses for part of a total Black population of 600 000 people on the Cape Flats. If Khayelitsha, as initially planned, were to accommodate 300 000 Black people, according to the report of the SA Transport Services Board for purely economic reasons it cannot be recommended that the construction of the railway line be continued with. If it has been decided for ideological considerations to provide the railway line for this Black town, the CP cannot support this Bill—least of all if the taxpayer must finance this totally uneconomic project and its losses of millions of rands by way of this Parliament.

To me this looks very much like an order from Baas Chris to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to construct the railway line and let the taxpayer pay for it.

Order! I do not know who Baas Chris is. Is the hon member referring to another hon member of this House? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman: Mr Chairman, I am referring to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Then that is how the hon member must refer to him.

To me this looks very much like an order from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to construct an uneconomic railway line; and the taxpayer of South Africa will have to finance the losses on this railway line. I feel sorry for the hon the Minister because if he, as the man who is at the head of the SATS, had to decide for purely economic reasons whether to construct this railway line I know that he would have said: “No”. But he received an order from that hon Minister to create an infrastructure for 600 000 Black people—which is equivalent to the total population of Botswana—within the borders of the constituency of the hon member for False Bay. [Interjections.] That is why this railway line is being constructed. For that reason the CP cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we have a strange situation here. Recently the Official Opposition vehemently opposed the construction of a railway line which would bring all races together for multi-racial sport. Now the CP is opposing the construction of another railway line which will be used by Blacks only so that they can live in a separate Black residential area. [Interjections.] I actually find it a little strange. [Interjections.] I will leave them to fight their own battles, Mr Chairman. I am merely mentioning how ironic it is that such speeches are made here. We in these benches will support the building of the railway line.

It is quite clear that when a community is settled in an area far from their place of employment, the train is the only reasonable mode of transport. We are in a period where urbanization is a fact, and any party which cannot face up to the fact of urbanization and which tries to run away from it, is not keeping pace with the history of our country. This urbanization process is not only going to continue to exist, but is going to speed up as it were. As Parliament it is our responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure and in particular the transport which is going to get those people to their place of employment reasonably and rapidly is provided. Consequently we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Durban Point for his summary. He is quite right. The railway fine must be constructed and there are developments. I am almost looking forward to the time when the CP is in power …

You do not have long to wait.

…and they have to take 300 000 people from Khayelitsha back to…

To Delmas.

…to the Ciskei and the Transkei. They are building wonderful castles in the air. [Interjections.] These people come from the Transkei and the Ciskei, and of course the CP will take them back. [Interjections.] Consequently, I want to thank the hon member for Durban Point.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I merely want to ask whether a quorum is present in the House?

Order! Will the Whips ascertain whether a quorum is present?

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout asked me very relevant questions, for example, who is going to pay the subsidy. I would prefer that employers pay the subsidy, but in the new system we will probably find that both the employer and the employee will have to contribute. He also asked whether there will still be taxis, combi’s and buses. The answer is yes, because one cannot expect a railway line which can carry 10 000 passengers over peak hours to be adequate for the job. Additional transport must be available. Eventually those trains will also serve Bellville, Parow and other parts of the Peninsula. The hon member also asked me why I said one and a half years when the report talks about two and a half years. The SATS can complete the railway line in one and a half years, despite what is said in the report.

*The hon member for De Kuilen, who is the chairman of the standing committee, summarized the matter very well for me. He also brought to my attention what the hon member for De Aar said in the standing committee, namely that he did not agree with Khayelitsha, but seeing that the town was there, the railway line had to be constructed. In the standing commitee the hon member said that the railway line had to be built because the town was there and why does the CP want to oppose the Bill now?

I want to thank the hon member for De Kuilen for his contribution. But the hon member for Kuruman argued with me whether there should be a Khayelitsha. He quoted what the hon member for False Bay is supposed to have said. He also said that I worked for Baas Chris. I do not feel bad about that at all.

He is a good boss.

I do not feel bad about that, it is just that he pays very little. We are not concerned here with whether there should be a Khayelitsha, because that is an entirely different matter. But the people must be transported and I must construct the railway line. I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Kuruman at this late stage of the session. Yesterday evening I told him that he was lying when he said that he had tried to attract my attention three times. When I referred the hon member to Hansard, he said that Hansard was not correct and that we should listen to the tapes. We can go and listen to them, but I do not want to quarrel about that.

Let us appoint a select committee. [Interjections.]

Order! Yesterday the hon the Minister said that the hon member was lying. He withdrew it and may therefore not refer to it again. But he did do so and I am now asking him to withdraw it again.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it with pleasure. I thought you wanted to come down on the hon member for Kuruman but you came down on me. Nevertheless, I withdraw it.

