Order! I have to announce that the vacancy in the House of Assembly in the seat of a member nominated in terms of section 41 (1) (b) of the Constitution has been filled by the nomination of Mrs R Jager with effect from 19 May 1988.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, allow me in the first place to convey my congratulations to Dr Dawie de Villiers on his promotion to the Cabinet as the Minister of Administration and Privatisation. At the same time I want to wish Mr Alwyn Schlebusch a pleasant retirement and rest.

At departmental level I should like to convey my congratulations to Mr J B W Meyer, who has been transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly as Director-General, Mr I H Robson, who has been appointed as Secretary in the Office of the Commission for Administration, and last but not least, Mr L R Kluever, former Chief Director: Staff Systems, who was attached to the office for several years, and who has now been transferred to the Department of Transport as Deputy Director-General.

Today it is my task to state the CP’s policy on privatisation and to say a few words about the State administration and about the conditions of service of public servants. My colleague, the hon member for Barberton, will elaborate further on the CP’s policy with regard to privatisation, and the hon member comdt C J Derby-Lewis will give further attention to other aspects.

As regards privatisation the CP says that we prefer the free-market system to any other economic system for South Africa. For that reason the CP has no fundamental objection to privatisation, but with certain provisos. These provisos revolve around the following, namely that privatisation should not diminish quality, form monopolies, adversely affect security, cause prices to rise or have an inflationary effect on the economy.

Sir, owing to the drone of voices in the House I am finding if very difficult to address you.

Order! Some hon members are really conversing unnecessarily loudly with one another. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. For that reason the CP says no to privatisation when, out of the blue, it is simply announced that organisations like Iscor, Foskor, the SA Transport Services and Posts and Telecommunications are going to be privatised. The CP would have wanted the opposite.

It is our policy to say that this should have been done more analytically and that there should first have been an investigation to ascertain which organisations could be privatised, and then it could have been announced which organisations were to be privatised. We are opposed to the opposite, namely saying that we are going to privatise the following organisations and then investigate the matter. In this regard we say that the NP is putting the cart before the horses.

The CP also says no to privatisation which will lead to South African State assets being sold. The CP says no to privatisation in so far as it promotes the integration process in South Africa. The CP says no to privatisation if the returns are to be used to pay off debts and uplift underdeveloped communities, as was announced in the statement by the hon the State President.

On the other hand the CP says yes to privatisation when in-depth investigations bring to light that these State or semi-State functions can be performed to better advantages, more cheaply, with an increase in quality and without monopolies being formed by the private sector.

The CP also says yes to privatisation to improve economic growth and in cases where this will make a contribution to a higher standard of living, as well as encouraging a better utilisation of capital and resources.

When it comes to privatisation the CP regards the NP’s motives with suspicion, because the NP is now seeking to implement its political philosophy of the redistribution of wealth and prosperity by means of State interference in the economy too. We submit that this interference in the economy can give rise to a distortion of the economy.

Next the CP wants to draw the attention of the House to the following. The CP foresees that if the monetary returns earned from privatisation are going to be used for social welfare programmes, local expenditure is going to remain high, with resultant pressure on the balance of payments and on the rate of exchange and accelerated inflation which will result in an even weaker economic growth rate.

There can be no doubt either that privatisation by large companies will result in a concentration of economic activities in the large urban centres and in this way put a spoke in the wheel of the tried and trusted policy of the decentralisation of industries.

According to the 1986 annual report of the Commission for Administration, privatisation also means the transfer of staff, and we specifically want to ask the hon the Minister to explain this definition. What does “the transfer of staff’ mean? We want to know, because this has serious implications for the livelihood of public servants.

I am therefore appealing to the hon the Minister to tell public servants what is going to happen to them when certain sectors of the public service are privatised. Are they going to be dismissed? Are some of them going to be dismissed? Are some or most of them going to find themselves in the same difficult position as the staff of the former development boards?

What is going to become of the pension benefits of these public servants? Are they going to lose all or some of these benefits? Are they going to have to forfeit some of these benefits? Are they going to be taken over by the private companies that must complete the privatisation process? In consequence of privatisation, the CP is asking who is going to make good the shortfall of R10 billion in the Public Service Pension Fund. Are private companies going to be taxed in the privatisation process to supplement this shortfall in the Public Service Pension Fund?

The CP very clearly says that all these questions must be answered before there can be any suggestion of meaningful privatisation in South Africa. Nor is it any use saying in this debate or the debate outside this House that these aspects are being investigated. This side of the House wants to know what investigations are being conducted, how far those investigations are and what is happening to those investigations.

Is there any suggestion that large parts of the Public Service are going to be privatised? I read recently that the privatisation programme was going to be so extensive that it was only going to exclude the security services. Is there any truth in this report? This must be denied or admitted once and for all, because we must know where we stand with regard to these aspects.

In the second place I should like to draw the attention of the House to the adverse effect which reform has on the Public Service. On page 2 of The Public Servant of April 1988—this is the official mouthpiece of the public servants in South Africa—I read the following:

Hon members must listen to this quote from the same page of The Public Servant:

The CP submits that, owing to this increase in Public Service staff, the chances of an increase in the salaries paid to Public Service staff has been affected.

†With regard to parity in salaries, The Public Servant reports the following:

I want to draw specific attention to the following—

*The CP has a clear message in this regard. If parity in salaries does not also go hand in hand with an increase in productivity, this will result in a lower standard of living in South Africa. This will give rise to accelerated inflation and the economy will be in a worse mess. The public servant will also be in an unenviable position because his chances of an increase in salary will be negligible.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon Whip. These figures prove beyond any doubt that the White public servant is lagging behind his counterpart in the private sector. The recent refusal by the Government to announce general salary increases is worsening this position.

If one looks at the salary increases which the private sector has announced during the past year one can say two things. Public servants are lagging further behind and the private sector has paid no attention to the serious appeal of the hon the State President.

In this regard the Cape Times of 3 March 1988 said the following:

According to Finansies en Tegniek of 11 March 1988—not long ago—the banking sector in South Africa decided to announce salary increases of between 16% and 17%. The Allied Building Society announced a salary increase—the highest in its history—of 16,5% and alas, Mr Chairman, Pick ’n Pay followed with the largest salary increase in the market, namely 26%. This is in shrill contrast to what the Government is prepared to do for public servants. Surely it cannot be denied that public servants are again lagging behind the private sector this year in view of the irrefutable facts which I have quoted to hon members here.

The only conclusion one can reach is that public servants must now bear the burden of inflation. They must see to it that the economy gets on its feet again. They must make salary sacrifices while the private sector carries on giving salary increases. The hon the Minister must not say that public servants must be grateful for the notch increases they are getting. Not all public servants—this is also an irrefutable fact—are getting notch increases. The net increases caused by notch increases, together with promotions, only constituted 1,6% of the average remuneration for all public servants during 1985-86.

Let me quote to hon members what the official public servants’ mouthpiece wrote. I am quoting from The Public Servant of April 1988 in which a deputy director wrote a letter about this. He wrote the following:

Out of the original R152,50 notch increase he is therefore only getting R18,32 per month.

We are telling the Government and the hon the Minister—I am saying this with all due respect, but it is my duty to say this to him—that this is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the public servant must lag as far behind on a notch-increase basis as this deputy director who wrote to The Public Servant. It is a disgrace that the public servant must lag behind the private sector again this year, and we now expect the hon the Minister to give us replies and to give serious attention to this matter. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by the hon member for Losberg, and I also want to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon the Minister. We want to congratulate him very sincerely and wish him everything of the best with his new responsibilities.

I should also like to express the gratitude of this side of the House to all the public servants of South Africa for the contribution they are making towards the development of South Africa. We pay tribute to their contribution to the development of South Africa as well as the service which they render to the public of South Africa.

Today the hon member for Losberg, when he got up to speak, said that it was his duty to state the CP’s policy on privatisation and public administration. However, we waited and waited, and ultimately he resumed his seat and we still do not know what their policy is.

Oh, no!

All we got from him was a series of complaints, rumour-mongering and attempts at suspicion-mongering, but there was no positive contribution as to how they thought the matter should be dealt with. He referred to the situation of officials in the privatisation process.

He said we should not say that investigations have been set in motion, because that is not good enough. Only a few sentences before that, however, he said that what they would do was to investigate first and then make announcements. However, he asked us to do the opposite. I do not understand that. I hope the new hon member Mrs Jager, whom I wish to welcome and congratulate sincerely, has learnt an important lesson in that one ought not to concern oneself too much with what those people say. [Interjections.]

Other hon members will discuss privatisation more fully. I merely want to make one reference to it. I should like to pay tribute to the contributions which public corporations are making in terms of the privatisation programme and to the development of South Africa. At a certain stage in South Africa’s development, when there was no major capital formation in the private sector, the public corporations, agriculture and the mining industry probably made the greatest single contribution to the foundation on which the welfare, prosperity and development of South Africa was built. We are tremendously indebted to the vision of the governments of that time and previous administrations which used the public corporations as instruments for the development of South Africa. The NP, in particular, has a very proud record. Circumstances change, however, and one must adapt oneself accordingly.

Today I especially should like to discuss the allegation that the Public Service of South Africa is too large and cumbersome. Last year in the same debate I discussed the composition of the South African Public Service as well as the misconception that most of the Public Service was involved in regulation. The fact of the matter is that only 10% of the Public Service is involved in regulation. Approximately 70% is involved in development projects which include education and 20% in security services.

Another aspect of the South African Public Service, or Government sector, which in my opinion requires attention and reflection, is its size and its composition. That is in fact what I want to discuss today.

When one considers the statistics which are contained in the Commission of Administration’s publication on the Treasury staff—allow me immediately to congratulate the Commission for Administration and thank them for the publication, which is very handy and which considerably facilitates the task of people such as ourselves— it appears that 1,679 million people or 16,1% of the economically active population are involved in the public sector. If one considers the narrower definition of the Public Service with its departments and administrations, one notes that only 6,9% of the economically active population are involved in the Public Service. These people serve a total population of 29 million people. In other words, it is a relatively small Public Service and a small public sector which is performing a huge task in serving the total population.

The question that arises is where the impression or perception comes from that South Africa has such a large Public Service. I am of the opinion that when people express opinions or pass judgement on the size of the Public Service or public sector they forget that the composition of the South African population is such that there is a relatively small First World component and a very large undeveloped or developing Third World component. I am of the opinion that they only consider the developed part and then draw the conclusion that the Public Service is large. It is true that if one measures the statistics on the Public Service against the developed part of the population, the picture is dramatically different to what it would be if one were to measure it against the total, including the economically active population.

I think it would be foolish to deny that this fact, namely that the public sector involves such a large part of the developed portion of the population, entails major economic disadvantages. At the same time, however, it would be a mistake, in view of South Africa’s rate of development, to think that this problem is avoidable or that there is perhaps an instant solution. There are no instant solutions in the short or even in the medium term.

I think that the only solution lies in increasing the reservoir of developed people, of developed manpower. That is why the development of basic human material, in other words development projects, has to be such an important priority as far as we in South Africa are concerned.

These projects include, for example, the investments made in human development in respect of Black education, or training projects by the Department of Manpower, all of which are very important investments in the future of South Africa and the future development which will take place. I think we must plan and work on opportunities and structures to present all population groups with the opportunity of making a more meaningful contribution to the public sector and to the general economic development of the country as well.

I think the NP’s basic constitutional formula of own affairs, together with general affairs, can make an important contribution in affording the various population groups an opportunity to make a greater contribution, from the public sector, to the service of their own communities.

In a debate such as this there is no time to discuss such an involved problem thoroughly. All I am trying to do is to have it placed on the agenda for projected development planning.

Finally I want to express the wish that people, when they express opinions about the size of the South African Public Service and public sector, would gauge it and assess it bearing in mind the correct perspective in regard to of the South African population structure.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my party I would like to join the two previous speakers in congratulating the hon the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. One recognises that he faces, I believe, an enormous challenge. We wish him well in meeting that challenge.

In following on the hon member for Springs I would merely like to say that I wish to confine my speech to privatisation, but as far as the Public Service and the size of Government is concerned, the attitude adopted by this party has not been in regard to the quality or the output of the people concerned themselves, but to the need for duplication and triplication because of present Government policies.

Privatisation is a relatively new concept in this country, and therefore it is unproven and untested. Over the past seven or eight years it has received much attention and has become a matter of topical conversation. By this I do not imply that we have been slow in moving towards privatisation, neither do I imply criticism. This is merely an observation. I believe that South Africa can be likened to a group of runners warming up before a race. The challenge of privatisation is there and the prospect of winning is appealing. However, the race has to be won in order to reap the rewards.

In this year we have seen a dramatic speeding-up of the privatisation process. Following publication of the White Paper last year, the hon the State President in his Opening Address to Parliament clearly committed us to the route of privatisation. This was endorsed by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. Government commitment to this process has been further endorsed by the appointment of the present Minister to oversee this important process.

The PFP has endorsed the principle and we welcome the Government’s stated commitment in this regard. Clearly the business community is also enthusiastic as evidenced by the flood of sometimes euphoric comments regarding this particular aspect. Notably lacking, however, is any positive comment from the broader South African community. That is the potential problem with which I would like to deal shortly.

It is now time for us to get into the starting blocks and commence the race. Actions must now flow from stated intentions. Whilst much of the discussion has been theoretical and speculative, a number of facts are now worth mentioning. The first fact is that Government has recognised that its involvement in the economy is too great. The former Deputy Minister of Finance was quoted as saying:

We support that view and have contended for many years that we have too much Government in this country.

I believe three aspects need to be considered. Firstly, there are a number of State and quasi-State institutions which, in fact, have nothing to do with the running of the country and which are prime candidates for privatisation. Obvious examples are those that have been frequently mentioned such as Eskom, the SATS and some of the subsidiaries of the IDC. Secondly, however, enormous amounts are spent on actually running the country. As I have pointed out, we in this party believe that much of this unnecessary expenditure is as a result of the duplication and triplication resulting from NP ideology. Regrettably, privatisation will have little or no effect on this cost of apartheid. Thirdly, there are a host of services which are presently undertaken by State departments and which can and, I believe, must be contracted out to the private sector. Nevertheless, the intention to reduce the costs of Government is very welcome.

The second fact is Government recognition that free enterprise and free markets are the model on which the economy should be based. I want to emphasise that markets can only be truly free where there is equal opportunity for all.

The third fact is that privatisation is seen to partly resolve these issues by moving functions from the public to the private sector. Perceived benefits from this move are greater efficiency through competition, a capital inflow to the State, a reduction in taxes and the development of infrastructure and major schemes of social investment.

Before we become too euphoric I believe it prudent to issue some words of caution. Firstly, the Government has to show that it will live up to the expectations it has created. All too often this has not been the case. Are we being asked to write blank cheques for a major redistribution of resources which will be motivated by ideological rather than economic considerations? I would quote the example of expenditure on decentralisation benefits in pursuit of Government apartheid policies which do not contribute to the overall economic well-being of the country. We would like to know what the Government expenditure priorities in terms of the five-year plan are, but to date we are still being denied this information.

Secondly, shares of former State institutions must be held as widely as possible. In his book Privatisation in South Africa Robin McGregor states that four groups control over 80% of the shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and he estimates that only between 1% and 4% of the population own shares. Furthermore, only about 6% of the shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are actually traded. Privatisation resulting in the concentration of ownership in the hands of a fortunate few would negate one of the major benefits of the exercise.

Thirdly, I believe it is dangerous to assume that successes in Britain and elsewhere will necessarily be repeated here. It is a fact that the majority of South Africans are suspicious of capitalism which they reject as being a product of apartheid. People have to be persuaded of the long-term benefits of ownership and free enterprise. The education problem facing us is enormous and we cannot afford to be complacent. All South Africans must be involved in the process and this will only be achieved through an enormous effort of education, advertising and the clear demonstration of goodwill and a willingness to share. Not only is this good economic sense but it also promotes long-term stability through ownership and involvement.

Fourthly, private monopolies must be avoided through the promotion of competition. Where concentration is unavoidable the necessary mechanisms must be set in place to avoid exploitation.

Fifthly, I believe the privatisation of institutions has been overemphasised. There are a host of functions presently undertaken by State departments which should be contracted out to the private sector. As I understand is being done, each department must critically examine its own functions and root out those which should and can be done by the private sector.

Sixthly, the Government needs to be unequivocal in its intentions. Although the former Deputy Minister of Finance’s reported statement that the Government intends to retain tight control was subsequently retracted, it has sown seeds of suspicion in the minds of businessmen. I believe it needs to be clearly stated that this is not the case.

Seventhly, extreme care will have to be taken regarding the employees involved who will feel their jobs threatened by privatisation. The Government has clearly recognised this but the daunting task of inflated pension fund liabilities which potential investors will not be keen to assume, still has to be addressed.

Finally, the Government cannot afford to use privatisation to escape its responsibilities in the area of social welfare and upliftment.

These expenses remain the Government’s responsibility, and this must be clearly stated in its advertising programme. We believe that privatisation represents an ideal opportunity to resolve many of our socio-economic problems. The Government must act vigorously and courageously, but with caution. South Africa would do well to emulate the successes achieved elsewhere with this exciting programme. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we merely want to tell the hon member for Pinelands that he will still experience the day when the policy of this Government, which he calls an “ideology”, will work beautifully in practice. [Interjections.]

It is often said that the Public Service is a large and cumbersome organisation which does not function effectively. Today that can no longer be said of the Public Service with any justification. All officials are intent on dealing this conception which exists about them a knockout blow. The Commission for Administration is specifically trying, by means of careful planning, to cause the Public Service to function effectively and to increase productivity throughout.

What are the Commission for Administration and all the departments doing to increase productivity in the Public Service? They are applying the following and other measures: The small group activities, otherwise known to us as quality circles, as we call them; the rationalisation of functions; incentive schemes; the application of organisational and work studies; job programming; computerisation and office automation; mechanisation; the elimination of red-tape and paperwork. They have also come forward now with a personnel standstill and the elimination of vacancies; the evaluation of posts in the management cadre; the training of officials and the freezing of posts. The departments themselves have embarked upon the following in the various departments: New managerial techniques; an efficiency audit; personnel evaluation; recognition of achievement and also the improvement of labour relations. Furthermore, the Commission for Administration is also presenting seminars on productivity.

The measure which the Commission for Administration is tackling with much enthusiasm, and with which much success has and will be achieved, is the function evaluation programme which they are engaged in at present. This system is a critical questioning of whether State functions have a right to exist as well as the legal and other grounds for these functions. This is being done in practice on the basis of the following options: They are considering the privatisation and deregulation of functions; scaling down the intensity of the function, if necessary; consideration is also being given to seeing whether a function can be made to pay its way, so that the public pays for the services; consideration is also being given to general procedural methods and organisational adjustments.

With these enquiries it is being ensured that our country’s security is not adversely affected, that internal tranquility and order are maintained, that the Government’s economic objectives can, in fact, be achieved and that officials will not be dismissed unnecessarily as a result of these actions.

The basic fieldwork for this function evaluation programme has been finalised in the following departments: Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, Justice and Prisons, Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Manpower, Mineral and Energy Affairs, Public Works and Land Affairs and Water Affairs.

The commission is also engaged in initiating the fieldwork in the following departments: The Administrations of the three Houses of Parliament, the Department of Finance, Environment Affairs, the SA Defence Force, the Bureau for Information as well as the Provincial Administrations of all four provinces, and afterwards the Departments of Education and Training as well as Transport will follow.

The Commission for Administration is also of the opinion that their fieldwork in all departments will only be completed on 30 June 1990. Their inquiries and findings will be implemented, depending on the progress made. Yet there are obstacles in their way which prevent these being implemented rapidly enough. That is why certain legislation has to be rationalised and amended in many cases. Amendments which are going to be made cannot at this stage be expressed in monetary terms, but there is no doubt at all that it will result in a smaller and more effective Public Service.

The officials are all co-operating very cordially because the Cabinet decided in 1987 that officials’ co-operation had to be obtained by giving them the assurance that as far as possible they would not be dismissed as a result of these actions. There are other measures which the Cabinet decided upon and which the hon the Minister will most probably mention in his reply to the hon member for Losberg.

However, I want to congratulate the Commission for Administration, the hon the Minister and the department very sincerely on this enterprise, namely of making the Public Service smaller and more effective. Furthermore I want to wish them every success with it, and I should also like to support the approval of the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member for Koedoespoort. In the course of my speech I shall also return to some of the aspects which he touched upon.

As a former official with quite a few years’ service it is a particular pleasure for me to be participating in this debate today. The allegation made so often by outsiders about the supposed ineffectiveness of the officials creates a slanted and distorted image of the many loyal and dedicated officials without whose enthusiasm and dedication this country of ours would not only be much the poorer but would function much less effectively as well.

The Public Service is fulfilling an absolutely essential service, which the private sector in many cases does not see its way clear to performing or in which it is not interested. The officials of the Public Service are extremely important components of this system. The way in which the Public Service is drained of experts in times of economic revival and prosperity is conspicuous. If the public servants are really that bad, why does the private sector find it necessary to rely so heavily upon them when they require trained personnel? Is that not in fact a demonstration of the quality of the officials, their being in such great demand?

In saying this I do not, of course, want to allege that there are no lead-swingers and incompetent officials in the Public Service. It is to be expected in a work force of this size. It is, however, only a very small percentage and most probably compares very favourably with that of any private organisation. The necessary mechanisms are, however, incorporated into this system to ensure that such officials do not advance in the Public Service. Merit determination, also with a view to promotion, is dealt with scientifically in the Public Service, and also creates the opportunity for the real achiever to rise above those who have the same rank, but who do not deliver the goods to the same extent.

In order to ensure that the Public Service acquires suitable personnel, recruitment receives a great deal of attention in the form of visits to educational institutions, military bases and other groups of potential candidates. In addition advertisements in which posts are advertised often appear in the media. Departments are themselves mainly responsible for appointments and take care only to appoint people with the necessary suitable qualifications, experience and aptitude which are necessary for the requirements of the department concerned.

The State has realised for many years now the importance of personnel development, not only by way of formal academic qualifications, but also by way of more career-orientated training by means of departmental and other courses. These courses are presented at all levels, from the most junior entrant to the most senior official in the department. By means of these courses the officials are not only familiarised with the general activities of the public sector, but also more specifically with the activities of the departments in whose service they are.

For this purpose the Commission for Administration also has trained training officers in its employ in each Government department to present the necessary courses and training in collaboration with the departments’ own training divisions. In this way co-ordination takes place and the implementation of the Commission for Administration’s, and therefore the State’s, training policy is assured.

Over and above courses which are presented by the departments themselves, the Commission for Administration also presents courses by means of the Training Institute. These courses are aimed at functional aspects as well as the training of officials in other spheres in tasks which are common to all departments. Courses are constantly being revised, often in collaboration with the departments, in order to ensure that courses remain practically orientated and comply with changing circumstances. Among the courses offered are supply administration and computer literacy, as well as a wide variety of other subjects, for example language proficiency, security and so on. During 1987 a total of 4 101 officials followed various courses.

The Training Institute offers a variety of seminars on a wide range of subjects, and in this way contributes to the further development of personnel. During 1987 a total of 5 787 officials attended seminars.

The formal training of officials is not left in abeyance either and personnel are constantly being encouraged to improve their academic qualifications. Ample provision is made for bursaries under the Public Service bursary scheme. The premise is accepted that the improvement of academic qualifications contributes to officials in management positions having better management skills.

The functional training of officials in their line function is very important. However, a department can function only as well as the incumbents of management posts are basically equipped for their management task. In 1985 the Cabinet also decided that management training programmes for senior, middle-ranking and junior managers should be compulsory, and in 1986 the aforementioned Training Institute was established for this purpose. The primary task of this institute is that of administering all management training programmes for officials of all population groups. Officials who successfully complete this course are equipped for utilization over a wide spectrum in the Public Service, since the course does not deal with functional training, but rather increases management expertise which is necessary in every department. In this way horizontal mobility is assured.

The aim with the management courses is to expand officials’ effectiveness, knowledge and insight and to exert a positive influence on them in their management task. That is why it must at all costs prevent officials from merely taking their work with them with every promotion and thus evading greater responsibility.

The courses for both junior and middle-ranking management consists of a theoretical and practical part, and examinations are conducted under controlled circumstances. Only after the successful completion of the theoretical part are candidates given access to the practical part.

In the course for senior managers training is supplemented by short seminar programmes in which specific subjects are discussed in greater detail. A significant amount of prior study and homework is expected of participants in all the courses, and to an increasing extent the movement is away from lecture-type courses and towards its replacement by small group work, which is based on individual in-training techniques.

All officials below assistant-director level must complete the junior management course, while all officials from assistant-director level to just below director level have to complete the middlemanagement course. All officials having the ranks of director and chief director must complete the senior management course. Regardless of qualifications, no exception is made in terms of the attendance of any of the three courses.

Over and above the courses mentioned, the University of Pretoria also offers a course, on an agency basis, in public administration, and the course also serves as an entrance requirement to the classified management cadre. Officials at deputy director level must complete this course.

These courses are simultaneously offered and result in officials receiving training in the entire management spectrum and being able to augment one another. During 1987, 2 298 officials completed the various management courses, while a further 300 completed the public administration course.

However, it is no use the State having at its disposal a work force with the best possible training if it does not utilise those people properly. For this purpose the individual departments also have organisational and work-study divisions which are responsible for the internal organisation of departments to ensure the improvement of procedures and methods and to simplify and ensure maximum utilisation of personnel. The commission itself is responsible for the organisation of top-level structures of departments and for the organisational changes which are brought about by relocation of functions.

The State is not wedded to the functions which it performs and that is why the function evaluation programme is also an aid towards bringing about an efficient and effective Public Service which can concentrate on those functions which are logically its responsibility.

A well-trained official, be it in a functional or a managerial capacity, is an investment for the country and leads to a much better utilisation of that rare commodity, manpower. Therefore training and personnel development can never be over-emphasised. The State has accepted this challenge and is geared towards establishing a professional class of officials which will contribute to public servants being able to say in future, with a greater measure of pride, that they are working for the State.

I should like to wish everyone involved in this great project everything of the best in this regard.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for North Rand devoted virtually his entire speech to the Public Service, and I am not going to do the same.

I merely want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Springs. He said it was being alleged that South Africa’s Public Service was too large, and then he denied that that was the case.

The statistics!

I merely want to suggest that he go and talk to the hon the Minister, because if I have been correctly informed by the newspapers, the hon the Minister said, in his reply to the debate in the House of Representatives, that all Public Service posts which have not been filled and which have not been budgeted for this year are being abolished and that all posts that are not going to be filled within six months are also going to be abolished.

That has nothing to do with the relationship between …

Inherent in this announcement by the hon the Minister is the implication that the Public Service is too large.

That is your erroneous conclusion. [Interjections.]

If the number of posts which have been created …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must stop shouting interjections when one is trying to speak.

If the number of posts which have been created and which exist at present are not excessive, why are we abolishing some of them now? I am asking a simple question.

I want to return to the question of privatisation, because the NP seems reluctant to debate it. To a large extent the hon member for Losberg dedicated his speech to that aspect and has already stated the CP’s standpoint. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon member for Losberg said that the NP was in favour of an economic policy based on the free-enterprise system, but I want to add to that by saying that that system has disadvantages as well as advantages. I am not aware of any country in the world which still has a free-market economic system in the classical sense of the word. In all modern countries the State intervenes in the operation of the free-market system if it is of the opinion that it is in the interests of that country. For that reason, in our case as well, whichever political party comes to power will intervene for the sake of its sociopolitical goals or aims in the operation of the free-market system in order to achieve those aims.

We must state our standpoints against this background. I want to say that it is almost impossible to maintain a general policy which will be valid in all cases or be entirely applicable. One cannot do it.

One cannot lay down the same considerations and the same criteria for the possible privatisation of an undertaking such as Sasol as one would for an undertaking such as the telecommunications services. One simply cannot do that. Every case will have to be judged according to its merits. The question that will have to be answered is what is being aimed at with privatisation. What goal has to be achieved, and in what way will it be done in each case, and finally, how are the proceeds of privatisation going to be used? That is a very important question.

I want to express my concern. If the Government’s aim in privatisation were to bring about an improved performance of the economy, which will be to the advantage of the country’s economic performance as a whole, I would be satisfied. However, I question the real motives, because when the hon the State President told us in his opening address that the proceeds of privatisation would be used for the payment of public debt and the development of developing areas, the question that occurred to me was whether the main aim of the present privatisation frenzy which has erupted might not primarily and ultimately be the cash-flow problems with which the Government of the day is saddled and the fact that the Government simply has to get hold of money. Are we not having to pay for debt which, to a large extent, was incurred in the past to cover running costs? Is it the Government’s aim to pay for the sins of the past by getting rid of public assets?

As I have said, we are asking that each case which is standing in line for privatisation must be judged according to merit. In South Africa, could the privatisation of a body such as Armscor be considered? One must, of necessity, take the strategic importance of each industry into consideration.

Have you read the White Paper?

Of course I have read it. [Interjections.] What are hon members implying? If some of the standpoints which I adopt are in agreement with what is written in the White Paper it does not mean that I have to keep quiet about the CP’s policy merely because it agrees with the NP’s policy. I do not understand the hon member’s argument. [Interjections.]

Order!

We want clarity. The hon the Minister must to a greater extent, since that is his task, clear up questions about the way in which privatisation is going to take place. We are concerned about what has happened with the toll roads. Our standpoint is that in cases in which assets have to or are going to be privatised, it should in the first place be done by way of public tender so that everyone can see what is happening. It must not be done by way of private negotiation.

In cases where shares have to be redeemed, we want to appeal for the general public to be given preference. The general public must enjoy preference because, as I think the hon member for Pinelands has already said, the wealth and especially the shares held in South Africa are in too few hands. We must make an attempt to ensure a better distribution in South Africa.

I want to conclude. We must not simply accept that the privatisation enterprise in South Africa is going to work as easily as it did in a First World country such as Britain.

In our case we are dealing with enterprises and public corporations which were established by the State because the private sector was not capable of doing so or did not want to initiate the enterprises. In our country it is not a case of private businesses being nationalised and subsequently privatised, as was the case in Britain. In our case these are all undertakings which were started or established by Government initiative, and now that they are successful they have to be privatised. Finally, I want to issue a warning, namely that this privatisation initiative must not be a further incentive for an increased concentration of development in the PWV area.

Mr Chairman, before making a few observations on the speech made by the hon member for Barberton, allow me to extend, in her absence, a warm welcome to this House to my bench-mate, Mrs Jager. I am glad to have her as a bench-mate. [Interjections.] No, I did not frighten her; she had other obligations that she had to meet. We are grateful that she can be here with me.

The hon member for Barberton started off by attacking the hon member for Springs and telling him that he did not really know what went on in the Public Service. I want to ask the hon member whether he received this booklet, Exchequer Personnel. I want to quote only one figure to the hon member from a very scientific piece of work, namely that only 2,5% of the total population of South Africa are in the Public Service. If the hon member wants to tell me that that is too large a Public Service, I merely want to tell him that the announcement the hon the Minister made did not mean what that hon member had implied it meant.

I did not say so.

I leave it in the competent hands of the hon the Minister to discuss the matter with the hon member.

We shall still come to privatisation. As far as we are concerned the Public Service is important, and that is why we are setting aside a considerable amount of time to devote attention to the personnel of the Public Service.

I want to make one observation only. That hon member asked what we were going to do with our security plants and institutions, and he mentioned Armscor as an example. For the information of the hon member I merely want to mention that the hon the Minister of Defence announced yesterday—a question was asked in this regard during the Defence debate—that 70% of Armscor’s activities are being handled by the private sector. I shall quote what the hon the Minister said about this:

In the little time available to me I want to congratulate the Public Service on its 75th anniversary. I also want to express my gratitude and congratulate the dedicated personnel of the Public Service, the most effective in Africa, for the service which they have rendered to South Africa over the past 75 years.

In various quarters it is often alleged that South Africa’s Public Service is not effective. Therefore you will allow me, Sir, to express my gratitude to the hon member for Koedoespoort. He very effectively demonstrated how productivity is increased in the Public Service. The hon member dealt with it very well, and I want to express the hope that this message about the increase in productivity and the accompanying actions will, in fact, be conveyed to the public so that people outside Parliament also take cognisance of it.

The size of the Public Service in South Africa and the magnitude of its task become clear when one takes into account that 64% of the population of this country is not economically active. It is also true that almost half of that population which is not economically active is 19 years of age or younger. These statistics clearly indicate that South Africa has a serious and quite significant need for development work. The part of the population which is not economically active requires education, instruction, medical services, the creation of an infrastructure as well as protection. The functional activities of 70% of the department’s and administration’s personnel are geared towards development. That includes the direct development activities such as education, health services, the creation of infrastructures and aid, while 20% of the staff are engaged in security services. Of that, the SA Defence Force, the SA Police and the Prisons Service, as well as the departmental security staff who are involved in these services, represent that 20% component. Only 10% of the Public Service is engaged in organisation and the creation of administrative and logistical support for the developmental and security functions of this country.

I believe all of us will agree that the security of our country is faring well, as is the development work and the support given to that work in our country.

Surely it is true that the achievements of South Africa are the best in Africa. That is why I want to thank our officials for their loyal and dedicated service in making these achievements possible.

We appreciate the efforts being made by the Commission for Administration to ensure that better trained and better equipped personnel are employed. They do this by means of bursaries and, as the hon member for North Rand indicated, by means of development programmes. I thank them very much for that.

In short—I am returning to what I said to the hon member for Barberton at the beginning of my speech—it amounts to the fact that 2,5% of the total population of South Africa are active in the Public Service.

It is true that it is Government policy that the Exchequer personnel’s remuneration packages have to be moderately competitive with those of the private sector. We know that at times mention is made of officials’ incomes as well as their perks. I want to say at once that I think it is a great pity that in those cases where officials’ remuneration packages are public knowledge there are those who, on the one hand, make mention of the “fat cats”, which is not the case at all. On the other hand I find it equally tragic that there are certain individuals who, for petty political purposes, want to exploit and blow this matter up to something which bears no relation to reality.

The officials whom I know—I immediately want to say that a large component of the voters in my constituency are public servants and I have contact with them on a regular basis—understand why they could not receive the salary increases which they would have liked to receive this year.

That is not so!

They also understand why this year the Government is unable to grant the salary increases which we as the Government would have liked to give them. The officials of our country understand that the Government cannot merely allow the inflation rate to get out of hand. They understand that measures, such as those announced by the hon the State President during the opening of Parliament, were ultimately introduced to increase the value of the rand. The official understands that ultimately he will be able to buy more for his rand. I thank them for the understanding and the responsible way in which they deal with and approach this matter.

However, I do want to ask the hon the Minister to consider the remuneration package of the public servant in South Africa at the very first opportunity. I merely want to mention one example, and that is the housing subsidy scheme. I think it requires some attention. It is with compassion that I want to argue that the subsidisation on R50 000 was a good measure. However, I want to ask that that amount be increased, if possible, because housing assistance is aimed at enabling the breadwinner of the family to purchase a property which, in turn, will provide the necessary security for his family. In asking for the housing package to be considered I am making an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to try to implement a general salary increase for our officials as soon as possible. I am asking him nicely; it is rather urgent.

I want to conclude with a message to the officials of South Africa. We are proud of our public servants in South Africa. We are proud of the people who are loyal to one section of Die Stem van Suid-Afrika which reads: “Ons sal offer wat jy vra”. We are proud of the Public Service which always puts South Africa first. We are proud of the Public Service which will always reply in the affirmative to the call of this country.

Mr Chairman, I heartily congratulate the hon member for Pretoria Central on a well-presented speech. I also congratulate him on his promotion. He has moved one bench up. [Interjections.] I wish him every success with his new bench-mate.

The hon member for Barberton said here that we on this side did not want to discuss privatisation. I want to set the CP members’ minds at ease. Henceforth we shall only discuss privatisation. I am glad the hon member has returned, because I do not think he could recently have read this White Paper, which sets out the Government’s policy on privatisation.

The hon member now comes and tells us that we must be careful and that every case of privatisation must be considered on merit. It is written here in paragraph 6.1.1:

The hon member is trying to sow suspicion by saying that we might want to privatise Armscor. This week, however, the hon the Minister of Defence got up in the House and said it would not be necessary to privatise Armscor because Armscor has already been substantially privatised. Armscor had the largest percentage of private sector participation of any of the State institutions in this country. Its wonderful success can partially be ascribed to this as well.

Recently I have tried to determine, with the help of Hansard, what in fact the CP’s policy on privatisation is.

You will not be able to.

I came across an astounding succession of inconsistencies. On 8 February the hon member for Barberton said here in the House:

That is how he put it. The CP is therefore in favour of privatisation, because if one is not against something one is probably for it. If that is the case, however, their entire subsequent conduct was merely aimed at short-term political gain. It had nothing to do with broader national interests, because ever since the hon member for Barberton’s adoption of a fundamental standpoint in favour of privatisation, not a single positive utterance, on this subject has emanated from that side.

A day after the hon member for Barberton’s announcement, the hon member for Lichtenburg called the Government’s privatisation initiative an auction. He did so disparagingly by saying:

A little more than a month later, on 17 February, that statement by the hon member for Lichtenburg was repudiated by none other than the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] He said he did not believe the Government wanted to hold an auction. He said, and I quote the relevant parts:

This standpoint is in direct contrast with that of his deputy leader. [Interjections.]

We cannot attach too much value to this either. The hon member for Barberton merely said that because it suited his argument at that moment, because it was at variance with remarks he had made a month before. In the speech of 17 February, from which I have just quoted, he said in a quite responsible manner that the Government’s privatisation programme ought not be tackled overhastily, that it would not have an immediate effect and that in his own words it would not be implemented “holderstebolder”. However, what did he say on 8 February? He said:

In the same speech he discussed, as he did today as well, the Government’s “privatisation frenzy which has erupted”. Those were his words. I am telling hon members today that no one can attach any value to the standpoints adopted by the hon members for Barberton and Lichtenburg on this important issue. [Interjections.] They were driven by political expediency to such an extent that they even conjured up clashing political scenarios with objectionable political motives. One wonders if one can ever pay any attention to what they say. They disregard the facts in the same way that they underestimate the intellectual capability of their supporters with the insane propaganda to which the Patriot subjects those voters.

This little newspaper strikes terror into the hearts of its readers, in respect of privatisation, by maintaining that so-called big business is now going to swallow up their national assets. In this regard on 12 February he said that six conglomerates already controlled 84,3% of the Stock Exchange. A month later, on 11 March, the matter was raised again. On that occasion, however, 84% of the Stock Exchange was controlled by only four large corporations.

It might come across as insignificant, but it does reflect a reckless treatment of the truth for which we in this country are going to pay a price. People’s attitudes are influenced by inaccuracies and blatant distortions. Those attitudes, which must inevitably be warped, can determine the future of our country, and I shudder at the thought that my future and the future of my children have to be determined by the effective application of such a dubious strategy.

I should have liked to mention many such examples to hon members, but that is all I want to say about the CP for the moment. I prefer to be positive and therefore I prefer to discuss our own philosophy in respect of privatisation.

The Government wants to apply the proceeds of privatisation inter alia to the financing of basic infrastructure and services in the developing areas. This is but one of the three basic channels of application, and the CP must not subsequently say that I said it was the only one. This one especially is conclusive proof of the fact that the Government is displaying the insight and courage to confront the problems of our country in a fundamental way.

The enterprises which are now going to be privatised were established, at the time, on the basis of sound strategic considerations. These considerations were, at the time, priorities for survival. The private sector could not or did not want to act as entrepreneurs. Today the private sector position is more favourable and our priorities have also changed. Today our top priority is probably the alleviation of poverty from which so many of our fellow human beings in this part of Africa are suffering.

A stable democracy cannot exist in the long run unless the participants are prepared for it. Undeveloped, illiterate and ignorant people are outcasts, socio-economically speaking. The doors of democracy will always remain closed to them. Poverty can never bolster democracy. A dispensation founded on poverty will surely collapse.

If we are serious about democracy—and I believe we are—the problem of poverty will be a major priority of ours. In addition, poverty will result in a population explosion in Southern Africa which will destroy the quality of life of everyone living here. We do not have the resources to accommodate an unbridled increase in numbers. We are experiencing that explosion, and we are the last generation which still has a chance of halting it.

Hon members will note that when I speak about these matters, I speak throughout about Southern Africa and not South Africa. I do so because no one on this subcontinent will be able to escape the consequences of continued and increasing poverty among us and around us. I include the CP in that. Even if they were to succeed in partitioning our country, the poverty in and around their White South Africa would threaten its inhabitants, unless it were dealt with effectively.

For that reason I find the attitude displayed by the hon member for Barberton and others so pitifully shortsighted. On 8 February the hon member asked in this House whether those depressed areas were White or whether they were chiefly for the use of the other races. What does it matter? Why must we continually ask our fellow-man whether he is Black, Yellow, Coloured or White, before having compassion for him? The fact remains that there are vast numbers of poor people in our midst and all around us and most of them are non-White. They must be helped in our own interests and for the sake of our own survival. They must also be helped because Christian sympathy and compassion demand it of us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have very little to quarrel about with the hon member for Stellenbosch. I think he made a very appropriate speech in regard to privatisation and I would like to follow him in that respect.

The particular theme that I want to start off with is the fact that I fear that privatisation is going to become a political football in South Africa.

To my mind the signs of that are already clearly present. On the one hand we have the argument that we are giving away the family silver and the White man’s assets, and on the other hand we have the argument that this is a capitalist trick and that under the regime of a socialist people’s democracy one will in fact not only keep all these assets under State ownership, but will also have more nationalisation such as the nationalisation of insurance companies, banks, the gold mines and much more.

It is important and fundamental, if any degree of privatisation is going to succeed in South Africa, that we actually market privatisation correctly, and I think it is that marketing which is important. On the one hand we can argue—and it is strange that it is argued both by the extreme right and the extreme left—that somehow or other all the Hoggenheimers are going to end up with the assets of the country which belong to the people, when in fact the answer is that privatisation can actually be the ownership of assets by the people as opposed to ownership of the assets by the State. Fundamentally, one of the characteristics of a true democratic system, a system in which a free market operates, is that the assets are in fact owned by the people and not by the State, and I believe it is that marketing concept which has to be put across.

The example is given that when Mrs Margaret Thatcher started her privatisation programme in Britain, one of the trade unions wanted to spend a million pounds in order to convince people that the privatisation of state activity was a bad thing. They wanted to do it because they had a vested interest in it. I think it is well-known today that that whole marketing campaign backfired, and that they eventually realised that with a correctly marketed privatisation scheme, their own members supported privatisation. Marketing is therefore going to be extremely important.

Let me stress that privatisation is not a capitalist, Thatcherite idea. It is not. Let me give hon members an example. In socialist Spain, the major motor manufacturer—in fact, virtually the only one—which was state-owned was privatised by socialists because they regarded it as an effective way of dealing with that business. Sweden, which has a socially democratic government, has embarked upon a process of privatisation. When we look at the Third World we see that there is privatisation in some of the poorest countries, for instance in Belize, Jamaica, and even Bangladesh. In Bangladesh they privatised the textile manufacturing industry. To argue that this is a First World capitalist trick, is therefore a fallacy, and one which needs to be put to rest.

Secondly, the argument that the proceeds are merely going to be used to supplement the State’s revenues can easily be dealt with, because the reality is that the proceeds should be used for socially acceptable other projects. The proceeds should therefore not be frittered away so that they disappear in the accounts of the Exchequer. They should actually be seen in tangible form as a new asset which is needed by the country in a more modern time in place of the old one.

I therefore think that we need to start with that. If one shows people that one is privatising by raising money in one way and creating a new asset which is socially desirable and necessary at this time in another way, one can actually sell that concept completely, and I think that initially the first aspects of privatisation should be used with that objective in mind. The initial aspect of how we deal with the first privatisation therefore becomes vital. It needs to be the right thing which is privatised, and we can forget about the minor privatisations of the past for the moment. It needs to be the right thing, it needs to be done correctly and it needs to have the adequate safeguards.

Let me give hon members an example of what the fear is in regard to monopolies. When British Telecom was nationalised there was a fear in relation to tariffs—that this would mean that they could do what they liked as far as tariffs were concerned and that there was not political pressure to ensure that tariffs were kept down. This becomes important when one starts thinking about Eskom because Eskom is in the same position. We have to ask ourselves what is going to happen to tariffs. British Telecom laid down by statute that for a period of 10 years tariffs could not be increased by more than an amount of 3% less than the consumer price index. That kind of safeguard is needed. For example, the argument that the rural areas will be neglected was overcome by British Telecom in that the statute provided that the rural telephone exchanges could not be closed down and had to be retained. That was provided for in the statute. Therefore, I say that there are safeguards that have to be introduced, and those safeguards should be made public right from the very beginning.

There is much talk about Eskom being the first candidate. If this is so, we should actually debate the question of whether it is desirable for Eskom to be the first candidate because there are all sorts of implications arising from this. I can think of better and easier candidates. I think that we should look for the best one because, if the first one fails the whole project will suffer a tremendous setback. I say, therefore, that we have to look at the best one so as to prove to the public that the management of the new privatised interest will be in the correct hands and to show the public that the shares in that privatised interest will be correctly spread.

Let us take Eskom again as an example and compare it with British Telecom. In regard to British Telecom and British Gas, the consumers were given concessions in regard to the opportunity given to them to buy the shares; and also, if they bought them, concessions in regard to the use of the services provided by these two utilities. Why should we not do the same thing here in South Africa when we privatise? I say this because this is a recognised and accepted principle.

Then we come to the question of the workers. So many appeals are made that the workers have to be looked after. Of course they have to be looked after! There is no question about that at all. Their pensions have to be safeguarded. All these matters have to be dealt with. I want to mention an example that was given to me only today. I advised somebody to introduce a share incentive scheme in his business in which there were a large number of relatively lowly-paid workers. This man came to me and said that he had introduced the scheme but that nobody seemed to understand it. He came back to me today and told me that last week they had paid the first dividend. He went on to say that now the workers knew what it meant to be shareholders and to have a share in the profits of an enterprise, and that they now regarded themselves as co-owners of the business. If we make the consumers shareholders and deal with the situation in the correct way we can make a success of this matter. I am not saying that we should copy Britain in every respect or, for that matter, any other country either, because we have our own particular circumstances which obtain in this country. However, I say again that if we do this correctly it can be a great success. Finally, I should like to make an appeal that we leave the socially and politically sensitive matters right to the end.

Which is the best candidate?

If the hon the Minister wants me to, I shall tell him what the best candidate is. It is available, and I have told him this across the floor. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister says I must tell him privately.

You want to know and he does not want to know!

He docs not want to know! He wants to be able to announce it himself. [Interjections.] The difficulty is that if I say it, he will not do it, but if he does it, then I can say I agree. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the question of hospitalisation. People are already talking about privatising hospitals, and that will be very nice for those who can afford it. However, we must bear in mind the teaching and research aspects and also the fact that the people who cannot afford expensive medical services use those services there. I say that there are better candidates to be privatised than hospitals. By all means have private nursing homes which the rich can patronise. By all means have them so that those who can afford the fees can go there. However, we have universities that need to train doctors and nurses and where research has also to be done and, as I say, there are also those people who cannot afford to pay high medical fees and who need those services.

Therefore, I appeal for good marketing. I ask for the correct one to be chosen initially and I say that with the proceeds correctly applied to new socially acceptable projects, privatisation can be of tremendous benefit to South Africa and all its people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not be reacting to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. I should rather remain in my own back-bench, light-weight division, and I am sure the hon the Minister will soon be responding to that hon member. I do not want, however, to neglect the PFP entirely. I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Pinelands. I should merely like to say it is a pity that he actually spoiled what started off as a reasonably constructive speech. He spoiled it by dragging in the old gory so-called ideological expenditure issue, which has little to do with the central issues of privatisation at the present time.

If you think that, you are very mistaken!

Mr Chairman, regrettably, on the whole, I think his speech, objectively assessed, tended to confuse the issue rather than cast much light on the subject. He also touched on the whole question of contracting out as if it was not taking place at all, and I believe he would do well to refer to this very same White Paper.

I said it was taking place!

I refer the hon member to paragraph 5.5, on page 10 of the White Paper, where this matter is dealt with very comprehensively, and where the hon member will see this matter has been addressed very fully. I refer to this White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation, which was published in August last year. There is one specific aspect of which I just want to remind hon members. That is the point which was made that privatisation was a continuous process which could span many years.

Although little less than a year has passed few people will deny that much has been achieved by the Government. The hon member for Pinelands himself conceded that in his contribution today. All of us who agree with privatisation look forward with anticipation to the impetus and the leadership which this newly appointed hon Minister will almost certainly bring to this very important portfolio. With his very valuable experience of past years in the Cabinet he is particularly well placed to ensure that the Government is in fact constantly reviewing its own guidelines and privatisation programme in order to ensure that any adaptation which may be necessary owing to changed circumstances is effected in good time, as was initially promised in that White Paper. I believe this is a very welcome assurance.

In his book Entrepreneurship and the Privatising of Government, which was published last year, Prof Waters of California State University posed the question of whether privatisation was a viable policy option. He went on to say:

And here I should like to address myself to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis—

Clearly, Sir, the CP falls into this second category. Once one has stripped away the simplistic notions which we have heard again today, the verbiage and the double talk which hon members of the CP display, as the hon member for Stellenbosch has also again pointed out clearly, this is in fact the case.

*As the hon member for Losberg demonstrated once again today, the attitude is always one of “yes, but …” The “but” looms so large and occurs so frequently that the end result of that policy statement is utter confusion.

†Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the question in South Africa is no longer one of whether to privatise, but one of how to privatise. A British economics lecturer, Dr Jonathan Ailan, in an article titled Privatisation in Developing Countries, refers to what he describes as the paradox of privatisation in developing countries. He says the following, and this is the dilemma which we face in this country; about that there is no doubt. I quote:

Basically, of course, this holds true for South Africa as well, and creates special problems which will have to be dealt with.

Interestingly enough, there is also the view that the rhetoric of privatisation, as it is called, can also perform a valuable service in itself even if State firms are not sold off, because it can prove a stimulus to public sector efficiency. I would like to acknowledge immediately, however, that much more than rhetoric will be necessary if we are ever to get anywhere.

I would like to refer to only one aspect of the cost of the disposal of a State entity, and that is the question of what actually happens to its employees. If this aspect is not handled with great sensitivity and circumspection, it can lead to very serious employee resistance to the entire concept of privatisation.

*In the White Paper itself, attention is given to staff considerations, and I should be very grateful if the hon the Minister could tell us later today whether he believes that this aspect is being dealt with satisfactorily.

Apart from the modus operandi which is followed with regard to staff when privatisation takes place, there is also the question of the period within which staff changes take place. One accepts that the Government is committed to limiting the duration of such a transitional stage in respect of its employees to an absolute minimum. It would be a great pity if employee resistance were to become a stumbling block and were to inhibit the implementation of a policy and a strategy which, as my colleague, the hon member for Stellenbosch, also demonstrated, are intended to bring about economic development and growth in the interests of every citizen of this country.

When people’s whole livelihood is affected by this, it is essential for this matter to be handled properly if we are not to create major problems for ourselves.

Once again I want to wish the hon the Minister and those who assist him every success in this and the many other challenges that the future holds for them.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Umhlanga. As usual, his speech was balanced and constructive.

†The importance of the hon the State President’s Opening Address to Parliament on 5 February 1988 cannot be overemphasised, and I think that is what we are talking about today. What was particularly welcome were the decisions to curb the expansion of Government expenditure more effectively, to reduce the public sector’s share of the economy and to proceed with privatisation and deregulation. It is privatisation that I would like to discuss.

These measures are much more than just a part of an anti-inflationary policy. Most of the initiatives would have been extremely desirable and important even if there had been no inflation in South Africa, which we know is not the case.

Allow me a brief comment on inflation. The Financial Mail of last week claimed that inflation was caused by Government alone, and ignorant politicians did not even recognise that fact. However, the fact is that the inflation debate in South Africa is alive and well, and there appears to be reasonable consensus that inflation is caused by a combination of factors, such as excessive money creation and spending, or demand-pull factors, and so-called structural or cost-push factors like excessive salary hikes or price increases. The simplistic view of the Financial Mail that the Government is the culprit is plainly simple-minded disinformation.

The question as to which should be of prime importance in the economy, Government or private enterprise, is a challenging one. It has been stated by prominent economists and by the opposition here in the House that the Government is overextended in the economic system. The privatisation initiatives announced by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance show clearly that it is official policy that the private sector should become a more active partner in the economy.

It is against this background of increasing public sector participation in the economy in recent years and a decline in net fixed investment channelled into the production sectors that I speak.

Public sector expenditure in 1985 amounted to 38,1% of GDP—mainly through a high level of consumption expenditure in respect of defence, education, health and other social services. A decline from 27% for the period 1970-75 to 16,7% for the period 1981-84 in fixed investment in the productive sectors—the manufacturing, mining and agricultural sectors—the expansion of which is so necessary for the creation of employment opportunities, is a matter of great concern. Therefore privatisation moves can only be commended.

Investigations have disclosed that over the past five years no less than 30% of the total net fixed investment in the Republic of South Africa emanated from just three organisations—Eskom, the SATS and Post and Telecommunications. The dramatic effects on inflation of tariff increases to cover expenditure have in the past been quite obvious to all of us. In 1984 a restructuring of the control of Eskom brought about what I consider to be very good results, not least of which was a much lower rate of tariff increase. Therefore, we have already seen the benefits of privatisation.

We are told that similar investigations into the SATS and Posts and Telecommunications are nearing completion. The decision that these three bodies are to be privatised, either wholly or after their division into suitable economic entities, is one to be given consideration. There are many possible advantages of this privatisation. Among them are greater participation by the community in the economic system; participation in a free market system giving greater freedom of choice; a tendency to greater efficiency through innovation and competition; the motivation of personal profit; and a move towards inward industrialisation.

Inward industrialisation refers to a process of increased economic activity which would arise if millions of poor, unemployed people were to be placed in a position where they could earn money to spend on the goods and services they need. If the estimated four million people without formal job opportunities at present who are eking out a living today in one way or other could productively earn as little as R5 000 per annum per person, a new formal purchasing power of R20 000 million would be created. This is no less than 25% of the total national wage bill in South Africa in the year 1987.

The chances are that more than 90% of the goods and services required by these persons would be made domestically by the very people who require them. The effect on the GDP could therefore be quite dramatic. It is estimated that phasing in such an addition over a ten year period would add a minimum of about 1,5 percentage points to an expected annual growth of 5%.

There has been criticism in the media and in this House that privatisation is nothing more than the selling off of the family silver and should perhaps be avoided. It has been made quite clear by the Government, however, that the proceeds of privatisation will be allocated to the State’s capital revenue fund and not be used to finance current expenditure. After reduction of public debt the funds will be used for basic infrastructure and services in developing areas to help the development of small business. I do not know how much clearer it needs to be made, but they carry on and on with their questions.

As far as control of privatised State enterprise is concerned—the fear has been expressed that there is a long-term disadvantage in alienating these assets to a private sector monopoly—that position has also been made clear. If such a danger arises, the State will be obliged to regulate in the public interest. Further, the Government has made it clear that it will retain control as long as it is in the public interest to do so. The transition into privatisation has to be smooth and responsible, looking also to the interests of employees, consumers and the public generally. These assurances have been given. I do not know how much more selling we have to do.

One can only see advantages in the privatisation of State corporations such as Foskor, Iscor and the functions of the Atomic Energy Corporation.

Because of the size and nature of the shareholdings in the Industrial Development Corporation, the sale of the IDC’s interests in industry will have to be selective, and care must be taken not to prejudice small private enterprises. I am sure the hon the Minister will take note of that.

The privatisation of certain sections of the national road network, while a welcome and innovative step, I think must be approached with caution. Road users are not averse to paying tolls and levies if the funds are being used for the upkeep of roads, but it is difficult to justify the privatisation of new roads, especially when the upgrading and widening of an existing road is interpreted as the building of a new road. I refer particularly to the road between Pietermaritzburg and Alberton, and the proposed road use and tolls.

However, I have no doubt that the initiatives taken will put us on a new road to prosperity. The hon the Minister has a most challenging portfolio, and I am sure all hon members wish the hon the Minister and his staff every success in the important task that lies ahead.

Mr Chairman, in participating in this debate, let me support the congratulations offered by the hon member for Losberg. As far as the comments concerning the appointment of the hon the Minister in his new post are concerned, we on this side remember the difficulties he experienced in the Department of Trade and Industry. Even the mouthpiece of the NP, Beeld, recently commented on the discomfort experienced by that hon Minister in that post. Therefore we on this side will reserve our judgements until we see the goodies he produces, so to speak.

I would also like to extend a warm word of welcome to the hon member Mrs Jager from Sasolburg. The hon member is a vast improvement on the former hon member whom she replaces. I have a speaking suspicion that that hon member is here to replace the present hon member for Sasolburg, because they know he has no chance of being re-elected against the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mrs Jager may have been a success as mayor of her town, but she will find a distinct difference between the attitude of her community towards her as mayor and that towards her as an NP member of the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Hon member after hon member have come out with their usual platitudes regarding their attitude towards the public sector. I wish to challenge the hon the Minister today to put his money where his mouth is, except that he does not have to lay out any money because we know that the NP have bankrupted us to such an extent that he does not have the money. There is something I would like him to do, though. First of all, however, I wish to quote from the speech by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who poked a rather cumbersome 15 page nose into the affairs of South Africa. In this interference he says:

Justifying this statement, he says:

We all know that this is a blatant untruth. We have heard the figures mentioned by the hon member for Springs about the 10,459 million economically active people, which is a lot of people. We also know that the public sector, including the SATS and Posts and Telecommunications, which employ a lot of non-White people, have a total of only 1,679 million people in their employ. Therefore I challenge that hon Minister to repudiate the British Foreign Secretary as far as his interference in South Africa’s affairs is concerned, as well as his statements regarding Afrikaner involvement in the public sector.

I now wish to move on to the subject of privatisation and slogan politics á la NP. In the publication, Personal Finance, of May 1988, in a comment headed, “Dangerous Ideas”, we are told that a top policy-maker recently expressed to the editors the following strongly held views:

I should like that hon the Minister to give us an assurance today that he will not give consideration to this disastrous course.

I want to go further and refer to another aspect of privatisation. I think we are all agreed that the most serious problem facing South Africa today is our image overseas. This leads to pressures and disinvestment etc. Our image overseas is handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would therefore like to recommend for the hon the Minister’s attention as a number one priority that he consider the privatisation of large areas of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I can see many benefits arising from this. First of all, when we look at the success achieved by the tourism sector in promoting South Africa, I think that if we privatise our promotion of South Africa’s image overseas along those lines then we will achieve a lot more success than is presently being achieved by the department. Secondly, if we had to privatise the control of our aid to the TBVC countries we could eliminate the political implications and ensure that those projects were monitored and controlled to ensure that the tax assistance that we gave those people was utilised for the purposes for which we provided it. That would be of tremendous benefit to us.

Another aspect of privatisation is covered in an answer given to me by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs when I asked him whether tenders were invited with regard to the Alberton-Hilton Toll Road Project; if so, when etc. He said:

The question is whether sufficient time was given to everyone else to work out the calculations necessary to embark on a project of that nature. I think a very dangerous precedent is being set if we are going to allow the allocation of this sort of thing behind closed doors in private arrangements. That certainly will not receive the support of the CP. We want each issue discussed individually.

Further, with regard to the question of privatisation, the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs spoke recently in Bloemfontein. He said that in South Africa the public owned very few shares, about 4% of the total, that the shareowning public could be strengthened by privatising and that the State, the taxpayer and the employer would benefit from privatisation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, right at the beginning of his speech the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis made certain statements about the hon member for Sasolburg. I merely want to tell him that we do not take him seriously; we think he is a joke. He very much reminds us of his American namesake, Jerry Lewis, and I say that with apologies to Mr Jerry Lewis! [Interjections.]

The hon member rushed through his discussion of privatisation, and it is clear that he is as lost, as far as this topic is concerned, as a dinky toy on a highway. I do not want to go into everything he had to say about that any further. In the short time available to me I would rather focus attention on a specific privatisation initiative, namely the privatisation of certain sections of our country’s road network system. In order to do so it is necessary to pause for a moment to consider the background of transport trends which have become evident over the past few years in the RS A.

It is true that for the past number of years we have experienced a shift in emphasis in our country’s transport methods. The emphasis has increasingly moved away from public transport, away from rail transport, to private transport, in other words road transport. Over the past few years the increase in motor vehicles, especially heavy motor vehicles, on our national roads, has been dramatic.

This tendency is to a large extent a spontaneous and a natural development that has manifested itself for various reasons. Those reasons are not relevant now, and consequently I am not going to discuss them. The fact of the matter is, however, that this dramatic rise in vehicle transport and especially heavy vehicle transport has, in a relatively short period, had a serious and disturbing effect on our country’s road network system, and continues to do so. The effect was such that the replacement, repair and maintenance of our national roads have become a serious source of concern for the Government. It has become a problem which we have to address as quickly and as effectively as possible.

It is true that in some quarters criticism has been expressed, especially by heavy vehicle operators, that this problem must be addressed by means of the application of funds which have been collected by the State for this purpose by means of fuel levies. The fact of the matter is, however, that these funds alone are no longer sufficient.

It is also interesting to note what the Margo Report’s findings and recommendations were in this regard, specifically in respect of heavy vehicle traffic. I should like to quote from the relevant White Paper, paragraph 11.3.1 (f):

Those were the findings of Mr Justice Margo and his commission, an independent body. Those are unfortunately the hard facts with which the Government is being confronted.

The partial implementation of this recommendation by the Margo Commission by means of privatisation, in which the principle of the consumer paying in accordance with the use he makes of the facility, is valid and is, in my opinion, a sound approach. It inevitably provokes criticism from certain interested groups. Unfortunately one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. If we want decent roads, the Government must recoup these costs in one way or another from the road user. Privatisation, in cases in which it can be applied by means of toll roads, seems to me to be a reasonable and fair method of achieving this goal.

Furthermore I should also like to refer to the proposed privatisation of the N3 national road between Alberton and Hilton in Natal. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis also referred to this. I am doing so specifically because this proposed toll road has enjoyed so much publicity, especially in the Natal press and because criticism has been expressed about this specific privatisation initiative from various quarters. Often this criticism is not based on facts, and consequently it sometimes creates a distorted image.

Firstly let me say that this proposed privatisation initiative, this project, must be seen in a broad perspective. It must be seen and judged in its entirety. Unfortunately it is not possible to break up a project of this nature into pieces and leave out parts which do not suit one. If the Government were to listen so such requests it would threaten the viability of the entire project. Secondly it is important to point out that after 25 years this project will be returned to the Government. It will be returned to the Government in a good condition which will have been specified in advance. In other words, the capital investment and the creation of an asset remain the property of the Government and therefore also of the taxpayer.

Thirdly a limit is placed on toll-gate levies in terms of which toll-fees may not be more than 75% of what it would have cost the motorist to use the alternative route. This aspect is important because certain critics maintain that approximately 20% of motorists would rather use the alternative route than pay toll-fees. I find it difficult to accept that any road user would pay more to use a worse road. It is an argument which does not hold water.

The Government is also criticised for having allegedly changed its policy in respect of toll roads, because a relatively small section of the project includes an existing stretch of road. The fact is that the stretch of road involved has already exceeded the life expectancy for which it was designed. Large sections of this stretch of road are in fact breaking up. Repair work to this stretch of road had, of necessity, to be commenced and is at present being done at an estimated cost of R500 000 per kilometer. I should like to emphasise that in respect of this existing section of the route, revenue from the toll-fees will only be used for the reinforcement, upgrading and maintenance of the road and not in an attempt to recover construction costs.

Certain sections of the local community are inevitably going to be detrimentally affected by this project. This is unfortunately the case. However, I should like to appeal to them to accept this inconvenience for the sake of the potential benefit of this entire project. Unfortunately the project is such that it simply is not possible for the Government to satisfy everyone.

I should like to conclude by appealing to the Government, and especially to the hon the Minister of Transport, please to give consideration to that stretch of the alternative route which is in a bad condition at the moment. I am referring specifically to that part of the alternative route between Estcourt and Hilton.

I am of the opinion that this stretch does not offer a reasonable and safe alternative at present. In my opinion objections which have been raised in respect of this section are valid and deserve urgent attention. My request is therefore aimed at the Government, namely to allocate the necessary funds to the provincial authority of Natal in order to restore the section of the relevant alternative route to a reasonable and safe condition. At present the provincial authority does not have the necessary funds.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Hattingh will no doubt be pleased to know that we will make use of his speech in Natal. No doubt the NP will consistently defend the view that he has taken on that toll road. I think it would also prove profitable for the NP to raise the matter of the use of the road between Estcourt and Pietermaritzburg in the debate in Natal on Monday and Tuesday.

I regret that the hon member for Umhlanga who offered a few words of criticism to my colleague the hon member for Pinelands is not here. When we talk about the ideological duplication of facilities, we can quote no better authority than the hon the Minister of Education and Culture who said that the policy of duplication, triplication and quadruplication is a costly policy. Yet, the NP wanted it and that is what they have.

I would like to turn to the Public Service in a debate that has been dominated by privatisation. I would like to extend on behalf of the PFP our thanks to the many public servants who did outstanding work during the past year. The last debate we had on the Public Service was just on nine months ago and therefore the period is actually shorter than a year. In the interim we also had a debate on the Public Service as result of a private member’s motion in March during which various thanks were extended to the Commission for Administration and the Public Service. We join in those again.

It is important to note that we in the PFP believe in a small, well-paid public service. We are pleased to note from the recent statistics both in the report and in the 1988 publication in regard to the Exchequer Personnel, that limited growth has taken place in the areas of vital necessity— the education and service areas. However, in the main Public Service there was in fact a decrease if one subtracts the development board personnel. We are pleased about this and will address it in a moment.

My colleagues for Pinelands and Yeoville have addressed the concept of both privatisation and contracting out which, we believe, should in fact reduce the total number of public servants.

There are two particular aspects I want to address the hon the Minister on today.

The one relates particularly to a statement that he made in the House of Representatives on Tuesday in connection with the abolition of vacant posts, and I quote from Die Burger of 18 May:

This is quite a clear statement, and we appreciate that the hon the Minister said it, but if one wants to know the amount of confusion it has left, are only, for example, has to ask the Press, who receive enquiries in this regard every day.

I want to quote from the private member’s debate on the Public Service during March, when I said the following (Hansard, 1988, col 2872):

I was referring here to the then Minister in the State President’s Office Entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services, but this applies to this hon Minister too—

The former Minister in response then reacted as follows (Hansard, 1988, col 2898):

That is what the previous hon Minister said. I now ask this Minister what his intentions are with regard to the abolition of vacancies. What is he really abolishing? Let me take a case in point. In the report of the Commission for Administration they state that at 31 December 1987, 170 posts out of a thousand posts were vacant. They include computerised information system personnel, control personnel, data system advisers, training advisers and organisation and work study. If those posts were vacant, I would say that they were vacant not through choice, but because personnel could not be obtained, and I want to ask this hon Minister what he is abolishing. Is he abolishing the vacant posts that are still necessary to be retained in the Public Service? What is he doing about the vacant nurses’ posts, for example? I think it is important that the hon the Minister spells out in a lot more detail the number of posts he is abolishing, and what sort of posts he is abolishing. In this regard it is also important to note that the Commission for Administration refers to the “Control of the establishment” on page 40 of its annual report.

In accordance with a Cabinet decision, a personnel standstill was introduced from 30 November 1987, in order to limit personnel expenditure. On 30 November departments were therefore told they could not expand, and now they are being told their vacancies are being abolished. We do need some very rapid clarification on this point— we need to know the numbers and the departments.

The second matter I would like to deal with is the question of salaries. In this instance I think the hon the Minister needs to share information with this House and with South Africa as a whole. The PFP supported the hon the State President’s statement regarding a general non-increase in salaries for public servants as part of an economic package. The hon member for Yeoville, among others, indicated that we believed, however, that there were certain paid posts that needed to be picked out.

We mentioned nurses, the police and teachers among others. We supported that. Then, Sir, during the discussion of his Budget Vote we had a speech from the hon the State President in which he indicated his unhappiness with the private sector’s failure to respond to the Government’s appeal not to increase salaries and wages. The hon members of the CP quoted a number of examples. I could also quote examples at length, Sir. The hon the Minister is, however, well aware that the average salary increase in the private sector is of the order of 15% this year. The hon the State President is concerned about this.

Then we turn to what this hon Minister said on Tuesday of this week, and I quote:

All I want to ask this hon Minister is the following. It has come to my notice that there are in fact discussions being held regarding a salary increase for public servants. We have that indication from the Public Servants’ Association and from other bodies. I believe it is incumbent on this hon Minister to show some reaction today in the light, if you like, of the reflected figures of this week of a 4% growth in the economy during the first quarter of this year. Is this sufficient to signal a possible increase? I want to sound a warning. If this hon Minister is looking to announcing a general salary increase during this financial year and does not take into account that it is a very significant leg, if you like, of the total economic package presented by the hon the Minister of Finance, we will be throwing the whole thing out of kilter again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow on the hon member for Pinetown. I think it was his own leader who said this afternoon that we must be very, very careful not to make privatisation a political football. It would be very, very nice too if we could leave the salaries of the loyal servants in the Public Service out of the picture and not make those a political football too.

After your last speech, yes, that is true!

The hon member for Pinetown has also fallen into another pitfall in thinking that from the backbenches he and I can change the politics and the policies of this country. I am sure that almost everything else he has said will be very competently dealt with by the hon the Minister.

The CP, in the person of Mr Derby-Lewis, also expressed some doubt about how the hon the Minister was going to handle his new portfolio. Let me tell him that we on this side of the House definitely have a certain amount of knowledge of some very fine teams this hon Minister has led in the past, and we are excited when we think of what he is going to do in the future, particularly in the direction of privatisation.

In connection with privatisation the first two speakers on the CP side did this afternoon what Shakespeare said: “Damned with faint praise”. Of course, they have to be on the side of privatisation. They all said, however, “privatisation, but …”They want to see that all the power does not end up in the hands of the PWV area. They want to see that there are no monopolies. They want to see that the people do not lose their jobs. All these problems have been dealt with.

I should like to mention here the example of England, where privatisation was also turned into a political football. Just like our own Official Opposition, the Labour Party also damned with faint praise the issue of privatisation. They kept on saying it was a good policy, but … It was also an attitude of yes, but …

They tried to bring privatisation into their political debates in an attempt to bring down the Maggie Thatcher Conservative Party. I am pleased to say that in almost every instance of privatisation up to the present, Maggie Thatcher received the support of 90% of the public servants and officials working in those departments in respect of which she was attacked by her opposition. I honestly think that the way in which she dealt with the whole problem was the final blow that gave her victory in the election.

I would like to quote Dr Madsen Pine, whose theories were quoted by the hon member for Yeoville at some length this afternoon, although his name was not mentioned. He said the following:

I have an idea that privatisation might keep us low between the polls, but I think it is going to be the right thing as far as the elections are concerned.

*The Government’s commitment to privatisation has seldom been more clearly demonstrated than in the field of mineral and energy affairs. Sasol 1, for example, the world’s biggest producer of synthetic fuel from coal, was privatised by the State as far back as 1979, when shares were issued to the institutional investors. Sasol Ltd, as a public company, took over control of Sasol 1, which was already a world leader at that stage.

In 1984, Sasol Ltd managed to take over Sasol 2, and only Sasol 3 still has to be fully privatised, although it is already fully operated by Sasol Ltd, which owns 50% of the shares. The take-over of Sasol 3 will continue as soon as a number of financial requirements can be met.

The Government has also made it quite clear that it wishes the private sector to participate in the synoil projects, such as the project for obtaining fuel from oil-shale and other forms of processing, including the torbanite plants.

Only 10 days ago, Genkor announced that it had, to a certain extent, committed itself to the development of the gas resource that is going to be processed by Mosgas. Gencor must have found it encouraging that crude oil was discovered in marketable quantities only one week after they had entered into an agreement with the State.

It is appropriate at this stage to congratulate the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation on the success he has achieved so far, and to wish him every success in further attempts to increase the participation of the private sector in the activities of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The hon the Minister has already announced that atomic energy affairs will also be investigated. The by-products of this industry are important to entrepreneurs.

Coal is the most important source of energy in our country, and the coal industry is fully controlled by the private sector. The only State interference in the industry is with regard to the overall control of coal sales between the Transvaal and Natal.

The private sector exports coal to many countries in the world. They themselves are responsible for the negotiations and the transport. They have already acquired an excellent reputation for reliability throughout the world.

At the beginning of April this year, the administration of the Eskom Act of 1987 was transferred to the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, who is fully responsible for carrying out the Government’s policy of privatisation with regard to Eskom. However, the 1987 Electricity Act remains the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, since it is separate from the Eskom Act.

†As huge an institution as Eskom may prove to be one of the easier exercises in the transfer of Government assets to the private sector. Once shares are issued to cover whatever share of the corporation is to be owned by non-Government institutions, the only change in structure necessary will be to enlarge the board of directors in order to represent the interests of the new shareholders.

Another exciting prospect is the partial privatisation of the terrain of the diamond fields of Alexander Bay. Here the State’s intention is to privatise and to build a caravan park and to develop the whole area into an area where people can picnic, camp and hike.

I think it will be very exciting. It is one of the few things left under the aegis of mineral and energy affairs that is not yet privately owned. It will become a tourist attraction.

Inside the department of technology: mineral and energy affairs, major privatisation has already taken place on a large scale. From 1 April 1988 many of the staff have been seconded to the National Energy Council until such time as the council organises its personnel structure and possibly takes the staff over permanently.

Touching on the department of mineral and energy affairs, of course, is our accountancy and audit function. Very few people realise to what degree these functions have already been privatised. R6,7 million was paid out last year by the State for the privatised auditing of 142 Government institutions by 42 private companies.

If the auditing function of the more than 250 Black regional authorities is given to the office of the Auditor-General, the work will be given out to the private sector and controlled and planned by the Auditor-General. As low a profile as these areas of privatisation have held, it is one that will affect every area in the country.

After the many shapes and forms of privatisation discussed here this afternoon, the question must be asked as to what the word means. I would say, that it means that some function that was formerly paid for and organised by the State is made independent of the State. Many of the projects that are to be privatised must first be quasiindependent. They must first be weaned from the State to live in semi-independence until such time as everyone is assured that the public will be guaranteed its former good service and the State will be in a position to relieve the taxpayers of the burden.

One of the strange things that has already been privatised by the many socially conscious people in this country is the business of taking care of the aged in old age homes, animals and other people in need throughout the country. These things have already been privatised and run successfully. If tiny things like that can be done, the industry of this country can be privatised too.

Mr Chairman, I think there is one aspect of privatisation which has not been addressed yet and has not yet been mentioned in the debate this afternoon, but one which I think the hon the Minister should bear in mind. Because the smaller local authorities do not have the tremendous manpower of the State at their disposal, consideration must be given to the possibility of privatising sections of departments or even departments of local authorities.

I am thinking, for example, of the parks departments which one finds in many of the larger metropolitan authorities. If many of the services rendered by such a department could be privatised, it would create employment opportunities and give rise to small business enterprises in the metropolitan areas which could only be to the benefit of such a local authority. Often it seems as if time is being wasted at many of our local authorities. If those services of the parks divisions of local authorities were to be investigated, changes could perhaps be made.

One should, however, start with the larger local authorities such as those of metropolitan authorities. In this regard the hon the Minister should perhaps hold discussions with his colleagues in charge of local authorities to determine whether the possibility of privatisation exists in those spheres.

Another example is that of sidewalks which are continually being cleared and levelled. It is a tremendous expenditure for a local authority because one has to employ technical personnel to service the lawnmowers and all kinds of things which could rather be dealt with in the towns by a small business enterprise. These days we have the phenomenon of the small businessmen who start a gardening services business, and in so doing quite a few staff members are appointed in no time at all. I wonder whether the local authorities could not examine those kinds of services with a view to privatisation. The hon the Minister should discuss this with his opposite numbers.

Another aspect which has been considered by some larger local authorities is meter-reading. Whether it is the reading of water or electricity meters, I think a lot of progress has been made in that sphere. Many smaller companies have arisen which are starting to render these services to local authorities. That is therefore a single aspect which can bring relief to the local authority ratepayer. I believe the more competitive that field becomes the better.

Another aspect which I should like to touch upon is something one sees here in the Cape Peninsula. There are quite a number of smaller local authorities in the Cape Peninsula which do not maintain an electrical engineering division for example, as is the case with larger local authorities. I believe that that possibly happened because of the fact that in earlier years the power supply in the Cape Peninsula always came from Escom and that the services of electricity distribution and installation and all the engineering services relating to an electricity department fell under Escom. Some of the larger municipalities in the Cape Peninsula do manage this themselves, but I believe it is an aspect which might contain some possibilities if the hon the Minister wanted to investigate it, or appointed someone to do so. I mention that because since we are establishing Black local authorities, and since we do not always have the trained manpower to employ those people, it would be a major asset for these smaller developing local authorities because if they have to start paying salaries they usually have to compete with the larger local authorities, and that is where the ratepayer at the local authority level finds that he has to pay enormous salaries for a service which might have been rendered far more cheaply if it had been done by the private sector.

I could have thought of many other aspects, but I think that at this stage I merely want to ask the hon the Minister please to consider local authorities; possibly we should be of assistance to those people by ordering an investigation to find out what could be done for them.

Mr Chairman, this is the first time, since the responsibilities for Administration and Privatisation were transferred to me, that I have had an opportunity to participate in a debate on this Ministry. The Ministry, as constituted at present, covers a wide and important field of endeavour. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that efficient government, together with an imaginative, constructive programme of privatisation and deregulation, could prove decisive to further economic development in South Africa. In fact, several speakers have also referred to that in their contributions. A sound, vital economy in this country is ultimately also a prerequisite for social and political constitutional development.

I am particularly looking forward to tackling the job entrusted to me. It is an exciting and challenging field. I am very conscious, however, of the many problems and pitfalls in this area. It will be my task to employ, as efficiently as possible, the existing expertise and experience in both the public and private sectors with a view to achieving the goals which have been set.

On this occasion I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, ex-Minister Alwyn Schlebusch. My predecessor is someone who really made his mark in public life in South Africa. He is held in high esteem by everyone who has come to know him over the years in his official capacity. He is greatly respected as a person by everyone, and I think that we, as a House, will also remember the conscientious and dignified way in which he performed the duties attaching to his various posts. I want to wish him and his wife a pleasant and a long, restful period of retirement, and I trust that they will both enjoy good health.

Six weeks ago I effectively took over the responsibilities of this Ministry. I realise, in all fairness, that it will still take some time to a get a firm grip on the diverse activities under my control. It is also true, however, that in my capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry I have already become familiar with State corporations such as Iscor and Foskor. I was also responsible for the Government’s policy of competition and for the Competition Board. Over and above that, from the outset I was privileged to serve on the State President’s Cabinet Committee on Privatisation. Thus I could share in the experience gained in that committee.

Since privatisation has become an important focal point of this new Ministry, alongside the responsibility for administration, and alongside and in conjunction with the work of the Commission for Administration, I should initially like to give hon members a picture of how I would like to see these matters being dealt with. Thereafter I shall reply individually to hon members who, for the most part, spoke about privatisation.

A great deal has already been written and said about privatisation. In fact, one need only page through the daily newspapers to note how much public interest there is in this subject. It could be that the success achieved in various other countries with privatisation programmes—not only in the United Kingdom, as the hon member for Yeoville remarked—has caught the imagination of the public.

Our privatisation campaign in this country does not involve merely following a fashion. Nor must our privatisation campaign be compared with that in the United Kingdom where for many years, since the thirties, a positive programme of nationalisation had been adopted. In saying that, I am not detracting from the fact that a purposeful programme of privatisation could have infinite very positive benefits for the South African economy.

Privatisation in the Republic began slowly with the appointment of the Committee on Privatisation which launched several investigations into this matter. As the hon member for Pinelands also pointed out, it subsequently gained momentum with the publication of the White Paper. The hon the State President’s announcement gave further impetus to this campaign through the establishment of a Ministry for privatisation. As I see it, it is the task of this Ministry to coordinate, promote and, where necessary, monitor the overall privatisation campaign. This means, of course, that I shall be working closely with other colleagues who are responsible for activities which are possibly going to be privatised.

In this regard I can inform the House that it is not our intention to establish an extensive, new staff structure; on the contrary, it is my aim to realise this goal by including a small core of experts in the teams of experts already investigating privatisation in Eskom, Iscor, the SA Transport Services and Posts and Telecommunications. In this way our existing expertise in the various branches can be optimally utilised, including the private sector’s appointed expertise. Thus we would still be able to perform an overall co-ordinating function. Mr Pieter van Huyssteen has been appointed and has already commenced working for me. We hope to make a few more appointments in the near future.

Where additional specialised expertise is needed, we would prefer to obtain this by way of the private sector. In fact, at this stage several consultants are investigating certain aspects. At this juncture I do not want to elaborate on that.

The House also knows full well of the excellent and significant investigations carried out over the past year or two by Dr Wim de Villiers. I am referring to the Eskom investigation, the SATS investigation and the investigation into posts and telecommunications services, and at present Dr De Villiers is engaged in an investigation into hospital and health services.

It was also partly from the experience gained in these investigations that the ministerial committee realised to what extent a privatisation campaign in South Africa was essential if our economy was to be placed on a sound footing.

As both committee and Ministry we are giving attention at present to a timetable to have the various activities that can possibly be privatised, incorporated into an action programme. Various aspects have to be borne in mind when drawing up such an action programme and timetable. The hon member for Yeoville referred to a few of those aspects. One would not start with the most difficult of them. There are good, sound reasons why we shall specifically be trying to structure the timetable in such a way as to give such further impetus to this programme that our actions and our successes can specifically serve as a marketing campaign for the privatisation process.

Inevitably it will be necessary to institute further investigations. This is not an easy task. There are various problem areas involved in the privatisation or possible privatisation of each of these institutions. We shall have to pay due attention to the position of employees, and we shall have to take due note of consumer protection.

†That is also something to which the hon member for Yeoville referred. Of course, we will have to consider the investors. We shall carefully analyse each and every possible activity and we will act in the best interests of all parties concerned.

*Ultimately an important goal of privatisation and deregulations remains that of giving more people in South Africa a share in prosperity.

Hear, hear!

As someone has said, privatisation and deregulation are aimed at giving the economy back to the people. In this regard we should like to see optimum participation by the public, and also optimum participation by employees of the respective undertakings.

†In this regard experience gained in the United Kingdom and in many other countries is most encouraging. More than 70% of the eligible employees took up shares in the first 12 major privatisations in the United Kingdom and that despite trade union opposition and public scepticism. There are very many persuasive arguments in favour of privatisation. One that particularly appeals to me—and after listening to hon members this afternoon I am sure it will appeal to most of the hon members who participated in this debate—is that we should give back to people the power to make decisions regarding their own lives. We should roll back government and allow people to make their own decisions. Ordinary people want that responsibility. They want to work to achieve things for themselves, rather than rely on the State.

Share-ownership, particularly share-ownership by employees, should be part of the process towards a wider dispersal of wealth and property in this country. Our aim should be that owning shares should be as common as owning a house or having a bank account.

Just as home-owners take pride and interest in what they own, so will shareholders and new shareholders take pride and interest in the industry and in the economy in general. The hon member for Yeoville again made the very valid point that by watching the performance of companies they will gain experience and obtain insight into how companies operate, into the process of wealth creation and into the need for efficient, profitable and competitive companies in South Africa.

Sir Colin Marshall, the Chief Executive of British Airways, had the following to say about the high level of employees’ shareholding in British Airways. I want to quote this interesting paragraph to hon members:

British Airways moved from the position of a disregarded airline to a leading position in the world today. That can be done through privatisation. There is no argument against the fact that in countries that have followed a programme of privatisation the employees and the public have benefited considerably.

The advantages of privatisation are perhaps best summarised by the well-known John Maynard Keynes when he wrote the following:

*I shall leave the subject of privatisation there for the moment. I shall be coming back to it when I reply to the respective speakers.

Several speakers also referred to the question of salaries. The reason why no general salary increase was granted to public servants this year was definitely not because of a lack of appreciation for the importance of officials or the essential work being done by them; on the contrary, the Government greatly appreciates the extended services being furnished by officials and the loyalty and dedication with which these services are being rendered. In many cases excellent work is being done.

The hon member for Pretoria Central also referred to the fact that our officials could more than hold their own against the private sector. I want to reiterate that we all know of the services rendered by the private sector. I want to ask whether we are always completely satisfied. In the private sector, which prides itself so consistently on the services which are rendered, do we not also find negligent and unsatisfactory services being rendered?

It is true that there are a few lead-swingers in the Public Service who are perhaps not doing their duty, but generally we have loyal and hardworking public servants. I should like to join the hon member for Pinetown and other hon members in thanking public servants for the services they render. We are all aware of the extent to which the efficient functioning of society depends upon the service rendered by our public servants. They are responsible for our protection and our security, the order in our society, the sound functioning of many essential services and for the many services that affect the lives of all of us in some or other way.

That is why our officials deserve a word of thanks. It is not a question of whether they deserve or do not deserve a general salary increase. Specifically if we note the general salary trends in the open labour market, we can accept that officials definitely have a valid claim when it comes to salary increases. The Government, however, had to weigh up the valid demands of the officials against the implications that a general salary increase would have for the country’s economy. The Government had to ask what was in the best interests of the South Africa economy, and also in the best interests of all of us. What is in the best long-term interests of all of us, including the officials? In this regard the Government had to take some difficult decisions.

The Government had to decide not to grant general salary increases, even though the demands for such increases were justified. The Government had to decide not to increase social pensions, when in fact there was a very real need to do so. The Government had to decide not to grant a further increase in welfare expenditure, even though we know that there was a need for this. Thus I could go on, Mr Chairman. Those were painful decisions in the short term—they are not popular; those are not decisions that gain one votes. They were, however, responsible decisions which were taken in everyone’s interests in so far as these steps are aimed at placing the economy on a sounder footing. General salary increases and a further increase in State expenditure could only be financed through increased taxation.

It was not possible to negotiate further loans, and earlier this year the hon the Minister of Finance also pointed out that Government expenditure was already fully under control and that it was not possible to obtain funds for a general salary increase by way of tax increases. I believe that our officials are responsible people. The hon member for Pretoria Central also pointed out that fact. They are responsible and positive people. Certain people are disappointed, but they are responsible enough to realise that the steps were taken with a view to placing the economy on a sound footing, to curbing inflation and to tightening control even further on Government expenditure so that the tax burden on the individual could ultimately also be relieved, and surely that is in the interests of all of us! I think the hon member for Losberg spoke about an official who obtained a notch increase and who, after he had done the necessary calculations, found that taxation had swallowed up the major portion of that increase. Is it therefore not important to create a sound economy so that we can ultimately relieve that very tax burden, including that on officials?

What benefit is there in granting short-term salary increases which, in poor economic conditions, are simply eroded further by inflation? That is why, in this instance, the Government had to come down in favour of everyone’s long-term economic interests, even though these benefits weigh more heavily and even though short-lived benefits are a more attractive proposition. I want to assure public servants this afternoon that the Government is fully aware of their well-motivated and justified demands. I believe that the sacrifices they have made this year—and they were indeed sacrifices—have already made an important contribution towards improving our present economic conditions.

Oh, no!

Yes, Sir! One already sees the extent to which inflation has decreased to more acceptable levels. A complete economic recovery is not possible in the space of one or two years, but there are encouraging signs.

The Government and the Commission for Administration are duly keeping an eye on the economic situation. If financial circumstances permit—I want to say today that I am optimistic about that possibility—general salary increases will not be a neglected budgetary item in the next financial year. Economic circumstances permitting—and I say I am optimistic about that—a general salary increase will be given very favourable consideration in the next financial year; in fact, it will be given high priority. Discussions about this are already being conducted between the Commission for Administration and the respective trade unions. I trust that our officials will take a positive view, that we shall stand firm and that we shall see our sacrifices as being a contribution towards long-term goals which will prove to be more lasting and more meaningful to us and to the country’s economy.

Several hon members also referred to the number of public servants. The hon member for Barberton tried to indicate a discrepancy between the views of the hon member for Springs, who unfortunately could not be present, and my own views. The hon member for Springs spoke about the ratio of public servants to economically active people in the Public Service. My remarks concerned the increase in the Public Service. I shall say more about that at a later stage.

Hardly had the hon member done that, however, when he qualified the statement made by the hon member for Losberg; he then said we should really be careful in our dealings with the free market. I agree with him, of course. We must be careful in regard to the “free-market” concept. We are not free-marketeers. We do, of course, believe in a mixed economy. It is nevertheless the nature of the mix that is important.