The hon member said that it was an uneconomic project. Can he give me an example of a single economic passenger project in Africa? Even the railway line to Pudimoe which he wants and which I am in favour of will not be an economic railway line to start with. It must first become viable. Throughout the world passenger transportation is uneconomic, but one must render a service. Consequently I just want to say that the Khayelitsha railway fine is an incontrovertible fact: It will be built whether hon members like it or not. It is to the benefit of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I move, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs:

The Bill seeks to substitute for section 2 of the Payment of Members of Parliament Act, 1974, a new section which re-enacts, in a revised form and with amendments and additions, the existing provisions in terms of which members of Parliament—except certain office bearers—incur a deduction of R50 from their salaries and allowances owing to failure under certain circumstances to attend meetings of Parliament or of relevant House or committee thereof. The amendments and additions are further measures calculated to prevent any possible delay of parliamentary business as a result of the absence of members.

†Provision is accordingly made for a deduction of R25 on account of failure to attend a committee meeting on any day on which a meeting of a House or a joint sitting of the Houses is attended, that attendance of a committee meeting shall be for the full duration of the meeting and that the additional periods of absence of 25 days and seven days shall apply only in respect of meetings of a House and joint sittings of the Houses, and not in respect of committee meetings.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, when this Bill was introduced, the Minister in charge of it spoke literally for a matter of seconds and gave no reason whatsoever for this particular measure; there was no motivation at all. What it does is to extend to standing committees the principle of penalizing a member who does not attend sittings of the House. I am surprised that the hon the Minister did not give us the reason for this extension. It may be because he thought that we all knew the reason. If that was the case, he was correct. The reason is that certain political parties have not been playing the game in regard to standing committees.

I want to make it absolutely clear that as far as the PFP, the Official Opposition, are concerned, we do not like the Constitution. We never have liked it and for the foreseeable future, as far as I can see, we are not going to like it. However, we took the standpoint from the start that the electorate, or a certain part of it, voted in the referendum in favour of this Constitution and it was our responsibility as the Official Opposition to cooperate to make it work as well as it could.

It is too early to judge the merits or demerits of the standing committee system. As the hon Minister concerned said a long time ago, this will be the key to the new Constitution.

I think some of the standing committees have worked well. I think that the standing committee which dealt with the Groote Schuur Estate worked extremely well. Its work was most valuable. I think that the standing committee which dealt with the Crown Mines line was a disaster. The standing committee which dealt with the associated medical professions was also a disaster. If that kind of attitude to standing committees is going to be adopted by Minister, senior officials and the chairmen standing committees, we are in deep trouble. We also have the gravest reservations about the Standing Committee on Finance.

When are you coming to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning?

As I say, we will discuss that later. I am just giving the hon the Minister, who happens to be responsible for the grand concept, notice that we are watching the system carefully. I have already said that we are not out to sabotage the system—nobody can say that we are—but if he wants us to co-operate and if he wants his Constitution to work properly, he must play the game.

The political parties I am referring to—I will not name them because we know which they are—failed to form a quorum at meetings of standing committees. There was absolutely no excuse whatsoever for their failure to attend those meetings. Not only was there no excuse but they are also sabotaging the system which they were quite prepared to come into. Their actions were also an affront to the other members of standing committees who took the trouble to come despite inconvenient hours. Sometimes they waited for an hour and an hour and a half, and there was no quorum. For that particular reason all the individual members of this House are now being treated like schoolboys and they are being hauled before the headmaster to stand on the carpet and to say:” I am sorry, Sir.” but then not to get six cuts with a cane but to be fined R50.

We should not have to legislate like that. It is absolutely childish. Surely there are other ways of dealing with the problem. Of course the problem is that we have a triple quorum system here. I understand that that was the brain-child of the late Pieter Venter. Well, he was a very great man, and it may be that this inspiration of his may prove to be the key to the standing committee system, but I am afraid that concept of requiring a triple quorum has put us into the position in which we are at the moment.

We on this side would much rather see a system where one has one quorum applied to all the members, but if that is not possible and we have to have three racial components, so be it. Then, however, there is an alternative, even with the triple quorum system.

What is the answer? The answer is that the Whips of the political parties that I have been talking to must exercise their authority over their members. [Interjections.] We have had no problem. We have never failed to form a quorum. I do not think the CP have failed to form a quorum. I do not think the NRP have failed to make up a quorum. I am not going to name the political parties I am talking about, but because their Whips cannot exercise sufficient authority, we have this extraordinary position that we are going to be fined R50 a day if we do not attend a standing committee in Pretoria.