†Mr Chairman, during the past year the number of personnel in the employ of the central Government, including the provincial administrations, increased from 650 277 to 718 504. This represents a growth of 10,5% for the period concerned.

However, the reason for this increase cannot be found in the excessive additional employment of personnel. It was caused mainly by the assimilation of large numbers of personnel from other sectors of Government. In this regard I want to refer to the 6 185 members of the SA Railways Police who were transferred to the SA Police. Furthermore, 15 267 persons employed by the former development boards were also placed in the service of various departments of the central Government.

If the aforementioned assimilation of personnel is taken into account, the increase in the numbers amounts to 7,2%, and I say that that is still too high. This is a matter that is going to receive my personal attention, and I hope that with the co-operation of the Commission for Administration we can stem this growth.

An analysis of the 7,2% indicates that the number of educators increased by 3 993, an increase of 2,4%. A further increase of 14,4% was registered by the service departments—Police, Defence Force, Prisons Service etc. The number of nursing personnel increased by 20,7%, but that figure may have been the result of improved data submitted by the provincial administrations from 1987. The 6 917 labourers from the former development boards who were placed in the service of the central Government contribute to an increase of 19,6%. If the groups I have referred to are excluded—those transferred from other departments—it is significant to note that all groups of personnel in the Public Service consisting of about 520 occupational classes should really have shown a decrease of 1 897 persons, a decrease of 1,2%. However, the 8 000 redundant persons who were transferred from the development boards to these departments resulted in a small increase.

*I want to reiterate that it is my intention, in conjunction with the Commission for Administration, to curb this growth in numbers in the Public Service. It is our endeavour—the hon member for Pinetown also referred to it, and I think he should generally be supported in that— to establish a smaller, more efficient and consequently higher-paid Public Service. If fewer people could be employed to do the same work efficiently, they could be rewarded for doing so. Together with the commission I want to seek further incentive measures for achieving this objective.

It is true that we are living in a developing country and that there will naturally have to be a growth in the Public Service, but this should be kept strictly within acceptable limits and, where possible, existing services should be critically investigated to determine whether they are still essential or whether they cannot perhaps be phased out. That very exercise is taking place at the moment.

The whole function evaluation programme in the Public Service is aimed at placing every function of every department under the microscope to determine, firstly, whether that function is actually necessary, secondly to ask why that function cannot be taken over and furnished by the private sector, thirdly to determine whether that function, if it is necessary, cannot be rationalised or scaled down and, lastly, also to investigate whether that function cannot be performed on a consumer-levy basis.

I am very optimistic about this exercise we are engaged in in the Public Service at present. Several investigations have already been concluded or are in the process of being concluded. I think that when we have moved through all the departments in the Public Service, we shall be able to pick the fruits of a far-reaching, penetrating exercise to ascertain whether the work being done is really necessary and in the interests of the country.

The hon member for Koedoespoort, for example, referred to this investigation, but also to various other campaigns being conducted in the Public Service to increase the efficiency and the productivity of the Public Service. At this stage I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

The steps taken do, of necessity, have certain implications. It is frequently made difficult for our officials to render the most efficient service within the compass of the directives given to them, and that is why we are trying to rationalise. That is why we are trying to make optimal use of officials and, through training, to increase efficiency in various departments.

It is in this spirit that there has been a general freezing of Public Service expansion so that every new appointment can be critically considered to put a stop to mere sporadic growth in the Public Service, each possible appointment being judiciously and expertly considered.

We have also taken further steps. The hon member for Pinetown put questions to me about the announcement I made yesterday concerning the further abolishing of vacant posts.

†An investigation by the Commission for Administration showed that there was room to effect some reduction in authorised establishments. The cut-back is really being addressed in three various steps. The first step has been completed, and that was when the commission in co-operation with departments identified certain vacant posts which have since been abolished.

Are you referring to the 6 000?

Yes. They have already been abolished.

The next step that I announced was the decision by the Cabinet that authorised posts which were vacant at this stage and for which funds had not been budgeted should be abolished forthwith, unless there were special circumstances which made it essential to have those posts retained. These circumstances would be considered by the Commission for Administration.

As a third step the continued existence of other vacant posts which have not been filled will be thoroughly examined after six months. This refers to the posts which have been budgeted for. If they remain vacant after six months, they will be examined and they will not be retained if convincing arguments cannot be furnished for their existence.

The numbers are of importance!

It is difficult at this stage but I will furnish the hon member with the facts and the figures later.

Does this apply to the police?

No, I will come to that. The protection services, education and the Department of Justice have largely been excluded from these measures. It must be emphasized that the position of serving personnel in only those three categories—services, police and so forth …

Not health services?

No, I am referring to education and the Department of Justice. It must be emphasized that the position of serving personnel is not an issue in any way and essential services will not be adversely affected by the decision which has been announced.

Again I want to emphasize that, where a special case can be made out, we will not be unsympathetic. We must, however, take action with regard to our commitment to rationalise Government services, to raise the efficiency of the Public Service and to reduce unnecessary numbers.

That brings me to the contributions by various hon members. First of all, I would like to thank all hon members who congratulated me and wished me well.

*The Official Opposition’s chief spokesman, the hon member for Losberg, congratulated me, as did various other parties and speakers. I thank them for that. I also appreciate the congratulations to our officials, and on behalf of those gentlemen I should like to convey my appreciation to those hon members.

At least the hon member for Losberg began his speech—I think I understood him correctly—by saying that the CP was in favour of privatisation.

We have no objection to privatisation in principle.

I am not quite sure—no objections in principle? That is precisely my problem. Is this again a “yes, but” policy? Is it a question of “yes, but we do not have any objections in principle”?

I want to tell the hon member for Losberg and other hon members of the Official Opposition that I also believe, as does the hon member for Yeoville, that we should not try to make a political issue of privatisation. Ultimately we have too much to gain or to lose. For that reason I am going to try to be positive. If that is our common ground, it possibly presents us with an opportunity to conduct constructive debates with one another. Let us see where we disagree and, when we disagree, let us spell out the points on which we disagree and weigh one up against the other.

I want to tell the hon member for Losberg and other hon members of that party that my approach to this portfolio is to try to extend the common ground that does exist in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of our economy and in the interests of the many people involved in this.

I also want to associate myself immediately with the remark of the hon member for Barberton. I do not think the hon member for Losberg was making a random comment, but if one speaks of the free market—in common parlance this is unfortunately true—one must be a little careful of the concept one is using. I therefore prefer to speak of our economy as an economy based on private initiative or a market-related economy.

We must increase that market-related aspect and try to achieve market discipline in regard to every economic activity. It is also one of the major values of privatisation that those activities—in particular those economic activities—of the State can be transferred to the private sector so that the private sector’s discipline can also exert an influence on those undertakings, of course apart from all the other benefits to which various speakers referred.

This must be done so that the employment of capital and the return on capital, including satisfying the consumers—all these important considerations and forces—can also have an effect on that industry. The problem with a public sector undertaking is frequently not that there is poor management; in the majority of cases there is excellent management. The whole climate of a private sector undertaking, however, is such that these market disciplines cannot come into their own—and politicians and officials frequently allude to those undertakings—to the detriment of the efficiency of the industry concerned.

Privatisation aims at increasing the efficiency of these undertakings, thereby improving the efficiency of the economy. If one were to look at the scope of these enterprises, one would see that their transfer to the private sector would have a tremendous influence on the economy as a whole.

I now want to tell the hon member for Losberg that it does not help to try to hoodwink us into believing that those hon members are with us on the question of privatisation, and then telling us that they will only accept privatisation after a proper investigation has been carried out, rejecting an announcement about privatisation which was made before those investigations had been carried out.

In regard to specific bodies.

The hon member is probably referring to the hon the State President’s speech. I cannot think what else he could be referring to. In his announcement about Iscor, Eskom and Foskor the hon the State President very clearly stated that investigations would still be carried out. Nor did he announce their privatisation. The hon the State President made it very clear that the Government had no objection to the privatisation of these bodies. Unfortunately I only have the English text here, but let me quote to the hon member precisely what the hon the State President said about these matters (Hansard, 1988, col 8):

It is therefore a question of what is “possible” and what has been decided “in principle”. The same applies to Iscor and Eskom.

Quote that!

I shall quote it. It reads (Hansard, 1988, col 8)—

The hon the State President also said (Hansard, 1988, col 7):

[Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman. Where has the hon member read that these bodies are going to be privatised? [Interjections.] Oh no, Sir, then they do not understand the announcement.

What is the composition of my Ministry aimed at it if not at conducting further investigation, at co-ordinating and investigating further possibilities? Otherwise the hon the State President could surely have handed the whole matter over to a private organisation and said that it should draw up a prospectus and issue shares. No, there are still several important investigations that have to be carried out, and after those investigations have been completed, several important future decisions will have to be taken. In regard to such an important matter the hon member must therefore not try to distort our words.

The hon member said he suspected our motives. The hon member for Barberton also said so. They said that if we intervened now, this would specifically lead to distortions in the economy. The extent to which privatisation is going to take place and can take place is specifically aimed at correcting existing distortions in the economy, the aim specifically being to correct the distortions that have developed over the years.

An example is to be found in the fact that the net fixed investment in regard to State involvement—ie the public sector, including the State corporations—was 63,7% in 1985. These bodies do not pay tax. The tax base has therefore narrowed. Distortions have crept into the economy, and privatisation specifically aims, too, at correcting these distortions and promoting a sound economic dispensation.

The hon member for Losberg tried to defend privatisation; he is therefore saying “yes”, but then he comes along with the “but”. Can that hon member, as a responsible hon member, make the kind of ridiculous statement he made, implying that ultimately nothing would remain of the Public Service if we privatised.

There will always be governmental functions which cannot be privatised. Every function will have to be assessed in its own right. On the one hand the hon member warned against privatisation which would diminish the Public Service, but then he himself said that the scope of the Public Service, its present scope, diminished the possibility of granting salary increases.

I said as a result of reform.

No, Sir, if the hon member wants to debate these matters he must not beat about the bush. [Interjections.]

While speaking about reform, the hon member had quite a bit to say about the fact that over the years salary increases have not reflected the relatively larger increases for other population groups. That is the result of parity; that is a result of our policy of giving equal remuneration for equal work in the Public Service. I can give the hon member the assurance—he asked me the question—that the qualification and productivity requirements for all population groups are the same. I spoke about the salaries; the hon member also referred to that aspect.

The hon member for Koedoespoort highlighted the steps the Public Service was taking to improve efficiency. I thank him for that.

The hon member for North Rand, who himself is an ex-official and can speak with conviction and experience of the Public Service, also underlined the training of officials—the various campaigns being undertaken in that regard. I thank him for that contribution.

†Apart from his political side-tracking, I do not find fault with the remarks of the hon member for Pinelands on privatisation. There are certainly many functions that can be contracted out. We will do that as far as possible; it will be investigated. As I have spelt out, wider share-ownership is certainly one of our main objectives.

*I want to thank the hon member for Springs for his contribution which specifically indicated the relationship between the Public Service and the economically active portion of the population. The hon member also made the important point that if we looked at the developed section of the population, it was significant to what extent that portion was already involved in the Public Service. He also asked us to try to take steps to bring the underdeveloped or less developed population groups to maturity in the Public Service more quickly. Steps are already being taken to do this in the respective administrations. In the Administration: House of Delegates approximately 90% of all posts are filled by members of the Indian population at present.

†Almost 800 Indian officers are receiving salaries in excess of R40 000 per annum, while about 19 Indians occupy posts in the management echelon or posts which are salarywise on the management level.

*The same applies to the Administration: House of Representatives. Eighty per cent of all those posts are held by members of the Coloured population.

†More than 1 200 Coloureds are receiving salaries in excess of R40 000 per annum, while about 30 Coloureds occupy posts in the management echelons or posts with comparable salaries.

*I therefore think that we should, to a large extent, give effect to the hon member’s request.

The hon member for Pretoria Central advocated sympathetic consideration for the question of salaries. I have referred to that aspect.

He also asked that the R50 000 limit for the housing subsidy scheme be increased. It has never been the intention to have this housing subsidy cover the full amount of the mortgage. The idea has always been to assist an individual or to augment the amount which the individual himself must contribute. We also try to compensate officials in such a way that they receive reasonable salaries and that, depending on their rank, are able to contribute a portion towards the purchasing of a house.

We must also remember that the Public Service is staffed by all population groups. The subsidy limit of R50 000 must be tested as a criterion of general accessibility to the overall staff corps of the Public Service. That is why I really do not think the amount is all that unrealistic. That amount must also be competitive with that of various other similar schemes in the private sector.

I therefore want to give the hon member the assurance that where we can we do, in fact, take an official’s position and circumstances into account, but at this stage I do not think there is really any merit in increasing the R50 000. One could always review this matter in the future.

Since the hon member spoke about the housing question, I should like to refer to a matter which also received a fair amount of Press coverage recently. I am referring to the Public Service housing scheme and the Auditor-General’s report on this. It is true that in the recent past, in his investigations in the department, the Auditor-General focused attention on the housing subsidy measures. According to the Auditor-General, these investigations brought to light that departments had experienced various problems with interpretation and implementation which, in some cases, had given rise to overpayment and underpayment as far as subsidies were concerned. Reference has also been made to possible abuses. The commission regards this matter in a very serious light. In fact, even before the Auditor-General’s report appeared, the commission became aware of these problems. Since 1987 the commission has been investigating the subsidy scheme with a view to preventing or eliminating these problems as far as possible.

The subsidy scheme is modelled on the principle of an interest subsidy on housing loans. The scheme is continually assessed on the basis of similar schemes in the private sector. In the light of its investigation, the commission also decided to involve an exceptionally knowledgeable person from the private sector in the investigation. The person concerned has had years of experience in building society work, and the commission is convinced that he could make an outstanding contribution to the development of a totally new subsidy scheme.

In the design of such a scheme, implementional simplicity will, of course, be of cardinal importance, and a factor one would definitely have to strive for. As soon as final negotiations have been conducted with the person concerned about the provisions embodied in his terms of reference and remuneration, further particulars in this regard will be made public.

In regard to possible abuses or dishonesty on the part of some participants in the housing subsidy scheme, I want to point out to the House that there are very clear provisions about the implementation of this scheme. If anyone conceals any information or makes any misrepresentation concerning his subsidy position, his subsidy is summarily withdrawn, overpayments are recovered from him and he is excluded from further participation in the subsidy scheme. This exclusion is permanent, unless his is a highly exceptional case and he is, on the recommendation of the commission, readmitted to the scheme. It goes without saying that the commission would only consider such a step if there were really good reasons for doing so. Deliberate dishonesty will not be tolerated.

Loan institutions must also co-operate. There is a suspicion that loan institutions, or more probably officials in the employ of those institutions, are not always ignorant of cases of manipulation of the loan situation, by those drawing subsidies, so as to bring it within the ambit of the subsidy measures which are applicable. I also appeal to these institutions to give us their full co-operation in this regard.

I have reacted to the hon member for Barberton’s speech. I want to tell the hon member, in all friendliness—I do not think we have a bad relationship outside this House—that to an increasing extent he seems to me like an old, experienced, competent rugby player who is now too long in the tooth to really get fit. He now bullies the young men, grumbling and stamping about and growing spiteful. Like an old rugby player, he is getting a bit too lazy to exercise properly. [Interjections.] He makes a speech here without having read the White Paper properly, simply relying on what he remembers from a year or so ago. He wants to take short-cuts. [Interjections.] I think the hon member can make very fine contributions, but when we conduct further debates, I want to ask him to get a bit fitter and do a bit more homework. Even if he has already read it, as a first piece of reading matter I want to recommend the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation to refresh his memory. [Interjections.]

†I have already referred to the hon member for Yeoville. He made a very good contribution this afternoon and I fully agree with all the points the hon member made. However, there is one footnote that I would like to add with regard to his reference to hospital services. Surely we should leave the more sensitive matters over as long as possible, but while we are talking about the privatisation of hospitals I want to say that it should not necessarily be to the detriment of the patients. The concept that the privatisation of health or hospital services means that the indigent patients will have to go to private nursing homes, is not entirely correct. At the present moment thousands of mental and tuberculosis patients who are the responsibility of the State and are therefore indigent patients are being cared for in institutions provided and run by the private sector at extremely economic daily tariffs. That is the route we should take. I take note of the hon member’s concerns, but I think there is scope in that field as well. For the rest, I agree with the hon member that one can win the argument with successful examples. That is the best way.

*I want to thank the hon member for Umhlanga. He sketched the position of employees in cases in which services are privatised, and he asked what the relevant approach was. I want to assure the hon member that the Government does not take its responsibilities towards employees lightly. In cases of privatisation taking place, or in cases of services being terminated or transferred, everything would depend on the offers made to existing employees by the new owners or investors. If they are prepared to accept the offer, that is their choice, but if they are not prepared to accept the privatisation of services in the Public Service, they remain the State’s responsibility, and the State will meet its obligations towards those people, bearing in mind the relevant circumstances. Those people could be reduced in number by being moved elsewhere, and ultimately there are also possibly people who have reached retirement age, but in this regard I just want to mention an important point. The Commission for Administration has drawn up a comprehensive set of rules in this regard, and there are also guidelines agreed upon with the employee organisations—they have accepted them. These guidelines have been sent to all departments. There is no time now to discuss this at any length; I have briefly referred to the matter. The rules which were decided upon, and which have been endorsed by the Cabinet, have been cleared with the organisations representing the officials, and those rules will assiduously be adhered to in the event of such transfers taking place.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the negative effects of the massive investments by the public sector. I think I have dealt with that. He also elaborated on the advantages of privatisation.

*The hon member Mr Hattingh made a very balanced and sound contribution about the whole privatisation policy for roads. I do not think anyone could have put it more succinctly than he did in the time at his disposal. The fuel levy is simply inadequate; other methods will have to be found. It will not be possible to satisfy everyone, but by mobilising private sector finances we can establish a road network for which the road-user will ultimately also make his contribution by way of the toll that is levied. I thank the hon member for that contribution.

†I have dealt with the hon member for Pinetown’s remarks.

The hon member for Germiston made a valuable contribution on the subject of privatisation, and I thank him for that.

*The hon member for Boksburg referred to very interesting examples of privatisation. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, cheered on by the Official Opposition I shall now start to conclude my speech. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should just like to make a brief announcement … [Interjections] … with regard to the chairman of the Competition Board. It is a great pleasure for me to announce that Prof P E J Brookes has been appointed as the new chairman of the Competition Board. He will take up that position from 1 June 1988. The position of chairman has been vacant since 1 March 1988 after Dr S J Naudé was appointed Director-General of Trade and Industry. Prof Brookes at present holds the position of head of the Department of Mercantile Law and also that of vice deacon of the Faculty of Jurisprudence at Unisa. On the strength of Prof Brookes’ academic background and his knowledge of and interest in the law of competition he is regarded as pre-eminently suitable to hold the position of chairman of the Competition Board. The importance of this board cannot be over-emphasised, and I should like to convey our best wishes to Prof Brookes on this new responsibility.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I should also like to express my sincere thanks to the members of the Commission for Administration—Dr De Beer, the Chairman, Dr Du Plessis and the Secretary of the Commission for Administration, and all the other officials assisting me—for their support. I also want to thank all hon members for a debate in which I believe a generally high standard was maintained and in which very constructive contributions were furnished.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, at the commencement of this debate allow me to congratulate the new Deputy Minister for Law and Order very sincerely on his appointment. We want to give him the assurance that he can count on the co-operation of this side of the House at all times. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has hardly begun with his speech. I appeal to the hon member for Northern Cape not to conceal himself behind the hon member for Daljosaphat, but to behave himself. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

I want to repeat that the hon the Deputy Minister can be assured, at all times, of our heartiest co-operation, and we also want to tell him that with such a competent captain at the helm of a ship prone to such dangers, he need never fear that the ship will not ultimately reach its destination.

This year really seems to be the SAP’s year. I want to convey our congratulations on its 75th anniversary to the SAP. Since the SAP came into being in 1913, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge. This Force has been in deep waters, and this year we can look back with pride on the past 75 years and, in this case, also speak about our Police Force. It is also quite fitting—I think the hon the Minister will agree with me— that for the first time in history a White Paper on the SAP has been tabled in Parliament. If one pages through that White Paper, one gains a strong impression of the enormous task resting on the shoulders of the hon the Minister and his Deputy. Of course, this also includes the Commissioner who deals with the day-to-day administration of this huge and powerful department.

I also want to extend my congratulations, in particular, to the Peninsula Police and those from the Stellenbosch area who made a clean sweep of the Rapport tournament. One can go and watch rugby with such policemen any day. I shall be coming back to sport at a later stage.

I want to go further in thanking various individuals. I see the hon the Minister looking very pleased at so many votes of thanks today from this side of the House. I sincerely want to thank Lieutenant-General Schutte, head of the detective branch of the SAP. I want to thank him for having shown me that in this country things can be done without a lot of red tape. For the hon the Minister’s information let me say that at a certain function which took place at Benoni on 19 February 1987, I was engaged in discussions with Lieutenant-General Schutte, and we discussed the possibility of establishing a detective branch at Macassar. A week later he was in Macassar. On 1 April a detective branch was established there, and it is furnishing a very good service. I sincerely want to thank him for this.

We cannot celebrate the 75th anniversary of the SAP without expressing our sympathy for all those who have lost their lives in the service of the SAP over the past 75 years. Regardless of race or colour, the widows and orphans of those who died are to be found throughout the length and breadth of the country today. There are also people who have been injured in the performance of their duty. We have nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for those people and for what they have done over the years.

South Africa is entering a period in its history which will prove to be of cardinal importance to the future of all its citizens. During this period one will have to lean heavily on the support of the security forces, of which the SAP forms a part. The views of the silent majority, who tend to be pragmatic, moderate and conciliatory, are no match for those of the activist, whether left-wing or right-wing. That is why it is the deliberate strategy of revolutionaries, in their opposition to the existing order, to use the grievances of the dissatisfied moderates to destroy them and to have them fall in with the aims of those revolutionaries.

The proponents of moderation, who cannot be radicalised, consequently have no other course open to them but that of security, a course which is definitely offered to us by the SAP. In the South African set-up there is an increasing shift in emphasis so that that which has not previously worked can work. It should be emphasised how these things ought to work. The emphasis must shift from what is unacceptable to what is acceptable. In other words, in South Africa the emphasis must shift completely from a problem situation to a situation in which we are seeking solutions. The SAP has a phenomenal role to play in this overall process, regardless of what is said by countries abroad or anyone else.

The truth of the matter is, however, that in the performance of its task the SAP encounters certain obstacles from time to time. That is why we want to address the hon the Minister directly today. We must move away from problem situations and focus our attention on solutions. One problem I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister today involves the question of roadblocks. It is really too obvious to be ignored that when there are roadblocks at which an officer of colour is in command, one never sees a White constable working under that Coloured or Black officer. That creates a problem as far as I am concerned, because here we are speaking about our police force; and if we are speaking about our police force in the true sense of the word, I see Coloured officers as part of that police force. I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to look into this problem so that when a Coloured officer is in command of a roadblock it should not be necessary for him to fetch a White person from Morgenzon just to prove a point. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that when Whites and Coloureds are working in the same section, it should not be made so obvious that Coloured officers are only in command of Coloured constables, sergeants and warrant officers. [Interjections.]

I spoke a moment ago about the sports activities of the Police. I expressed my appreciation for the fact that the Peninsula and Stellenbosch District teams had notched up a victory over the Easter weekend. Just think, Sir, what successes we could notch up, in the sphere of sport, if we had a fully integrated team here. If the Coloured component of the SA Police have shown themselves to be such formidable rugby players, what would they not be able to achieve if we mixed the team ever so slightly? We do not care if there are some who refuse to play in the same team as our people. We would relegate them to the status of spectators and they could sit in the stands or watch the match on television. They would not be welcome to participate in such a match in any event. It would only be right to address this aspect of sport in our police force too.

The hon the Minister will probably say I am like a cock. They say that the reason a cock crows with its eyes closed is that it knows the tune by heart. [Interjections.] I cannot, however, let this opportunity pass without once again emphasising how essential a police station in Eerste River is. This area is bursting at the seams and we have a problem there, as I have said before. The solution to this problem lies solely with the hon the Minister, and today I want to give the hon the Minister the solution. We would not have too few buildings, because we could supply temporary buildings until such time as the Law and Order budget could make provision for buildings. I want to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that the existing post office at Eerste River will soon be moving and that in my view that building is ideally situated to meet the urgent present-day requirements of the community of Eerste River.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Sir, I sincerely thank the hon Whip.

Order! No, the hon member for Mamre must please restrain himself. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. I shall not disappoint the hon Whip. I cannot allow this occasion to pass, however, without focusing the attention of the House on the fact that the hon member for Mamre has now been in this House for four years—he uses Quikslim, but is not clever (slim) yet. [Interjections.] I shall explain that, Sir.

Order! I have a task to perform and hon members are hindering me in the execution of my duties. I was in the process of asking the hon member to withdraw that.

You should use Wellastrate for a change. [Interjections.]

Sir, I mean Quikslim for slimming purposes.

Order! Yes, but that makes no difference.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, on a point of order …

Order! Would the hon member for Mamre please resume his seat! The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I now quickly want to address one aspect. I am referring to the increase that is so urgently needed for the men of steel who serve us in their blue uniforms. Other departments have made announcements about possible increases of 11% later in the year. I now want to ask the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to giving the personnel of the SA Police an increase of 15% or more, because what they have meant to us in recent times and what they have done deserves nothing less than a plea from us for a just dispensation.

If we bear in mind what the Police did during the recent flood disasters, and the thousands of hours of overtime they worked, it is essential for the Government to ensure that they get some reward. If I remember correctly, it was in 1984 that they had their last proper and substantial salary increase. The adjustments the Police have received since have simply gone into paying taxes. I want to ask the hon the Minister to look into that aspect and help the Police so that they can loyally perform the tasks designated in their motto, ie: “We protect and we serve”.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by asking hon members not to bring up the story of the goat in this debate. This is not a debate about goats. The previous speaker, it is true; is someone who is completely lacking in intelligence. That hon member must still learn that in tackling me it would be better …

Order! The hon member must please withdraw the statement about the hon member for Macassar being completely lacking in intelligence.

Sir, I shall withdraw the word “intelligence”.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the whole statement about the hon member being completely lacking in intelligence.

Sir, I cannot, because if one …

Order! The hon member must please abide by my ruling.

I shall withdraw the statement that the hon member for Macassar is completely lacking in intelligence.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw what he said.

Sir, I withdraw the statement. If the hon member for Macassar would use a little Wellastrate it would be quite a good thing, because then we would hopefully be able to see him there in the comer.

Order! The hon member for Mamre is wasting his own time. The hon member must withdraw the statement about Wellastrate.

Sir, I withdraw the statement about Wellastrate.

Order! Thank you very much. There is a limited time granted to each hon member to speak, and we here at the Table have no choice but to include whatever happens as part of that time which has been allocated. The hon member may proceed.

I want to proceed by referring to a well-known statement by Churchill, and I quote:

During the SA Police’s 75th anniversary it is a privilege to congratulate them, particularly for 75 years of service to South Africa as a whole. At this time we want to congratulate both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. Let me tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we attended barbeques together and got up to mischief together. Now we must also do the job together so that we can bring a better South Africa into being.

In this festive year, however, we stand with heads bowed at the thought of those who sacrificed their lives for South Africa. The next of kin, family members and the victims can be assured of our heartfelt appreciation.

Order! Hon members must please tone down their conversations, particularly the hon members for Southern Free State and Riversdal. The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Minister must also be congratulated on the White Paper. It is an excellent document, particularly since this is the year in which they are holding their festivities. In the last debate on this Vote the hon the Minister made certain promises. The promises he did not keep are his own affair, but we want to thank him sincerely for those promises he did keep. The hon the Minister kept his word about doing everything in his power this year to ensure that the image of the Police was improved. If the hon the Minister continues along these lines, I can assure him that we shall support the men in blue.

At a luncheon yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council said that the Police had succeeded in assuming the role of protector rather than that of prosecutor. That speaks volumes as far as one of our leaders is concerned.

We are all very much aware of the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Police. I want to quote what Churchill said, and I hope the hon member for Macassar will listen carefully to this:

We are building up a new South Africa. Today I want to express the hope that in this House, and also in the community at large, we shall also assume the responsibility for security ourselves. We are not blind to the onslaught on the Police; we are aware of the onslaught on discipline, on the community’s security and on the reform process in South Africa. There are those who want to undermine the image of the Police. At times, of course, there is good reason to criticise the Police; they are not so blameless that they can never be criticised. I think that other hon members will go into this in greater detail. I want to speak, however, about our responsibility when it comes to securing the rights and freedom of every individual, his family and the general public. We cannot expect the Police to be solely responsible for our security. Every member of the public, every one of us in this House, shares that responsibility.

In various ways there are onslaughts on our security. Firstly there are efforts to tarnish the image of the Police. Let me quote the following passage from a book by Dr Boesak:

We know the state of emergency was declared in our country, but surely what is being said here, what is being proclaimed to the world at large, is not true. We know that during this festive year there have been policemen who have been punished for the wrongful action they have taken. We lament the fact that the police’s image has thereby been tarnished. When it comes to safeguarding our community, justice must characterise our actions.

Today there are calls for “people’s power”. It is one thing to broaden the base of democracy, but a call for “people’s power” is a cry for chaos. What would be the result of destroying order in our community? It would lead to the destruction of our community. It would mean the destruction of the individual’s rights and security, his family, his property and his future. “People’s power”, as it is propagated, is the forerunner to revolution in this country. We must guard against this call for power for the people.

I should like to quote what was said by Ernst Rohm who lived during the First World War:

We must be careful that we do not neglect to state what our responsibilities are, thereby jeopardising our security.

The truth is that violent revolution does not bring peace and progress. Violent revolution, according to Franz Kafka, merely creates another bureaucracy which takes charge of what it has created. We are not going to replace the one by the other, but we are creating a new force which will govern and control our security. If Bishop Tutu says that he is opposed to violence, let me ask him how it is possible to justify unemployment, which leads to violence in South Africa. As an Anglican myself I think it is time for every Anglican to stand up and ask whether Bishop Tutu is speaking on behalf of all Anglicans.

Hear, hear!

It is time for us to ask whether he is speaking on behalf of the Anglican Church in South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilize the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon member for Opkoms.

Let him have it! Let him have it!

Order! The hon member for Riversdal must restrain himself. The hon member may proceed.

We need only look at what is happening in our schools. We need only look at what is written about our schools. I am thinking, for example, of the magazine, Inqaba, in which it is stated, inter alia:

Here it is not a question of “gutter education”; it is a question of “people’s power”. It is a question of “people’s education”, the forerunner to revolution. We as MPs and leaders in our community must guard against that threat to the security of our families. A distinction must be drawn, however, between safeguarding and destroying our rights.

The truth is that we have felt the onslaught on education over the years, and today one must pay tribute to prof Gerwel who, in this period of crisis, has stood up and asked whether we ourselves are not destroying education. [Interjections.]

He is in a corner.

I am not interested in whether he is in a corner. The fact is that he has taken a stand which commands respect, because it takes courage to do this in an era of intimidation.

Those of us who want to broaden the base of democracy, those of us who want to promote the reform process, must perform our task in this responsible manner. It does not help to tarnish the image of the Police and then expect to sleep in safety at night. What is our responsibility, the responsibility of our community, when it comes to freedom? It is our responsibility to protect parts of our communities ourselves if the Police cannot get round to doing so. We must accept the responsibility for our own security, for the protection of our own communities, property, families, education and rights. That responsibility rests with the leaders in our own community. At school level, in our community organisations, in our churches and in our community life we, as leaders, must stand up if it is our intention to lead South Africa towards reform. We need not wait for tomorrow. We need not wait for the police to do it; we can do it ourselves. We can begin with a planning strategy in our community life. We can guard against the breakdown of discipline in our community and in our schools. We can encourage educational discipline, and we can cultivate a love for what is our own in the country. We can also help to promote security and protection and improve communication between all the communities in this country.

In our task of promoting security we can extend and improve relationships and communication between the various peoples in this country. I want to assure the Police that this debate will not be without criticism, but at the start of this debate we shall tell them: “Men in blue, we stand by you in your efforts to achieve order, discipline and peace.”

Mr Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to participate in this historic debate. I also want to welcome to our House the hon the Deputy Minister, Mr Leon Wessels, who is also a member of our Parliamentary prayer circle.

It is a singular privilege for me to be able to participate in the debate on Law and Order today on the SA Police’s 75th anniversary. I congratulate the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, the Commissioner of Police and every member of the Force on this milestone achieved by the SA Police. We are also specifically thinking of those who, in the past 75 years, have had to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the Force.

I trust that very urgent attention will be given to the pensions of former policemen. Yesterday I attended a luncheon for former policemen in Muizenberg and came to realise that many of the former policemen who made their contribution to the maintenance of law and order in this country, are not all that well off. I want to ask the hon the Minister to make a very definite effort to look into the pensions of these people.

Today I should very much like to speak about one of the primary tasks of the SA Police, ie the combating of crime. To carry out this task properly, of course, the SA Police must be well equipped for action against prospective criminals, so that they can be brought to book. Often when people report a crime, however, they are informed by the SA Police that they do not have sufficient vehicles available and that it will take a while before the complaint can be attended to.

We are all aware of the fact that a great deal has already been said in this House about SA Police transport and that a great deal will be said about it in future. It is an indisputable fact, however, that in modern-day life it is essential for the Police to have reliable and adequate transport if they are to serve the community properly. In some communities the SA Police have a poor image when it comes to responding to complaints. I do not think people would contact the Police without good reason. For the most part they do so because they are faced with an emergency.

Because the SA Police perform an emergency service, I feel that urgent attention should be given to this matter. I know that the hon the Minister of Law and Order heard the same complaint here last year, but I know that he is big enough to take it. This matter must receive attention. We are aware of the financial aspects involved in the purchasing of vehicles, but we should like more clarification of the following question: Why are there sometimes two vehicles at stations which are only open during the day, whilst places such as Stellenbosch and Mitchell’s Plain have the same number of vehicles? I am not saying that there are no emergency situations in rural areas, but surely one should first determine one’s priorities as far as the allocation of vehicles is concerned.

There is another matter I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister, and here I am referring to buildings and grounds. This is an aspect which elicits a great deal of discussion here, but I specifically want to speak about police stations. Before I forget, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he could not please ensure that the police station in Ashton in my constituency is upgraded to a certain extent. Since the municipal police are going to work in conjunction with the South African Police, certain problems are being experienced. I do not want complain today and ask for more police stations, but I want to suggest that we do away with the large and expensive police stations, the “mansions” which are being built these days. Could police stations not be built on the same lines as post offices in larger towns? In virtually every large town there is a post office in the residential areas and a larger post office in town. The temporary caravans that the SA Police is making use of at present are not much help. Could a place such as Mitchell’s Plain, for example, not have a smaller police station in the central area and another two or three smaller buildings elsewhere? One of these days Atlantis will probably also be getting one large police station which is situated at some distance from some residential areas. Once again two or three smaller police stations could be built in different areas.

Our people do not all have telephones, and public telephones are in short supply in our residential areas. That is probably why some crimes are not reported and why crime flourishes. Patrol vehicles would not have to cover such long distances because their patrol areas would be more restricted. Policemen would become better acquainted with the community and with their area, and members of the community would also become better acquainted with members of the Police. With large police stations there are also too many policemen concentrated in one spot. Each day one sees a different policeman.

I now want to speak about the child protection units. According to information I have received, during 1986 the SA Police established certain units in the country, with the object of protecting children against abuse. On 18 December 1987 such a branch was also established in Cape Town. My information is that since that branch was established in Cape Town, by 31 March 1988 it had dealt with 152 cases of child abuse. In the past few years child abuse has increased alarmingly in this lovely country of ours. No person in possession of all his faculties would or should allow this to happen. It is therefore from my heart of hearts that I want to thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order for the establishment of these units. This proves to us once more that the SA Police also have the interests of our children at heart. We thank them for that.

According to information at my disposal, one female Coloured constable is stationed at the Cape Town branch. If it is borne in mind that 99 out of a total of 152 cases in the Peninsula involve the Coloured community, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, the Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner to see whether they cannot get more Coloured people to help this unit in the performance of its noble task.

In speaking about our children, one cannot but think of the knife-wielding murderer of our teenage boys at railway stations. Until that bloodthirsty maniac is behind bars, our teenage boys will virtually be prisoners in their own homes. One never knows when he will strike and who his next victim will be. We hope and pray, therefore, that he will be speedily apprehended and brought before the bench for his reprehensible deeds so that our teenage boys can once again enjoy the freedom they are entitled to. According to Press reports, teams from the murder and robbery division are working long hours to trace the maniac. Hon members in this House and our voters want to thank them for that. I shall assist them if necessary, and I wish them everything of the best in the mammoth task they have to perform.

In these difficult and dangerous times in which we are living today it is essential for the general law-abiding public and the SAP to join forces.

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

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member.

It is essential for them to join forces in combating crime. Only if we join forces and co-operate can and will we rid ourselves of this iniquity once and for all. Innocent aged people, children and women are viciously assaulted, robbed, murdered and raped. Without the co-operation of the community, and without members of the community providing the Police with information, tracing these offenders is a difficult task. A lack of mutual confidence and respect leads to a lack of mutual co-operation, and then criminals make use of the opportunity afforded them. For the sake of their self-image and that of their colleagues, I want to make a serious appeal to every member of the SAP today to co-operate in enhancing the image of the SAP in the interests of the community we serve and in the interests of South Africa and its people.

The truth of the matter is that there are a few members of the SAP who, by their actions, show the Force up in a poor light. A rude and aggressive attitude towards someone who needs one’s help is really not indicative of the protection and the service depicted in the SAP’s motto. There are numerous examples of such conduct by a few individuals who tarnish the name of the Force. My appeal, therefore, is that this should cease immediately. We are only too aware of the malicious propaganda directed at the SAP. The people concerned seize upon trifling incidents and, having blown them up out of all proportion, use them to place the SAP in a poor light. If they were to succeed in their aims, criminals would benefit from the resultant poor interpersonal relationships. I am therefore asking them to treat our people like their friends; treat them in accordance with the SAP’s motto.

There are people in the SAP whose conduct bears striking testimony to the fine image of the Force. To them let me say: That is a wonderful effort; keep it up! There are such people in my constituency. There are people one can talk to. They understand one—they see one as a person and treat one accordingly. One can trust them implicitly and bring one’s problems to them. They are the ones who truly protect and serve—friendliness and helpfulness cost those people nothing. These qualities have become a part of their lives, and some members would do well to take a leaf out of their book. May an epidemic of friendliness and helpfulness break out in the SAP.

I now want to come to staff matters. In the discussion of this Vote in 1987, the hon the Minister announced that members of the SAP served in certain specialised posts. It is understandable that members of these units must be well qualified. It was good to read in the daily papers that one of our female members was promoted to the rank of officer this year. That is a drop in the ocean, however. There are many more of our women who qualify for promotion, and I want to ask the hon the Minister not to look over his shoulder when he is considering the promotion of such women. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is an honour for me to take part in this debate, especially in view of the SA Police’s 75th anniversary celebrations this year. My hon colleagues have told me—it was pleasing to know—that negotiations are afoot at a high level to appoint a full-time chaplain, from the population group represented in this House, at Bishop Lavis Training College.

Secondly, could we ask the hon the Minister in this year of the 75th anniversary of the SA Police—I know he will agree with me, because the Police are in fact our Police and not a separate Police Force—what progress has been made with the elimination of the proverbial notice boards at our police stations: Firstly as regards the public, and secondly those inside the police stations?

We have a question to put to the hon the Minister and to the hon Deputy Minister with regard to progress in general. The present system of writing examinations for promotion leads one to ask if it is not possible to be promoted on merit, as happened in the old days.

Thirdly let me say I am seriously concerned about the present rate at which police stations are being established in Coloured areas. As the hon member for Robertson has said, it worries our people in those areas. The hon members in this House are concerned that the construction of police stations in our areas is proceeding at a rate we consider to be a snail’s pace, while in other areas, particularly Black areas, they are sprouting like mushrooms. However, let me ask this question: Must our people, particularly our people in the rural areas, become involved in unrest before those police stations are erected in our areas? Let us not forget that although the unrest situation is a serious factor, ordinary crime still exists. It is this ordinary crime which causes hon members of this House to become so concerned. Why is it our population group that always gets the short end of the stick? Why are there only two stations at present under construction, with one on the five-year plan and a further 10 on the nonplanned five-year list, as far as the community which is represented in this House is concerned? The hon the Minister must understand this clearly: We in this House will support him if he brings pressure to bear on the Treasury to make more funds available, so that the 19 A-type stations at Roodepan and Kimberley and the three B-type police stations envisaged for our community are constructed as soon as possible. These stations are not a luxury but a necessity. Let the Police and police stations be seen in our areas.

After the Broederstroom case, the involvement of Whites in the ANC is once again the focus of attention. Let us look at the way the ANC attempts to involve the White worker.

†The ANC and the SACP have for some time now been investigating ways of politicising White workers and drawing them into the Cosatu-led trade union movement. In a recent issue of Umsebenzi, the SACP publication for workers, this issue is once again taken up. This publication argues that not all White workers are hostile to the programme of non-racial unions and points out that the Food and Allied Canning Workers’ Union has over 100 White members at present. From the article it is clear that an effort will be made to entice those White workers who previously belonged to the now defunct Trade Union Council of SA, and who are, to quote the magazine, “looking for a political home” into joining the Cosatu unions. The article says, amongst other things, that conditions are potentially right for a concerted strategy along the lines mentioned in Strategy and Tactics, the ANC-SACP blueprint for a revolution. Cosatu needs to win over these unions or their members and special attention should be paid to the recruitment of White workers.

The article also states that if the possibility exists of weening sections of the White workers away from apartheid and into their fold, they should spare no energy in exploiting it to the maximum. It is also suggested in this article that the initial appeal to White workers should be made on the basis of their declining standard of living and the current economic conditions, the same tactics—I must point out—followed by the CP, the AWB and other right-wing organizations.

*The majority of members in this House condemn all attempts to take over the political dispensation in South Africa by means of a violent revolution. We also condemn a system which relegates people of this country to second-class citizenship. Nevertheless we shall definitely not allow the right-wing groups and their fellow-travellers to succeed in forcing South Africa back to the Verwoerd era.

Let us briefly consider the ANC’s schemes for violence and political deception. I allege that the ANC is at present engaged in a secret campaign to attempt to promote its image. We know this. It is placing a new accent on political and diplomatic deception to try to maintain its credibility in the Republic. The use of revolutionary violence is still an integral part of the ANC strategy. However, increasing pressure is being exerted on the ANC to end violence and to involve itself in the negotiation and settlement processes of the Government. In response to this, however, the ANC is trying to shift the blame for the causes of violence onto what it calls the apartheid system. It is increasingly trying to create the impression that it would be willing to consider peaceful options. Joe Slovo said recently: “If a real alternative to violence were to arise, we would clasp it with both hands.” On the other hand, they are intensifying terrorism.

The ANC and SACP leaders are adopting an apparently flexible approach to the nature of a future dispensation, and are seemingly willing to negotiate on various matters on the political agenda. Within the ANC-SACP alliance, the SACP is really the leader in regard to this approach and stresses the transitional period, in which even capitalism will have a say, but is silent on what will happen after the transitional period.

Furthermore the ANC is engaged in extensive projects to give greater force to its vision of a future South African system. The purpose, inter alia, is to enable the SACP-ANC alliance to take the initiative by trying to obscure its objectives. It is obvious that the alliance is utilising propaganda opportunities through domestic as well as foreign groups and organisations. They are also using other methods to investigate and to try to improve their negotiating ability and expertise. The SACP-ANC alliance is trying to achieve propaganda successes with its revolutionary war of words and its pragmatism. At the same time its aim is to intensify terrorist violence.

In my view all of this amounts to deception, because the SACP-ANC alliance is seeking revolutionary change through violence. I do not think this House supports that, because against this revolutionary approach there are the moderates, who favour law and order so that change will come peacefully and along the constitutional path. I think that this House will choose the latter option.

Mr Chairman, allow me this opportunity to express our congratulations to the Police Force which is celebrating its 75th anniversary. Those were 75 years of meritorious service for our country’s safety and security. We also express our sympathy to the families of members of the Force who have laid down their lives in the execution of their duties.

Sir, it is not my intention only to heap praises on the members of the Force; nor is it my intention to apologise, for on many occasions there has been unnecessarily brutal action against members of the public which has been uncalled for. I want to express an honest and, perhaps, brutal opinion. In the past and also presently there has been much criticism of their actions—particularly by those who are opposed to law and order. Sometimes the criticism was justified. However, when the lives and property of these critics are threatened, they are the first to panic and to shout for Police protection.

Then there are also those persons and organizations which are opposed to law and order. In order to continue their activities of creating destruction and fear in the communities in which they are living, they call themselves “freedom fighters”. They want to see the disbanding of both the Police Force and the Defence Force so that they can continue expanding their activities, such as killing and maiming the innocent who do not support them, and their Marxist doctrines.

We express our gratitude to the Police who, under severe strain and under difficult circumstances, have done their best, through selfless efforts, to promote the safety and security of this country and its citizens.

However, then there are also numerous examples of brutal actions of many irresponsible and undisciplined bullies in the Force who, at every possible opportunity, take advantage of situations to vent their feelings and frustrations on defenceless persons. It is such members who have brought discredit to the Force. However, this happens not only in the SA Police. We have witnessed the brutal tactics of police in other countries where there is supposed to be freedom. On a visit to the USA I personally witnessed police beating up old-age pensioners who protested against the lowering of their pensions and privileges.

There has been many an outcry against the methods adopted by certain members of the Force against our youngsters, pupils and students. I refer to the manhandling, beatings and torturing of people. We appreciate the fact that law and order must be maintained, but we should also remember that the Police are always the target of those who are dissatisfied because of past cruel actions against those who are vehemently opposed to apartheid laws.

The stone-throwing by our young people is the result of what their parents and grandparents had to undergo, endure and suffer—their being whipped by the police, being bullied and degraded under the worst conditions under the various discriminatory laws of apartheid. Our youngsters have been reacting—avenging—just as the young Afrikaners sought revenge for the suffering, degradation and exploitation their parents and grandparents had to suffer under the yoke of British imperialism.

It is laughable to label this country as a police state. It is stupid and unfounded when one considers that there is a shortage of police personnel and yet to say that we are a police state. Compared to other countries, our police are below strength, mainly perhaps because not enough funds are made available to assist them in increasing their salaries or by paying them danger allowances. If funds could be found to pay for rebel and subsidised tours, why cannot extra funds be allocated for both the Department of Law and Order and poverty-stricken communities? This will bring about a satisfied police force and communities which are not denied the good things in life. We should remember that the revolutionary onslaughts planned against us were never a success, as our enemies had hoped they would be, because of the police’s unselfish physical contributions towards our country.

One also has to ask why such a large number, namely 1 557 members of the Police, purchased their discharge. We are aware that there is parity in salaries and allowances as far as White, Coloureds and Indians are concerned. Why then the difference where Blacks are concerned, who too are living in their group areas and face greater danger to themselves and their families? Regarding the special constables or, as they are known, the “kitskonstabels”, should they not receive the same period of training and discipline as the rest of the members of the Police Force? These “instant” police, regarding their haphazard training, are in fact one reason why the ordinary member of the Police is being belittled and denigrated. No matter what good and excellent duties they may perform, they are still regarded as incompetent and undisciplined. In spite of what has been said against the Police, I have all respect for them for the excellent manner in which have carried out their many duties.

In conclusion I wish to make an earnest and sincere appeal to the hon the Minister to give an assurance that there will be regular police patrols in the Athlone complex Bokmakierie, Kewtown, Bridgetown and Silvertown, and to consider setting up a charge office in the Strandfontein Village area. There are a number of houses which are standing empty which can be used for such purpose.

Mr Chairman, first of all we want to wish our new hon Deputy Minister of Law and Order all the best for his now portfolio. He deserves it and he has our support. [Interjections.] I would also like to thank Lt Opperman, our district commander, the commander of the Bishop Lavis police station and another young man who shows great potential, namely Lt Max. We want to thank those people for their service over the past year.

We can talk about a lot of things in this debate. We can talk about the onslaught which is at present being waged against our police and we can also talk about the propaganda against them. I would, however, like to talk about something which my community and I at this moment find very disturbing indeed. I agree that there is no country in the world where crime is not increasing and has not reached alarming proportions. I know we are particularly vulnerable because of the Bonteheuwel situation.

The unrest, the high unemployment figure in our area, the socio-economic conditions and the housing shortage are all reasons for the high crime rate in my area. However, it is the function of the SA Police Force to combat and prevent crime in our areas. I am grateful for what they are doing and I am not going to criticise them in any way during the couple of minutes allocated to me. I am presenting a problem I have and I need their assistance.

This department must help to maintain law and order in my constituency. We can read the letters sent to the editors of our newspaper. In The Caret of 30 April there is a letter from Mr W Nel of Bonteheuwel. He says:

He names a gang:

He says:

Mr Chairman, this person is prepared to state his name and is crying out of his heart for help. The Argus prints this headline: “Township fears when darkness falls.” In the second paragraph it says the worst crime area is Bonteheuwel. The City Council of Cape Town did an independent survey—I have a copy in front of me—about crime in the townships. In conclusion they say:

I also have a letter from a very large bank group in my hand. I quote:

A large banking group has moved out of that area and cannot be part of that area any longer. We know of delivery vehicles belonging to bakeries and cold drink firms which no longer deliver bread and other goods in the area because of the gang situation.

The other day when I spoke about the number of gangs we have, some hon members laughed, but this is an up to date report of the gang situation in Bonteheuwel—local police stations also have this report. We have: The Young Americans, the Sexy Boys, the Ugly Americans, the Funkies, the Tough Ones, the Rebel Boys, the Poor Boys, the Station Kids, the Dixy Boys, the Gongo Kids, the Lover Boys, Miami Vice, the School Boys, the Red Devils, the Sunset Kids, the Bad Boys, the Hobos, the Weekend Specials, the Scorpions, the TV Boys, the A Team, the UDF Comrades, the Dirty Night Pigs, the Vultures, the Naughty Boys, the Bad Girls, the Pigs, the Americans, the Warriors and the Rude Americans.

I can name more.

The Tutu Boys. [Interjections.]

No, they do not exist yet.

†This is what that community is saddled with. I have great appreciation for the fact that in recent times, the police has rocked up within minutes after being called. We all appreciate that. I have seen a special task force that the police had in the area. Since last week, however, some of the gang members have been moving around in groups of two. I am not exaggerating—the hon the Minister can get the figures from his department—when I say that practically every weekend a young person is stabbed to death in my constituency. That is not nice. On Mondays I have to go to people’s houses to express my sympathy with the parents of a young man who was killed by a gang. Young people are losing their lives in my area! It hurts me a great deal.

*It is not a pleasant sight to see young people in wheelchairs. Two weeks ago a young man was crippled as a result of stabbing. I do not know what to do any more.

†Why must a community suffer like that? There are people in Bonteheuwel who at night switch off their lights and do not leave their houses. I know of streets where people leave their houses on Friday and do not return for the duration of the weekend because they fear for their lives.

I received a deputation in my office here this week. A lady told me that she had bought her house on our recommendation. Last weekend she received visitors. A gang came and knocked at her door and demanded to use her visitors’ car. That lady’s daughter cannot go to work anymore because a gangster insists on walking her to the station.

Once a gang moved into someone’s house in Bonteheuwel. They took over the house completely. We had to send a city council truck to move those people. Sometimes people’s furniture is removed while they are looking on. They are so intimidated that they do not call the police. They would like to do so, obviously, but when the police have gone they are left to face the music. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the South African Police Force heartily on the celebration of their 75th anniversary. As leaders in our constituencies we sometimes find that feelings run high, and at times we also encounter great sadness.

We are thankful to those who protect our community. Whether we like it or not, the SAP are there to protect our community. We owe them our sincere thanks for the service they render to our community.

I want to thank the SAP for their help during the flood disaster. We heard and saw what contributions they made. We appreciate what they did and ask them to continue with their good work, in spite of what the leftists, the radicals and other countries say about them.

Now I want to refer to recruitment to the Force.

In my constituency I state, in season and out of season, that the Police are our friends. I do not hesitate to do so. I tell young matriculants, in season and out, that they must join the Police Force instead of just loitering about. I am proud to say that scores of young people from my constituency have reported for duty in the Police Force and are still going to do so.

I want to address a request to the hon the Minister to do away with the discrimination that still exists in the Police Force. It causes friction, frustration and disappointment. Some of our young women are also prepared to stand up and defend their country. They want to serve their fatherland, and many of them apply to the SAP for work. Unfortunately many of them are rejected. I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that these services are extended for our women, so that those of them who wish to render service may be accommodated in our training centres.

Now I want to refer to our reservists. Some of them have already served for between 10 and 18 years. They are just as capable as the qualified policemen. Could provision not be made for these persons to be rewarded for all their sacrifices during those years? They would very much like to serve on the Force. Could this not be arranged?

I also appeal for a larger and effective police station at Paarl East. I have just mentioned how men and even women have come forward to join the Force. We have very few facilities in my constituency, however.

We would appreciate it if the police station at Paarl East could be extended as soon as possible. We hear that there is a possibility that the premises as well as the existing building there will be given to the South African Police. I am not speaking about OKP now, but about Paarl East. It would mean a lot to our people in Paarl East if our police station there could be extended. Really, Sir, only yesterday I attended a meeting there, and let me tell you that our policemen are tripping over one another’s feet because the space is so limited.

We should like to see our Police Force in South Africa going from strength to strength in order to completely eliminate undesirable elements. In particular I thank the police in Paarl East and Paarl Central for the manner in which they acted during the unrest at the senior secondary schools a few weeks ago. They performed their duties so efficiently that the pupils were soon back at their desks. It was very reassuring for us as parents and leaders that the police kept an eye on things without getting involved or interfering, and that everything took place peacefully until the pupils returned to their school benches. As I have said, we are thankful for the manner in which the police acted. We are grateful that they observed things from a distance until the pupils eventually resumed their education.

Sir, I wish the Police well. We realise that recently many families have stood at the open graves of policemen, and we wish to assure those families that we are thinking about them. We are deeply aware that those were their sons and daughters who were protecting us while we sat down to have a meal or were sleeping peacefully. Those policemen and policewomen sacrificed their lives for us. We commend them and we thank them for all they have meant to us.

Mr Chairman, as various hon members have just said, this is in fact my maiden speech, and I shall try to treat it as a maiden speech. I must tell hon members that it is a somewhat unusual experience to address them in this House today, given the positive speeches hon members made.

For many years it has been my privilege to deliver speeches elsewhere and to react to certain accusations made against the Police; very often when one stood up there to speak, it was like being in a war situation in which one had to fight for the Force. I must tell hon members that in the capacity in which I appear here today, the prevailing atmosphere and the positive things said about the SA Police give me great satisfaction. It is in that relaxed manner that I shall try to exchange ideas with hon members today.

There is another reason why it is a privilege for me to be able to speak here: I maintain that I know the hon members here, even if this is my first speech in this House.

I have been through many good and bad times with hon members of this House. At times we have argued strenuously with one another. However, the wonderful impression that remains with me when I think back to those days and the problems we had, is that in spite of our differences we have learned to respect one another. I want to tell those hon members with whom I have had those difference—and sometimes we have had some very serious arguments—that it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in this House today. I shall on the odd occasion be reminding hon members of the reasons for and circumstances in which we had those differences.

The hon member for Mamre was kind enough to say that he knew me. I also want to thank the hon member for Macassar for the kind things he said about me. There is one outstanding incident which I recall, and on which I base my statement that I know hon members, an incident which occurred when I was travelling with a certain hon member and the two of us had to join forces in opposing disinvestment. I remember so well how we were almost punch-drunk because of the pummelling we got from people who simply would not understand that disinvestment and sanctions were not the solution to this country’s problems. It was during such a discussion that I came to the conclusion that that hon member standing there with me was a true South African, just as I am, who was concerned for the future of our country. At times we have assumed different standpoints, but we have both come out of it knowing full well that we were fighting for the Republic and for South Africa. That, too, is how I interpret this debate this afternoon. At times hon members have had digs at the Police, but they have done so with great dignity and in the knowledge that we are all fighting for this country, for South Africa. I want to thank hon members most sincerely for that, as well as for the kind words of congratulation which have been expressed.

I want to associate myself with three hon members, namely the hon member for Diamant on his handling of the concept of terrorism, the hon member for Mamre, who expressed certain views on the unrest situation, and the hon member for Silvertown who referred to special constables.

I am somewhat hesitant about hanging a label round a man’s neck without good reason. One may wrongly judge someone and thereby cause him unnecessary harm. In the political game we play with one another here in Parliament, it is often convenient to whip out a tarred brush, paint a label to hang round a man’s neck and then think one knows who and what he is. However, when we have to deal with people who use violence to injure and kill people, we must be careful what labels we attach to them. We must be sure that we hang the right labels on them, the labels which they actually deserve.

The hon member for Diamant’s statement about the ANC-SACP alliance being nothing but a terrorist group is correct. However, it leaves one feeling somewhat dispirited to find that there are still some people in our country who speak of the men of violence within the ANC-SACP as guerrillas. A guerrilla is someone involved in a military struggle, who is fighting against armed forces. The word “guerrilla” is a Spanish word which means a small war. It is called a small war because the guerrillas do not have the ability to challenge their armed opponents in major pitched battles. A guerrilla, however, does not murder defenceless people. That is the work of a terrorist and terrorism is precisely what the ANC-SACP is engaged in in our country. They are not fighting our security forces. They know that if they did they would be destroyed.

I can tell hon members that if ever there was an incident in my life which hardened me—in fact left me almost singularly callous—it was standing at the scene of a bomb blast in my constituency, where innocent women and children, regardless of their colour, were struck down by the cowardly violence of the ANC-SACP alliance. These people murder those who are defenceless—women and children. Therefore they are terrorists and cannot be anything but terrorists. That is what their so-called “people’s war” means—the massacre of defenceless people.

These revolutionary terrorists, who spill the blood of defenceless people to achieve their untenable Marxist and revolutionary objectives, must know that in this country they are dealing with determined people who will put an end to their violence. That is how I interpret the spirit prevailing in this House this afternoon.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Mamre has said. He, and later the hon member for Diamant, said we were on the road to a South Africa in which there would be no second-class citizens. He said it was time for people with this aim in view to stand up and be counted.

Sir, I remember discussions we had with one another into the small hours of the morning in 1986. I recall this against the background of the circumstances which prevailed in 1984-5. I was really shocked to learn the hours policemen had to work at that time. When I asked a policeman how many hours sleep he had a night, he told me that a certain group of people had an average of three hours sleep a night. On 3 September that year, from 6h00 to 23h25, there was, on average, one unrest incident every two and a half minutes. That same day, within one hour, 26 out of a total of 35 council members were attacked, had property damaged, were injured or murdered.

Against that background—I say this as a friend today in this House—the hon State President had the courage to announce a state of emergency. On 12 June 1986 he explained that there were three objectives in this state of emergency: A return to stability through law and order; a return to a state of normality; and the continuance of the reform process.

There is a definite downward trend in the visible unrest which we have experienced. When one looks at the statistics—I am referring to the number of incidents in the period January to June 1986, as compared to those from January to June 1987—this proves what I have just told hon members. There was, however, a slight resurgence of unrest during April and May 1987 and from September 1987 to February 1988. The increased manifestation of unrest during April and May 1987 can be ascribed to incidents during the strike by SATS employees as well as the symbolic action taken by radicals during and prior to the general election for the House of Assembly on 6 May 1987. The increase in unrest from September 1987 to February 1988 can also be ascribed to specific factors. I am thinking, for instance, of the conflict between Inkatha and the UDF. Most of the incidents—67,9% of all incidents in that period—actually took place in Natal.

Over and above the Inkatha-UDF conflict, there was also large-scale dissatisfaction in regard to the availability of water, housing, transport and so on. I want to say categorically that we do not shy away from these realities. We dare not shy away from this argument that there are grievances which can be exploited by people who have their own ideas for this country and its future. We dare not shut our eyes to that. The hon the Minister will go into greater detail on this specific point. Statistics provide incontrovertible evidence of this downward trend, but I want to issue a serious warning that this decrease still does not necessarily give the complete picture, because the underlying thought processes and emotional attitudes of the population are not reflected. Radical and revolutionary organisations still have considerable ability to spread their propaganda in certain parts of the country, in order to create a climate conducive to unrest. It must also be realised that certain dates have emotional significance for radical and revolutionary organisations. For instance, planning symbolic action to coincide with 21 March—Sharpeville Day; 1 May—Workers’ Day; 16 June—Soweto Day and 26 October 1988—municipal elections, can give rise to increased unrest. This organisational ability and varying degrees of intimidation are already such that countermeasures are vital to prevent radicals and counter-revolutionaries from forcing their will on the moderates. As far as I am concerned, the largest single inequity in the South African society today is the element of intimidation. We are not opposed to people who make political speeches or mobilise support for a definite political idea, but we are against the element of intimidation which is continuously present and is forced on those who do not agree with that specific idea, intimidation of the cruelest and grossest form. This is obviously unacceptable to South Africa and the majority of people in South Africa.

Apartheid too.

The hon member Mr Lockey and I have crossed swords on this issue before, and I shall not deviate from that concept. I stand by what I said earlier, namely that we must stabilise this country—and that was the object of the state of emergency—so that we can proceed with the reform process. I shall not deviate from that, not in this Vote either, and the hon the Minister will respond to this as well.

Meaningful reform is only possible against the background of stability. The Government has evidenced a sense of responsibility in not allowing the reform process to be disrupted through violence and unrest. I must say that I am deeply disturbed by the statements made by the hon member for Diamant, namely that the ANCSACP alliance is now throwing up a very transparent smoke screen, as if they want it known that they are now prepared to take political, diplomatic and constitutional initiatives and thereby renounce their stated objective, namely a takeover by violent means. I agree with the hon member that this is a transparent attempt, and that we will not be misled by it. The fact of the matter is that we in this country—those who believe in peaceful processes and evolutionary development—must settle our differences if we want to create an exciting future for this country.

I want to refer briefly to the thoughts raised by the hon member for Silvertown in regard to the special or so-called “kitskonstabels”. I think the answer to the question posed by the hon member for Silvertown lies in the statement made by the hon member for Mamre.

I appreciate the standpoint of the hon member for Mamre. He need not get upset now. We can be friends again, and I am not going to embarrass him now. We can still do all those things. The hon member made an interesting statement—in contrast to what so many of our opponents allege— when he said that even within the framework of the state of emergency, disciplinary measures are taken against officials of the SA Police who exceed the limits of disciplinary provisions. That applies to all police officials.

I recently visited a residential area and was particularly mindful of the role which the special constables played there. Given the circumstances, the revolutionary climate, the unrest situation and the violence which the revolutionaries use against the community, the greatest single requirement which struck me was the plea for the tangible and long-term presence of police officers. In that way, the special constable fulfils an exceptionally useful role. It is also interesting to know that in most residential areas in which they serve at present, special constables are accepted with great alacrity by the community. There is not a single request on the Minister’s table for the withdrawal of special constables. We have therefore decided to train quality officers. We exercise supervision through the necessary disciplinary measures. Those members of the Force fulfil an essential role, and I think they deserve our appreciation for what they are doing.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, the Commissioner of Police and all officers and members of the Force on the 75th anniversary of the Police. May the Almighty protect them on the road ahead.

Sometimes one can only see the negative and not the positive side of things. A policeman’s life is always in danger. How many of our young men have not sacrificed their lives for our beautiful country, South Africa? Sometimes it is all too easy to criticise if one does not have to do the work oneself. Many of our young men who have nothing to do, could join the reserve force. By doing that they could help to combat crime, but they are too lazy to do so. We have the neighbourhood watch system as well, but no one comes forward. I can mention many instances.

Yet it has been proved that the SA Police are world leaders in the field of crime prevention, and this achievement is the result of several developments. There is, for example, the work and success of the special guard unit, riot control, special crime prevention, the forensic division which enjoys international recognition, the detective branch and the security branch. Here, too, our people play an important role. One only has to think of the men who control drug abuse; combat livestock thefts; look after the administration of our courts and, in addition, are ready day and night to render assistance and support whenever people’s personal circumstances get out of hand. Our police even render assistance in times of natural disasters when we are threatened by danger.

It should be the calling of every policeman to carry out the national aims listed in the Preamble to the Constitution, and in the laws of Parliament, to the best of his ability.

Those who serve the people of South Africa are always exposed to the fiercest criticism. A single mistake made by a single person is very easily blown out of all proportion. That is why good work and loyalty should also be praised.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister today to clarify the situation of station commanders for me. I have been working in Bishop Lavis for 15 years now, and since I started my business there, Capt Carstens, Maj Balie and Capt Paulse have served there, and in the detective service we had Maj Vosco, while Maj Borcherds was in charge in Manenberg. They were all officers of a very high calibre. What bothers me is that when Maj Vosco retired, a White lieutenant took his place. When those three Coloured officers in Bishop Lavis retired, White station commanders took their places too. As far as I know Bishop Lavis, Manenberg, Athlone and Ravensmead now all have White station commanders. One does not want to be racist or critical, but are there no Coloured officers who could serve their own people? Sometimes one wonders whether those White officers really care about our people. Those officers do not live with our people, after all. I know that the Coloured officers stayed on duty for many weekends, because they had the interests of their community at heart. They were, after all, part of us.

I should like to quote from Die Ligdraer of 14 March 1988:

Here I agree with my hon colleague, the hon member for Bonteheuwel. He is speaking from experience about what is happening in our areas. In my constituency, Heideveld, we have the same problems. I quote further:

Mr Chairman, today I am glad that I feel well again because it is good to see my sisters in uniform. They are so smartly dressed. Of course, I am well aware of the fact that they are not here just to decorate the place. I know that they are performing their duties just as well as the men are—and, I am sure, better than many men! [Interjections.]

Order! Let us respect the lady and give her a chance.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I should like the hon the Minister to arrange a meeting between the women members of the Force and myself so that we can discuss matters of common interest. Since I am the only representative of the Freedom Party here, I have to be very careful in considering the ways in which I can be useful and helpful to the people I serve. As I am hopelessly outnumbered in this House, I felt that the best way to carry out my responsibilities was to serve my people at grassroots level.

Sir, our people need jobs, houses, health care, education and law and order. During the past 30 months I have needed much understanding and assistance from the Ministry from Law and Order, and I have always been treated with respect and dignity by many police officers. I should like to mention the names of a few of the officials. I may mention the Commissioner of Police, Genl H G de Witt, Captain Du Plessis from the Commissioner’s office and the Station Commanders of Caledon Square and Woodstock Police Station. They are Lt-Genl Swarts, Lt Rossouw and Sergeant Kleynhans respectively. They are but a few of the many who have so very kindly assisted me with many of my people’s problems. Because of my contact with our Police Force at the highest level, I have come to understand and appreciate the great task our Police have to carry out. The Freedom Party would welcome a well-deserved increase in the salary of the members of the Police Force. [Interjections.] I therefore extend our thanks and good wishes to the hon the Minister of Law and Order and his entire Police Force for their good work. I wrote to our hon Minister with regard to the poor condition of the Cape Town and Woodstock police stations and I would like to thank the hon the Minister not only for his quick and positive reply, but also for his quick action. The Woodstock Police Station now looks much better. It looks new, clean and fresh. [Interjections.] The only problem now is that the furniture looks even older than antique and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will not please look into the matter.

I am also happy to note that a R67 million police station complex is being planned for Cape Town. I have written a letter to and had a long discussion with Captain Du Plessis with a view to finding ways of improving the image of our Police in the eyes of our community. The Freedom Party is very concerned about this and suggests, therefore, that the Police embark upon a public relations programme such as visiting schools at which they can hold dog shows and display video material. In that way our children will, from an early stage, learn to respect our Police as friends and not see them as enemies.

I understand that some developments have indeed taken place and I want to ask the hon the Minister please to elaborate on these. I also want to welcome the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. We wish him everything of the best for the future.

Mr Chairman, …

Now we are going to hear the story about the goat.

Sir, we should rather not tell that story.

Order! I have been hearing about the goat for the past two weeks, but I have not heard the story yet. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, if you have not heard that story yet, hon members must definitely tell it to you.

I want to begin by saying that we have come to the end of a very interesting debate. I want to thank hon members for the way in which they debated here this afternoon. I want to congratulate them on their participation. The hon the Deputy Minister and I are very proud of being the colleagues of hon members in this Parliament who can debate in such a competent way and can discuss extremely important matters in a calm and peaceful way. Once again I want to congratulate hon members.

Hon members said they regarded it as a privilege to be able to take part in the debate in the 75th year of the Police’s existence. I also regard it as a privilege to take part in such a dignified debate in this House in the year of the SA Police Force’s 75th anniversary.

Hon members raised a number of important points, but I shall definitely not be able to react to everything in the time at my disposal. I want to assure hon members, however, that we shall read Hansard carefully and that we shall look into everything they asked about and pointed out. Questions that I cannot answer because of a lack of time will receive written replies. I want to thank hon members sincerely on behalf of the SA Police, who cannot speak here, but whose mouthpiece I am and on whose behalf I can speak, for the understanding they have displayed of the Force’s real problems. It is clear that hon members understand our problems. In addition I want to thank them for the sympathy they expressed to those policemen and policewomen who have given their lives in the interests of the Force and of South Africa during the past year. We have observed that, and we have heard what hon members have said, and we appreciate it. I also want to thank hon members for the fact that they made appeals for the Police. This is something one finds very gratifying. Hon members spoke about “our” Police, and that is a fine thing to hear. I am sure this was not possible years ago, and I shall give an example in a moment. This is not the case among everyone, however, and that is why I have the greatest appreciation for hon members who talk about the Police as “our” Police, and who make appeals on their behalf. A great deal is implied in the fact that hon members talk about “our” Police, almost as if the Police Force is part of them, and indeed, it is. The Police are part of this House and part of hon members in this House. The Police are also the responsibility of hon members, just as they are the responsibility of all of us. In this way hon members are acknowledging that they will understand when we make mistakes, that we as members of the SA Police, are human just as they are, and therefore are not perfect. We talk about our children, and we love them even if they have faults, but we understand that. In the same way hon members referred to “our” Police, and said they supported their Police.

Valuable hints were also given here, and we shall study them. I shall give hon members written replies in this regard as soon as possible.

I want to make a few comments about what hon members said. I should like to thank the hon member for Macassar sincerely for his contribution. Sir, the normal task of an opposition party is to attack the governing party, as it were—as my hon colleague rightly said.

But now he is alone! [Interjections.]

As my hon colleague said, it has been the case for years, where we sit in the other House, that certain hon members attack us. What happened this afternoon is good, however. It is good when we can talk in that spirit about matters such as the security of our people—our children—and our country, and about the combating of violence, because we do not differ in that regard. We can argue with one another about all kinds of things, but we do not differ when it comes to that kind of thing.

We also heard a voice from the opposition benches in this House which said: “We support you”, and which congratulated us on what we had achieved and what we were doing. I really want to give the hon member credit for that, because if that is how we are going to build a new future— as the hon member for Mamre rightly said—by taking public safety as a basis, I think it is going to be easier to succeed in building the new South Africa. Consequently I want to thank that hon member; we have great appreciation for what he said.

I now want to dwell for a moment on certain matters that he raised. He spoke about the position at roadblocks—he has probably experienced this himself—where, for example, a Coloured officer is in command, but where there are no White constables. Sir, roadblocks are arranged on a station level, and I should like to give the hon member the assurance that the senior member at a roadblock is in command there. It does not matter what colour he is. There are numerous stations which have Coloureds, Blacks or Indians in command, where White constables work too. If a Coloured member is the senior member, he is the officer commanding at the roadblock, and then the other men work under him. There is no doubt about this.

If stations near Coloured residential areas decide to set up a roadblock on a particular evening, obviously Coloured members will be manning the roadblock. I want to assure the hon member, however, that we have very strict discipline in the Force. It is based on this rank structure. If a person is an officer, he is an officer—regardless of the colour of his skin. In the same way a constable is a constable, and he has to respect the rank of an officer. That is the only thing that counts as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon member also mentioned sports teams. Sir, you know to what extent we in this country have fought about sport. Just look back to the days when we struggled and performed and carried on about sport. We have still not recovered from those fights we had about sport. That is why we adopted a standpoint. We in the Force decided to deal with the matter in a practical way. In practice all members of the Force compete in organised sport on an equal level. No distinction is drawn between members.

Naturally, however, they have to comply with the standards. After all, there would be no point in having players in a team simply because they are of a different colour. What I mean is that in my opinion Naas Botha and Ras le Roux, for example, are in the same class, but there would be no point if my hon colleague here next to me and I were to play with them. We would not be able to play with them; we are simply not in the same class. Mr Chairman, we find that the Force has contributed outstanding sportsmen of all races in the spheres of rugby, soccer, boxing, golf and athletics. We are very proud of these sportsmen. At the exhibition hon members will be able to see the quality of our sportsmen.

We hope that hon members have had an opportunity to visit the exhibition. There are sportsmen of all colours there. We draw no distinction in this connection. The SAP team is going to take part in the “Comrades” in Durban and Pietermaritzburg on 31 May. A fully integrated team of 15 WP members is going to take part there, and we set a certain requirement. My office’s liaison officer is going to take part himself. They have to try to complete the race within the allocated time. We want to see them crawling to the winning-post. I do not know whether or not they are going to manage to do so, but they are going to take part. With regard to rugby, there are already six Coloured players in the Police’s first 15. One cannot eradicate discrimination on paper; it has to be done in people’s hearts, and things may go wrong, but I want to give the hon member the assurance that we are handling this matter with circumspection and sensitivity, because we know that it is important to people. We try to take the human dignity of all those involved into account under all circumstances.

Some time ago the hon member spoke to me about a police station in Eerste River. I know his problem; in fact, I owe him a visit, since he asked me to come and visit him. I undertake to do so, hopefully before we meet here again next year. I am pleased that the hon member came forward with the solution and not only with the problem. A building is the problem. He said that a post office would soon be vacant and that we could then use it. I sent a note to the Commissioner, and he said we could investigate the matter and see whether or not we could use that building. I want to assure him that we shall investigate this matter urgently.

The hon member also spoke about salary increases for policemen. He said they should get 15%. I should honestly like to give them more than 15%. [Interjections.] I think they deserve that. Once again, however, it is a question of money. With regard to these things, we have to slot in with the rest of the Government departments, and last year, when the other members of the Public Service received salary increases, the Police also received an increase. Nevertheless I thank the hon member for his strong feelings on this matter, and for saying that our people really deserve more money. This strengthens one’s hand when one negotiates for money for one’s people in future. We really fought very hard when we negotiated for money both last year and this year, to see whether we could not negotiate the best possible salaries for our people. Once again one has to weigh up various priorities. There are so many things in our country for which we need money. Hon members of this House and the other Houses say, for example, that the education of our children and our people is most important; others say our people’s pensions are terribly important, and others say housing is important. All these things are important, and now one has to try to find a balance. Then one has to give everyone a little, because one cannot give everything one wants to. Nevertheless I want to assure the hon member that we share his sentiments about this matter, and that we—my department, the Commissioner and his staff—are doing our best in this connection. We also have the sympathy of our hon Minister of Finance and the hon the State President.

I now come to the hon member for Mamre. He has got into the habit recently of making good speeches. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate him on an excellent speech. There is only one matter on which the hon member does not make such a good speech, and that is when he starts talking about the WP’s rugby. [Interjections.] Then he does not make as good a speech.

But that is when I am really good!

They say there are three A teams in this country, and they are the teams of the Defence Force, the SAP and the WP. They are wrong in only one; they are correct when it comes to the other two—that is the Police and the Defence Force. They are the A team. As I said, the hon member made a well-considered speech, for which I should really like to thank him. The hon member quoted something that Churchill had said, which was very true. He is correct. We are few, but we do a great deal. We have been doing a great deal for many years. We bear a heavy burden, but when one walks out of here and sees the policemen, one sees people who do a great deal and who bear this heavy burden gladly.

They are not unwilling to bear their burden, because they are looking into the future; they are prepared to make sacrifices and to work for the future. They are inspired in building and working towards a future that they are helping all of us to work out. That is why I should like to thank the hon member for that comment. He commented on the fact that there are very few policemen, but that they do a great deal. I should like to endorse what he said.

The hon member was a little rough in his treatment of a priest by the name of Boesak. I shall say something about that in a moment. The hon member also referred to the fact that we do not have enough policemen. That was the second important point he made. We are few in number, and we do not have enough money to expand as we should like to. For that reason we are seeking a partner to help us in our task of ensuring security and combating crime. That partner is the public. That is why I support the hon member when he says the public must seize on their responsibility in respect of this matter. There are opportunities to do so by means of the leasehold system—other hon members referred to this as well—and the reservist system. We should like the people to join us and to do duty for us under the protection of the regulations of the Force so that we can all be better at preventing and controlling crime, which is a cause of concern to all of us and can be safer. The hon member is correct, and I support him in the appeal he made that there should be greater involvement and responsibility in our communities so that the SA Police can be assisted. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Robertson said this was a historical debate. I want to tell him he is correct. As I said, it is a very great privilege for me to be able to take part in the debate here. The hon member made certain valuable remarks, and I want to refer to some of them. He spoke about the pensions of former policemen. Pensions are the responsibility of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, and of course the hon the Minister of Finance has to provide the money. I want to tell the hon member that I head the queue when we ask for money and I say: “Can we not try a bit harder for our people?” Unfortunately one cannot have disparity, but when we say we must give our pensioners more, I am on the side of the people who are fighting so hard for this. I thank the hon member for mentioning that thought.

The hon member made representations about the question of transport for the police stations. The hon member is correct. We cannot do our work unless we have transport. I think I spoke about the prices of motorcars last year. Since then I have asked my people who are responsible for this to negotiate with the motor companies to see whether we cannot work out something. I do not think we need luxury vehicles in the SA Police to do this day-to-day work. All one really needs is four wheels and some cover, so that at least one can drive, but one does not need a luxurious vehicle for everyday work. One needs good vehicles in certain circumstances, but not for everyday work. We are considering this matter and have made some progress. We want to see whether we cannot get the motor suppliers together to see whether or not they can make a cheaper vehicle available to the SA Police so that we can buy more vehicles with the same amount of money.

The hon member also said there should be better classification and distribution of the vehicles. The Commissioner and I made a note of that, and we shall see whether or not we can do something in this connection. The hon member also asked us to renovate the police station at Ashton. We made a note of that, and we shall see whether or not we can do something in that respect.

The hon member also referred to the question of building cheaper police stations. Earlier this afternoon the hon member for Mamre said I had made certain promises here. That is one of the things I said we would consider.

What about Atlantis?

No, Atlantis has problems. It is a pleasure for me to be able to say that since our last debate here, I have asked my department to take an in-depth look at the possibility of building effective and functional, but cheaper police stations. They have done so, and have made a report available to me. I should like to read certain paragraphs from that report to hon members:

We are negotiating these proposals with interested parties at the moment. We use police stations, but we do not build them. That is done by other departments. I regard this matter as being of the utmost urgency, because if we can get the policemen back into the residential areas, we shall be closer to the ideal of the police’s being able to prevent crime from taking place. I thank the hon member for this idea, and hopefully I shall be able to report to him next year that we have set this in motion.

The hon member also referred to the question of child abuse. This matter is extremely important to me. There are certain people whom one must not hurt. One must not interfere with our aged, and one must not hurt our children, because they are our future. This is just as important to the police as it is to me. The child abuse units were instituted specially so that specialised people could investigate these crimes. We permit no leeway when it comes to this kind of thing. A person who abuses a child cannot lay claim to any mercy, and such a person does not deserve any sympathy.

The hon member wanted to know whether we could not use more Coloured women in this unit. That is not a problem. If a need can be identified in that respect, we can do so. I should also like to undertake an investigation into the possibility of employing Coloured women in the Cape Town section. I want to thank the hon member for raising the question.

The hon member also spoke about crime and referred inter alia to the station murderer. In this connection I can tell the hon member that we are going out of our way and are making every effort to catch this killer. The Bishop Lavis murder and robbery squad is investigating the matter. A reward of R12 000 has been offered in co-operation with Rapport and The Argus in the hope that we will get some information about this murderer. At this stage the detectives and other members of the Force have worked thousands of hours overtime in an attempt to track down this person. Hon members will remember that his identikit has appeared on “Police File” in an attempt to bring him to book. Once again I want to appeal to hon members. We want to catch this criminal; he has already murdered eight or nine boys. The public must help us. That person is somewhere in the area. People see him. [Interjections.] He is walking around among us. He does not live elsewhere and then emerge only at night. He is among us. Someone has contact with him, someone sees him and talks to him. The public must please keep their eyes open and help us to catch this murderer before he commits any further crimes.

The hon member spoke about the promotion of women. This matter is receiving the attention of the inspectorate in our department at the moment, but once again funds are limited. The structure within which our women work is being investigated. Personally I think we use too few women, regardless of colour, in the SAP. The Force can make far more use of them. They do excellent work. I want to give hon members the assurance that we are investigating the matter and that it is a top priority.

Just like the hon members for Mamre, Robertson and others, the hon member for Diamant made a valuable contribution. He made a good speech. He spoke about the appointment of a full-time chaplain. Since I was entrusted with this responsibility 18 months ago, I have spoken to our head chaplain in this connection. Do hon members know what the problem is? Our head chaplain treated this matter as a major priority for months. Spanners are being thrown in the works, however. Hon members must remember that a chaplain in the SAP still belongs to a church somewhere. He cannot detach himself from it. There is a person here in the Cape who has quite an authoritative position in certain churches in South Africa. He is Dr Boesak, and he does not like the police. He does not want any chaplain in his church to be employed by the SAP.

It is because you do not catch him.

That is why we stopped. We struggled for a long time, because one cannot destroy a clergyman’s future. He has to belong somewhere. We found a way out, and the chaplain informed me that the matter was receiving the highest priority. I trust that we shall employ our first Coloured chaplain in the Police Force soon. This is as great a priority in the case of our Black members, and we shall approach the matter on this basis.

The hon member for Diamant referred to apartheid signs. I want to tell him that no apartheid signs exist in police stations in the RSA. If the hon member knows of such a sign, he must tell me about it. [Interjections.] The hon member need not get excited; all he need do is tell me where such a sign exists. The Commissioner is here today, and with his assistance we shall rectify the matter in a jiffy.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that there is an apartheid sign at the Oudtshoorn police station. I should be grateful if the hon the Minister could do something in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Robertson must please give the hon member for Dysselsdorp an opportunity to complete his question. Hon members must not behave like children.

Mr Chairman, I have taken cognisance of this case and shall talk about the matter again next year. That sign will have been removed long before next year.

The hon member for Diamant also referred to the examination system and asked whether there was no possibility of promoting people without their having to write examinations. Once again I want to say that a uniform system of promotion applies to everyone throughout the Force. Everyone is subjected to the same requirements. We do not promote a person merely on the basis of his having passed an examination, however. We consider his merit as well; he has to do good work, and only then can he be promoted. There was a system which the police referred to as a “free promotion system”. This has not been abolished, and in special circumstances people are still promoted. When we need a person, and he has merit, we promote him.

Something interesting happened. We asked members of the Force whether they wanted to abolish the examination system and have only the free promotion system in its place. The majority said they would not like to work according to that method again. We introduced the examination system to improve the standards of the Force. There is unhappiness about this in the Force at present. I am extremely concerned about the situation. The police work under difficult conditions. They work long hours until late at night. They struggled during the unrest, because they could not study normally in order to write their examinations. They do not work normal office hours as public servants do. It is difficult for them to study. I think we made a mistake by not presenting courses in which we could help them in a practical way to pass these examinations.

These are the things we have in mind when we say we received a little more money this year and can be of greater assistance to members of the Force in their training. I want to give the hon member the assurance that this is a priority as far as the Commissioner and the department are concerned.

The hon member also referred to the question of police stations. I have already replied to that. In addition the hon member made a very important point which I should like to discuss briefly. He spoke about the plan the ANC is devising against us. The hon member is quite correct. The SACP-ANC alliance have a detailed plan which they are trying to follow to the letter.

They make no secret of that plan; in fact, they tell us what it looks like. They work according to that plan. They have a blueprint that they follow. In the ’sixties Mandela drew up an M-plan which explained precisely how the plan worked. Hon members did me the honour of coming to watch a video about the so-called People’s Power and how they want to implement it. It is a fixed plan. If we do not have a counter-revolutionary plan, we are definitely going to lose. People often wonder whether or not the Government does in fact have such a plan, and there are people who claim that the Government has no plan and that it merely hits and runs. That is not true, however. I want to tell hon members something about the Government’s counter-revolutionary plan.

When I talk about a counter-revolutionary plan or strategy, it is not something that we cleverly thought up. We are not the only country in which a revolution is developing. This has happened in many countries in the world, and many of them have tested the counter-revolutionary plan. It worked in certain countries, but unfortunately it did not work in most countries. It is something we must be honest about, however. In the first place a plan of this nature must be simple and comprehensible to the ordinary man. It must not be an involved plan. It must also be practicable. A counter-revolutionary plan of this kind has three components. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that if we do not grant equal priority to the three components, this plan will never succeed. There are people in this country who lend greater priority to one component, however.

The first of the three components that I want to refer to is security action against revolutionaries, radicals and activists. We must be prepared, therefore, to implement that security action. The second component is a good government for the people. A government must show its people that it cares about them and is taking care of their requirements. The third component is an acceptable constitutional solution for the majority of the population who are affected by this. These are the three components—security action, good government and an acceptable constitutional solution. Let us look at the Government’s scoreboard in this connection, and see how the Government has performed in this regard during the past few years. Some people claim that we have not achieved anything, but let us see whether or not that is true.

Security action has been instituted over the years to crack down on the radical elements in our country, to crack down on the revolutionaries and terrorists and to restore stability, as my hon colleague said. Many people in South Africa say the Police should use only security action, that they must only catch, shoot, hit etc. If we do that, however, we are going to lose. Hon members agreed with me earlier that we could not win by doing only that. This action includes the detention of radical activists by removing them from the community so that one can make progress with the other steps. Ultimately this led to the declaration of a state of emergency, which the hon the Deputy Minister referred to. During the past two months this has led to the restriction of organisations which were involved in revolutionary activities. Hon members saw the video in which it was said that “the key to people’s power is organisation”. These organisations, of which a thousand already exist in South Africa, had to be brought to heel and dealt with so that one could proceed with the other steps.

I have referred to good government, and I want to tell hon members today that in a continent that is dying of starvation, diseases and other evils, this country of ours is like a shining star. We stand out like a light in the darkness to which millions of people are flocking, uninvited. We simply cannot stop them. They are braving deserts, electric fences and barbed wire; they are braving the lions in the Kruger National Park. They are simply flocking to our country. We simply cannot stop them, because they are hungry and because no one cares about them. They are coming to this country, this country that is vilified by all and sundry—in search of something to eat. To them it is a vital journey.

Sir, I should like to be a little more specific. I want to mention a few examples of what has actually happened in this connection during the past two years. Let us look at how the Government deals with the concept of “good government”. When we talk about good government, we look at housing. There is an enormous backlog in the sphere of housing—also in respect of Blacks; I am not even talking about the people of hon members in this House. During 1986 alone, however, 25 000 houses were built for Blacks in co-operation with the private sector. This is not nearly enough, but it is something we could do. We are trying very hard to accelerate this process.

Another big problem was land for housing. Between 1 January 1986 and the end of 1987,24 000 hectares were set aside in terms of the Development of Black Communities Act. A further 11 500 hectares has been approved with a view to the further urbanisation of Blacks. At present approximately 16 200 hectares is being investigated for this purpose. If one can build on these surface areas according to the present standards of density, we shall be able to erect 400 000 dwellings.

That is the tally on the scoreboard, Sir. These are things that are happening in practice. While the ANC is throwing bombs, and while the ANC, the SACP and the UDF are promising to upset matters, we are doing this work. I should like to draw hon members’ attention to what has been achieved by hon members in this House, and by its Ministers’ Council which is responsible for housing for Coloureds. Sir, just look at everything they have managed to do. Hon members know how hard they have worked at this concept of good government for their people. They did not shout from the rooftops, as the ANC did, trying to denigrate everything the Government is doing. They proved that they really care for their people.

Of the 699 300 identified existing rental units, 511 000 plots have been measured up and approved. People can now buy those houses. They can get a share in the country—the country about which they can say, “We were born here.” The Government is saying, “Buy the houses; this is your opportunity to do so.” These people now have an opportunity to buy their homes.