There are matters of detail which we do not like, for example, the new subsection (2) of section 2 we believe is very badly worded. That is the deeming provision where a member does not stay in a standing committee throughout the length of its proceedings, and it may be, if we have time, that we have to have this Bill go before the Committee of the Whole House. I might say that it seems to me extraordinary that a member has to stay throughout the sitting of a standing committee save with the consent of the chairman. We are being treated like children. This kind of a provision really beggars description. It is the sort of thing one would see in a Boy Scouts’ manual—that one literally has to sit until the chairman says one may go out. We have real problems with this kind of legislation.

There will be a later occasion in this session when we deal with the new Rules for us to take a proper look at the standing committee system, and we will. We have a hitlist. The hon the Minister of Finance should not sit too comfortably in his bench.

I also have my hit-list.

That is fine. The hon the Minister has already tried hitting and he missed by a mile twice.

We cannot accept this Bill. I am sorry about that. We would like to co-operate on matters of procedure and constitutional process but this is a case of complete overkill, and the remedy is to be found along other avenues.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. I was surprised that he raised certain arguments. In the first place I want to say that I greatly appreciate the hon Chief Whip’s standpoint that although they are opposed to the new system as such, they still want to make a success of the system and participate in it. That is a great truth. I think that what the hon Chief Whip said about that would be endorsed by any right-minded person. That applies to all political parties in the system. Consequently I agree wholeheartedly with him that we must make a success of the present system.

But there were a few things in the hon Chief Whip’s argument which I did not understand. When we come to the activities of specific committees, I want to tell him at once that I disagree with him because the quality of work done in a specific committee has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill now in front of us. It does not concern that. Very well, as the hon Chief Whip said, sometimes there is no quorum, but whether or not the committee really functions well has nothing to do with that.

In the second place, a new principle is not being implemented now. There has always been a provision in the rules that if a member is absent for more than the approved 25 days he may be penalized. Consequently it does not concern the amplification of the principle of fines as such, but an increase in the amount by which a member can be penalized if he is absent for more than 25 days without a valid excuse as far as his attendance of sittings of the House is concerned. The same principle has merely been extended to the standing committees, and that is not unusual because the standing committees form part of Parliament.

If a specific principle, therefore, applies to Parliament with its three houses, it is only logical that the same principle should be extended to the standing committee. The only difference which there now is in this specific legislation is that MPs may be fined R50 if they are absent from sittings of the House without a valid excuse. For non-attendance of standing committee meetings the fine is R25, but the principle remains exactly the same.

I also want to point out that I do not consider it to be a fine as such. The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition argued that we were dealing here with legislation which created the impression that we were school children. Let me tell him at once that it may be true that it is the duty of the Whip to exercise the necessary discipline, but that is a dangerous thing. We must not generalize, because that hon Chief Whip of the Opposition as well as I and any other Chief Whip or Whip that is is easier to say that discipline must be exercised over every member than to do so. No, I accept that every Whip and Chief Whip is doing his very best.

In the good old days we always had good discipline.

The hon member for Rissik who is speaking over there …[Interjections.] No, give me a chance. That hon member will surely know, because he has, after all, been a Whip for a long time now, that he has not always succeeded in exercising a great deal of the discipline he would have liked to have exercised over his members. [Interjections.] He knows that is true. At the present moment the CP members do not even always act in the way the hon Chief Whip would like them to. We must therefore not talk about that.

The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition made the point that there must be discipline, but I maintain that that discipline must be within every member of Parliament. If the hon Chief Whip wants to appeal for better discipline, he must address that appeal to every hon member of Parliament in whichever House or party he may be.

I want to argue that it is the responsibility of every person who finds himself in Parliament to act, also among the general public, in accordance with his status. In fact we must actually argue that a person does not need the discipline of Whips, but that, by virtue of his own self-discipline, every member of Parliament will realize that when he is a member of a standing committee and specific arrangements have been made with regard to a time and a date, he must be there.

I also want to say that one must of course make this rule flexible and that is why it cannot be a fine per se: Look, child, if you do not do that, this and that will happen.

It simply good order that if a person attends a standing committee meeting, and it is impossible for him to be present for the entire meeting, he will ask to be excused. That is all that the proposed new section 2(1)(ii) provides. If that person cannot be present for the entire sitting of the standing committee, he may draw the attention of the Chairman to this, and the Chairman will decide whether he has a valid reason why he cannot attend the meeting. I do not see anything strange about that. It is an existing principle which is valid at the moment. It was even valid in the old system with regard to the absence of members after they had already used up the 25 days of absence they were allowed.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I know what that hon member said there, but the same principle applies here, only on another level.