When right of ownership was granted to urban Blacks, the process of selling existing dwellings in Black residential areas was set in motion. At present 300 363 such houses have been identified, of which 79 500 have been sold, leaving a balance of 284 000. Between October 1987 and March of this year, an average of 2 500 houses was sold per month. Sir, that is too slow. We want this process to be accelerated. What is important, however, is that this opportunity now exists. That is what this Government’s tally on the scoreboard amounts to.

Let us look at the provision of employment, which is also a very serious problem. People who are hungry listen to the stories proclaimed by our enemy, the ANC. The hon member for Diamant also spoke about this aspect. This matter is being addressed just as purposefully by the Government. I want to give hon members only one example. During the 1986-87 and 1987-88 financial years, there were 12 departments and administrations that liaised with one another to deal with this matter. I am referring to the creation of employment opportunities for Blacks. More than 6 000 projects were tackled, and in this way more than 20 000 people were provided with work. That is the scoreboard, Sir. Boycotts and sanctions deprive people of their jobs; the Government, however, has confined itself to creating employment, which means life to millions of people in South Africa. An amount of R400 million was set aside, of which R300 million has already been used.

Another example is the upgrading of residential areas. Hon members have seen for themselves what Crossroads looked like in the areas that burnt down when there was trouble there. Sir, just look at how this area is being upgraded. I can mention other examples too. Just think of Alexandra near Johannesburg. That was an eyesore. The Government came, however, and said: “I am going to bring the people good government.”

The Government said it would show these people that it cared. We can talk about another sphere, the elimination of discrimination, for example.

†What has been done over the past two years to eliminate discrimination and set the stage for future reform? I would like to give hon members a few examples. There was the granting of full property rights for Blacks, the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the scrapping of the colour bar in the Liquor Act, the opening of central business districts, the suspension of restrictions on economic activities in 1986 and 1987. We have also seen the opening of cinemas, theatres and hotels on application, the abolition of permits for non-Whites to attend White universities, the admittance of Indians to the Orange Free State and Northern Natal, the removal of discrimination in immigrant selection, the scrapping of the colour bar from the Mines and Works Act, the abolition of influx control and 34 related measures during 1986. There were also the acceptance of a new urbanisation strategy and the introduction of a uniform tax system.

*This last measure is the one we like least, but it is unavoidable if we want to do all these things with the money at our disposal. These are merely a few examples of what has been done during the past three years, and there are things that still have to be done. The point, however, is that there were problems which the Government has removed over the past two years. I have quite discounted the billions of rand that were spent previously.

The third component we have to consider is the establishment of a political constitutional dispensation which is acceptable to the majority of people who are affected by it. People complain, saying that the Government has done nothing, but let us look at the facts. Whether we like it or not, there are four independent Black states in South Africa today. This is not acceptable to everyone, but it is acceptable to the majority of people who are affected. There are six self-governing states. Once again this is not acceptable to everyone, but it is acceptable to the majority of people who are affected. We can go and test them. We can go and talk to those Blacks and hear what they say. They voted for these leaders. This tricameral Parliament in which we are participating is also a constitutional dispensation. It is a dispensation which did not exist previously. Not everyone likes it. It is not acceptable to everyone, but we believe—and hon members believe this with us-—that it is acceptable to the majority of people who are affected by it. That is how we must govern South Africa in future. We must see what the majority wants. It will never be possible to reconcile everyone—on the left and the right—with one another. One will never be able to unite them. That is why we say that this was part of it. I can go on in this way. A number of these things have already been done, and we are going to do more. There is the passing of a Bill, for example—I hope it will be passed this session—to establish a national council, because there are still people who do not have an acceptable constitutional dispensation. This still has to be negotiated; it still has to be sought for these people. With reference to this matter, I want to summarise by saying—I said this at the beginning, but it is so important that I want to emphasise it again—that we are going to lose if we are not prepared to lend equal priority to these three components. There are people in South Africa who say on the one hand that we must follow the security component. They say: “We must shoot.” There are other people, however, who say: “No, wait, leave everyone. Leave the radicals out of things, and then only the political utopia will remain; then everything will be perfect before sunrise.” That is just as foolish. We are equally foolish if we think that our problems will be resolved once we have given all these people political rights—simply given them rights—without control and without structures. That will not work either.

When a country is afflicted by a revolutionary onslaught, the following happens, and I quote:

These are not my words; they come from an American army document. The Americans took a good look at this thing. In addition they investigated revolutions throughout the world, and this was their conclusion. When we look at this, we can understand what is really happening in our country.

There are organisations that instigate these things. Consequently hon members can understand why it was necessary to place restrictions on organisations that were perpetrating these wrongs.

There are people in our country, our enemies, who want to make the country ungovernable. They want to replace the existing department and structures with alternative structures: Comrades, people’s courts, people’s education etc. They want to bring about a so-called “people’s revolution” which will lead to a communist government. The misery Africa is experiencing is our destiny if that happens—I want to be frank with hon members—and that is not acceptable to those of us in this House. Even if what we have, and what we are changing and creating, is not ideal to all of us, it is far better than what the SA Communist Party, the ANC and their front organisations can offer us in South Africa. I should like to emphasise that. That is why we must join hands and help one another in the spirit we heard in this debate today, in which it was said that we should co-operate and assist the SA Police. If we join hands, we shall conquer the evil forces that want to destroy our future. I have no doubt about that.

That brings me to the hon member for Silver-town.

†The hon member referred to certain problems in his constituency regarding a temporary police station at Strandfontein. My department is also in possession of representations of the hon member for Strandfontein, if I remember correctly. This matter, I want to assure the hon member, is receiving attention and we will investigate and come back to the hon member as soon as possible to give him a positive reply.

*I really want to say that the hon member for Bonteheuwel moved all of us today. We have respect for someone who has sympathy with others and can empathise with them. I have a note here from the Commissioner.

†We know that there are gangs operating in that area, but the existence of a gang is not illegal.

*One can be a member of a gang, but only when a gang does wrong or commits a crime can one clamp down on it. I want to tell the hon member that we understand the problem of intimidation, but the hon member must help us so that the community will stand up and say who the members of the gangs are and who is doing wrong. Then we can clamp down on them. I want to add, however, that the Commissioner also listened to the hon member and sent this note to me to say that despite all the problems involved in resolving this situation, he will give instructions tomorrow that special attention be given to that area. We cannot permit our community to be destroyed by unscrupulous people and criminals in this way. This will take some time, however, because the hon member mentioned a long list of these people, and just look at their terrible names. They are definitely involved in mischief, but they are deeply rooted in that community and will not move from there. It will take time, work and a great deal of trouble, but we are going to get them out of that community. I thank the hon member for drawing this point to our attention in such a striking way today.

I should like to thank the hon member for Rawsonville for his excellent speech. He said he was recruiting people for the Force, and I thank him. That is a fine gesture. We need people to recruit people for the Force. The hon member said there was still discrimination in the Force. I have already referred to that. We are trying to eliminate it as far as possible, but legally the SA Police is one force, and it does not matter what colour one’s skin is.

The hon member also referred to the women in the Force. I spoke about that in my reply to the hon member for Robertson. I agree. We must try to increase the number of women, because they do excellent work in the Force. The hon member also made a very important point about the reservists. They do excellent voluntary work in the SA Police, and we are appealing to hon members. I am pleased the hon member made this appeal here. Let us go back to our communities.

Hon members are leaders in their constituencies and in their communities. They must motivate their people to join the Police Force either as A reservists or B reservists so that they can become involved and can help us to combat crime. This is community service. I want to compliment the hon member on raising the matter here this afternoon.

My hon colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, made his maiden speech this afternoon. We all agree that it was a good speech. I want to welcome him sincerely to the Force. He is a former policeman. [Interjections.] He was in the police college. [Interjections.] He was one of the men who rode a horse at Parliamentary openings. Consequently he is at home in the Force and knows all these things. He immediately fitted in very well. We lost a good man in his predecessor, but got a good man in his place. We are a very good team, and I want to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It seems that hon members know him and have done things with him already.

We had a braai together. [Interjections.]

There we have a reliable witness who said they only had a braai together. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that as I know him, his door will always be open to them, and they are welcome to discuss any matter with him or with me at any time.

The hon member for Heideveld spoke about combating crime and raised a very important point. He spoke about loyalty to the Force. That is something that is not often found these days, but fortunately we in the SAP have no problem with that. We have loyal people who are loyal to the Force and to South Africa. I should like to give hon members that assurance. The hon member made a very important point when he said that we can all be just as loyal to South Africa as the policemen are to the Force and to South Africa.

The hon member pointed out the danger of communism. There is a trend at the moment to present communism as something wonderful which is not really dangerous. They refer to it by all kinds of learned names. We must be honest with one another, and realise that attempts are being made to change the face of communism, but that the heart of communism does not change. Its objectives remain the same and the hon member warned us timeously today that we must be careful and that we are dealing with an enemy.

The hon member also spoke about Coloured officers in Bishop Lavis and other Coloured areas. The hon member said that the Coloured community would like to be served by their own people. That is true, and we are looking into the matter. I do not know what the exact circumstances were, but I want to assure the hon member that we shall look into the matter and that I shall reply to him in writing. We try to place people who can best serve a particular community’s interests, in that community.

Hon members do not always want to give the hon member for Tafelberg an opportunity to say what is on her mind, yet she always makes a good contribution. [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip has just said a fine thing. He said: We are fond of her. [Interjections.] Now hon members are thinking all kinds of things. [Interjections.] This hon member does excellent work. She recently brought guests here from another country, thus doing good work for this House.

†She is projecting an image of this House and of South Africa of which we can be very proud. The hon member said a few kind words to the SA Police and I want to thank her for that as well. She mentioned the question of serving our people and I want to tell her that the SA Police are used to doing that. In fact, it is part of our motto to protect and to serve. The hon member for Tafelberg also mentioned methods we can use to improve the image of the Police and I thank her for that as well. We will discuss these suggestions with the hon member. She said she wanted me to arrange a meeting with the female members of the SA Police and I will certainly do that. We will come back to the hon member about that. I think it is an excellent idea.

*We recently had a very pleasant visit with certain hon members in Bishop Lavis. The hon member for Tafelberg was also invited, but unfortunately she could not join us. The idea of that visit was to tell our young men and women who have to work outside in the streets that we support them, that we are part of a team, because each one of those team members is important.

I have replied in general to most of the requests, remarks and representations made by hon members, and I want to conclude by thanking hon members once again for an excellent debate, as well as for their positive contribution. The voice of this House, which we take out of here with us today, is of the utmost importance to the SA Police Force, because it is a voice of balance and reason, a voice that is thanking the Police for 75 years of good service, and a voice that is wishing them the best of luck for the next 75 years.

Order! Just before I adjourn the debate, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking hon members of this House, as well as the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister, for the dignified and responsible way in which they conducted the debate this afternoon.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an honour for me to participate in this Defence Vote once again this afternoon. I should like to welcome the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to this House.

As everyone knows, hon members of this House have always been very responsible in regard to Defence matters. This year will be no exception. There have always been strong ties between this House and the Department of Defence and I hope this state of affairs will continue.

The Defence Force is visible in our daily community life and we are proud that members of our community also form part of it.

I should like to reiterate that hon members of this House have no objection to members of the Indian community serving in the Defence Force as volunteers, or in the Permanent Force. These members of our community have already proved themselves to be invaluable to the Defence Force and they have excelled in various fields.

We were very proud to notice on visits to the operational area that members of our community were also doing their stints in the operational area. We found these people to be highly motivated and proud to form such an integral part of the Defence Force’s action to combat terrorism.

We are also proud of the excellent work that is being done at the SAS Jalsena in Durban and we urge the Defence Force to continue with its good work. It is a fact that the young men who have completed their military training can be utilised in any form of our daily community lives. They have been well trained, and their self-discipline makes them an asset to any employer.

I am aware of the efforts of the Defence Force to recruit more members of the Indian community for voluntary service. I have in fact a copy of such an advertisement here in front of me. I am also aware of interviews by the commanding officer of the SAS Jalsena on Radio Lotus. I do, however, find it a pity that members of the Indian community are still hesitant to serve in the Defence Force as volunteers. It is my opinion that the Defence Force offers excellent career opportunities and volunteers do have the opportunity to apply for employment in the Permanent Force. We are grateful to the Defence Force for the opportunities that exist for Indians in the permanent force. Members of our community have already proved themselves to be excellent soldiers. As we are essentially concentrated in Natal, it is obvious that we would place a higher emphasis on opportunities in the SA Navy. I would like to pay tribute to the Navy for the careers that have been offered to Indians.

A few hon members are aware that Indians have already reached the ranks of lieutenant-commander in the officers’ ranks and that of warrant officer in other ranks. I was also very delighted to learn that an Indian officer successfully completed his Bachelor of Military Science degree at the Military Academy. Another success story is that of the candidate officer, Eargambram, an Indian member of the Air Force, who has been selected to undergo flight training. We are all aware of the extremely strict preconditions that apply to members being selected for pilot training.

The hon the Minister of Defence is also to be commended for the opportunities that exist in the Defence Force for members of the Indian community. Our people have proved themselves to be an asset to the Defence Force. The Defence Force can, in my opinion, broaden these opportunities. Here I want to raise a very important point. I would like to request the hon the Minister to assess the utilisation of Indian medical doctors in the medical service. This request is not without reason, and I will give my motivation. It is a well-known fact that 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte in Pretoria is considered to be one of the hospitals with the best facilities in the country. I think that can be borne out by the hon member for Southern Natal who was taken to that hospital one day.

I confirm that.

He confirms it; I thank him. The excellent care that is being given to patients in this hospital is also well-known. The high standard of medical care of our soldiers is one of the reasons why they are so highly motivated. The soldier knows that should he be injured or wounded, the best facilities exist and are at his disposal. At the same time we are glad that the University of Pretoria is presently educating Indian medical students for the first time. There are several young men and women that have now been admitted to the University of Pretoria for the medical course. My request to the hon the Minister this afternoon is to give consideration to the possibility that these doctors can, for instance, complete their one-year housemanship at No 1 Military Hospital.

The facilities of this hospital, as well as the various medical fields that are being covered at this hospital, will equip the students even better for their noble profession. It will not only be the doctors, but the Indian community as a whole, who will eventually benefit from such approval.

The reason for my asking this is that we have two hospitals that are attached to the university’s medical school in Pretoria, namely the H F Verwoerd Hospital and the Kalafong Hospital in Atteridgeville. The 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte is also attached to the university’s medical school in Pretoria. We know that some medical students find it difficult to do their housemanship at some of these training hospitals. I therefore wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider taking in some of these doctors.

My constituency—as everyone knows—is adjacent to and borders Voortrekkerhoogte. As such, the military and myself have much in common. I have mentioned this previously as well.

How many voters do you have there?

The whole of Voortrekkerhoogte falls under my constituency! I would like to use this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force, Genl Geldenhuys, for the excellent relations that exist between us. We appreciate the briefings on relevant military matters that are given to us from time to time. We also appreciate the confidence in which sensitive military matters are discussed with us.

The security of South Africa is the responsibility of all its inhabitants. We as hon members of Parliament can only act responsibly on this matter if we are kept informed. It is in this light that I thank Genl Geldenhuys for the special efforts from his side to enlighten us on relevant matters.

*The Defence Force deserves praise for the particular way in which they act during emergencies. The recent floods in Natal, the Free State and Northern Cape affected the Indian communities who live there badly. The Defence Force went out of its way to help those people. Members of the Defence Force risked their own lives in many instances to help their fellowmen. These actions of the Defence Force prove that they are only a battle force, but also humans.

The Defence Force does not hesitate to act in emergencies. We want to thank them for that. We also want to thank the hon the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force. It is assistance of this nature that prove to our people that the Defence Force cares. By doing this the Defence Force promotes its own image enormously amongst our own people. I hope the Defence Force will carry on to help the areas in need.

The Defence Force is a formidable organisation. They are formidable on the battle field and also when they are not fighting. They are well-disciplined people. Our community supports the Defence Force, because they protect us. Our country has many enemies that are supported by great powers. Our country therefore needs enough soldiers to ward off the evil onslaught against our country. The Defence Force therefore needs excellent armaments.

To have a defence force, costs money. To have a good defence force, costs a lot of money. I serve in the Standing Committee on Finance, and it is therefore my duty to talk about this. The Defence Appropriation is absolutely necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, all of us in South Africa hope that present attempts of all parties concerned to bring about peace in Angola, and to a certain extent in Mozambique, will be successful so that the whole of Southern Africa can concentrate on economic, instead of military development.

The Soviet Union, by its withdrawal from Afghanistan, indicated that the possibility of a change for the good in our African region is a practical possibility.

To this extent we agree. The hon the Minister of Defence published a call for the keeping of cool heads concerning the latest troop movements by the Cubans in Angola.

We wish to see a progressive diversion of money spent on defence, going into social services and education—particularly in the less-privileged Black communities of South Africa.

Thirty years ago, in that financial year, only R36 million was allocated to Defence. Within 30 years defence expenditure has risen about R3 billion. This means that our defence expenditure has risen over 80 times. Probably one fifth of the Government’s total expenditure today is on Defence spending. The real vast increase in defence expenditure in South Africa coincided with the collapse of the Portuguese empire in Southern Africa in 1974 and the appearance of the Cubans in Africa.

Of course, we know that there is a tendency for army leaders to prefer spending more money on defence to ensure additional safety for their countries. We must also take into consideration that expenditure on education compares favourably with especially the Third World countries and their defence expenditure. It should not be overlooked that the proportion of the gross national product which goes to Defence, compares well even with the advanced countries. In South Africa it is about 4% to 5% per annum and the figure for the United States is about 5,4% per annum. In the Soviet Union it is about 12%, and in Britain, about 4,4% per annum. Nevertheless we in South Africa have a large gap to overcome in developing our whole economy and education from Third World standards to a First World standard.

South Africa has set itself the task of attaining an expenditure per head for African education equal to that for White education. Less expenditure on Defence will certainly help the South African Government to attain the additional educational goals in the near future. The reaching of that goal is absolutely necessary if South Africa’s economy is to expand significantly.

Especially encouraging is the realistic outlook of Pres Dennis Saso Ngesso of the Congo-Brazzaville, who, according to newspaper reports, has been involved in a secret effort to get the Angolan government and Unita to start a peace negotiation, even though such peace efforts were originally opposed by both the Soviet Union and the Angolan government. It is even reported that President Saso Ngesso has termed the MPLA government’s policy as being disastrous. He was chairman of the O AU in 1986 and is still regarded as one of the most influential leaders in Africa. Further talks about the Angolan situation will take place in his country, which holds out additional promise for progress. It is also promising to know that the Soviet Deputy Minister for African affairs, Mr Anatoly Araminched, visited Portugal this week for talks with Portuguese officials on the present round of multi-national discussions for the purpose of attaining a regional peace settlement for Southern Africa.

Generally, the aim is to end the 13-year-old civil war and achieve self-rule for Namibia. On the other hand it is disappointing to note the recent pleas of the O AU liberation committee at its 50th annual session held in Harare, also this week, for the intensification of the campaigning for a universal imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria.

However, in the end the most secure defence of South Africa is a democratic system in which all population groups of this country can freely participate while giving all minorities the necessary constitutional and other safeguards. The sooner all South Africans can get together to negotiate such a future, the sooner this will result in a more secure future for all our people and our reappearance in the world community of nations.

Mr Chairman, at present the newsmaker, insofar as our Government is concerned, is the hon the Minister of Defence. We are pleased not only to have the hon the Minister here, but the former Minister of Defence as well.

I think this is a very important vote, hence their presence.

The newspapers seem to have reported quite a lot on the question of South Africa’s involvement in the Angolan war. That South Africa is militarily involved in Angola at the present time is not in dispute. The hon the Minister of Defence publically confirmed this fact on a number of occasions in recent months. This situation remains unchanged. The extent of South Africa’s commitment in that country, however, does demand clarification in view of the exaggerated claims emanating from Luanda and elsewhere.

I believe that South Africa’s involvement in Angola remains that of playing a supportive role which is strictly limited and controlled. I also believe that at no time were there more than 3 000 troops in Angola since the start of the current phase of the civil war which began in May 1987. During campaigns in that period 31 South African Defence Force soldiers were killed in action although various figures were quoted in other Houses. I think these were clarified by the hon the Minister of Defence. I think we need some clarity with regard to the number of soldiers who were involved, the number of deaths and the losses we suffered as far as ammunition and armoury are concerned.

During the same period the Angolan government’s Fapla army lost at least 4 768 soldiers. During the period under consideration South Africa lost three tanks; four infantry combat vehicles; one fighter aircraft; and one light aircraft in operation in South East Angola. During the same period Fapla lost 14 fighter aircraft; 8 helicopters; 94 tanks; more than 372 logistics vehicles; and a variety of other types of weapon systems including missile launchers and mobile radars.

I believe that South Africa’s involvement is broadening. The importance of supporting Unita is part of South Africa’s strategy for the protection of its own interests in the regional context. The continued terrorist threat that Swapo inspires and which is actively supported by Fapla could exert pressure on Cuavango and the Caprivi thus giving free rein in Angola’s Sixth Military Region in the South.

There is a direct threat that this poses to the SWA-Namibia population and the infrastructure in Cuavango and the Caprivi. I also believe that we must oppose the establishment of the ANC camps and terrorist training facilities in the south of Angola which will further facilitate incursions into South Africa.

South Africa’s responsibility is to stem the southward Soviet expansion from the Soviet’s stronghold in Angola. The background to this is that the SADF’s involvement in Angola was code-named Operation Modular for the period from July until 15 December 1987. It was clear by March 1987 that Fapla intended launching an offensive into Angolan military territory under Unita control. There were indications that the Fapla-Cuban-Soviet Alliance was stockpiling arms and equipment in the Sixth Military Region which has its headquarters at Manago and three military regions with headquarters at Luella. Alarming quantities of new sophisticated Soviet military hardware were also arriving on an almost daily basis at Luanda harbour. Moreover, there had also been substantial troop movements in this region.

It has become apparent that Fapla would launch two independent but concurrent offences in support of each other in two regions.

In the eastern sector of 3 Military Region the town of Lukasa was developed as the primary base for the launch of a 2-pronged offensive into Casunaba and Cangonba. This, it was hoped, would tie down Unita troops in this area. In attempting to do this, Fapla believed that it would prevent the Unita forces from being deployed to help counter the main Fapla offensive against Lubango. The point at issue is that were it not for South Africa’s involvement, the communists would take over the regions adjacent to South Africa, and in no time South West Africa would be under Marxist control and South Africa would be facing danger because they would be free to exploit the economy of South Africa.

Therefore we have once again the ANC, which has its bases in South West Africa and in Angola, and most of those terrorists are being trained in Angola. There is clear evidence of this from the actions of those terrorists in our country.

The other point I wish to raise is that our Defence Force is a very powerful one. It controls Armscor, which produces its own arms and ammunition. I think the arms and ammunition produced by South Africa are about the best in the world. It produces its own aircraft, and in this regard I think that the hon the Minister of Defence must be complimented on all that has been done. More recently the Chief of the Defence Force and his staff came before the Finance Committee, and they had a very clean record of all their expenditure. Not only that; they have a very big military expenditure in so far as South Africa is concerned. I think that the Defence Force must be highly complimented. I think that we in this House should not only agree with the amount of money to be approved in the estimates; I think that if the hon the Minister of Defence wants more money we should feel free to allow such expenditure, since this is one of the most important services rendered to this country.

Mr Chairman, I am usually reasonably well-informed about a fair range of matters, but I must confess that military strategy is not included among those. I therefore listened with deep interest to what the hon member Mr Thaver had to say. I do know, however, that Baron Von Clausewitz wrote many years ago that war begins when diplomacy ends, and I do know that about 2 100 years ago the Hindu political scientist Kantilya also wrote, among other things, that there are some times when it is necessary for a king to send his forces into a neighbouring territory to prove the superiority of the king in his own kingdom.

However, while these writers said these things, one has always to bear in mind that one must be prepared to allow differences of opinion. When Emily Hobhouse and liberals in the United Kingdom protested very vigorously not very long ago—I was not born then, but it was not such a long time ago—at the killing of Boers in this country by British Imperial forces, those liberals and Emily Hobhouse were not being disloyal to Britain; they were not being unpatriotic. Indeed, it is their patriotism and their devotion to the ideals of the British as a nation which impelled them to criticise their own Government.

When the Americans were in Vietnam and the liberals in America criticised the American involvement they were not being unpatriotic—they were true to their ideals of their own country. When our own hon State President in a speech about two years ago requested that the Soviets release the liberals Sakharov and Scharansky from the Soviet Union our hon State President was not praising other people because they were disloyal to their country. He was asking for their release because they were loyal to certain principles.

One can disagree with someone. When Clement Attlee, a former Prime Minister of Great Britain, demanded that the British troops be withdrawn from India he was not being unpatriotic. Similarly, the hon member for Constantia in another House in this Parliament expressed certain opinions which he was perfectly legally, morally and democratically entitled to do. No one was entitled to question his loyalty and his patriotism, particularly since that hon member voluntarily served in the Armed Forces of our country in the defence of South Africa.

At a certain time when South Africa was at war with Hitler’s Germany the late Mr Vorster was opposed to that war. He was not unpatriotic to South Africa—he simply differed with the Government. As a matter of fact, up to 1941 most of us dismissed it as an imperialist war and we said we must not support the war effort. One has to bear these factors in mind.

I want to come to another matter. There is a great deal of publicity and a public outcry in Pabilnadoo in the south of India at what is alleged to be the supply of arms to the Sri Lankan army by South Africa. This is what they allege—I do not know the truth or otherwise of the matter. What I do know, however, is that the Tamils both in the north and the east of Sri Lanka have been agitating for a separate homeland. They demand self-government. Strangely, because they are agitating it and demanding it, the international opinion supports them. In South Africa, because the SA Government insists that self-government should be the norm, the international opinion opposes it.

What the Tamils in Sri Lanka are doing is to follow precisely the example set by the SA Government in asking for self-government. The Sri Lankan army has killed thousands of them. Indeed, by machine-gunning entire villages and killing women and children, the Sri Lankan army has committed terrible murder in moral terms. The allegation is that South African-made “ratels”, armoured cars, machine-guns and other arms are being supplied by Armscor or whoever from South Africa to the Sri Lankan army.

We do not know whether it is true or not. If it is true, then it is bad. If it is not true, then I think the hon the Minister owes it to tell not only us in this House but to tell the world that it is not true. I would like such an assurance so that I can write to the Indian newspapers to ask them not to publish untrue statements, if indeed they are not true. I know the editors of two of these newspapers personally.

I am not a chauvinist. I happen to be Tamilspeaking. This is not a matter for emotion—it is a matter of the protection of South Africa. The reputation and the image of South Africa are tarnished throughout the world and 90% of the time deservedly so because of the atrocious policies that our Government follows in this country. However, we must not take the blame or be seen to take the blame where we are not guilty of any offence.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not know precisely what reasons there are for our Armed Forces being in Angola, and that not knowing the details, I can neither support it nor oppose it. Those who are involved know best what measures have to be taken to protect our country.

South West Africa, however, is another kettle of fish. When the hon the State President was here during last year I said to him that our Government had repeatedly stated that the future of South West Africa would be determined by the people of South West Africa, and it was regrettable that the constitution drafted for and accepted by the transitional government of South West Africa was not accepted by the Government of this country. Moreover, if our Armed Forces occupy South West Africa against the wishes of the elected transitional government, then our Armed Forces constitute an occupying power, and that should not be. Of course, the political aspect is not directly within the purview of the hon the Minister and I cannot hold him responsible for that. I shall therefore have to deal with it again at a suitable opportunity.

Mr Chairman, I can only agree with my hon benchmate when he says that in view of the wide publicity that has been given to the situation in Sri Lanka, the hon the Minister ought to react to it. Of course, this House knows full well that it was that hon Minister who, over the years, has asked this country to win the hearts and minds of the people, and we have commended him for that.

We are also aware that it was that hon Minister who also, as the hon member for Chatsworth Central indicated earlier on, asked for the keeping of cool heads over the present situation in Angola.

We are also mindful of the fact that it was that hon Minister who also indicated in many newspaper interviews that an internal political settlement in this country was important for external peace outside the borders of this country and certainly in Africa. We commend the hon the Minister for that.

This debate is taking place at an important time. We are aware of what is going on in Angola, and I should like to pause here to record our appreciation to the members of the South Africa Defence Force—all of them, right down the hierarchy from the general to the common private—who have taken the trouble to become involved in the defence of this country. We commend them for that and we should like to record that fact.

During a previous debate on this Vote in another Chamber, a particular fact was highlighted which, to our mind, is important, and that fact was that one out of every three soldiers in the SADF in Angola was not White. In fact they were either Brown or Black.

Moreover, up to 70% of them were active combatants, and the point that was raised by the hon member for Laudium was well taken when he said that in fact, Indian people and Brown people and Black people are involved in the defence of this country at the present time. The very important point is that all of them were volunteers, which brings me to my argument.

What I want to say before I raise that point is simply this: When people of a conservative view say that South Africans enjoy peace and prosperity which has been paid for in blood by White servicemen, I want to tell those hon gentlemen that they are talking very, very insensitively and that they are talking without concern for the feelings of those Black, Brown and Coloured people who are fighting in the defence of this country. Aside from that, I mentioned earlier that they were all volunteers.

We in the PFP believe that conscription should be phased out. Here we have a good example, where roughly one-third of the people involved in the Defence Force in Angola are volunteers. If, in fact, the hon the Minister would set machinery in motion to phase conscription out, he would be following the example of India, Great Britain, the United States, Ireland, Turkey, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg. Therefore I would like to make the appeal this afternoon to the hon the Minister to consider this very seriously. Those who wish to volunteer, quite obviously, should be allowed to do so. Look at the amount of employment we could provide.

I now want to turn to the question of religious objectors, who, as the hon the Minister knows, are provided for in section 72 of the Act. Section 72, as I understand it, provides for those who cannot render military service to do a period of community service, if the board allows it. However, we have had evidence in this regard that when the board classifies such people are religious objectors and they are placed in community service, they are not used to the fullest of their potential. We have had evidence that, for example, teachers are not employed in the teaching profession. We have had evidence that when provincial administrations are looking for teachers and there are teachers who are religious objectors, the Defence Force in fact objects to them being employed as teachers. I would like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister this afternoon to look at that very carefully, taking into account the shortage of skilled manpower, the fact that, in any case, such people are paying a price for their religious convictions and that we should utilise their potential to the fullest.

I think it was the hon member for Chatsworth who indicated that the briefings that have been given by the Department of Defence were very adequate and timeous. I would merely like to react by saying that no responsible person would wish to dispute the right of the State to keep security matters secret. However, I certainly believe that the criterion that needs to be employed in this regard is the criterion of national importance. We had an occasion last year, for instance, when several members of the Defence Force contracted malaria, where the public was kept in the dark and there was much confusion. I would like to ask the hon the Minister why that was so. Surely this did not in any way affect national interest? Why were family members then not timeously informed? Why were briefings not given on this?

This also brings me to another point. About that same time, the international Press was speculating about our involvement in Angola. My party at that time called for a special meeting of Parliament to discuss this, because this was a national issue. Of course, the hon the State President denied that. The point I want to make is that we believe that briefings of this kind should be held timeously. We believe that the public at large should not be kept in the dark. We believe that we, as responsible members of Parliament, should not be kept in the dark. I would also like to make this appeal to the hon the Minister.

My hon benchmate spoke about Armscor and Sri Lanka. Lest the hon the Minister gets the wrong impression, let me tell him that we appreciate the work that is being done by Armscor. We are mindful of the fact that Armscor was started as a result of the international sanctions against this country. We are mindful of the fact that Armscor has contributed something like R3 000 million to our coffers last year. We are mindful of the fact that it provides employment for a whole range of people. We believe that Armscor is doing a wonderful piece of work. Certainly we would support the good work that is being done by Armscor.

However, the point I would like to make is that this country can ill afford bad international publicity that could result if we are seen to do business with people who are suppressing the humanitarian rights of individuals around the world. I would like to tell the hon the Minister that this is something that he could keep in mind if, in fact, the policy of Armscor is discussed in his department.

Mr Chairman, it is often said that a country’s strength is measured by the strength of its defence force. Amongst the army leaders of the world, there is a tendency to spend more and more money on defence programmes to ensure the safety and protection of their country. The SA Defence Force is no exception to this concept and desire.

In 1957-58 the allocation for defence was in the region of R35 million to R39 million. These days the allocations are in terms of billions of rands. Certain critics within South Africa object to the large amount spent by the Defence Force, and advocate a lesser and lesser defence expenditure and an increased expenditure in social services and the educational field. I do not agree with these unrealistic criticism.

Considering the Soviet involvement in Africa, considering the enmassment of large amounts of Soviet arms and ammunition just across our borders in Angolan territory, I can only come to one conclusion. Angola does not need that kind of enmassment of ammunition and tanks in order to fight the civil war that is going on there. The only logical conclusion one could arrive at is that armaments are being enmassed there to launch an attack against our beloved country one day.

There are also people who object to the involvement of the SA Defence Force in SWA-Namibia and Angola. Take a simple example. Any person who goes to the expense of buying a motor car of R15 000, will be prepared to spend R3 000 a year on insurance to cover possible damages to that vehicle. The Defence Force is engaged in fights against the enemies or potential enemies of this country. If we do not act against our enemies in Angola, SWA-Namibia or the Botswana border, nothing will deter our enemies from bringing the fight to our doorstep.

As I have said, a country’s strength is measured by the strength of its defence force. I do not agree with those critics who claim that a very big part of the Budget goes to the Defence Force. Let us for instance look at a country like the United States of America’s expenditure on armaments. Being a country which has nothing to fear and has no threat of imminent attack, it is also spending a budgeted amount in the region of 25%. Comparatively, although our budgeted amount is realistic as far as our appropriation is concerned, for Defence it is just a little over 16% of the budgeted amount. However, the important point is that that only constitutes a fraction over 4% of the GDP. I believe the hon member for Chatsworth Central gave us some comparative figures, if one compares that to countries that have nothing to fear, such as the United Kingdom, the USSR and the USA—not being under imminent danger of being attacked, unlike our country—they are spending far more of the GDP on Defence.

As I have stated, I do not agree with the statistics, but what worries me is that we are all South Africans here. I stand up as a son of South Africa and talk for South Africa. However, I am intrigued that the Defence Force is a closed shop, taking only one race group into account—the ruling race of this country. I hasten to add that I do not for a moment suggest conscription. When one loves one’s country one will give one’s life. I cannot see the reason why people other than Whites in South Africa should not be recruited to serve in the active citizen force—without compulsion. That is one way to test the loyalty of the citizens of a country. Conscription will not give one that test and compulsion will not prove loyalty. However, if the Government of the day wants to test the loyalty of the true South Africans, it should open the recruitment into the Defence Force for all races in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it would appear that the Defence Force is an evil, unnecessary institution. However, I believe it is a very necessary institution. Countries throughout the world have a defence force to protect and preserve what rightly belongs to them. In this concept South Africa is no different.

There are two sides to the SADF. This afternoon I want to highlight very extensively the humanitarian side of the SADF. Some time in October last year I was asked by a Cooppan family from Isipingo to assist them in contacting young Dr Cooppan who was with a team from Natal University, carrying out research on tropical diseases in Katima Mulilo in the Caprivi Strip. His mother had died suddenly. It was a Sunday morning at about eight o’clock when I phoned the hon the Minister of Defence and he personally took the call. He very politely told me that a Major Durandt would be telephoning me within the next half an hour.

Within the halfhour Major Durandt called and informed me that they knew the whereabouts of Dr Cooppan. However, as it was Sunday he could not send someone to collect him from the Caprivi, but he told me that he would collect him on the Monday morning, give him the message and fly him to Jan Smuts Airport. Although Dr Cooppan was not attached to the SADF this was done on humanitarian grounds. Although I wrote to thank the hon the Minister and the members of the department I feel I should once again thank them this afternoon. I know the hon member for Springfield, who is not here now, was involved in this operation and he also made presentations to the hon the Minister. I think he rather confused the hon the Minister because they must have thought they were looking for two Dr Cooppans!

Another involvement I want to highlight this afternoon is the assistance rendered by the Defence Force during the recent floods. In Natal, and in my constituency as well, the Defence Force was actively engaged in saving lives, providing shelter. Recently in the OFS and the Northern Cape the Army, the Air Force, the Police and the SA Medical Services units saw to it that no time was lost in saving lives by distributing relief supplies to the victims of the recent floods. The whole action was co-ordinated by the OFS Command Headquarters. As the calls for help came in so the rescue operations were delegated to either the Army, the Police, the SA Medical Services or Air Force units depending on the character and availability of transport. Nearly all the OFS roads were damaged by the floods and it was left to the Air Force to conduct most of the rescue and relief assistance.

Altogether 430 people were rescued by Air Force helicopters and total flying time during the flood operations amounted to 1 985 hours and 15 minutes. The Air Force distributed 3 970 loaves of bread and 3 420 kilograms of food packages. The Air Force also provided 1 800 blankets for the homeless civilians and 15 tents. A temporary relief station was set up inside the Air Force base at Bloemspruit, housing and feeding more than 200 Black people.

It was left to the operation centre in Kimberley’s Northern Cape Command to despatch helicopters in the Northern Cape region. The Alouette helicopters from Bloemspruit were sent to Kimberley for this purpose.

As the rain subsided and more roads became negotiable Army and Police ground units were able to assist with rescues and the supplying of food, blankets and medicines. Army vehicles working mainly out of Tempe travelled a total of 10 000 kilometres during combined operations. Extensive use was made of Army rubber boats and the School of Engineers staff.

Sappers helped families across the turbulent Kaffir River—here I must say I do not like the name of the river and I believe that it should be changed and given an appropriate name—which washed away Denwyn bridge 100 kilometres south of Bloemfontein. Eleven people were rescued using rubber boats in the lower Kaffir River area. The boats were also used to distribute 12 900 kilograms of food supplies to farmers isolated by flooding rivers.

Tents were supplied to towns throughout the Free State for temporary housing. The official figures were as follows: 150 to Koffiefontein; 160 to Edenburg; 100 to Wuppertal; and 400 to other areas.

The Army also distributed Red Cross supplies of 5 093 blankets, 10 000 kilograms of food parcels and clothing. All of this is very highly commendable.

Last year I served on the Standing Committee of Finance and as a result I was invited to tour various Defence departments and I want to commend the Department of Defence for its responsible and stringent attitude towards Government spending.

The Defence Force is a vast organisation with a lot of priorities. Although there is a serious lack of facilities they are making the most of whatever is available. Ammunition is stored here, there and everywhere and in adverse conditions, breaking all the rules of ammunition storage. This, I believe needs urgent rectification. I also visited Voortrekkerhoogte and I have first-hand experience of the provisioning side of the Defence Department. This is one typical example of how billions of rands worth of equipment is stockpiled and taken care of in a building that dates back to the World War 2 era.

Armscor should be the pride of every South African. It has spread its activities all over South Africa, from Durban in the east to Pretoria in the north and the Cape in the south. Every community benefits from Armscor. This Government corporation and its subsidiaries employ 23 000 people, and 975 private companies that manufacture various items of equipment for Armscor employ a further 70 000. The corporation produces 95% of our military requirements. Apart from job opportunities, it makes a considerable contribution towards a better community, as with its housing programme.

Armscor is the third largest foreign exchange earner, gold and coal being the first and second. There is a lot of speculation by some newspapers about the countries it exports to, but I do not have the time to dwell on that this afternoon.

I believe that our Defence Force is not a war machine. It should rather be known as a peace machine. It has done a lot for the upliftment of the Bushmen and the Blacks of South West Africa, including the Ovambos in training, education and health care. I even saw a few terrorists in Owambo who had been hospitalised and enjoyed the same facilities as our White soldiers. In spite of the fact that the SA Defence Force works under very adverse and primitive living conditions in some cases, it is alert, highly motivated and well-disciplined.

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and members of his department for the tour that was arranged in November last year and for all the assistance given to me whenever I needed it.

Mr Chairman, I want to join other hon members of this House in expressing sentiments to the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force, Genl Geldenhuys, for the excellent manner in which they co-operate with hon members of this House, especially the spokesmen for defence matters of the various parties who are briefed regularly on sensitive areas, and also in respect of arranging tours to the operational area where hon members gain an insight into what is happening.

During the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President, the hon the State President indicated that Namibia appears to be one of the most highly subsidised countries in the world in that it is costing South Africa approximately R1 billion in respect of its total involvement in Namibia. Of course, in every country since the dawn of civilisation, peace is essential, security is essential. Even from the time of the dawn of Hindu civilisation it was recognised that the defence of countries and the defence of people and of communities is always essential. As the hon member for Reservoir Hills has pointed out, however, there are of course unusual situations in certain countries.

Sometimes the security forces which are needed to protect the borders of countries are also required to perform certain duties internally. The hon the State President and his predecessors pointed out repeatedly that in the Southern African region South Africa most certainly does not have any territorial ambitions—there can be no doubt about that.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central emphasised the point that certain changes in Portugal resulted virtually overnight in a change in the whole pattern of development, not only in South Africa, but in the Southern African region. As in any international situation—not only in South Africa’s neighbouring states but it can also be in Asia, Europe or South America—what happens along one’s boundaries and in neighbouring states to threaten the security of a particular state is of importance to that state.

I think from an international point of view South Africa’s involvement in South West Africa—this is completely different from Angola—and also in Angola is completely understandable. I think every loyal South African will no doubt show understanding for South Africa’s involvement in Angola, particularly from the point of view that ever since the Nixon administration in the USA adopted a different policy in respect with communist or Russian expansion the communists and the Russians have made tremendous advances in Asia and in Africa. I mentioned a message from Lenin in another debate not to attack Europe militarily but to grab South Africa’s supplies and Europe will automatically fall.

I personally believe—I think hon members of this House have expressed the same thought—that there are times when South Africa is required to show its military power, especially when approximately 40 000 Cubans are on African soil. There is no doubt about the fact that they have a particular motive. Not only are they the puppets of communism but they are also the puppets of Soviet Imperialism. The leader of Unita quite correctly pointed out that MPLA control of Angola will mean that it passes from one type of colonialism to another. I am glad that the international pressure with regard to what the Russians have done in Afghanistan has resulted in the Russian pull-out from Afghanistan.

I think my colleague the hon the Minister of Defence once stated that what is required is that the minds and the hearts of the people must be changed. I believe that what we require in the regions around us is a political solution. I do not think there can ever be a military solution and I do not think there can be a real winner or a real loser in a military sense in Angola or in the countries surrounding Angola. The very fact that Swapo is associated with the Soviet Union lends support to South Africa’s actions and standpoint.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central drew interesting comparisons in respect of the percentage of the Defence expenditure in relation to the national Budget of South Africa, as compared to the Third World countries and also in relation to certain Western countries. Sometimes one gains the impression that there is an over-expenditure. Of course when we discuss other types of reforms in this country we express the wish that South Africa will be able one day to save the R1 billion a year which is spent in Namibia.

I want to pay a compliment, as the hon member for Umzinto has done, to Armscor. When an arms embargo was imposed on South Africa, Armscor was established by the former Minister of Defence, the present hon the State President, and not only was this country able to withstand the international ostracism, but today South Africa is an exporter of arms with a tremendous emphasis on technology. Taking into consideration the growth in Armscor and also taking into consideration the fact that we have displayed highly sophisticated instruments of warfare in other countries, South Africa has an excellent future in the armaments industry.

A great deal has been said recently in the other Houses about the participation of members of the Indian and Coloured communities in the defence of this country. At the present time service is voluntary. Excellent work is being done in the South African Navy and in this regard one thinks of SAS Jalsena. I had the opportunity of visiting Salisbury Island and I am very, very proud of the members of SAS Jalsena.

I think we must place on record, for the benefit of mischief-makers, what the hon the Minister of Defence stated in our House a few years ago, namely that conscription would not be extended to the members of the Indian and Coloured communities without the support of this House. That was stated in the highest institution in this country. I think it is sometimes necessary, in response to people who just want to create hysteria in the community, for us to place this on record from time to time.

I also want to say that we are very appreciative of the fact that in addition to hon members having gone to the operational area, the hon the Minister has also extended a standing invitation to the members of the Ministers’ Council to visit the operational area.