I really want to argue that we must not see the amendments in this Bill as if fines have been built in, and that we must not see it as a new principle either. All it amounts to is that in this way we want to try to ensure that the business of Parliament is conducted in a neat and orderly way.

I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon Chief Whip of the NP said that we should not see this legislation as imposing fines or using coercion to force members of the Houses of Parliament to attend committee meetings. But the proposed new section 2(2) reads as follows:

This is one of the very best signs that this legislation is in fact being amended to ensure that there will be quorums at the standing committee meetings. Basically this Bill is forcing members to attend the meeting from beginning to end, if they do not want to pay that R25 fine, unless the chairman gives them permission to be absent before the time. If the chairman realizes that there is no quorum he can simply say that he is sorry but he is not going to give his permission for them to be absent.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is in favour of there always being a quorum. It is a simple question.

We are in favour of there being discipline.

Must there be a quorum?

A while ago the hon member for Rissik and the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition said that there must be discipline, and the parties must ensure that discipline is maintained. But do hon members realize that this year the bells have had to be rung twice in the House of Assembly because quorums were not present here. [Interjections.] The bells have been rung three times this year. I thank the hon the Minister and the Leader of the House.

How many of you were here?

The CP is not in power in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon Chief Whip of Parliament that if the Opposition parties are not present in a standing committee, that is another matter. The quorums there are determined by the majority parties in the three Houses. This measure is not aimed at the Opposition parties; not in the House of Assembly nor in the other Houses. This measure is aimed at the ruling parties in the three Houses.

I think it has become essential for there to be discipline. I come from Kuruman to attend a meeting of a standing committee in Cape Town. Then we sit from 09h00 to 11h00, and after we have drunk tea there is no longer a quorum. Then we must adjourn until the next day which means that an extra day’s costs are added. This is merely one of the examples which can be mentioned.

Last week senior officials had to fly from Pretoria to Cape Town and on Friday morning a quorum was not present. It was not the Opposition parties in the three Houses who were responsible for that either. It was the ruling parties in the three Houses who were responsible for the fact that a quorum was not present. These people had to fly down here at great expense and stay over for a day or two because there was no quorum. I agree with the hon Chief Whip of the NP that there must be stricter discipline. I also believe that the parties themselves can see to it that stricter discipline is maintained in the Houses.

The quality of the work does not depend on the quorum. Today it was proposed that a select committee be appointed in consequence of the remarks made by a certain member regarding the business of Parliament. This year I have not attended a single meeting of a standing committee which began on time. I asked the members of my party to tell me which standing committees they were members of and whether any of those standing committees began their meetings on time this year. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon members who are making such a noise that the CP has one member in that committee.

Tom Langley is always late.

Sir, that member must always be personal. I want to ask the hon member for Turffontein why he must always be personal. I want to ask him please to cease his ugly personal attacks. [Interjections.]

We agree with the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that when a meeting of a standing committee is to be convened, it must start on time. We also want that committee’s business for the day to be completed on that day. This Bill is the best proof that laws must now be made to discipline members to attend meetings of the standing committees.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member Mr Vermeulen is also becoming personal now. We are discussing important matters now. [Interjections.] We are not accusing each other now.

There were certain meetings of the standing committee which I could not attend as was the case yesterday afternoon, for example, when I had to make a speech here in the House. I could not attend that meeting. There are some meetings which we cannot attend and I am saying these things not to accuse parties or to exculpate us, but because when work has to be completed, we would like it to be possible for it to be done.

We would have liked to support this Bill. If a certain indication could be given to us today, we would be able to support the Bill. We want to ask that there must be an indication that the standing committees must sit during a certain period. It must be provided that the committees sit in November and December, for example. But I must not be told to be ready to attend meetings between September and the end of December. We have other work too.

I work according to a programme and cannot suddenly go and attend a meeting. What is more I frequently receive the notice at Kuruman a day before the meeting if it was posted here fourteen days before the time. I do not want to receive notice of a meeting I must attend here a day or two or a week before the time when I have already made several other appointments. For that reason I am appealing today to the Leader of the House and the Cabinet for us to provide that all standing committees will sit in November and December so that we can know that we must not make any appointments in November and December. But I cannot sit at home and do nothing from September onwards in order to be ready to attend meetings.

I also want to point out another problem which political parties have. We would very much like to receive new legislation in time, in September, for example, so that we can hold a caucus meeting and can discuss the legislation, and our members can therefore go to those standing committees having already cleared up the matters in our caucusses. We are asking for the necessary assistance as far as these matters are concerned.