Sometimes when one is in the Cabinet, one is tarred with the same brush. We must be prepared to accept the positive with the negative. I know that there are many aspirants for the post of Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House and I sincerely express the wish that if they succeed in their desires, all the types of criticism that have been levelled—for instance that one is a junior partner of the National Party—will reverberate at that time—if, of course, they do succeed. I want to tell them that like the hon the Minister of Defence, we are great fighters. [Interjections.] With the hon member for Isipingo on the other side of the House, we know that this is like unto the battle in Kurukshetra, where truth and righteousness will triumph. [Interjections.]

I want to reiterate our appreciation to the hon the Minister of Defence and his hon Deputy Minister, and to the Defence Force for their cooperation and the regular briefings they have given hon members of this House.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to contribute to the hon the Minister’s Vote in this House. I should like to add to, rather than subtract from the tributes paid to the hon the Minister and his Ministry for the excellent service they render to South Africa and its environs and to the countries around South Africa.

Every country in the world has to have a defence force geared both to defence and to unlikely events or occurrences. Certainly the South African Defence Force holds its own in relation to world defence forces. It is with a source of pride for all South Africans that we have young men and women who, through their own volition and as a duty to the country, enlist in the army.

Some ten years ago, the first batch of Indians were invited to visit the operational area. It was my privilege then to visit the operational area and see the service rendered by the Defence Force in the Caprivi-strip and in general in Namibia. It was an eye-opener to those of us who went there for the first time. People who were not used to the modern techniques and requirements of agriculture were being given lessons in agriculture. Those who for many years were denied medical treatment, received medical treatment. These are just two examples of what we saw in the operational area, in addition to what is being done as service to South Africa and Namibia by keeping away enemy forces. It was my pleasure, and that of my colleagues who were with me, to meet Genl Geldenhuys who was in command in South West Africa. It is indeed also a source of tremendous pleasure for us that he heads the SADF today.

During the Natal floods last year, the SADF also played a magnificent role. They went into inaccessible areas to rescue people who were, as a result of the heavy floods, marooned on the banks of the river or on the central islands. Therefore, when we speak of the SADF, we need to recognise and acknowledge its role in the life of all South Africans.

Very recently, we had the directive from the Saudi-Arabian government that all pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia must have an anti-meningitis injection. As a result of negotiations by hon members of this House with Commandant Du Randt, the Defence Force very readily agreed that should the vaccine not be readily available from private doctors or clinics, the Defence Force would come to the rescue of these pilgrims. This is indeed another hand of friendship extended by the Defence Force and we need to thank the hon the Minister and his ministry for this excellent offer of assistance.

I want to say that the SADF holds tremendous potential for careers and therefore the people of South Africa, irrespective of colour, are prepared to join it. It is also a proud feature of the SADF that it does not restrict the promotion of personnel to its highest ranks. Therefore it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Peoples Party of South Africa, to join with others who have paid their tribute and recognised the excellent service of the Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, I think all of us owe a debt of gratitude to those who make it possible for our country to be secure. I also want to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon the Minister of Defence and another distinguished South African, Genl Geldenhuys. Both the hon member for Verulam and I are members of the executive committee, and we have had the privilege of being briefed on the role of the South African security forces in SWA/Namibia many years ago. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to have the opportunity of saying: “How do you do, General Geldenhuys” in this House.

As was said earlier on, no country is secure without a defence force. Whatever might have been said or written, nobody can deny the fact that the manner in which the SA Defence Force conducts itself, has brought respect from many quarters in the world. We can be proud of the fact that the SA Defence Force is held in such high esteem by all, including those who may be considered our enemies. The fighting equipment that is being produced here in South Africa, under the direction of Armscor, also brings credit to all South Africans, whether they be White, Black, Indian or Coloured. In many of these establishments people across racial lines work as operators and share in that important role of producing the equipment that the Defence Force requires.

However, what is important is that it has had an economic spin-off which nobody can deny. Today we have a highly sophisticated defence industry with the most modern technology involving many aspects, including electronics, of the highest level. This has given an opportunity for many people to prove their worth. Each weekend in the newspapers we see advertisements from companies which are producing military equipment, inviting applications from people with the required qualifications to come forward and accept challenging opportunities in these enterprises, so that they can give of their best. In the process they also get job satisfaction.

The Defence Force is therefore not only involved in defending the country, but it also plays a very important role in the social upliftment of the people of South Africa. In all these factories that are located in different parts of the country, people across the colour line are given employment and security. I believe that the Defence Force, and Armscor in particular, must be very proud of the fact that they are a very important component of those who contribute to the foreign exchange earnings of our country.

If we did not supply that equipment to whoever wants to purchase it, there would always be other people who would do it. However, not only are we competitive as far as prices are concerned, we are also reliable as far as deliveries are concerned. Moreover, we produce the kind of equipment that is a leader in the field, tested and tried on our battle fields. Because of their proven worth, I understand that the market for South Africa’s military hardware is expanding. In the process we have a valuable input in the way of the necessary foreign exchange for our country.

With this in mind, I also want to compliment the Ministry for some of the things that we have read about in the newspaper. I am thinking in particular of that young Indian who has qualified as a pilot. What does it demonstrate? It demonstrates that fellowship, transcending consideration of race and colour, is part of the practices prevalent within the Defence Force. People of colours who have gone into the Defence Force have been ambassadors of the community. The fact that they could report back with such satisfaction of the fellowship that they enjoy, is another indication and proof of the fact that it is men like these who break down barriers and remove prejudices. By the manner in which they execute responsibilities entrusted to their care, they demonstrate their quality as South Africans. They also demonstrate that the communities from which they come, are worthy of respect and consideration.

One cannot demand respect by passing resolutions. One gets respect by demonstrating that one possesses certain qualities and by applying them every minute of one’s life. That is what the men in the Defence Force are able to do. I am sure that all of them are ambassadors of their communities. This is what will ultimately be the safeguard for South Africa—mutual respect, understanding, respect for the country in which we live and for the people with whom we live. These are the factors that must bring that oneness in our South African society, because this will ensure a happy future.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to present my fourth Budget in this House. I thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his participation and contribution this afternoon. I am thankful for his positive approach and his dedication to our national security. He is indeed a friend of the Defence Force and Armscor and I wish to mention his active participation in defence matters. His is a responsible approach.

At the same time I would like to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for their positive contributions this afternoon. Hon members should remember that the SADF and Armscor are also their Defence Force and their defence family. I also wish to thank hon members for the kind words expressed to those important organisations—hon members should remember that these organisations belong to them.

During the past years hon members of this House and the defence family have established very close ties, as was evident here this afternoon. The high value placed on the security of our country and the well-being of all its people is one of the reasons why this close co-operation between the House of Delegates and the defence family exists. I acknowledge the great value and emphasis which hon members placed on the security of South Africa and their appreciation for the excellent work of the Defence Force and that of Armscor.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Laudium as he is the chief spokesman on Defence. I have come to know that hon member as a great and sincere friend of the SADF as well as Armscor. I trust there will be many years of close co-operation between him and these organisations.

Several of the hon members referred to the good work being done by Armscor and the SADF. In particular I refer to the hon members for Laudium, Camperdown, Umzinto, the hon member Mr Thaver, my colleagues the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of the Budget as well as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The leaders of Armscor and the SADF can only achieve success when the people whom they lead, support them. In this respect I pay tribute to each and every soldier of the Defence Force and all members of Armscor. I would like to associate myself with the references to Armscor and the SADF and with these compliments that were made here in this House this afternoon. I congratulate the Chief of the Defence Force, General Jannie Geldenhuys and all his men and Commandant Marais and his staff for théir dedication and hard work.

During the past few months the Defence Force has been involved in limited operations in South East Angola in support of Unita. The objective is to stop the spreading of Soviet expansionism and terrorism to the surrounding countries and eventually—as an hon member said here this afternoon—to South Africa itself. Our Defence Force has achieved tremendous success and our weaponry carries, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council stated, the stamp of “battleproven”. In west and south west Angola there have been movements by the Cuban mercenaries which took place despite the efforts to find a negotiated solution to that country’s problem. The Cubans are strangers to Africa. Like other Western governments we insist on their total withdrawal from Angola as well as from Africa. These puppets of the Soviets obstruct peace and progress in our part of the world. They are also the major stumbling-block to a settlement in South West Africa/Namibia.

To the question of the hon member for Camperdown as to whether the pre-positioning of the sophisticated arms and weapons there was for Angola or for the eventual use against the RSAI would reply yes. It is planned eventually to use it against South Africa. This brings me to a subject that I should like to refer to this afternoon. I call it “A Post-apartheid South Africa”.

We all know that people must be judged not only by their actions, but also by their words, and so, when we judge the SACP-ANC alliance, we must look at its actions and its words.

Firstly, let us look at its actions. The evil actions of the ANC are inspired by, and directed by, its puppet masters. It operates from bases in neighbouring countries from where it has recently launched a series of terrorist attacks. As on so many occasions in the past, these attacks were directed against civilians. In Krugersdorp there was a car bomb; in Pretoria, a bomb was planted outside a cinema complex that could have killed hundreds of civilians—fortunately it failed to explode; and here, near Parliament, a bomb was exploded. These are cowardly actions and they highlight two characteristics of the ANC.

The first characteristic is that the ANC is nothing more and nothing less than a terrorist outfit. Its attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate this once again.

Hon members will recall that towards the end of last year our intelligence services warned us that the ANC was planning a so-called Black Christmas terror campaign. However, the ANC’s evil plans were prevented by the dedication and commitment of our Security Forces. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to our Security Forces. They ensured our safety so that we could allmembers of this House, of the other two Houses and the public outside—spend a safe and happy Christmas with our families.

The evil motives and methods of the ANC are made abundantly clear by its cowardly terrorist tactics, orchestrated by its puppet masters and supported directly and indirectly by various governments.

The record of the ANC shows very clearly that it is not interested in democracy as we know it. The ANC is not interested in peace. It is not interested in progress and the advancement of the ordinary people. It is interested in only one thing. That is to seize power—total power—and transform our country into a Marxist, one-party state—what is called a “people’s democracy”.

The use of the word “people”, in “people’s democracy”, is misleading. It is a deception and a fraud. It does not mean the “population”. It is used in a very definite Marxist idiom. It refers only to the ANC’s own followers. It means that in a so-called “people’s democracy”, it is only the Marxist élite who will have a say. “People’s democracy” is simply the terminology that enemies of democracy use to describe their elitist, ruling clique.

The people of this country will not allow this to happen. We cannot allow it to happen. Our people want peace, progress and development, and that is the road along which this Government is leading South Africa.

The second characteristic of the ANC is its utter contempt for Parliament as an institution of democracy. It demonstrated this beyond any doubt by placing a bomb in the vicinity of Parliament.

It is by these, and similar cowardly and antidemocratic deeds, that the people must judge the SACP-ANC alliance—and condemn that alliance as the enemy of all the peace-loving people of South Africa.

In the second place, let us take a look—against this background—at the words of the ANC.

The ANC has an arsenal of terrorist weapons. There are limpet mines, car bombs, hand grenades and AK-47s. But this arsenal also includes words—words in the form of propaganda and disinformation. Here, too, the ANC is guided by the puppet masters.

We know that they are trying to operate on two fronts. The first front of the terrorist alliance is to continue with violent attacks on innocent people. The second front of their terrorism is psychological terrorism. Lenin taught them how to terrorise, to intimidate, to brutalise people into capitulation to their evil dictates.

Sechaba is the mouthpiece of the ANC. In its October 1987 edition the editorial acknowledged that the ANC is not prepared to renounce its so-called “armed struggle”.

Some people want us to talk to the ANC. But what does the ANC say about talks? The same Sechaba editorial claims that the ANC is prepared to talk, but nothing could be further from the truth. I quote from that edition:

and where they refer to the “Boers”, I think all the hon members here are included; even the hon member for Reservoir Hills! [Interjections.]—

The editorial refers to Dakar-type talks with businessmen. It says:

If we judge the SACP-ANC alliance by its actions and its words, what can we expect in 1988?

The ANC is the junior partner in the alliance with the SACP. It is, therefore, unlikely that the ANC will be allowed to abandon either its Marxist motives or its terrorist tactics. Neither of the partners is inclined to do so.

Without violence and terrorism, the ANC is nothing. And so, together with violence, the ANC will try to mislead and confuse people through political manoeuvring as part of the second front of its anti-democratic offensive.

As part of this dual approach, the SACP-ANC will try to give the impression that it is moderating its image; without, however, renouncing its commitment to violence.

This disinformation is intended chiefly to mislead the West and business leaders. The intention is to promote sanctions.

There are even plans for the ANC to give the impression that it no longer demands the immediate nationalisation of the banking and mining sectors, as envisaged in the Freedom Charter. This ploy, however, is merely a thinly disguised attack on free enterprise.

This new emphasis on political manoeuvring is the result of increasing pressure on the ANC because of its image of a perpetrator of violence and terrorism.

It hopes to regain lost ground and enjoy continued support in the West by moderating its image without deviating from violence in practice.

A major objective of this political manoeuvring is to create an image of the ANC as a reasonable, moderate and legitimate organisation that enjoys the support of the business community so that it can be accepted as an alternative government in the West—a so-called government-in-waiting.

Whilst the SACP-ANC alliance is trying to force a one-party dictatorship by a ruling élitist clique on the people of South Africa, this Government is taking positive steps to broaden democracy in South Africa.

This Government under the leadership of the hon the State President is committed to bring full participatory democracy to all the people of our country, with due regard being given to group interests.

We live on a harsh continent. Much patience and dedication is needed if the tender seedlings of democracy are to take root. Violence and revolution will destroy the seedlings and will destroy democracy.

The inclusion of the Indian and the Coloured people in Parliament and in the central Government was an important step in the Government’s programme to open democracy to all in a “postapartheid” South Africa. The inclusion of Blacks in municipal elections in October and in many bodies is another important step in the process of broadening the democracy in South Africa. That is what the hon member for Chatsworth Central referred to. I am sure that he will agree that the process of moving South Africa into a “postapartheid” era must take place in an orderly and constitutional manner. We are living in a period of transformation and of restructuring, in which civilised norms and group rights have to be protected.

However, there are revolutionaries and radicals who are trying to wreck this process. They wish to hijack the structured and orderly transformation towards a “post-apartheid” South Africa for their own selfish and ideological purposes. It is for this reason that they are trying to sow suspicion about the municipal elections. They regard the elections as a prime target for disruption and intimidation.

It is my duty and the duty of hon members to ensure that these elections are a success because they represent another major step on the road towards a peaceful “post-apartheid” South Africa. Hon members must note that the SACP-ANC alliance plans a continuation of terrorist violence, while at the same time placing new emphasis on political manoeuvring.

This is the sort of depraved conduct South Africa has to deal with today. This is the depravity that allows the ANC with the apparent blessing of the outside world to plant bombs and land-mines that kill innocent people. This is how revolution is exported to South Africa. Against this background, South Africa has the right and the responsibility to act against ANC terrorists. South Africa reserves that right for herself.

Under these circumstances, a great responsibility rests on our security forces, namely the SA Defence Force and the SA Police, to provide peaceful living conditions for us all. To take efficient and effective action is expensive. Big demands are placed on the Treasury but the challenge is a grave one and the responsibility we bear, a heavy one. I therefore take the liberty of asking this House to approve my Budget Vote.

This brings me to the SA Defence Force and I would like to thank hon members for their complimentary remarks on the organisation. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Indian members of the SA Navy. Indians serve in the SA Navy both as members of the Permanent Force and as volunteers. Indian members constitute 8,8% of the total Permanent Force strength of our Navy. For obvious reasons the great majority of them serve in the Durban area but they also serve in Cape Town, East London and Port Elizabeth.

Hon members may be interested in some further statistics concerning the important contribution that our Indian servicemen are making to the SA Navy. At present 53 Permanent Force Indians are serving at sea, while 413 are employed at shore units. In the corps of officers two have attained the rank of Lieutenant-Commander, as the hon member for Laudium mentioned.

One of these officers served as the weapon officer on board of a strike craft. He also successfully completed his B Military degree at the Military Academy which is the military faculty of the University of Stellenbosch.

Among the ratings one Indian member has reached the rank of Warrant Officer and 30 have attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer.

Indians constitute 10% of the total non-technical Permanent Force musterings as well as 6% of the total technical Permanent Force musterings in the SA Navy.

In the non-technical musterings Indians have qualified as seamen, mariners, logistics personnel and finance clerks. In the technical musterings Indians also make a very valuable contribution to the SA Navy. They are used as motor mechanics, electricians, armourers, etc.

Basic training is conducted at SAS Jalsena. I thank my hon colleague very much for the kind words he used in referring to SAS Jalsena. Their basic training is conducted in Durban, while all promotion and qualified courses take place at Simon’s Town. The basic training at SAS Jalsena is conducted by 12 Indian instructors.

We also have four Indian women in our Navy. They work as tactical operators and as personnel, finance and logistic administration clerks. Another eight Indian women are at present undergoing their basic training.

In addition to the Permanent Force members, 412 Indian volunteers are at present serving in our Navy. I should like to give hon members the assurance today that there are no restrictions on the progress of Indians in the SA Navy. All members of the Navy are given the encouragement and support to deliver their best. The progress they make through the ranks is entirely up to them. It is strictly in accordance with the service requirements that have been laid down and in accordance with merit. As in the other arms of the SADF, members of the Navy may progress to the maximum of their capability irrespective of their colour.

I am also very happy to be able to report that members of the Indian community are making their contribution towards the protection of our borders. In the past approximately 15 mariners per intake were selected, trained and sent on a six-month rotation cycle to the operational area. This year the number per intake has doubled.

I now come to the hon member for Laudium and his reference to Indians serving in the SA Medical Services. Indian doctors can apply for employment in the SAMS in either a military or a civilian capacity. Provision is also made for would-be doctors to participate in the military student study scheme. Housemen can also be appointed as medical interns. An Indian woman serving as a clinical assistant in paediatrics with the Transvaal Department of Hospital Services was routed to 1 Military Hospital for six months’ training. An Indian clinical assistant in radiology has been appointed in the SAMS and is currently undergoing training. Therefore, as hon members will see, Indians are making an important contribution towards the efficient running of the SADF and the SA Navy in particular, and I as Minister of Defence am greatly appreciative of their role. I want to thank them on behalf of the SADF.

I should now like to refer to a newspaper report, and in this regard I am referring to the Cape Times and the subject of terrorism. In this morning’s edition of the Cape Times I read the following paragraph:

I refer to their use of the term “ANC guerrillas”. I find this report very shocking but also extremely deplorable for at least two reasons.

On Tuesday I explained in great detail in the House of Assembly the difference between guerrillas and terrorists. Terrorists shamelessly but deliberately and systematically kill and maim innocent victims with the aim of terrorising and intimidating people in order to inspire fear for political ends. This is what the ANC and Swapo do.

On the other hand, guerrillas are irregular soldiers who wage war on regular military troops, like Unita, for instance. I also called upon our media to distinguish between guerrillas and terrorists and to report accordingly. By not doing so, they neglect their duty to inform the public correctly. This report in the Cape Times is an example of why I was obliged to raise this matter in the first place.

Secondly, the Cape Times attributes the term “ANC-guerrillas” to me. I never called a terrorist a guerrilla. I call them terrorists and will continue to call the murderous tramps of the SACP-ANC-alliance “terrorists”, because they are nothing more and nothing less. This report is another example of indifferent and reckless handling of security matters.

A further example is the Natal Witness of 17 May 1988. Earlier this afternoon I said that South Africa is committed to broaden democracy along constitutional ways. The SACP-ANC terrorists, on the other hand, are trying to force a Marxist, one-party model on South Africa. One such gang of suspected White terrorists were recently arrested at Broederstroom. Of them the Natal Witness says in its editorial, inter alia, and I quote:

Sir, justifying terrorism, even when perpetrated by Whites, does not serve democracy. It does not serve the peace-loving people of South Africa. I have repeatedly appealed to our media to handle matters which concern our security with great circumspection. I do so again today.

Earlier this afternoon I referred briefly to involvement by Cuban mercenaries and Swapo and ANC terrorists in Angola. Following this, I now make a brief statement.

It concerns Private Johan Papenfus, a 25-year-old national serviceman from Sunnyside, Pretoria. He was reported missing in action against Swapo terrorists. They were acting with cover from Cuban protection. The action took place early in May 1988. He is at present in a hospital in Cuba. He was flown from Angola for specialised medical treatment which was apparently not available in the Angolan capital of Luanda. He is reported to be in a satisfactory condition after receiving this medical treatment. I was informed of this by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe that he is receiving humanitarian treatment, for which I am thankful. The matter is being pursued through normal diplomatic and international channels. Everything possible will be done to ensure that he is reunited with his sister, Miss Papenfus, and his family, as soon as possible.

Hear, hear!

This brings me to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He referred to the sale and purchase of arms. I want to deal with this matter very briefly. I dealt with it yesterday at length in the other House, where I stated the Government’s policy. I can just quote it here briefly. South Africa’s policy on the sale and purchase of arms is a policy similar to that of the rest of the world. We do not furnish any particulars concerning South Africa’s transactions in armaments, ammunition and other military matters.

During March of this year, upon enquiries by the Argus Group newspapers, I replied to the alleged sales of armaments to Iran. I denied any sales to that country, I denied it yesterday, and I deny it today too.

Sri Lanka?

Sir, the Argus Group editors who attended a meeting with me on 24 March know why I had to deny it and that is the reason why I deviated from the Government’s policy. Since then the approval of sales to any country outside South Africa takes place at Cabinet level.

Decisions are taken there. In future this House will have a direct say whether arms or equipment may be sold to a specific country. If the hon member’s party should come into power, they will have a direct say whether we should sell to that country or not.

Or when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes into power!

In conclusion, I want to place on record my sincere appreciation for the positive spirit reflected in this House on security matters. A special word of thanks to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for their participation in this debate. I agree with what they have said. Their positiveness bodes well for our country and all its people. A country’s security is indivisible. Hon members have again confirmed this truth today.

On major security matters, we as South Africans cannot afford division, nor can we allow evil forces to drive in wedges amongst our people.

It gives me great pleasure to request the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence to reply to points raised by hon members that I have not dealt with.

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this afternoon’s debate. I want to join hon members in their praise for the hon Minister, the SADF and Armscor. I think I am in a position to know that the hon Minister’s leadership and total dedication to his task, give credibility to the fact that the security and safety of South Africa are in good and capable hands. I do not wish to repeat what other hon members have already said about the SADF and Armscor. I just wish to thank them for everything which they have said.

The debate was opened by the hon member for Laudium. His opening remark was that this House has always been responsible on defence matters. I think today’s debate has proved it to be the case. I want to thank the hon member for his very positive approach.

*The hon the Minister has already replied to most of the points he made. I also want to thank him for his contribution with regard to the flood-ravaged areas. I shall deal with this aspect more fully later on.

†The hon member for Chatsworth Central talked about the Budget. What is important, is that the security of all the people of South Africa is our number one priority. If we do not have security, if we do not broaden democracy and if we cannot have law and order, we cannot live in peace. To protect our people, cost money—and well-managed money, at that. It is therefore fair that hon members should ask questions in this regard.

I want to assure this House that the SADF practices sound financial management. It is clear from the evidence that the SADF has exercised great discipline in the past decade with regard to its expenditure. Government expenditure has increased by 37% in real terms during the past decade. During the same period, defence expenditure has increased only by 7,6% in real terms. This figure is an indication of the sound financial discipline of the SADF.

During the 1977-78 financial year, the Defence Force received 18,4% of the Budget. This year, 1988-89, this percentage is only 15%. Over the same period the defence Budget as a percentage of the GDP, has dropped from 4,8% to 4,2%.

This clearly indicates the determined effort to restrict the share of defence in the South African economy. These savings were achieved by continually increasing productivity without affecting the SADF’s peacekeeping ability—and this is important. There are about 350 productivity programmes in the SADF today. These programmes are aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the Defence Force without increasing expenditure. In many cases savings have been realised. I will only quote this one example because a lot has been said about the Navy this afternoon, and so many Indian people are serving in the Navy. The Navy has a quality circles programme which motivates personnel to work more effectively. For example, the shipyard at Simonstown has tremendously improved the process by which ships are painted. Strike craft which took 60 days to paint are now painted in only 15 days. This effects a saving of R15 000 per vessel.

Military operations to protect our security interests and to safeguard people against terrorism and the distortion of the military balance are executed without an additional burden on the taxpayer. This is accomplished by making the best possible use of the existing resources and by rescheduling activities. Units serving in various operational areas in Angola would in any event have been called up for training and service in the near future. Another fact to keep in mind is that when units are not employed operationally, they have to undergo training to be prepared for operation. For instance, when not involved in operations a pilot must practice and hone his skills at his home base. Ammunition is normally a big item of expenditure during conventional operations. However, since the armament industry requires, first of all, a minimum level to produce economically and, secondly, since ammunition has a certain shelf life before it has to be disposed of, the ammunition expended has not resulted in an increased order. In operational and in normal circumstances sound financial management is a high priority. Every member of the SADF adds to financial discipline by taking care of the equipment entrusted to him.

Lastly, hon members must keep in mind the saying of: A stitch in time saves nine. By acting responsibly and timeously, great costs in human lives have been prevented.

One hon member spoke about our timely, limited support in Angola. I would like to thank the SADF from top management to every individual soldier for the responsible manner in which they are dealing with the trust of the public and the way in which they manage the finances of the SADF.

The hon the Minister has dealt with the speech of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but I would like to say one thing to my hon friend. He said: You are right, but you are not really right. He was talking about patriotism and of times when the behaviour or a person cannot be called unpatriotic. I thank him, but I believe that is a subject for discussion at another time. However, I hear the same noises that I have been so used to for about 71/2 years in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Thaver, whom we know as an old hand on and a valued friend concerning SADF and Armscor matters, must be assumed that we sincerely appreciated his remarks made here this afternoon. He referred to South Africa’s limited involvement in south east Angola in support of Unita. I wish to assure the hon member that the Defence Force at no stage had more than 3 000 men in that part of Angola. Those 3 000 men did an excellent job.

The hon member asked about the number of Fapla soldiers killed in action. I can assure the hon member that the figure stands at something between 7 000 and 10 000. He also referred to equipment. I can tell him that the losses of the Soviet Union amounted to over R1 billion in this war. On the whole I want to thank the hon member for a very valuable contribution.

The hon member for Springfield spoke about conscription and I really cannot see why this aspect troubles the hon member because the hon the Minister is on record as stating in this House and elsewhere that it is a decision that will have to be taken by this House. I do not regard it as a relevant issue here today.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister concede that when I talked about the phasing out of conscription I was not only to referring to this House but to conscription per se.

The hon member is quite right. I think our reply to that is also on record. We are not insisting on conscription without good reason or because we want to punish one section of the population of South Africa, the White people, only. However, they are willing—most of them—and we cannot secure the safety of South Africa without having that manpower available at the moment. I know suggestions have been made about phasing it out. One of the hon members said today that we must test the loyalty of South Africans, but at the moment we are in a position where we must have a guaranteed manpower and conscription is the only way. The future lies ahead of us. We do not know what the future holds, but this is our position today.

As far as the matter of religious objectors which the hon member spoke about is concerned, it is the same question that was asked by the hon member’s colleague in the House of Assembly yesterday. The hon the Minister replied that he has an open mind and that as far as he is able to do so, he will look at it again. However, I must point out to the hon member that the SADF has no role to play in the placement of religious objectors. When they have been thus classified they fall completely within the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister of Manpower. I see this hon Minister is present here today and that he is wearing a beautiful flower here.

The reference to the placement of teachers is a matter concerning the specific departments of education and the school boards involved.

The hon member for Camperdown made a very valuable contribution this afternoon. I want to thank him for his positive approach. He said that one gained the impression that the SADF was a closed shop. He said that he does not support conscription and said that the test was loyalty. I think the hon the Minister has to a great extent replied to that as well and I want to thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Umzinto made a sincere contribution in this debate and he talked about the two sides of the SADF. I want to thank him for that. I want to thank him for his remarks about the efficiency of the Defence Force in transporting Dr Cooppan from the operational area at such short notice. Various members have spoken about this. This efficiency and service is a basic reason why the Defence Force is a winner. I appreciate his remarks on the Defence Force’s role during the floods.

It is part of the task of the Defence Force to protect and to assist people. I think that in that regard we must pay homage to all members of the total security forces of South Africa.

In this regard the role of the Joint Management Centres should not be overlooked. I want to impress this on hon members. The JMCs operate countrywide as a body co-ordinating the activities of departments and organisations in order that they may work as a team. Rescue operations and assistance during the recent floods again demonstrated the necessity for co-ordinating the various department’s contributions in order to provide a better service to our people. I want to thank the hon member for his remarks about Armscor and the Defence Force.

He also spoke about the other side of the Defence Force, and I want to add something to that. I think that the one thing that impresses me most about our Defence Force is its adaptability. On the one hand they train to fight a war, and then one comes to areas like our townships in Pietermaritzburg and various other places. There they are a peace-keeping force. We have heard hon members singing the praises of what they do for the local population and I think that this adaptability of the South African Defence Force really makes it a winner and in my opinion makes it one of the best defence forces in the world today.

The hon the Minister dealt with the speeches of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of the Budget, and I join the hon the Minister in his expression of appreciation for the contribution made by the two hon Ministers.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He, too, took a responsible and appreciative line vis-á-vis the South African Defence Force and Armscor. I have noted his reference to fellowship and harmony created by the South African Defence Force. Indeed, defence and security are concepts which are indivisible, as the hon the Minister said a few minutes ago. It ties people together and it builds bridges among people and various population groups in South Africa today. However, all of us have a responsibility in this regard and in regard to broadening the democracy constitutionally, as my hon Minister pointed out this afternoon.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I am constrained to object to the motion for precedence for Order No 14.

Why? What are you worried about?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills asks me what I am worried about. I am worried about the procedures in this House. I am worried about the business of Parliament; the arrangement of business. We have always respected procedures in this House.

This is in terms of the Rules.

Yes, it is in terms of the Rules, but in terms of the Rules we also go by Whips’ arrangements, and the arrangement for this afternoon is that we would be debating the South African Roads Board Bill and thereafter we would be debating the Law and Order Budget Vote.

As regards the arrangement of business I should like to read Rule 103 for the benefit of those who are not too au fait with this:

I had the opportunity of telephoning the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition on Tuesday. Among other things we discussed the order for today. He will confirm that we agreed that today, after the Defence Budget Vote, we would handle a Bill or two and thereafter we would move on to the Law and Order Budget Vote. I am disappointed that our arrangements have not been honoured. I am disappointed that an hon colleague has decided to renege on our arrangements. I will therefore object vehemently to this.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare moved the draft resolution appearing under the name of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to analyse this motion. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Moorcross that the question before the House is a proposal by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that precedence be given to Order No 14. We are not discussing the Order as such; we are debating the question whether precedence should be given or not.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the fact but I want to bring to the attention of this House that the request of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is in violation of the Standing Rules and Orders. The motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in essence calls … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to draw the hon member’s attention once again to the fact that we are not to discuss the content of the draft resolution but whether that order should be given precedence or not. The hon member for Moorcross may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I would like your ruling on this matter. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Rule No 127 which is the “same question rule”. I want to quote section 2(a) of this rule—

[Interjections.]

Order! I think I should once again direct the attention of the hon member for Moorcross to what I have said previously. The argument which the hon member for Moorcross is now advancing is as if the House has already given consent to precedence being given to Order No 14. I therefore request the hon member for Moorcross to confine his speech to the question before the House, namely that precedence be given to Order No 14, not the content thereof.

Mr Chairman, I abide by your rulings. I wish to request that you give a ruling whether Standing Rule No 103 is binding in this House or not.

Mr Chairman, I take it that my hon colleague has completed his verbose speech. [Interjections.] In support of the motion moved by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, I would like to put my colleague’s mind at rest that it is not in violation of any standing rules. In fact, it is in keeping with the Standing Rules, and since he has the Rule Book with him, I should like him to look at page 44 and to direct his attention to Rule 130(c). Perhaps that will help him in future. In terms of this particular Rule it is perfectly in order to ask for precedence to be given to any particular motion. [Interjections.]

I also wish to place on record that it is correct that there was a Whips’ arrangement, but not the arrangement referred to by the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in this House. The arrangements were as follows: On Tuesday I received a phone call from the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in this House advising me that there would be no sitting on Wednesday, because of Eid, in so far as the Budget Votes were concerned. He asked whether I would be agreeable, on behalf of the parties I represent, to have the Votes debated today, to which I readily agreed. The arrangements which I subsequently confirmed with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament in terms of Rule 103 were that he would like the Defence Vote to be debated first and the Police Vote at six o’clock. I indicated to him then that there were other private members’ motions and he said that that was not a matter of concern to him, but rather to the hon the Leader of the House.

I took the matter up with the hon the Leader of the House early this morning and to this moment I have had no confirmation from the hon the Leader of the House as to when this particular Order could be debated. In the circumstances I support the motion that precedence be given to the discussion of this draft resolution because this was the only route through which we could have an Order placed on the Order Paper which the majority of hon members in this House want to have debated, and to have it debated in this House without being blocked by people who currently occupy the positions of Chief Whip of the Majority Party and Leader of the House. If precedence were to be given in accordance with the normal course of events, knowing how important this particular subject matter is and knowing how much interest the public at large has in its subject matter, it should have been given precedence even over the Order which preceded this particular discussion.

In the circumstances we are adopting the course of action which is open to us in terms of the Rules in order to have this Order placed on the Order Paper. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. I trust that we shall be unanimous in supporting this particular motion so that we can discuss this issue once and for all and allow the dust to settle in this particular House.

Mr Chairman, the issue at the present time is simply whether the motion proposed by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is competent in terms of the Rules. If it had not been competent, Mr Chairman, you would not have permitted that particular motion to be placed before the House. That motion is, however, before the House.

Normally the usual procedures should be followed but occasionally there are unusual circumstances in which it may not be possible to observe the normal arrangements between Whips, and so on. I am satisfied that the motion is competent and that it is not an abuse of the normal procedures in view of the unusual circumstances. We on this side of the House have no difficulty in supporting the motion moved by the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I am going to make an application amplifying the application made to the Chair to give a ruling.

The hon the Chief Whip of the House has made an application to the Chair …

Order! I should just like to draw the attention of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to the fact that the hon member for Moorcross did not make an application. He was responding to the draft resolution moved by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, Sir, you were engrossed in a conversation with the secretariat at the time. The request I made, Sir, was that you give a ruling in respect of Rule 103 as to whether or not this rule is binding on the House.

Order! I would like to direct the attention of hon members to the fact that the House can, by way of a decision by the House, decide on an issue of this nature.

Mr Chairman, I want to make an application to you in terms of Rule 127(2)(a), namely that if precedence is given to Order No 14, it is in conflict with the Rules passed by Parliament. While I am not referring to the substance, it is in conflict, by implication, with an earlier decision of this House. I want to substantiate this. [Interjections.]

While I will not deal with the substance of the motion, Order No 14, I make a submission for your ruling, that the motion is in conflict with Rule 127(2)(a), while the issue has already been decided on by this House. I will read Rule 127(2)(a):

I submit, for your kind consideration and ruling, Mr Chairman, that I …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved that motion, he said, “notwithstanding Rule 127”. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had an opportunity to object at that stage. He did not object to the Order Paper.

Order! I would like to request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to indicate to the House which decisions he is referring to which are the same in substance as the draft resolution for which the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is seeking precedence.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is seeking precedence for Order No 7 which appeared on the Order Paper of 11 May 1988, and I quote:

The House considered a notice of motion from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that appeared on the Order Paper of 8 February 1988, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, I want your ruling from a legal point of view. A Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cannot be separated from the Ministers’ Council. I wish to read section 39(2)(b) as an example in the Constitution, and I quote:

This is what the Constitution states.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the moving of that motion, we obtain Mr Speaker’s consent. We did canvass Rule 127 and looked at all those aspects. This is just a repetition of the whole issue.

Order! I did hear the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as the other arguments advanced. I think it would be an opportune time to suspend business.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence. I want to make another application for your kind consideration.

Order! In all fairness, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I accept that this House can move precedence in terms of what the hon member for Stanger has uttered. The application made by the hon member for Moorcross and myself is in terms of rules passed by this Parliament and in terms of the Constitution.

We have rules made by Parliament and we have a Constitution which is binding on Parliament. Besides the contents of the Constitution, and rules which are legally enforceable, we also have conventions. I want to make an application to you, Mr Chairman, in terms of the Constitution, to give a ruling. Parliament had conventions before the tricameral Parliament came into being. We have followed these conventions.

The motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a private member’s motion. We have upheld a convention that private members’ motions are not discussed after Easter recess.

Mr Chairman, I would like to submit that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is moving away from the subject matter. I humbly suggest that the question be now put.

Order! I request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to return to his application.

My application is that we are bound, not morally, but legally to follow conventions. The convention which we have accepted is that no private members’ motions are discussed after the Easter recess.

Why did you move so, then?

I am on my feet. Mr Chairman, I request you to give a ruling in terms of section 88 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I shall read it, because it is binding on Parliament! Mr Chairman, I quote:

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question?

No questions.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cannot object to this matter being put.

Mr Chairman, I make an application for your ruling. Firstly in terms of Rule 127 and section 88 … [Interjections.] That application to give this matter precedence and that Notice of Motion are both in very serious violation of section 88 of the Constitution, where we are now violating a convention. We are violating a convention. [Interjections.] The Constitution states that that convention shall continue to exist and it is binding.

Order! I would like to seek the co-operation of hon members. We are dealing here with a matter which, to my mind, is extremely sensitive. Whatever one does, one has to be as fair as possible. I would like to suspend proceedings for 10 minutes. The bells shall be rung and the House will then reconvene, so that I can have the opportunity of going into the various points that have been raised here.

Business suspended and resumed.

Order! I have had an opportunity for consultation on the issues that were raised with regard to the motion by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and after these consultations I wish to give the following ruling: The motion to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred was moved on 8 February 1988 by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as follows:

An amendment to the effect that the House had full confidence in the Chairman and all the members of the Ministers’ Council was then moved. This amendment was adopted by the House on 10 February 1988.

Rule 127 provides that no draft resolution shall be moved in a House which is the same in substance as a draft resolution which has been approved or rejected by that House during the same session. The resolution to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is referring is in substance exactly the opposite to Order of the Day No 14. I therefore cannot agree with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the same Rule prevents this House from discussing Order No 14.

As regards the argument of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it is a convention that private members’ motions may not be moved after the Easter recess, I have gone into this thoroughly and my ruling is that this arrangement was merely made to facilitate the business of the House and that it is not a convention as contemplated in section 88 of the Constitution.

Question agreed to (National Peoples Party, Mr F M Khan, Dr D Cader and the Rev-E J Manikkam dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I sought and obtained the approval of the Chairman of the House to move the resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper, item No 14, as amended. The formal amendment will be moved by one of my colleagues. I will just read it for record purposes.

I move:

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated that one of his colleagues will be reading the amendment, so he may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I move the draft resolution, as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, in the light of the statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that an amendment will be moved, and taking into consideration that you, Mr Chairman, indicated that this is a very sensitive matter, I want to make an appeal in terms of Rule 128, which reads as follows, and I quote:

1. (a) to a draft resolution on a question of privilege;
2. (b) to substitute the name of another member for the name of a member in a draft resolution; or
3. (c) which is allowed by the presiding officer.

I hereby make an appeal that, in light of the fact that you indicated that this is a very sensitive matter and that it is important that the amendment be moved now, this amendment not be considered favourably, because of the impartiality of the Chair.

Order! I have to advise hon members that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had requested permission to restructure the resolution. This request was granted, as the Rules provide, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must now be permitted to continue. When the amendment is moved, a final ruling will be given as to the permissibility or otherwise thereof.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You submitted that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had requested the resolution to be restructured and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated that another hon member would move that amendment. We, as a significant party in this House, do not even know what we are going to be debating. It is grossly unfair that this kind of situation exists in this House. I would suggest, with respect, that the procedure should be that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should seek permission in the House now and that you should review the decision. There are mechanisms available to hon members to facilitate what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition desires. He should have withdrawn his motion and resubmitted it in an amended manner, like the hon member for Springfield did recently.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I rose on a point of order, and I do not think …

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of objection.

Order! The hon member for Moorcross was stating a point of order. He is still on his feet. I would like to hear him out.

Mr Chairman, I wish to reiterate that we have mechanisms here. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should have withdrawn this, and resubmitted it in an amended manner, thereby allowing all hon members an opportunity to study his actual resolution. This is grossly unfair.

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Moorcross that when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition rises, he will be speaking to the resolution printed in his name. If any hon member subsequently proposes an amendment, hon members will at that stage have to decide whether that amendment is permissible or not.

The draft resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper, is abundantly clear. I want to use some of the arguments that were advanced by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council earlier on, and that is that the Westminster parliamentary conventions still apply as far as the South African Constitution is concerned. I wish to quote from Constitution and Systems of Government—South Africa, page 9:

When the majority in a House changes, that change must be recognised by the authorities. A classical example was when Genl J B M Hertzog failed to carry a draft resolution on the question of South Africa going to war in 1939. Genl Smuts was able to muster a majority. The then Governor General, Sir Patrick Donkin, then invited Genl Smuts to form a government. That was recognised.

Here again in this House it has been demonstrated beyond doubt—and it will be demonstrated here again this afternoon on the basis of the draft resolutions on the Order Paper—that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not command a majority in this House. What we are asking in terms of this resolution, is for the recognition of a de facto situation which exists in this House. My draft resolution is on that basis. I would like to add that much has been written about the new South African Constitution. In most of these documents, emphasis has been laid on the fact that, despite the coming into being of a new constitution, the Westminster parliamentary conventions which had been established, are still applicable here.

I wish to read from a magazine on the South African Constitution, Constitution and Systems of Government—South Africa, and I quote:

The fact remains that the constitution says “at the time of appointment”. Naturally, in this instance, this applied when this Parliament came into being. However, it is also common sense that, should in the course of the life of this Parliament, a situation developed in this House where the original Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his party no longer enjoy the support of the majority of the House, that reality must of necessity be recognised, otherwise the whole Parliamentary convention will go to pieces.

All over the world, parliaments are elected. Parties in power change. This is a classical example. However, the country gives recognition to those realities, and this has happened in many countries of the world. We on this side of the House who presently command the majority, ask that that recognition be granted to us. We therefore wish to move this draft resolution this afternoon to demonstrate that this side of the House has the majority control in the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, the Draft Resolution presently under debate reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, you indicated earlier on that you will consider whether or not you will accept this Draft Resolution and therefore I do not want to elaborate. However, I would like to give you the opportunity to decide whether this Draft Resolution may be debated. Should you give me permission, I would like to elaborate on this Draft Resolution—on the amendment—with your permission.

Order! The hon member must move his amendment.

Mr Chairman, I formally move the amendment and I beseech this House to consider this amendment as the Draft Resolution of this House.

In support of my Draft Resolution I would like to say that it has been said in the recent past that this House has a reputation of instability. It has been said that hon members change allegiance, but over the past two weeks the concerted, sustained …

Order! Is the hon member speaking to the amendment?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! Has the hon member moved the amendment?

Mr Chairman, I formally move.

What?

Mr Chairman, the amendment reads as follows …

Order! Yes, that is correct. The hon the Deputy Minister must please read out the amendment.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I will read the amendment for the benefit of the members of the House. Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, would the Chair like some time to consider this amendment?

The hon Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as I said earlier on, it has been said that the hon members of this House have not been consistent in their allegiance to parties and sides. We had an example in May of last year, I must concede. However, I would like to place on record here this afternoon that the hon members on this side of the House have withstood the concerted, sustained and intense effort by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council over the last two weeks, which has failed miserably to influence members on this side of the House to change their minds in their efforts to do that which is contained in this amendment. Two weeks of canvassing of members of both Solidarity and the Peoples Party of South Africa, where certain inducements were offered and emissaries sent as well as telephone calls made during that period …

Carrot dangling. [Interjections.]

However, positive proof of the determination of this side of the House is inherent in what is happening here this afternoon. To a man the hon members for Solidarity and the People’s Party of South Africa have withstood the onslaught from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. That should serve as an indication, to whoever needs one, of the sincerity and the determination of the hon members on this side of the House. This time around there will not be any to-ing and fro-ing. This time round the hon members on this side of the House have made up their minds for once and for all that this is the draft resolution we want and we ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to consider the amendment as moved by me.