There is also one point in this legislation which is worrying me, namely that this legislation is an affront to the dignity of members of Parliament. Probably for the first time in history a penal provision is now being introduced for if a man does not do his work.

No.

But it is a penal provision which is contained in clause 1. A member is being compelled to attend a meeting from beginning to end—otherwise he loses his money. His arm is being twisted with money. In my opinion this is an affront to the dignity of hon members of Parliament.

If the hon the Leader of the House can therefore tell us that the sittings of all standing committees will have to take place within a period of a month or a month and a half and that he can notify us early—at least two months before the time—when the meetings will take place, we can accommodate him. But if I get notice of a meeting of a standing committee a week or fourteen days before the time and I already have important appointments, I will be compelled to say: I am sorry, but I cannot attend the standing commitee meeting. Do you know, Sir, while I am then doing my duty as a member of Parliament in another way, I must pay for doing so. In my opinion this is one of the problems which this Bill gives rise to.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the various arguments. I think the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has raised some very interesting points but there are two simple facts of life which we must not overlook. Firstly, we have had penalties built into our rules, I think, virtually since Union. Secondly, with all the goodwill and the best intentions in the world, from the point of view of discipline one can say to someone: “Please, old man, don’t park your motor vehicle in this place.” However, he does not listen. Eventually one comes along and paints a yellow line, and he still does not listen to one. One then puts up a no-parking sign, and still he does not listen. We finish up in the end by having little meter maids who come along and put a ticket on the windscreen. You know, Sir, it is incredible that then, and then only, will we listen. We listen when it hurts a little bit; we do not listen when it does not. With all the love in the world I say to the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that discipline is only as good as the acceptance thereof.

It is no good that we, as individuals, say to one another that we must tell Whips in other parties that they must enforce discipline. Each Whip in each party will try to enforce his own disciplinary measures, and each member of each party will accept whatever he wants to accept by way of discipline. I believe quite sincerely that it is in the traditions of this Parliament that a fine, penalty or call it what you will, be imposed if a person—and I use the vernacular here—is not going to play the game. That is what has been happening—people have simply not been playing the game. This is the way to do it; it is accepted; it is traditional and for that reason we in this party will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in this Place I have seen Chief Whips of the Opposition come and go. I see the hon member for Groote Schuur as one of the best Chief Whips of the Official Opposition we have had but today he has disappointed me. [Interjections.] First of all he attacked the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs which is one of the best committees. He referred to it as a disgrace because of a railway fine to Crown Mines. [Interjections.] Sir, it is an excellent standing committee.

Whereas I disagree with the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, I have to agree with the hon member for Umhlanga. One has to have discipline. That was what the hon member for Kuruman also said but he said that this was the first time in this Place that we have a penalty. However, if one is not present on the last day of the session, one loses certain money.

Or on the first day.

Or on the first day. One must be here otherwise one loses money. We do have penalties.

*I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that I understand the problem he mentioned in the meeting of the Whips this morning. He wants the standing committee to convene so that he can complete his political duties. That is a reasonable request which I shall submit to the Cabinet. We shall be trying to have the standing committees convene in two month’s time. Therefore hon members will know that November and December are kept open for meetings of standing committees. Furthermore we can persuade Ministers to circulate the legislation concerned as early as September or a month before the time. It will be my aim to have this done. [Interjections.] The hon member should, however, keep in mind that all Ministers are not so efficient as I am; some of them he may even have to give a few wallops. [Interjections.] I shall, however, try to convey that hon member’s message. [Interjections.] Some legislation we cannot have ready at such an early stage, but I shall try to consider that member’s requests.

†The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition does not need this. However, as Chief Whip of the Official Opposition he has to admit that we have had to ring the bells three times in this House. Among ourselves as hon members of the House of Assembly we could not achieve the necessary discipline.

There were no penalties!

There were no penalties. If one makes hon members come by aeroplane from far away, however, and there is no quorum, one must have a penalty clause. I think that is very reasonable. [Interjections.] We do not want to treat the hon members like children.

*I just ask for understanding. I think the hon Chief Whip of the Government summed up the matter quite clearly. I want to content myself with that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put the following question to the hon the Minister? When an hon Minister is requested, for days on end, to appear before a standing committee and he does not do so, may we also fine him?

That is another matter. [Interjections.] I think we should leave this discussion at that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he is aware that, according to the wording of this particular measure, if an hon member arrives late for a standing committee meeting he will incur that penalty as there is no way in which the chairman can excuse him? He cannot be excused, even if his aeroplane was late.

The Chairman can make certain decisions. If this measure does not work properly in practice, we can always alter it. I think we should carry this measure through and see how it works in practice. I shall come to certain other amendments later in any case.