I want to appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this afternoon please to leave my members alone. Leave the members of the Peoples Party of South Africa alone. I want to appeal to him because he is now causing unnecessary stress and strain on the members on this side of the House. I also want to ask him to leave the hon members who belong to Solidarity alone as well. Let them be, because they have told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in no uncertain terms over the last two weeks that they are not interested in any inducements whatsoever. Their minds are made up and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will not be able to get them to change their minds. Therefore, for the sake of peace and harmony and progress I ask him to consider this appeal that I am making to him.

As I have said, the hon members are now determined in their resolve. The honourable way out for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is to consider the majority views of this House. Let democracy prevail. I believe that democracy is decided by a majority vote and if the majority of this House says to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, “Sir, you have failed us”, I am not going to pass any judgments or give the why’s and the wherefore’s this afternoon. I am just reflecting the views of the people and I just want to talk about the position as it is. I can talk at length about the why’s and the wherefore’s but I want to refrain from doing that. I just want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to resign his position gracefully and allow whoever is going to take over his position a chance to carry on with the work of this hon House so that the people of this country and the country at large will benefit from what we are doing here this afternoon.

I want to say in conclusion that unfortunately the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has failed to steer the ship of the House of Delegates because over the past few years this ship has …

Developed leaks!

… periodically sailed on rough waters. There has been too much turmoil during his term of office as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We want to appeal to him to allow someone else to take over the ship and to see whether that person, whoever it might be, can act in the interests of the community.

There might be a captain who will emerge from the ranks of the hon members on this side who will be able to find calmer waters and who will be able to steer this ship in calmer waters. Then we will have—as the hon member said quite rightly—have credibility in the House. There has been so many recriminations, accusations and counter-accusations. For those of us who came into Parliament to do a job of work for the people of this country and the country at large there comes a time when we say for the sake of the people and the country, so far and no further. That time in the House of Delegates is now.

As I said earlier I can carry on and give the House chapter and verse as to why this situation has arisen in this House, but I want to refrain from that. I merely want to say that now is the time and the hour for the House of Delegates to have a change of leadership. I believe very sincerely that if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does in fact abide by what the majority of the members of this House are requesting of him, we shall be able to go ahead and charter a course that will bring credit not only to the House of Delegates, but to Parliament at large.

With those words I shall leave it to hon members to fill in whatever gap I have left.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister has moved an amendment. He did indicate, Mr Chairman, that when the amendment is moved, we shall have an opportunity to decide on the admissibility of that. I wish to formally object to that amendment.

Order! The amendment moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture reads as follows:

We have looked at Rule 128(c) and in terms of Rule 128(c) the amendment is allowed.

Mr Chairman, one thing I am pleased about is that so far there has been no vituperation and there have been no polemics. I trust that the debate will continue on that basis, and I trust that at least for once in this House, dignity and decorum will prevail.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council quite correctly referred to the desirability of observing the conventions of Parliament. Of course, the Westminster traditions and the conventions established in London are the major conventions that we have to follow. If we follow convention properly, then immediately a Prime Minister of any country becomes aware that his command of the support of the majority of the legislature of that country is in doubt, then in terms of the convention he would seek a vote of confidence from among the members of that House in order to test his own acceptability to the majority of the House.

Unfortunately that very healthy convention has not been followed, and we now have a situation in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has proposed a draft resolution, and a member of the People’s Party of South Africa has proposed an amendment. As far as we of the PFP are concerned, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Being a party in opposition, of course, to some extent we are prisoners of tradition ourselves, and we are prisoners of convention. Obviously, even if we didn’t want to, we would have to support either the draft resolution or the amendment. Of course we do want to support that, and the amendment is merely a slight rephrasing of a draft resolution which I myself gave notice of in this House and which you, Sir, ruled formed part of the wider draft resolution to be proposed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Therefore my draft resolution fell away. Obviously, then, since the amendment is in essence my own draft resolution, naturally I will give my support to that draft resolution.

However, we of the PFP are not interested in rearranging the coaches in the gravy train. That, regrettably, has brought this House into such utter disrepute that it is difficult for members of this House when walking in the community to hold their heads high.

To be a member of Parliament, or of an organ of Parliament, ought properly to be a matter for pride. Regrettably, ever since 4 September 1984 that has not been the case. We have had problems with persons and parties trying to grab power rather than arguing matters on the basis of principle and policy.

This afternoon we had a debate on a certain matter, and there was no difference between the NPP, Solidarity or the People’s Party of South Africa in their approach to the matter which was being debated, although that matter, in spite of all its deep sensitivity, allowed for strong differences of policy and principle. It is only the two members of the PFP in this House who raised those matters here this afternoon.

I want to preface my remarks further by saying that we of the PFP feel that in as much as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have put his position to the House for affirmation or otherwise, this entire House has the obligation to offer itself to the electorate, so that the electorate may decide whether it wants the members of the House as at present composed to be returned to this House, or whether it wishes to see other people in this place who, one hopes, would not be interested in carrots and in grabbing positions of power or privilege, but who would be more interested in making a principled contribution to the solution of the real problems that we face in South Africa.

The sad part of it is that the debate in this House has not, as it ought to have, centred around the solution of the real problems. We of the PFP would therefore like to make a stirring call through you, Sir, to the hon the State President, who has the power, if this draft resolution is passed this evening—I am certain it will be—to dissolve the House …

Hear, hear!

… and to require each hon member to offer himself to the electorate…

For re-election!

… not necessarily for re-election, but for the decision of the electorate as to whether the electorate want them back here or not. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springfield and I would be very happy if such a situation arose. We realise that the Natal Indian Congress and the Transvaal Indian Congress may well participate in the next election. Let it be so! [Interjections.] It would be highly desirable for them to participate. They may send to this House highly educated, highly principled men and women.

I salute the memory of the late “Cherry” Mohangi, the former member for Tongaat. The hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Camperdown, whatever his present status may be, and I representing Reservoir Hills stand absolutely and completely vindicated, in that we took the view all along that we could not become political bedfellows of the NPP. I am delighted that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has at long last realised that that is not the way to serve the best interests of the community.

The irony is that only on Sunday last I happened to be listening to certain tape recordings. I heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that he was not in this House to fight the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and that he had no quarrel with him. He said this because he was defending his coalition with the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council which was in existence at the time but of course two months later things changed. [Interjections.] I want to say that I am delighted that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has seen the light.

We have been consistent because we argue, think and consider in terms of what is best for the total community in South Africa, and not just the Indian ethnic group.

I want to give a piece of advice to hon members of this House who are expecting to be sitting on the other side. If they are sitting on the other side in the event of no elections being called, they will be asked to account for themselves. They will be dealt with on matters of principle. Will they support the amending legislation for the Group Areas Act? What will they do? Will they perpetuate the system of apartheid in this country?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows exactly what my attitude has been all along with regard to schools. We have said all along that there must be no racial differentiation and no racial discrimination. If the Government in its wisdom or unwisdom puts schools under the control of the House of Delegates, then insofar as the House of Delegates controls those institutions, it must practice a policy of strict nonracialism. We cannot say “we Indians” and then blame the Whites when they say “we Whites”. There can be no inconsistency in that regard.

If they say that their people are not ready for this, they are immediately acknowledging that the other people are not ready for it. We say that we demand that the hon the State President takes steps to promote reform in this country for which many of his people are not ready. If we make that demand of the hon the State President we must make that demand of ourselves.

I am dealing specifically with issues that ought to be dealt with properly in this House. Of course, in a large measure, we are thankful to the Kamraj.

If the hon member for Isipingo had had his own way, dignity and decorum would have been introduced in this House possibly six weeks ago, and perhaps even earlier. His plan was just to bring order to this House but fortunately thereafter, as a result of the actions of certain hon members of this House, we saw an unseemly and undignified scrabble which resulted in a demarche to the hon the State President which was unprecedented, unconstitutional and which certainly made this House the laughing stock of the entire community for the fourth time.

I found it difficult, even when talking to colleagues—not political colleagues; professional colleagues—because they would ask with a chuckle and a chortle what was happening here in Cape Town. That kind of situation must be avoided at all costs.

I conclude by saying that the best and the most effective way of avoiding a recurrence of that kind of situation is by fresh elections being held for this House.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that the hon member for Reservoir Hills did set the tone which I shall follow, viz that there will be no vituperations, no recriminations, in this House this evening. I will not be very long, Sir. First of all I should like to refer briefly to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in relation to his reference to what happened in 1939. He cited the episode which occurred in the House of Assembly in September 1939 in support of his draft resolution today, as a result of which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must be called upon to resign.

On that occasion in 1939 the Government was defeated by way of a positive decision. It was not a case of the Prime Minister not having the necessary support. The Prime Minister at the time, General Hertzog, moved for neutrality on the issue of the Second World War. There was a draft resolution before the House asking that South Africa remain neutral. That draft resolution was defeated by the opposition. It was a positive draft resolution that was defeated. I submit with respect, Sir, that that cannot apply here today unless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moves a positive draft resolution against the Ministers’ Council.

I want to take it even further, Sir. We have had many questions of convention in the past. I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to the remarkable simultaneous riding of two horses by the present hon Leader of the Official Opposition when he held that position in the House while remaining Minister of the Budget. There was no question of convention then. In terms of the amendment the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council no longer enjoys the support of the House and the House calls upon him to resign forthwith. If he does not resign forthwith, what is this House going to do? What is the hon the State President going to do? If they should approach the hon the State President and say to him they call on the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to resign forthwith but he does not do so, what will the hon the State President do? If I were the State President I would say: “You asked him. You deal with him. I cannot deal with him because you have not asked me to do anything.”

Nonsense!

Mr Chairman, there is no morality left in this House. On 15 March in this House I pleaded for morality. On that occasion this House, with the exception of three of us, prostituted conventions and turfed them out of this House. It was turfed out. I say to the Official Opposition that if they want to get rid of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council they must turf him out. They have two options. They have had options during the past few weeks to defeat a money Bill. Why did they not defeat a money Bill? They have had the option of getting rid of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. They still have the option this evening.

At this stage, Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

That is a direct, positive call. I am calling upon the hon the State President in terms of the Constitution. [Interjections.] I am calling upon the hon the State President to do what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has failed to do. I submit in all reasonableness and in all logic that no argument has been submitted in terms of the provisions of the Constitution to the effect that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not enjoy the support of the majority of hon members in this House.

The test is simple. Hon members can turf out the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his entire Ministers’ Council and go to the people once again in terms of my amendment.

Why is there this equivocation on the part of the alliance? Is it a question of those hon Ministers who are now sitting on the other side of the House wanting to have their cake and eat it? The test of support is simple. Is the work of this House being performed or not? Is the day-to-day government of this country in the context of this House being performed by the Ministers’ Council or not? They are there. They are doing their work. They are refusing to reject any money bills. They meet as and when required by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and so there is no question of the work of this House, and consequently of Parliament, being hampered in any way. They can sit where they want to, but the test of whether the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council enjoys the support of the House is not going to be determined simply by this draft resolution because the history of this House makes it clear that in two weeks’ time there will be another regrouping when the thieves fall out. [Interjections.] Thieves have been known to fall out. It is an old maxim. They get together and do the plundering and once they have succeeded with their plundering and it comes to the division of the spoils, that is where the trouble begins. Therefore there is only one way—apply the coup de gráce once and for all. I therefore appeal to the hon members of this House jointly to accept my amendment.

Order! For the information of hon members, the hon member Mr Nowbath moves as a further amendment:

In terms of Rule 128(c) the amendment is allowed.

Mr Chairman, it is a sad day in the politics of South Africa. I say so because when the Indian community stood for election in 1984 every hon member of this House went to the electorate and said: “Give us a chance; we will go into Parliament and prove our worth”. [Interjections.]

I was one of those who was not keen to come to Parliament but after some persuasion by some very honourable people who are now in this House, I accepted the offer to come and serve.

However, it was not long before we realised that the bad habits from the South African Indian Council were being imported into this Parliament and as has been said, bad habits die very slowly.

Our participation was seen as progress. Of course, we did not enjoy the majority support, but at least, because it was the first time, we were given a chance. What did we do with that chance?

I am not accusing those in power, but it would appear that they have abused that power. Year in and year out there have been calls for commissions of enquiry. I personally pleaded with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and said that he has nothing to be afraid of. I asked him: “Why do you not let this commission sit and clear you? We will walk with you all the way.” It has now become a household discussion for everybody everywhere. “Bribery and corruption” is all that is heard.

Now the time has come that no fewer than four hon Ministers from the ruling party, together with other hon members, have crossed the floor. It is not only the Official Opposition that has said that things are not right in the House. It is also hon Ministers, who, surely, must be given credit for what they know and why they crossed. It was not an easy decision for those hon Ministers to take. They had a choice. They could remain sitting on the opposite side and continue to collect, and close their eyes. One cannot say that they had no choice. They did have a choice. However, they had the courage to walk across and say: “So far and no further.” That is what counts.

When the credibility of this House is being questioned, the ordinary public looks at the House of Delegates in toto. They think every hon member of Parliament is here administering the affairs of the Indian community. Unless and until one explains individually that the Ministers’ Council is an administration and they are responsible, we are all standing accused by the public. Therefore I say—and I think I speak for most hon members—that we are not afraid of an election, but we want to clean the House before we go for an election. Any hon member here can go to the public and say: “You sent us to Parliament and now we have come back to go for another term of office.” We are the ones who are being accused in the newspapers, week in and week out, day in and day out. What kind of credibility does one have to go for an election, or even to go and ask for support?

We all went through a very difficult period during the election time. There were good reasons for this. It was argued that the Blacks were not included. We argued that once we were here we would fight for the Blacks to be included. Secondly, it was argued that we were going to sit in separate Chambers. We argued that the time would come that we would be sitting together debating. These are all things which are beginning to happen. However, what is happening inbetween? People in this House who had the power and were supposed deliver the goods, were looking after the goods for themselves. I am not saying this. Every week, every day, the newspapers, the public and members of this House are questioning the credibility of this House.

There are a number of commissions of enquiry being carried out. One of them was appointed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It would be very interesting to see what the result of those are. There is another one on public accounts. I will not go into details of that, but it will also be very interesting to see what its result is. With all this hanging over our heads, I want to make it very clear that we are not afraid of an election. However, we will go for an election when we can go to the public and say “so-and-so has been accused and found guilty” or “so-and-so was accused and found not guilty”. Then we can go and tell them that there was a complete smokescreen and there was no truth in what was being said.

I assure the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that after his name has been cleared, I will go and canvass for him. I am not a person who will hang someone without giving him a fair trial. He and he alone is dragging this whole House down the gutter, because all the accusations and acrimony are focussed on that one individual.

When his name is cleared, all our names will be cleared. We will not be afraid to have an election. It is now up to the powers that be to decide what they should do, without taking into account various implications. If they do the wrong thing, they will have to pay the price for it.

Mr Chairman, I think hon members in this House remember my utterances periodically. From that one would have gauged my personal concern with regard to the welfare of the total Indian community of South Africa, together with other race groups in South Africa who have been subjected to various pieces of legislation and attitudes which have impoverished people over the years.

When reform was decided upon, difficult decisions had to be taken by those people who have committed themselves to serve South Africa. This afternoon I speak with a bleeding heart. On Wednesday, 11 May, at four o’clock, when my son’s life left the earth, I said in this House that I was sent here by my people to serve my people. This is the price some of us have accepted to pay—to serve a community that has been oppressed for 128 years.

Today we have the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in this House. He and others whose hearts and minds were made up to bring in reform, have been labouring towards constitutional development and reform in South Africa. Perhaps he and he alone knows what he had been going through with his own party, his own constituents and his own community to bring in other races into this forum. We have behind us people who are in tears—and I say this with the highest respect to the spirit of my son who left the earth—and we have behind us people who are looking at us to liberate them.

I mentioned that the Indian community’s brand of politics must be a brand of politics of the bread and butter issues—not theoretical politics in the clouds. We have to liberate our people. We have to give them roofs above their heads. We have to educate children in order for them to find work opportunities. We have gone onto many platforms. We have become targets, but we have defended that which we have achieved in this short space of time, irrespective of how difficult it was.

Various pieces of legislation have been repealed in this House as a result of our tenacious representations and our absolute sincerity.

Natalians know that we were historically vanquished in Natal—over 80% of the population. Have we asked ourselves why? Should we not concede that from the time we entered this Parliament there has been a free movement of people in the Northern Natal districts, where they were not wanted? What about the Free State? Should we not concede that there were areas Where people had no hope and life and that we have given them a new lease of life? We have done all that.

In this House we understand that a community which has been deprived of political freedom, political participation and parliamentary procedures has come into Parliament facing a backlog which it has to handle. Having said that, one must evaluate what has transpired. Even in 1984, when we came in, there was a tug of war and a power struggle. What happened thereafter? There was an exercise of coalition to which we agreed. I went out to my own constituents asking people in all sincerity to support this coalition, because deep down in our hearts we cannot afford the luxury of party-politics. We cannot afford it and therefore I have asked my people wherever possible to help this coalition. Collectively, as the House of Delegates, we will be able at least to assist our people and dry their tears. We have done that.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is not here, but he coined the word grasshoppers. So many statements were made in this House at the time with regard to the to-ing and fro-ing of hon members. There were also hon members of this House whom personally I know to have toiled 24 hours per day and seven days a week, literally, with no time on their hand because their constituencies are completely different from most of the hon members’ constituencies. There are hon members in this House who have never opted for positions. I want to make it very clear that I happen to remain behind in this Ministry in God’s name. I am committed, not to our leader, but I have an allegiance and discipline. I also owe it to the hon the State President, because that man in his lifetime has made an imperishable contribution towards reform together with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his colleagues. For their sake I remained.

I have nothing to hide, but can the Indian community in the face of what prevails, afford this? Can South Africa as a whole afford this? We defended South Africa with all the foreigners that came into this country—defending our stand and our participation. We have done all this, but where we do we go from here? Can we ever be assured of consistency? Can we ever be assured, in God’s name, of conscience and of committal? These are some of the startling questions with which we are faced.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned that he is not interested in the rearrangement of the gravy train. If there are those who are interested in the gravy train, we should be able to manufacture more gravy trains. However, then one should be able to distinguish their presence in Parliament as well as what their values and interests are in this respect.

Therefore it is very well for us to say that we can go to the electorate. We can go, but I would like to know respectfully, by virtue of the circumstances, if one can say in this House that the broad masses of the Indian peasants in this country are politicised?

If they are politicised what circumstances directed them to become politicised, what was their priority in South Africa besides struggling to keep their heads above water? Should we then not agree that in certain directions progress has been made. At least there is the manifestation of the liberation of our people in this country.

Therefore, my appeal here this afternoon is that we go to the electorate. I shall support the hon member Mr Nowbath. We can go for an election; there is no problem as far as that is concerned.

There are those who might be concerned about pensions and there might be those who are concerned about the possibility of perhaps not coming back to Parliament, but those should not be factors contributing to the decision of an individual.

Great leaders in the Indian community throughout the world have demonstrated one thing— service before self. Mahatma Gandhi trod this country. What for? What indelible impression did he not leave behind; how did he liberate India? Did he not touch the conscience of people? Was he able to fight the British? He was not able to do so, but he fought with truth. Let that truth prevail.

I want to say again in all sincerity and all humility that any decisions taken here should be decisions in accordance with the requirements and the service of our people. This does not necessarily apply to the Indian community only, but to South Africa as a whole. If we need to go to the electorate we must go to the electorate.

Mr Chairman, in all walks of life there is always jealousy and animosity. If one is a good sportsman, be it rugby, boxing or wrestling there will always be people who will try to destroy such a person and to remove his superiority. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, will you please prevail upon the hon member for Camperdown to sit and listen for a change.

This can only be achieved by superiority. However, in this House there is no one who is capable of holding the position of Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. In this case the reaction was one of sheer jealousy.

I say to hon members of this House that to remove the present hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Umzinto take a relevant question?

Mr Chairman, I have said in this House previously that, with all due respect to the hon member for Camperdown, he does not even know how to formulate a question. He must therefore not waste my time.

You are talking nonsense. Fold your notes and talk. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am under no obligation to take instructions from the hon member.

Order! I want to request the hon member for Camperdown to contain himself. The hon member for Umzinto may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I say to hon members of this House that to remove the present Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is sure stupidity. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council works 18 to 20 hours every day. Sometimes when I walk into his office during lunch-time I find him eating dry Provita biscuits. I was going to ask him for how long his system can take this kind of punishment. [Interjections.] I know of no other work-horse in this House that can put in the man-hours that is required of this office.

I agree that one cannot please all of the people all of the time, and this is the main reason why the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not agree with certain requests by certain hon members that they now want to seize power. They tried it in May last year but failed. As a result the position-seekers came back to support the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and accepted positions. The sad position is that three nominated members who lost elections and were nominated by the majority party, namely the NPP, also crossed the floor. This is a shameful act on their part. They should hang their heads in shame. This I believe to be the height of irresponsibility, and I think that the word “gratitude” no longer has any meaning and should be removed from the English dictionary. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, through the behaviour of some of the hon members of this House we have destroyed the image of the Indian community, and I support the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Nowbath to have this House dissolved so that there may be fresh elections.

Mr Chairman, there has been a tremendous amount of beating about the bush, and I think that this moment and this hour call for some sanity. We must not lose sight of the aims for which we have come to Parliament.

I want to reply adequately to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I want to reply to the apparent anguish in which he expressed certain sentiments. I am sorry they are merely sentiments, which will not resolve the impasse that confronts us at this moment. We came to Parliament at a very difficult time, in the face of opposition to every hon member who participated. Unfortunately, when hon members came to Parliament, they lost sight of these facts. Today we have merely placed ammunition in the hands of those very people who oppose us. These are the facts. They merely want this side or that side to refute the statements, and this is our folly. To say that we must now go for an election is nonsensical. “Nonsensical” is the right word. It is not that anyone does not want an election, but therein lies the strategy of evading the issue of holding a commission of inquiry and clearing the matter up for once and for all.

On the very first day that this House entered into debate the message came through loud and clear that there had to be a commission of inquiry, because we have really been carrying the unfortunate legacy of the SAIC into this Parliament. This is what is so sad.

What has happened over the years? Instead of really fighting the viewpoints of the radicals and those opposing forces, we have lent support to them by bringing disgrace, disrepute and degradation not only to this House but also to the entire Indian community and beyond.

I am sure that the White people in this country as well as the Coloured and the Black people are not happy and have not been happy for some considerable time about the unnecessary acrobatics that have been going on in this House. This matter must be brought to an end.

Some very intelligent and concerned people who are not members of this House—including people who have opposed the participation of Indians in Parliament—have said this. There was a time when our people did not have the franchise, but we have had leaders of outstanding calibre. What is happening today, Mr Chairman? The hon Minister for Local Government and Agriculture mentioned the question of the gravy train. Who is dangling carrots here? Who has reduced the level of the Indian government to this gutter level? What is the level of our thinking? [Interjections.] Where is the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath? I should like him to be here because he sings a song which has neither rhyme nor rhythm in this regard.

Who has actually, if I may put it this way, been intimidating the people with an election? How sure is anyone in this House about what the hon the State President will do? Is he that influential?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, I would like to point out that when I referred to a “gravy train” I was quoting the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Let me come to the point at issue. Who is on trial here? I think the hon the State President is wise enough to be aware of the entire course of the instability of this House. I think a reasonable number of hon members here—I do not blame them—are asking for a correction of the situation in the interests of this House and of all the other Houses of Parliament.

I think the draft resolution proposed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, even as amended by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, very clearly indicates the cause of the dissatisfaction, and this discontent has to be removed.

In the normal course of events, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would have stepped down gracefully. In the normal course of events, there would be no need for us to go on discussing this matter, because we must correct the situation. I am sure hon members of this House will realise, on reflection in calmer moments, that we have a solemn duty to our entire electorate. What do they have to report to their electorate at the moment?

We have a problem here. Therefore the most vital issue is to have a commission of enquiry. If the hon the State President then sees a necessity for an election for this House, he can decide on that.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by supporting fully the amendment proposed by the hon member Mr Nowbath. In doing so, I want to read out for the record a draft resolution of which I have given notice in this House:

[Interjections.] The hon member for Camperdown suffers from foot-and-mouth disease. Every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. [Interjections.]

All I want to say is that this is a serious issue, and everybody ought to be given enough opportunity to say what they want to say. If anyone wants to antagonise anybody else, they must bear the consequences.

I have broad shoulders!

So have I!

I came to this august Chamber rather late. It has also been said in certain quarters that I am the baby of this House. I said in my maiden speech, when we still sat in the Marks Building, that I was looking for leadership qualities in more seasoned and senior persons in this House who would guide me along the right path.

On 28 August 1984, the Indian community were granted the parliamentary franchise. I was at that stage one of those unfortunates who were giving out leaflets for the radical organisations at—you would remember this, Sir—the old Marshall Square. However, I changed my views when I was convinced that something constructive could be achieved by participation in parliamentary politics.

What do we see in what we term a component of Parliament here in the House of Delegates? We see somersaults and we see hopping from one side to the other. In various quarters the House of Delegates has been described as a circus. To my mind this comparison is an insult to the circus people because they are artists and they practise a craft. [Interjections.]

We talk about dignity and hon members. There is one particular hon member in this House—I do not want to mention his constituency or his name—who probably saw a gold card for the first in his life. Every time one talks to him he takes out his gold card and flashes it around. [Interjections.] I do not want to name him.

When we talk of problems in the Ministers’ Council we must not lose sight of the fact that every coin has two sides. Everything cannot be wrong with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. What about the other side of the coin? Hon Ministers can also be wrong in certain instances.

If we merely want to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is at fault we should go back in history and look at the past volumes of Hansard where not only the hon the Ministers but hon members paid glowing tribute to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the work that he did. I want to state categorically, clearly, boldly and efficiently that I think there is no other person in this House who could lead this House in a more capable manner than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] I have no aspirations to reach certain positions.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a true gentleman and I do not want to grind an axe with him. He spoke about a majority but in effect the NPP is in the majority in this House. That is a fact that cannot be wished away. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke of an alliance with two parties. It is the same type of coalition that took place between Solidarity and the NPP. When it is convenient for a person to take a certain partner to bed he will do so. I just want to warn the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he must be aware of Aids. [Interjections.]

I firmly believe that we on this side of the House would firmly support an election. We should have an election because most of us fought the previous election on a party ticket. We must now go back to the electorate and ask those people if they want us to return on this party ticket or on another ticket. We must go back to the electorate and ask them to tell us whether we must come back.

The Human Sciences Research Council showed us in a report a few weeks ago that the NPP’s popularity stood at what I think was 15% as opposed to the 6% of Solidarity.

It changed overnight!

I am certain that if we now have an election the NPP will mop the floor with many of the hon members of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon member for Reservoir Hills and it was quite clear that we should go back to the people because the only way to prove one’s strength is through the ballot-box. We have to go to the community and say to them …

After you cleaned the floor!

The NPP will mop the floor in some strong opposition seats. I believe in such a thing as loyalty.

We have documents here relating to hon Ministers who have crossed the floor to become allies of Solidarity Party, in which it is stated that their positions will remain intact. Now where is their sincerity? [Interjections.] What kind of dignity are we talking about? Then we still call them hon members of this House!

Very honourable!

So, everybody in this House is interested in feathering his own nest! As a result the community at large is suffering. We are crying out for better education, better housing, better social pensions …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: the hon member for Lenasia Central has just questioned the bona fides of the hon the Minister, thus intimating that the hon the Minister is a dishonourable Minister. I construe that as a reflection upon the character of the hon the Minister.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central may continue.

Mr Chairman, we know about the grand plans. In the old SAIC days we knew. I am speaking parochially as a Transvaler. We know that in the old days of the SAIC there was an attempt to leave out the Transvalers, and not to give them representation. We know the people who made those attempts.

And the Cape!

And the Cape! The hon member for North-Western Transvaal is quite correct. I want to say those people will never be forgiven in the Transvaal. That is why that political party does not have a single seat in the Transvaal today.

Mr Chairman, the fly in the ointment in this whole situation is the point I made in the no-confidence debate saying the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was obsessed with gaining control of the Ministers’ Council. I said it after he had moved his draft resolution of no-confidence. In his reply he said I had made a great play about it and that he had no such ambitions. What I said in the discussion of that draft resolution has been proved to be true. That obsession he will never be able to overcome. As long as we have people who are changing positions and who are formulating phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 of their cabinet, of which every hon member has documentation … [Interjections.]

When people are really interested in the community, why can they not jointly and effectively join forces and walk towards that goal?

And give sixteen ounces to the pound! [Interjections.]

And give sixteen ounces to the pound, but in this case minus the blood. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I want to reiterate that I fully support the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Nowbath.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills set a very good tone in this debate. I want to underline the word “vituperation”, and I sincerely wish that that tone will reverberate in the ears of the hon member for Southern Natal. I am not going to react with recrimination. I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we should one day set aside ten hours for a debate in which I will then give the reasons asked for. The attitude is one of why blame the Chairman? Remove the Chairman.

The day I give the reasons, substantiated with documents and facts, this House will get stuck in the mud and it will never come out again.

It is already there! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I did not interrupt any hon members, and I am not on trial. I ask them to give me the right to have my say. At the funeral of Julius Caesar his friend Mark Anthony delivered his famous oration:

Earlier Julius Caesar, in his death throes, had asked his friend Brutus: “Et tu, Brute?”

I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition: “Et tu, Brute?” [Interjections.] I have staying power.

Let us take the changes that have been made. The new Constitution heralded a change. After Prime Minister MacMillan came to South Africa one saw the winds of change blowing through Africa. One can find the best leader to pilot a ship but the pilot of the first ship of change is always crucified.

Let us take a look at African politics. Let us take the great Patrice Lumumba. He was the first to pilot the ship in the process of change, and he was crucified.

What about Idi Amin?

Idi Amin came in later on. [Interjections.] One had Milton Obote. There may be Idi Amins, people in his likeness, who want to take over … [Interjections] … but I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to know that the day I retire from this House no one will be able to point a finger at me and say that I backstabbed him. [Interjections.]

In 1984 we could have won the election by a greater margin. We never ditched friends, knowing that they would lose the elections. [Interjections.] From 1984 onwards we have never ditched friends.

In the first week of September we received calls from one nominated hon member from Natal who appeal to all my friends: “Is he going to nominate me?” [Interjections.] As the hon member for Umzinto has quite correctly said, the words “honour” and “gratitude” have no meaning. [Interjections.]

I do not want to say what we went through with the unity agreement with Solidarity. [Interjections.] The person who moved the first amendment today refused to sit with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and opposed the unity.

I recently received a request from the LAC at Escourt and I was told by the hon the Deputy Minister: “Do not see the LAC, they are Solidarity supporters”. A few weeks later he signed an alliance agreement with Solidarity! [Interjections.]

I want to say that this is a hung House. [Interjections.] Notwithstanding the numbers on the other side of the House, the NPP is the largest single party in this House …[Interjections] … and it cannot be wished away. [Interjections.] I did not disturb any speaker. Hon members must please give me the right to be heard. [Interjections.]

With regard to the idea that I want to protect my position as a Minister, I want to say that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not receive a quarter of a cent more than any other Minister. I do not receive half a cent for being in the Cabinet …

Sidelines?

… but I took the flak. [Interjections.] I had two offers from hon members on the other side of the House. One of them suggested that we should go for the best men for the Cabinet. I refused. I refused because I wanted to protect my Ministers. I did not want to ditch them. I did not want to let them down. [Interjections.]

When the unity agreement was dissolved one of their former colleagues pleaded with me and told the others that he needed a few months to qualify for the gold card. There was compassion within me. I want to say that there was compassion within me. [Interjections.] If there are 10 good reasons why the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should step down then there must be 100 good reasons why the Minister should step down. If hon members want a long debate, let us have the 100 reasons.

If we are choosing an office somewhere and the property belongs to a man who did not vote for him, he goes and tells my officials: “They are UDF activists. We must not use the premises”. [Interjections.]

That is on record. Look it up. It is on record. When the Chairman of Ministers’ Council acts, he is a bad man. I will repeat this … [Interjections.] I will not take any questions.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will not take any questions.

I want to say that I work 20 hours a day, seven days a week. When I was in Cape Town with my children on my birthday, I flew to the Transvaal, leaving my wife and children. Since my children were born, they have not seen the inside of a cinema.

Is it fair to the people I protected, when there was a proposal that Solidarity and the NPP merge, after the unity was dissolved? One cannot deny that. Let us have a proper measure. I protected my hon Ministers. I protected my colleagues, whether they were doing a good or a bad job; I never let them down in public. I will repeat this for the benefit of the hon member for Springfield. If the officials chose premises somewhere, and a member of the Ministers’ Council found that the owner did not vote for him, he would make a submission that that owner is a UDF-activist and that his premises must not be chosen. When I intervene, I am a bad man. I am a bad Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I said at the Press conference last Thursday, without mentioning names, that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a responsibility. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a duty. I do not want to list the duties I have performed. I want to say that some people would not last half an hour under the hon the State President, with the standards which he has set. Today I must be crucified because of one word: Duty! There are hon Ministers who are represented in a committee of Ministers, who have taken decisions there, for which we could be crucified, without consultation with me. Decisions were implemented without even reporting back to me. However, when I correct them, I am a bad man. Remove the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council! Blame the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council!

I want to appeal to the consciences of some hon members seated on the other side. I want to repeat: If there are ten good reasons why I should step down, who are they to judge? I suggested to them that if the hon the State President wants to make changes, he should use the commission for State administration. If they feel that I have overstepped my role as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and this is confirmed by the commission, I will resign. I will not resign as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council; I will resign totally as a Minister.

The finest thing that could happen to me politically was to sit across there for the first three years. Let us look at 1983 and 1984. Who was the first person who publicly took the step to support the Constitution, when everybody was in trepidation, worrying about the ANC, the Natal Indian Congress, etc?

I will continue with this debate. There is a suggestion that we interrupt this debate so that the debate on the Vote: Law and Order can take place at this stage. I appeal to the consciences of hon members: If hon members are putting the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on trial, let us put the entire Ministers’ Council on trial, publicly, here, where I am prepared to bring in the files and substantiate what I say. If there are ten good reasons why the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should step down, I would be liberal if I said that there are 100 good reasons why my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council should step down.

I cannot end my contribution to this debate without highlighting certain facts. I never mentioned names about that office accommodation. If one does not do this, one is a bad man. Even the teaching fraternity will be shocked to learn what people do to us.

When one wants to steer a course away from these influences, one is a bad man. I was told that one person was dissatisfied because I did not greet him. I want to appeal to the hon member for Isipingo and to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to search themselves. I am going to speak in this debate for a very long time.

Debate interrupted.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, simply because the hon the Minister of Law and Order is here—obviously his salt intake is less these days—we have no objection.

Draft resolution agreed to.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like the hon the Minister of Law and Order to convey our condolences to the families of those two policemen who recently met their deaths at Franschhoek. One must understand that policemen have to undergo all sorts of difficulties and problems when they are on duty. One therefore has to respect the function of the Police Force. I also want to place on record our condolence and sympathy to all those families who have suffered as a result of a family member’s death.

On behalf of this House, I also wish to extend a very warm welcome to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. The hon the Deputy Minister used to be a policeman. Later he studied law and then became the chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and Order. Finally he became the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. I think he also made history by occupying the executive position as the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order when he presided over the last meeting of the standing committee where we dealt with Bills and matters concerning law and order.

One good thing about the hon the Deputy Minister is that, whenever matters come before the standing committee, he sees to it that proper consensus is reached. He accommodates everybody. I have served on the standing committee for a number of years, and it was a pleasure to have him as chairman of the standing committee.

I also want to compliment the hon the Minister on the 75th anniversary of the Police Force. They had a very colourful function in Pretoria. The highlight of that function was the presentation of a horse to the hon the State President—a gift which was deeply appreciated by him.

We also wish to record our appreciation of the efficient manner in which the police colleges are being conducted—in particular the ones at Wentworth, Bishop Lavis and Hammanskraal, Pretoria. In connection with the college at Wentworth, I wish to mention the name of the commanding officer, Col Chetty. This man is doing a fantastic job in charge of that police college. His wife is also a commissioned officer and both the husband and wife render a valuable service. I would like the hon the Minister to think very seriously about a promotion for this wonderful officer to a higher position. I believe the next step up is a brigadier. I do believe this promotion is long overdue. Recently over the late-night radio the fantastic work done by this officer was highlighted. This is a feather in the cap of the hon the Minister, to have such quality work being performed at a college.

In the limited time still at my disposal I would also like to say that we have at the helm of affairs Gen De Witt, who has been doing very good work. Recently he came to the Standing Committee on Finance and complained bitterly about being short of about R200 million in his estimate. I want the hon the Minister to know that the Police Force is very important and we cannot afford to fall short. I have appealed to the hon the Minister of Finance during his Budget debate about the fact that the Police Force and Prison Services are two services which should be accommodated. If there is an additional appropriation Bill, in order to find the R200 million for the Police Force, we should vote adequately so that they will be able to function properly.

I would like to place on record our thanks to the hon the Minister and his Deputy, as well as to the General and his staff for the very good work they are doing for the department and the country as a whole.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new hon the Deputy Minister. We wish him well from this side of the House. I would also like to welcome the two senior Indian officers here, Lieut Col Maraj and Col Chetty. Lieut Col Maraj was recently appointed as District Commander in Chatsworth.

The hon the Minister’s record will show that in Phoenix and Chatsworth, where the crime-rate is high, before the passing of the Group Areas Act before the establishment of Chatsworth and Phoenix etc, the crime rate in the Indian community was the lowest of all the communities. The main reason for this was the extended family system of the Indian community. A father would buy land and build a home on it and he would extend that home as the children were born. The adult daughter usually left the home and joined her husband, but the adult son brought in his wife to the father’s home. The father and the adult son then lived in one home. If one of the sons was unemployed it was not a catastrophe, as he would be supported by the rest of the extended family. In these circumstances the crime rate among the Indian community was very low. However, when Chatsworth and Phoenix were built, suddenly the extended family system was ended. Only the immediate family—father, mother and children—can occupy the homes in the Chatsworth-Phoenix area.

Families could not be accommodated because houses were small. Instead the extended families of the Indian community were suddenly faced with having to cope with the problem of the nuclear family consisting of the husband, the wife and the children. Whereas previously children were catered for in the extended family system, when the husband and wife work they have many problems with regard to their children. There is no longer the same care and discipline today, as far as the Indian children are concerned.

My next point is that I should like the hon the Minister to give us a good reason for the incorporation of Shallcross into the Chatsworth Police area. Shallcross was originally manned by the Malvern Police Station which is in a White area. I want to point out very clearly that Chatsworth Police Station is overworked and to add to the burden of the station is absolutely unfair. Therefore the hon the Minister must reverse this decision.

The department planned to build the police station at Bayview, but for some reason or the other it saw fit to establish a temporary police station in Silverglen. That I believe is a waste of money. The station must be built in Bayview. There is also the question of the establishment of the Marianhill Police Station for which there is an urgent need in that area. It would also cater for Shallcross where the need is great.

At a time that we need the assistance of the Police Force to maintain law and order we find that the efficiency of the Police at Chatsworth has been weakened by treating the Police Force there as a matter of own affairs. In other words, there is racial separation of the police districts.

I may be wrong, but I understand that all cases of Indians and Coloureds who are arrested are handled by Indian Police although they have been arrested for instance in the Brighton Beach area. These cases are referred to Indian police stations. Can the hon the Minister explain this to us? There are police stations at Sydenham, Cato Manor and Isipingo which are being run as part of the Indian affairs section. Sydenham and Cato Manor previously came under Pinetown and I understand that they are now separated from Pinetown and that Isipingo formerly fell under the Brighton Police Station.

Here I strongly believe that if we are talking about reform these officers of colour should be able to sit together and work from one office. I cannot see the need for creating different divisions all over the place.

I should also like the hon the Minister to explain to us whether it is true that all investigations of Indian complaints will only be dealt with by Indian detectives at so-called Indian police stations and that Chatsworth will be the headquarters for the Indian community. Will there be a number of other police stations under Chatsworth? For example, if a complaint is laid at the airport police station will the investigation be referred to one or other relevant Indian police station? Could the hon the Minister please explain to us what the official position is with regard to police stations.

I also want to refer to Chatsworth and Phoenix. Quite often they have to operate one police van for the whole of Chatsworth or Phoenix. In some cases I do not blame the policemen there, they have not got the necessary vehicles. The vehicles are either lying in the yard at Jacobs for three months for repairs and the community blames the policemen, or they have no vehicles with which to operate. I believe that the hon the Minister must give this some serious thought. Obviously we need a number of police vans in Phoenix and Chatsworth. With only one van covering the whole of Chatsworth it is very difficult to maintain law and order in that area.

As far as I understand, each shift has 15 policemen on duty. However, in some cases because of ill-health or a policeman having to go to court, they end up with about seven or eight people at the police station. They have to carry out various duties and I believe that is ridiculous. We need more men and this is very important to maintain law and order.

The Chatsworth police station is supposed to cover the whole of Chatsworth, and Welbedach which have a population of between 400 000 and 500 000 and they have to do this work with only one station. I also understand that they have no radio-control vehicles or squad cars or dogs to patrol. This is certainly the reason for the high rate of crime.

It is my opinion—and I dare say that of hon members of this House—that the Police Force should be an integrated one tackling all the problems together. In that way the Police Force could become more efficient at a time when assistance from the Police Force is necessary.

The statistics provided by the hon the Minister in respect of crime relating to murder, culpable homicide, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, common assault, rape, burglary, house-breaking, theft of vehicles, and drug abuse is most alarming in our community. If the situation is allowed to continue unchecked the consequences for the community and society will be devastating. It is imperative that the State initiates urgent action and take steps to eradicate the cause which results in this unhealthy state of affairs. Police stations must be more streamlined; more policemen will have to be trained and assigned to combating crime. Better communication systems will have to be provided and more vehicles should be made available for police stations.

I am of the opinion that Chatsworth should have its own finger-print department. This is absolutely necessary. In my case, my car was broken into three times and I had to take it to C R Swart. A number of people have this problem, and it is important that we have a finger-print department in Chatsworth.

The community is tired of being subjected to delays when crime is reported owing to a lack of vehicles.

The educational institutions will have to accelerate their programmes in providing information relating to harmful effects of drugs and the consequances of crime.

It has also been established that shebeens that operate in townships are a fountain for crime and social degeneration in our society. They must be eradicated at all costs.

The department must also give serious consideration to the question of movement of policemen from one station to another. It is not a healthy situation to have policemen at one station for far too long.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I do not believe that the Police Force is organised on apartheid racial lines. If that were done, it would be stupid; it would be utterly and absolutely idiotic to say that crimes reported by members of the Indian community should only be investigated by Indian policemen and so on, and I do not believe that our Police Force is either stupid or idiotic. If they do that, then they are stupid and idiotic.

My difficulty is this: In South Africa we have one policeman or—woman per 5 000 of the population; and yet in a poor country like India they have one policeman or policewoman per 1 400 of the population. There are less than 60 000 members of the SA Police, and the number is woefully inadequate. This is why our Police Force is not able to cope with the work that it has to do. I hold the hon the Minister responsible for that. I hold him and his Cabinet colleagues responsible for this, and they must see to it that something is done pronto!

I now wish to deal with the question of the high incidence of crime. We have to have more uniformed policemen on the streets, on patrol, so that they are visibly there in order to act as a deterrent to crime.

Talking about the policemen themselves, if one hears a sound outside one’s home, the first thing one does is to phone the police station because the average house-owner does not go outside his home to investigate in case the would-be burglar has a knife or a gun or what have you. The police are then telephoned, and one or two policemen then have to come into this house, and their lives are being put at risk in order to protect the public. I have taken this up with the hon the Minister and with the Commissioner of Police and I am sorry to say that I have not had any satisfactory response from either of them. I believe that inasmuch as members of Parliament are given free personal accident insurance by virtue of being members of Parliament, to the same extent every member of the Police Force should be given free personal accident insurance at the expense of the taxpayer. We expect the policemen and policewomen to risk life and limb to protect the public, and if the public is not prepared to do something in return for the policemen, then that public does not deserve to be protected. The hon the Minister is the person who represents the public vis-a-vis the police force. He knows—I have taken this matter up with him several times; I also took it up with the hon the Minister of Finance, and I have told them both—that to the extent that South Africa squanders hundreds of millions of rand per year to upholding the stupid policy of apartheid, South Africa has the money. They must not tell me that the money is not there.

The money is there and the cause is just. We must see to it, in the interests of the public, that our Police Force is adequately insured at public expense. If the hon the Minister does not do this, I will report him to somebody who is policing him … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with other hon members who have already spoken in congratulating the Police on their 75th anniversary. In doing so, I want to say that it is indeed a milestone in the history of the Police in South Africa.

At the same time, I also want to associate myself with other hon members in welcoming the new hon Deputy Minister of Law and Order to this House for the first time. He is a man of high calibre and integrity who has served as chairman of various standing committees of which we have been members. I think this energetic young man is going to be of great assistance to our equally energetic hon Minister.

I am not going to discuss the money that is to be appropriated, as various other hon members have already referred to that aspect and also because I have also been asked to keep my speech short. However, we know the high cost of training a policeman today. To train one policeman or policewoman costs about R11 000 or R12 000.

What concerns us is the high percentage of members leaving the force, and this is one aspect that I want to deal with this evening.

Because of the small numbers of police per capita in South Africa compared to Western countries, the pay they receive does not compensate adequately for the long hours they have to work and the danger involved. That is why they are attracted to greener pastures in the private sector. Something should be done either to increase the size of the Police Force or to relieve the long working hours. We know that there is a high turnover of personnel in the Police Force, and the reason given for this is in fact the long hours that they work.

These days police also have to work in conditions of danger. I want to ask the hon the Minister to place on record our condolences to those policemen who have lost their lives, some as recently as yesterday in the incident at Fish Hoek. We are with them and with all policemen because of the type of work they do.

We know that in these times we need a better-equipped policeman. We will have to change the image of the police as far as equipment and vehicles are concerned. We know that the Police Force now uses helicopters, and this will assist greatly in the prevention of crime.

We also know, thanks to the hon the Minister’s statements and the White Paper before us, about the many facets of the different departments of the Police Force. I do not want to discuss them because I have been asked to be very brief.

With these few words, I want to express our full support for this Vote.

Mr Chairman, wherever civilised communities have established themselves, two main forces have been utilised to maintain law and order. These are the police force generally and, on a very large scale and in exceptional circumstances, the army.

Today I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to reinstate as far as possible police foot-patrols and to expand these services to a much wider area than that served at the moment. This system was recently put into practice in large cities at weekends and at the end of the month, and the results were remarkable. These policemen and policewomen patrolled the city centres, shopping areas, supermarkets and car parks.

As a result, theft from cars, bag-snatching and attacks on individuals were drastically reduced. The idea of police footpatrols forms the basis of any police force and other police activities are based on this and expanded upon to reach the desired objective.

Interestingly enough these patrols had their origin in Egypt in the year 1400 B.C. When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in the Cape he saw the installation of police patrols as the ideal way of combating crime and warding off potential crime. Originally the patrols were aimless, boring and frustrating beats, following a pre-determined route on foot, or in a police vehicle in heavy traffic within a specified area.

This is now developed into an important nerve centre, supplying vital information which enables any police arm to pinpoint a crime. It is also seen as a means of maintaining contact with the general public.

Technological developments has raised the quality of life in human beings. It has created more opportunities for the criminal. Since criminals are increasingly making use of sophisticated cars, motorboats, two-way radios etcetera the police had to do likewise to prevent and combat crime. This resulted in foot-patrols giving way to more modern methods.

I am not so happy about this. With the use of motor vehicles, motorbikes and helicopters patrol may be much faster. It promotes communication and covers a very wide area in safeguarding the public. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage that the contact with the man in the street is lost. It is in this sphere that footpatrols are in a more advantageous position of consultation and rendering services which enhance the image of the police. A patrol service remains the most effective manner whereby the ever-presence of authority is assured to the community.

The mere presence of these men and women who serve with devotion and dedication and who see to it that life goes on, earns the respect of the citizen which is so essential for harmonious coexistence. The philosophical approach when initiating a footpatrol service emphasises the need for sober planning. Footpatrolling without the necessary aids such as radios and the support of mechanised patrols will not make an appreciable impact on the community. Likewise, if the community does not lend its support to the patrol service, no positive contribution can be expected as regards the safety of the region concerned.

*The ideal patrol service in a democratically ordered society is a combination of foot and vehicle patrols in order to establish a healthy interaction between efficient but impersonal mobile patrols on the one hand and personal, inter-actionary foot patrols on the other hand. This system of extended patrols is possible only if there is sufficient manpower. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, due to the time factor, I will unfortunately not be able to make the contribution that I intended. I will be brief and will try to highlight certain points to which I wish to refer the hon the Minister.

First of all, I want to thank the hon the Minister for showing his concern and identifying with the community of Heidelberg where a teargas canister was recently fired through the window of the mosque. Unfortunately the incident in Heidelberg and the one at the synagogue in Durban were not given the same prominence in the media or even in Parliament.

I personally am not going to argue with the hon the Minister over his reaction and the announcements made in Parliament about a reward when he spoke about the incident at the synagogue. What perturbs us, is that to date no arrests have been made in Heidelberg and no reward whatsoever was offered.

We in the Peoples Party of South Africa are concerned that the culprit responsible for this dastardly act is still at large, and we would like to take this opportunity of announcing that the Peoples Party of South Africa will make available a reward of R1 000 to the person who comes forward with information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the perpetration of this despicable act.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I would also like to refer the hon the Minister to a speech I made in this House during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, when the hon the Minister of Finance was here. In that speech I referred to the magnificent men and women in blue. They are here with us this evening. We see them in the public gallery. A little earlier I remarked to one of the Police officers: “I do not know whether the sight before my eyes today is better than the one I saw last week, when we had a bevy of beautiful police-women here.” Nevertheless, Sir, I want to say to the hon the Minister and to the members of the Police Force that we are indeed grateful and indebted to them for the manner in which these brave young men and women, and even the older ones too, go out of their way to protect us.

Mr Chairman, owing to the unscheduled drama of the previous debate this debate on the Law and Order Vote has been somewhat curtailed, and as a result of that my time has also been whittled away.

Therefore, Sir, I would like to tell the hon the Minister that are very many issues I would have liked to raise with him here this evening, but owing to the fact that we do not have enough time I will address the hon the Minister on those specific issues by way of a letter, and I would appreciate it very much if he would react to that.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the opportunity on behalf of the PFP to place on record not only our appreciation of the new hon Deputy Minister, who is here with us tonight—a man we know and about whom we have learned much this evening—but also our association with all which we have heard this evening. I want to record too our appreciation of the Commissioner of Police, who is also here with us this evening, and also of each and every member of his staff. When I refer to each and every member of his staff, I mean just that. I talk about the staff he has attending to parliamentary work, with whom we have a very close relationship and from whom we have always experienced the best of co-operation. We really appreciate that. More than that, Sir, we would like to record our appreciation of all of the Force, some of whom we see here this evening— people who protect us at Pelican Park and at home as well.

There is one issue, however, which I want to raise with the hon the Minister here tonight. That concerns the list which is required in terms of the Internal Security Act to be made public by the hon the Minister. As I understand it, a couple of days ago the hon the Minister added some 54 names to that particular list. The number of detainees we now have in terms of the Internal Security Act has increased to some 3 000 odd people. The point I want to make is simply the following. We have had a state of emergency now for something like two years. We have had people detained in terms of the Internal Security Act. At the height of the incarceration campaign the number of detainees stood at between 10 000 and 12 000 individuals, and has of course decreased dramatically since.

I do believe in all sincerity, however, that the hon the Minister and his department have had ample time during which to investigate any specific charges against those people detained in terms of the Internal Security Act. I believe it behoves the hon the Minister, in terms of justice, to decide now whether he intends to bring any specific charges in terms of that Act against any of those people he has had incarcerated for well over two years.

That is the only point I wish to make to the hon the Minister this evening. As I have already indicated, I shall raise several other issues with him which bother me at the present time. I should merely like to inform the hon the Minister that there is one specific area that has caused me considerable concern, and I have already tabled a question in regard thereto. It concerns the number of solved crimes, particularly in the greater Durban area.

With those words I should like once again to tell each and every member of the law and order family we have here this evening that we appreciate the very good work they are doing.

Mr Chairman, the activities of the South African Police, as prescribed in the Police Act of 1958, include the preservation of the internal security of the Republic and the maintenance of law and order.

The participation of the South African Police in the field of labour must, however, be judged in accordance with the openly declared aim of the revolutionary and radical forces, namely the mobilisation of the Republic of South Africa’s labour force in the pursuit of revolutionary goals. The ANC declares openly that the so-called National Liberation Struggle is dependent on the support of the Black workers and unions. The ANC, as well as other revolutionary and radical organisations, envisages that as soon as the workers are mobilised under their wing, economic and political stability in the Republic of South Africa can be habitually disrupted.

The first step in this direction is the establishment of one union for each industry. The Congress of South African Trade Unions, Cosatu, has the same objectives and has already succeeded in amalgamating several unions from different industries, thereby diminishing the unions from 35 to 13.

If the establishment of one union for each industry has the purpose of obtaining better bargaining powers with regard to benefits and if this bargaining power is managed in a responsible manner, then no-one would object to such a development in the labour field. However, revolutionary and radical forces have other motives. They want to cause damage to the economy of the Republic and in this way put political pressure on the Government with the ultimate purpose of overthrowing the existing order.

In SACP, ANC and Cosatu literature it is openly stated that the mobilisation of the workers is primarily intended for the purpose of an extended strike. Normally the South African Police would not directly concern itself with labour disputes as it is a matter of a dispute between the employer and the employee with the union as the representative of the employee. These negotiations are controlled by the Labour Relations Act, which stipulates what the employer must comply with and what the employee union must comply with. The view of the employee is also that it is only a dispute between two parties, namely the employer and the employee union. However, it has been learnt from experience that labour disputes contain an emotional element which can easily deteriorate into violence and endanger life and property. With this in mind it is necessary for the South African Police to note instances of labour disputes and strikes arising from controversies in order to be prepared for any emergency which may occur. Liaison between employers and the South African Police in the management of labour disputes does occur but I have been assured that this is always on a professional level without sympathising with either party. The South African Police are well aware of the fact that labour disputes are a very delicate and tense situation when employers and employees are deliberating a dispute.

It is increasingly being experienced that in the case of a strike, whether it be lawful or unlawful, intimidation plays an important role. Employees who do not wish to participate in strikes are intimidated by striking employees not to attend work.

Intimidation in many cases assume a violent character and serious assault takes place. In such instances it is the task of the SAP to act. When activities which take place under the cloak of labour practices endanger the safety of the public and public order, thereby causing the continuation of the emergency situation, the SAP must intervene. The detention of union leaders under the emergency regulations was the end result. It must be clearly stressed that no action whatsoever was taken against union leaders or members participating in lawful union activities. Operations were always undertaken only when the law had been transgressed.

The SAP can never neglect their designated task and as long as dangerous activities, which take place under the cloak of labour practices, endanger the safety of the State and law and order the SAP will act against such practices. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to doubt the honesty of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and if it is truthful and correct, I believe the presentation of this White Paper to Parliament has been a most wonderful thing. As claimed by the hon the Minister, this is the first time in history that his ministry ought to be complimented.

As legislators of this country, it is our bounden duty to see to it that we have an orderly and law-abiding society. In order to maintain and monitor this, it is imperative and important that we have an efficient and highly disciplined police force with standards of professional ethics and morality which must include honesty and integrity. For this I think the SAP needs to be complimented, for they have come a very long way. They have improved the image of the force generally and they have advanced tremendously.

I believe that this situation has become prevalent simply because the quality of recruitment has improved since those days when the method of employing policemen in the force was to judge people by their height and build. If someone was capable of walking around the streets with a sjambok and a baton he was mostly respected. However, Sir, times have changed. Today we have to deal with the complex situation with which we are faced with tact and diplomacy. Therefore it is necessary that the type of recruitment in the Police Force must be of the best kind.

In this regard I also want to compliment the hon the Minister for the incentive that is now available to members of the Black Police Force. Particularly, I am given to understand that disparity and discrimination in salaries and other fringe benefits is no longer prevalent. I do hope that this is the situation. I do not have the facts and figures regarding the salary structure of ordinary constables at my disposal, but I am given to understand that parity has now been reached. I think this also meets the requirements and aspirations of Black policemen generally.

I want to talk about Indians, for a purpose. There are many aspiring Indian students, who have matriculated with exceptionally good passes. In recent times, we find a number of graduates who are interested in joining the Police Force because they consider it to be a noble force. Unfortunately, the method that is being applied at the moment does not allow the best to be recruited in this force. I would suggest that the hon the Minister looks into the possibility of advertising on a national basis, possibly by issuing prospectuses to highschool students and challenging them to join the force. We want to see that this message is passed on to all sections of the community and to all people and that it is not only limited to the number of people who call at police stations for vacancies. The SADF in recent times—I think just a week ago—made a public announcement in the media for recruitment in the navy. I think this is the best that could happen, because there are presently many people who are aspiring to join the force.

We cannot deny the fact that the members of the SA Police Force are in short supply and, because of the various facets of police work, we certainly cannot compare ourselves with the standards set by other countries. In this regard I want particularly to compare ourselves with Israel which has comparable problems which are as complex as ours are. With a population ratio of 4,5 million against 28 million in South Africa, what is the police ratio there? It is 3,6% per thousand as against 2,3% per thousand in South Africa. Where do we stand? We also have to guard our borders, and who is in the first line of duty? It is our policemen, and therefore I believe that our police force should be enlarged as soon as possible.

I should like to come back now to the issue of police reservists. Having gone through the annual report, I notice with a certain amount of dissatisfaction that although we have problems in this country of which finance is one of the most important … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in a democratic dispensation certain functions are delegated to the police force. These functions are, inter alia, the maintenance of internal security, the maintenance of law and order, the combating of crime and, where possible, the prevention of crime. Policing is therefore the personification of order and stability, and the securing of the constitutional rights of every individual irrespective of social class or nationality.

It is ironic that members of the SA Police in a highly emotional climate should be subjected to so many forms of provocation. The calculated and degrading remarks, criticism, insults, antagonistic behaviour and anti-social conduct to which policemen are subjected to daily cause feelings of bitterness and despair in regard to the existing system of values. The intensity, therefore, varies from event to event, escalating in the combating of unrest situations. Apart from the attack on his personal integrity the policeman is also an ideal target for firebombs, stones, hand grenades, firearms etc. Even under this extreme provocation the policeman has to remain calm and controlled, fully realising that each wrong action taken by him, no matter how small, will be condemned by the same community in whose interests he is acting.

This unbearable conflict situation is further aggravated by interference from outsiders with members of the police force in the execution of their duties. I want to refer in this regard specifically to the conduct of a member of Parliament. While the police were busy combating the unrest situation, a member of Parliament accompanied by an unknown number of Blacks arrived on the scene. He tried to stop a Casspir in which the commander was a passenger. This action of that MP could have endangered the lives not only of himself but of those members of the police force busy with follow-up operations, as well as those of innocent bystanders.

In view of the abovementioned it is clear that discipline is the foundation of a democratic police force. As far as the South African Police are concerned, because their main purpose is to make it easier to develop self-control and character and to improve orderliness and efficiency— because the police place a high premium on mutual relationships with all races—strict departmental steps are taken against members who are the cause of any confrontation with the public. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I too want to place on record our appreciation to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, his newly appointed hon Deputy Minister who is not unknown to members of the standing committee relating to law and order matters, as well as to the former Deputy Minister of Law and Order and to the Commissioner of the South Africa Police, Gen H G de Witt, together with all the members of the SA Police Force for the services they are rendering to the people of South Africa. I also want particularly to thank our ever exuberant liaison officer in the person of Capt P J du Plessis.

Hear, hear!

I also want to say that the Police Force has a very good club. We should not call the hon the Minister the Minister of Law and Order. Previously he would have been called the hon the Minister of Police, but now he is called the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I think we should call him the hon the Minister of Social Control, because the Police Force is an institution. Very few people realise that. Not only do they use curative measures, but they also use preventative measures. If one looks at the activities around the police stations nowadays, one is reminded of the SA Police of 20, 25 years ago when the station commander and the members of the Police Force regarded the police station as a real community centre. There was community interaction and participation.

When I say that the Police Force has an excellent club, I believe that there is a South African boxing champion, Mr Piet Kotzé, witnessing the debate today. He is also a member of the SA Police Force. The Police Force is not only producing good people to maintain law and order and to ensure that there is security, but they are also producing good sportsmen.

When I was a soccer referee, I actually abandoned only one match in my lifetime. I decided not to abandon a professional match when Orlando Pirates were involved, because I wanted to see the match through. The only match I ever abandoned was a police match. I do not want to give any reasons for this decision. [Interjections.] I do not want to mention what was said to me on the field! I shall keep that to myself.

We had an excellent annual report from the police department, as well as an excellent White Paper on the police department. We are, however, worried about services and facilities. For a considerable period of time—ever since we decided to serve in the South African Indian Council—we definitely had positive responses from the police department in respect of improving facilities in our areas. However, I want to make an appeal to my colleague. He has already accepted an invitation from me to visit Chatsworth. We decided that we are going to land up in a house on the north coast after our visit to Chatsworth. I hope I get a positive response from him this evening. My appeal concerns our present police training college building. We want to stand up in society and say that we are proud of our police training college.

The foundations have been dug in the electoral division of Moorcross, and the site has been fenced up already. I hope I shall hear an announcement this afternoon that in this financial year, the police training college is going to get off the ground, because this has been long overdue.

I noticed that the number of people who are buying their discharge from the SA Police Force is increasing. In 1986 1 464 people left the Police Force for various reasons. However, in 1987 that figure increased to 3 041. Some people may have been dismissed for misconduct, but those who bought their discharge of their own accord, were 685 in 1986 and 1 557 in 1987. I want to make a special plea. I know that matric is the minimum requirement. In the Police Force, as in the teaching fraternity, one has a period of transition where one has excellent policemen belonging to the old order, who had given excellent service. I believe that, notwithstanding the fact that matric is a minimum requirement, something should be done in respect of the upward mobility if they have proven to have the experience and have given loyal service to the Police Force.

With the July Handicap everybody has a party. The SA Police Party does not only consist of men. They consist of horses and dogs, as well. I want to give some details. Last year 11 407 cases were investigated with the help of tracker dogs. When they used patrol dogs, 12 924 errors were made.

Stolen property to the value of R18 926 096 were recovered.

In the narcotics section where dagga is the main problem, 6 077 cases were investigated last year with the use of these dogs. I believe that 22 219 kilograms of dagga were recovered by the SAP’s dog squad. This is an excellent record in respect of those who are training the dogs.

In view of the time restraint I would like to state that in our region of Chatsworth we have excellent co-operation from the Police. Crime is on the increase because of the recession, so let us not blame the Police Force. We are also now moving into mass density housing schemes and without the necessary social facilities morality will automatically go overboard. It is then difficult to maintain law and order. Notwithstanding these things I would like to salute the members of the SAP. They are doing an excellent job. They are required to handle security legislation etc and nobody should point a finger at them. Anyone who complains about what a policeman does, should complain about the politicians who have passed the laws. The job of the policeman is to ensure that law and order is maintained.

To my colleague, the exuberant hon the Minister of Law and Order, we would like to express our thanks for the co-operation and for improving the security situation. The Police Force’s duty is no longer like it was in the past. A policeman has weapons, but in the cars driving past him are people with equal or even better weapons. Such is the scenario in South Africa today. Therefore I believe that one can rightly say that the job of a policeman is one of calling.

However, I would like to make one plea. When new members for the Indian Police Force are recruited, it should be abundantly clear whether they want to join because they do not have a job or because they love being a policeman. Do they want to take this job as a career? I can give hon members details where I am convinced that in quite a few recent cases people had just joined the Police Force because they had to earn a salary. I think one should take great care.

The department should re-examine the recruitment system and should be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that those matriculants who are taken in really love the Police Force and wish to take it up as a career.

Mr Chairman, I thank the Chair for allowing me the balance of the time due to my party.

I was addressing the question of the general shortage of policemen in South Africa. I have a suggestion to the hon the Minister as an interim measure. It will not be possible for the hon the Minister to recruit more policemen to bring us in line with other countries. However, I believe there should be greater emphasis in the recruitment of police reservists. I note here that there are 19 000 reservists of which a very small number happen to be on active duty. I believe that with co-operation from community leaders and ratepayer organisations in the respective areas as well as in the larger townships, the reservists could play a much more important role if they were to be encouraged by the local police station to do active weekend duties. In this way the hard-pressed permanent members of the Force would also be relieved of pressure.

I do not have much time, but my last appeal to the hon the Minister concerns the question of housing subsidies which are limited at the moment. Nowadays it is not even possible for one to buy a council home in any Indian area with a subsidy of R50 000.

I believe that some measure of relief should be brought about to assist those home buyers who are looking forward to having a shelter over their heads. In this direction I think the hon the Minister should consider increasing the housing subsidy to an amount that is acceptable from R50 000 to at least R60 000.

Finally I wish to compliment the SAP for the very arduous task they have before them in the first line of action. At the same time, on behalf of the Official Opposition and all the other hon members who are on this side of the House, I wish through the medium of the Ministry to express our deepest condolences with the families of all those policemen who have lost their lives.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to thank hon members for their kind words congratulating me on my appointment to this position.

I must confess that I enjoy the work and that it is a privilege to work with the hon the Minister. It is a pleasure to he associated with South African Policemen and Policewomen and it is a challenge to serve South Africa in this capacity.

Mr Chairman, before I commence with my reply I wish to extend my and my wife’s sincere condolences to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture on the tragic accident that befell his son. Please convey our sincere sympathy to your wife and the wife and children of the deceased.

I want to thank hon members for a very short debate. They mentioned a lot of things this evening, but it was short and I have been requested by Mr Chairman not to overstay my welcome. When he speaks one listens to him! I intend to do that.

The level and the quality of the debate here tonight was high. This is usually the case in this House.

I want to say, on behalf of the SAP, that we really appreciate the support and the very kind words and congratulations that we have received here this evening from hon members. We sincerely appreciate this attitude towards the SAP.

Certain questions, representations and suggestions have been put to me tonight. I would say they have been very good suggestions and questions. Because of the lack of time as I have mentioned I shall unfortunately not be able to reply or to react to all of them in full as that will not be possible.

I have appreciation for what this House has in front of it and what it still has to do tonight. I do not know if the House intends carrying on with its discussions, but I shall not keep hon members here any longer than is absolutely necessary.

However, I intend—as we did last year—to closely peruse and study hon members’ speeches in Hansard and shall reply in writing as soon as possible.

I should like to start by thanking the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his very positive contribution here tonight. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke about the construction of a new Indian training college and told me that he would like to have a reply. I have a reply available and I should like to give it to him.

The construction of a new Indian training college in Chatsworth has already started and the drain work, the levelling and the preparation of the grounds at a cost of R1,3 million has already been completed. Tenders for the building complex closed on 20 April this year and are valid until 1 June of this year. A contractor will be appointed as soon as all the tenders have been studied properly and he will be on the terrain when the building operations start. The contract is valid for a period of 24 months and will cost approximately R9,4 million.

It is with great expectations that we—and I can assure hon members that this goes for me personally as well—are looking forward to the completion and commissioning of this complex. It is trusted that the students who will be trained there will be of outstanding quality, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned here, and that the improved facility will produce an even better product, of which the public and in particular the SA Police can be sincerely proud.

I want to tell hon members here this afternoon that as they very well know, the members of the Indian community serving in the Force are doing an excellent job. They are dedicated people—we have seen this time and again—they are prepared to work hard and are loyal to the Force and to South Africa. They are prepared to live up to our motto, and that is to serve and to protect communities and to protect our country. I want to say here openly to hon members in public that I am very proud of all the members of this Force and I am very proud of all the members from the Indian community in our Force.

Hear, hear!

We have some of them here— hon members have mentioned this—and I can assure them that these members of the Force are doing an excellent job for the South African Police Force and for South Africa.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned the use of dogs. I agree with him that they save us manpower and are doing things that people cannot do. We are training them as fast as possible. We also have a problem obtaining the necessary funds; it costs a lot of money to train a dog and we cannot train every dog to do the job that we expect them to do. However we are training them as fast as possible and therefore I want to assure the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that we are training them as fast as possible. I agree with him that they save us manpower.

Every dog has its day! [Interjections.]

Yes, every dog has its day! They are of great assistance.

Somehow you must convey our appreciation. [Interjections.]

I shall try to do that, Mr Chairman.

I should like to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for expressing his condolences as well as those of other hon members in this House to the bereaved families of people who have died during the past year. We in the South African Police have noted this with appreciation. We note that the hon member has taken cognisance of the fact that members of the Force have sacrificed their lives over the past year in the service of the Force and in the service of the people of this country, as was the case two or three nights ago when two policemen died trying to save the life of another person. We sincerely appreciate the fact that the hon member has noted this and mentioned the fact here in public.

I also wish to thank that hon member for the kind words and congratulations on our 75th anniversary celebrations. We are doing this in the spirit that we have done a good job over the past 75 years, and we are looking forward to serving and protecting this country in the future, for the next 75 years. I also wish to thank him for his support in requesting more money. They say that money is the source of all evil, but money is also very important; without money one cannot do a thing. We need more money. I am honest about that. We mentioned this in the White Paper as well; if we have more money we can do more things. I want to thank him for his support in this regard.

*The hon member for Laudium—where is he now? He is my neighbour. O, there he is—he is a good neighbour; at least we three can communicate in this language. That hon member for Laudium is a good neighbour.

†I want to thank him for his very kind words; he is a very kind member and a friend of the SA Police. I want to tell him that we appreciate that. He also mentioned that we need a better equipped force, and he is quite right. We have the air wing, and they have been doing excellent work in the few months that we have had them. I also agree with him that we need better equipment. Once again this is a problem of funds but I want to assure him that we are looking into this matter to see whether we cannot make a plan to get a little further with the funds available to us. I want to thank him for his support and very kind words.

The hon member for North Coast spoke about labour relations and other things, and then said that the revolutionaries had other motives and plans for this country. I want to say a word about that, because he is absolutely correct. I said in this House on a previous occasion that the revolutionaries and radicals planned a different South Africa from the one planned by us in this House. They are planning a socialist South Africa and ultimately intend to bring about a communist, Marxist state here. This has been proven in the courts and by documents in our possession.

Looking at hon members sitting here, and knowing them and their viewpoints regarding the capitalist system, I am convinced that they do not support the viewpoints and ultimate aims of these revolutionaries. I know that one of the main reasons why hon members in this House are prepared to support the SA Police is the fact that we stand in the path of these revolutionaries. I want to thank the hon member for Northern Coas for mentioning this very important issue here today and for siding with the SA Police in our opposition to revolutionaries.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central referred to the question of racial separation. He then said—I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned this too—that certain matters were referred to Indian police stations alone and were also investigated only by Indian officers. This is not true. When a case has to be investigated, we entrust it to policemen irrespective of their colour.

I want to emphasise that we are one South African Police Force. It does not matter to us whether a man is White, Black, Brown or Indian, because he is a member of the SA Police Force. We expect him to be loyal to this one force and to this one country, South Africa. We are all part of one team. We are the A Team, of course, but we are part of this team, and we are all important members of it.

Who is Hannibal Smith? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, look what they are doing to me! The next thing they will ask me, will be: Who is Face or Mr T! [Interjections.]

†We have them in the force; I can assure hon members of that! [Interjections.]

Aren’t you Mr A? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Chatsworth Central mentioned the question of vehicles at Chatsworth. I have the relevant documents and particulars here, and I will supply him with an answer in this regard.

The hon member also referred to the unsatisfactory crime situation, and the hon member for Reservoir Hills also mentioned this. I want to give hon members some particulars in this regard. This state of affairs, which is indeed unsatisfactory, continued through 1985 and 1986, but in 1987, thanks to the dedication, determination and hard word of the SA Police, and with the aid of the public, we succeeded in obtaining a better grip on crime in our country.

Hon members must remember that during 1985 and, to a large extent, in 1987, we had problems with the unrest. The following facts illustrate my argument that we have succeeded in getting a better grip on the crime situation in this country. Reported crime in South Africa—this is the less serious crime—showed a decrease of 2,58% in 1987 compared with 1986. That was a small decrease. Serious crime decreased by 5,9% in 1987 as compared with 1986.

Let me move on to specific categories of crime. I want to mention some specific crime categories to hon members. If one compares the figures for business burglaries in July 1987 to 1986, there was a decrease of 16,4%. In October 1987 there was a decrease of 20,3%. In December 1987 there was a decrease of 12,4%. With regard to home burglaries, I again want to compare 1987 to 1986. In July 1987 there was a decrease of 16,8%. In October 1987 there was a decrease of 20,4% and in December 1987 a decrease of 12,7%. Let us also compare the motor vehicle thefts of 1987 to 1986. In July 1987 there was a decrease of 3,6% which is a small decrease. In October 1987 the decrease was 24,3% and in December 1987 it was 40%.

Although the situation with regard to the so-called violent crimes did improve I want to state categorically that the situation still does not look promising and, as in the case of some other crimes, it is still unacceptably high. I want to say that the crime rate in South Africa is unacceptably high to the SA Police Force and myself and we are trying our utmost to bring it down even further. Although we have succeeded in getting a better grip on the situation, the crime rate is still unacceptably high.

However, the situation is improving. It will take a great deal of hard work and dedication from the SA Police with the co-operation of our major partner in this regard, namely the general public, to bring it down even further. We are optimistic in this regard—not negative. We know that we can do it and we will carry on with our dedication and hard work. We will try to get the co-operation of the public to help us to bring the rate down even further.

*Mr Chairman, is my time running out?

Order! No, not at all. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If I am allowed to proceed, I shall say a few more words.

†That is my reply to the hon member for Chatsworth Central with regard to his question on the high crime rate. I agree that it is too high but we are trying our best to reduce it and we are beginning to succeed in this. That is also my reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central also spoke about a fingerprint office for Chatsworth. I want to say that the Criminal Bureau of the SA Police is in the process of conducting a feasibility study with regard to the establishment of a local fingerprint office in Chatsworth which will serve Chatsworth and the surrounding areas. Progress is being retarded by a shortage of office accommodation. The lieutenant who is presently second-in-command at the Pietermaritzburg office is a likely candidate to be appointed Branch Commander of that office. Fully trained Asian fingerprint experts are already available. The technical equipment is available and has been budgeted for in the 1988-89 Budget.

*Mr Chairman, it seems the fingerprint office will be established there as soon as possible.

†The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that we do not have enough policemen.

*Where is he now? [Interjections.] It seems he has left.

He went home!

He always gives me good advice and tells me not to use too much salt. I observe his instructions carefully.

He is in police custody!

Is he in police custody? Then he is safe at least. I can assure hon members that he will not be able to carry on with any mischief. We will look after him very well. [Interjections.]

I will also reply to him in writing. He mentioned certain aspects concerning the insurance scheme, as well as the high incidence of crime. I have already replied to the latter. He also said that we do not have enough policemen and he said that we should do something about it. I want to assure the hon member that this aspect worries me too. We do have a programme to increase the present number of policemen. I agree that it is not enough at the moment but once again it is a problem of funds.

I want to say once again that we need more policemen on foot patrol. It was also mentioned by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. We need “the bobby on the beat”. I am in favour of this too. The hon member for North Western Cape mentioned that. Mr Chairman, we need more men on the beat. We need more policemen on foot-patrol. That is so.

*This is one of the best ways to deter criminals.

†We have already started with this. These special constables—dié manne wat nou kitskonstabels genoem word—are the best foot-patrols we have. What has happened, however? People in this country do not like the special constables. The revolutionaries are trying to create a very negative image of these special constables. They are trying to make people believe that these special constables are not law-abiding policemen, that they are constantly overstepping the mark and that they are committing misdemeanours. This is creating problems for us.

Here we have policemen who are prepared to undertake foot-patrols; to walk the streets. They do not want bicycles or any other vehicles. They are prepared to walk. When we put them on the beat, when we put the bobby back on the beat in the cloak of a special constable, people reject them, saying they are no good. I should like to say that we are in favour of more policemen on foot-patrol.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills has been released!

Yes, he must have been released. I see he is back in the House. [Interjections.] Well, now he is in the custody of the House. He is safe again! [Interjections.] Just in case he becomes mischievous again, I suggest we detain him here in the House as well. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes left to me I should like to come back once more to the incident…

What about the insurance?

I have a long reply to give to this House. I know things are not quite satisfactory. That matter has been investigated in the past. The hon member is quite correct. It has been investigated and the reply is negative. Maybe we should start it again. I am prepared to have us look at it again. I will write about it to the hon member.

The sooner, the better!

Yes, the sooner, the better. I shall do so.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the incident mentioned by the hon member Mr Seedat. That is the incident relating to the teargas grenade in the Heidelberg mosque. I have the full particulars here and perhaps I should supply them to the House.

On Wednesday, 20 April, at about 20h05, a teargas grenade was hurled through a window on the western side of the mosque, while a religious service was in progress. Because of this incident the service was completely disrupted, and the damage amounts to approximately R200 because the carpet where the grenade landed was also damaged. Enquiries by the police in the immediate vicinity and amongst the congregation, as well as by way of house to house calls produced no clues. Even the media were unable to render any assistance. Forensic tests proved that it was a teargas grenade, but its origin could not be established as yet.

What about the PPSA?

No fingerprints…

*Just listen to that! [Interjections.]

†No fingerprints could be found on the canister. The rumour that a member of the army was seen in the vicinity at the time of the incident could not be substantiated or verified. This incident can only fill one with remorse, especially because of the fact that it was directed at a place of worship, a place which is indeed sacred to anyone who holds his religion dear. I can assure hon members that the SA Police will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to apprehend the responsible person or persons. I want to than the hon member Mr Seedat for his offer of a reward of R1 000, and I want to announce here that we will at least double that amount in order to see whether that will assist us in tracing the culprit or culprits who perpetrated this very serious act which nobody can condone.

That is very nice!

It is nice, yes. Just listen to that! This hon member learnt to speak Afrikaans while he was in police custody. [Interjections.] It seems to me we should detain him longer, Sir.

The hon the Minister must withdraw his earlier statements about the hon member for Reservoir Hills!

Yes, I think I will have to do that. I should actually withdraw them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: if the hon the Minister says I am a mischief-maker, that is perfectly true. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member.

He is definitely not a match-maker! [Interjections.]

Perhaps we can change him. Perhaps he should become a match-maker in this House. Does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council think that is possible? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springfield mentioned the people in detention. I shall give him a reply in writing. I think perhaps he has the wrong end of the stick with regard to the people in detention under section 29. We only have approximately 127 such people in detention.

That is too many!

Well, we can discuss this at length. It is unfortunately necessary to have people in detention. We can discuss it at another stage. We do not like detention without trial. I would prefer to bring a man to court as quickly as possible but under the circumstances this is not possible at all times. It is unfortunate, but it is necessary. [Interjections.]

I just want to mention something else very quickly. The hon member for Havenside spoke about the question of the disparity in salaries. I want to tell the hon member that disparities in respect of salaries have been wiped out completely in the South African Police. [Interjections.] However, I want to mention something that is worrying me as well, and that is the fact that insofar as the medical scheme is concerned we do not have parity at this stage. There is still some disparity.

Shame!

Well, I agree with the hon member. That is why I said it in the first place. Ek hou nie daarvan nie. I said in response to a question in the House of Assembly the other day that we were investigating this urgently in conjunction with the relevant departments. We need more money. There are certain practical problems due to the situation with some of our Black members—things I do not want to mention here now. However, I think it is unfair and we must do something about it. I want to assure hon members that it is receiving the serious and urgent attention of the department and of the Commission for Administration, and that I shall see to it that the situation is rectified as soon as possible. This is receiving the highest priority.

In the final instance I want to thank the hon member for Newholme. He made a very positive contribution and I want to thank him for that.

In conclusion I want to say thank you very much for the very kind remarks made by hon members here this afternoon. We have served this country in accordance with our motto for the past 75 years. We are proud of the service and the protection of South Africa and its peoples over the past 75 years.

Do not be unfair to the policeman!

I will not be unfair to them. On the contrary, I am being fair to them. We are proud because we have done a good job. We have served this country well. We intend to carry on serving South Africa, serving and protecting this country and all its peoples. No matter what the colour of a man’s skin is, we are there to protect and to serve all the peoples of this land.

Debate concluded.

Order! The debate on this Vote is now concluded. The Schedule will be put at a later stage.

At this stage I want to inform hon members that we have sat uninterruptedly, barring the short break of 10 minutes since a quarter past two.

*I should like to thank hon members for their co-operation and their perseverance. I realise that by this time we have certain needs, and I think it would be appropriate, also considering the officials and the maintenance of order, to suspend our business for at least 30 minutes.

†The House will resume when the bells are rung. It will create an opportunity for hon members and the officials to look after their dietary requirements. Business is suspended for 30 minutes.

Mr Chairman, the original draft resolution was moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I indicated before this particular debate was adjourned that I do not want to engage in any acts of recrimination although the statement was made by the hon the Deputy Minister that “the Chairman has failed us”. If the media reports it, the public will obviously believe it. I said earlier on that if the Chairman failed this House and this community, then all the Ministers failed this House, the Administration and the community.

When I do retire, I want to do it with dignity and honour.

Do it now!

Please, I want to suggest to the hon member for Reservoir Hills not to interject because I did not interject when he was speaking. Although I did not agree with something that he stated, I did not interject.

I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to know that if I was selfish—I want to address myself to my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council—I would not have made a distinction between being an ordinary Minister and being the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We had mass meetings about the criteria for promotions and it affected me as the Chairman. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the Ministers’ Council at the time.

Although I never saw it, people believed that I had dictated it, interfered with it and directed it. I only read it in the Press but I was crucified for it.

Tonight there is a meeting in Tongaat about the RED formula. There was a demonstration in front of my house. However, I never told the public that it was not my formula.

It was the formula of my predecessor, but as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I accepted it. I accepted it because as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I had to take the total responsibility. I want to say that if I wanted to be selfish, if I wanted to protect myself and if I wanted to sit as one of the Ministers, I could have accomplished that goal, because there was discussion between Solidarity and me. I do not think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was aware of it. Ever since the unity was dissolved there were rumours here that I was negotiating a deal with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to create panic and political hysteria. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is aware of it that we never concluded any deals. We did not even have a discussion, but the mischief that was caused throughout sowed the seeds of division. When all this plotting was going on, however, I could have made the finest deal and offered the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the Chairmanship of the Ministers’ Council, because with the party on this side of the House and with Solidarity there would be stupidity in this House. There would definitely be stupidity in this House.

I could have done that. Even a month ago I was still advised to do that, but I said one thing: I was not going to sacrifice my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council because if I had done that it would have meant sacrificing people, and I did not want to go away with a curse.

The other thing we could have done, and I was very strongly urged to do that, was, from the 45 hon members in this House, to get together the best team to form the Ministers’ Council. Whatever party formed the majority in this House of 45 members would then have been enabled to elect their leader. It was a very good suggestion. I did not go along…

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon member for Bayview please give me a chance now? I am not making any suggestion now, and I will not make that suggestion. It was suggested to me twice, and I sincerely expressed the wish that the person who came to me privately inform the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about this. He is not a member of Solidarity. I asked myself, however, who was going to decide who the best man was. In my opinion the hon member for Springfield might be the best man in the field of education. [Interjections.] Someone else might say the hon member for Cavendish is the best. Someone else might say the present hon Minister is the best. That means there would have been a dispute.

At that time, however, that would probably have been in the best interests of the Indian community. I indicated to those who came to discuss this matter with me that if that could turn out to be a success I would be prepared to step down as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I would have been prepared to step down at that time. If I do it now people will say I am doing it as a result of this motion. Therefore I will not do it now. If I did it now there are people who would say I did it because of the circumstances in which I found myself.

I even said to people, and they are very strong supporters of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that if we could get 32 hon members those 32 could elect the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and whoever was elected by them we would accept. We had our own discussion. We discussed this matter twice. I do not want to divulge the names of the people with whom we had those discussions.

But why did I not do it? I did not do it because I would have to meet my colleagues every day. I would have to look them in the eyes. I know mischief was caused about the hon member for North-Western Cape. I have told the hon member for North-Western Cape that I would take the responsibility. It was, however, a joint responsibility as a result of a unity arrangement. I do know, however, what was said behind my back. I am a politician. When one finds oneself in the driver’s seat one has to take decisions. Sometimes those decisions please people, and sometimes those decisions displease people.

This evening, however, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that to pilot a decision through my caucus, a decision in favour of unity with Solidarity, was not easy.

It nearly caused me to collapse. However, we did it with honesty and sincerity and I do not doubt the fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also did so with honesty and sincerity because I think service to our community was uppermost in our mind.

However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would be amazed to learn certain things about some of the people with whom he is sitting. He only has an alliance today and I want to give him a forecast. That alliance will be temporary because what I tolerated in order to survive, very few will tolerate. I want to say that if I were a crook, I would survive. If one does not telephone a man within one week, that is a cause of dissatisfaction.

I was invited to lunch. I went. At that luncheon I was given an envelope and was told: “This is a property. Let’s do a deal”. I do not have a tape-recording of that conversation but I could swear to it under oath in the highest Supreme courts in the country. I have the details of those properties in my locker in my office. I have those details.

When one has to choose certain things, there is interference. There is real interference.

It has been stated: “The Chairman has failed us”, and I want to say that we should look at the HSRC survey. If I had failed, the NPP would be tarnished. I want to tell hon members about a strategy that is used world-wide by opposition parties and by central governments that do not control certain provincial governments. If one wants to win the next election, all one has to do is use the words “maladministration” and “corruption” every 48 hours. It is done in many countries. Look at the strategy of the All-India Congress. The All-Indian Congress bandies about the words “maladministration and corruption” as a strategy in Tamilnag and in Karela, those government provinces which they do not control.

I therefore want to suggest to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he get rid of some of his advisors. He should stand up on his own and think on his own. He may be a good centreforward but he needs good inner-forwards. I have not spoken to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition during the past month, although I was advised to go and speak to him. However, every day there were rumours that I was doing a deal with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. We both know that we did not speak to one another, apart from greeting one another.

I therefore want to emphasise that when I retire, no hon Ministers will be able to say that I back-stabbed them. When the unity was being arranged some hon members who are sitting with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sharpened their knives against me, and the names they called him and the words they used to describe him are unprintable.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe that we have had a lengthy discussion on this subject matter and I now move for a closure of the debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed but I should like to request him to try and wind up his speech.

Mr Chairman, this is a very important debate. This is one of the most important debates ever. It actually affects my name and my career. Hon members had the opportunity to go to the Chief Whip and arrange this. Since they wanted it this way, I want to crave the indulgence of the Chair that I be given the opportunity to put my side of the story on record. The media will carry what has been said by the hon member for Southern Natal. He said, for example, that I alone am dragging this House down. He said that my credibility is affected, that I am on trial and that allegations have been made against me. I have to place these things on record, because if these things are printed the man in the street will read them and accept what is printed.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of giving Solidarity advice. When the Janata party was formed, Indira Gandhi made a forecast. She said: “That is a kitchen that will not last.” I want to say tonight that this is a kitchen that will not last.

I want to refer to the time when the unity was dissolved. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition came to me in a dignified way and discussed it with me. I want the hon the Minister of the Budget to know that although he underwent a traumatic period after the unity was dissolved, he can be glad for one thing. For two weeks I was attacked in the Press by an hon member, who is now sitting with him as one of the eleven, who said that NPP members should be Ministers. The letter was even leaked to the Press, to the Natal Witness and The Natal Daily News, but I stood by him. I received deputation after deputation, because people were after his job. I do not want to say tonight what he said to me in order to keep the job, because I said I will not have any recriminations.

Regarding the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare: I committed the biggest crime recommending his appointment. The persons who crucified me are sitting with the hon the Minister in the eleven. They never forgave me, for days and days, but today these people are sitting amongst the eleven. I therefore think I must place this on record. The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture says that I failed them. The hon member for Southern Natal said that I am on trial, or words to that effect.

Let us take the results of the two elections. I did something different in Tongaat and in the Eastern Transvaal in the sense that I put my own name on the line, in spite of the fact that all sorts of allegations were flying around. Look at the results! Let us take the HSRC survey. The NPP stands out very well in those surveys. Concerning the attitude of the Indian community towards a national leader, no other member of this House is listed except myself.

I want to repeat very strongly what I said earlier on. If 10 good reasons can be found as to why I should step down, then we can multiply those reasons by 10 why the hon the Ministers sitting opposite should step down. If we have a debate on recrimination on another day, I do not think they will survive that debate. I want to leave the matter at that and I sincerely hope that they search their hearts because I never discussed with them the offers of a merger with Solidarity and the offer to obtain the best-manned Cabinet. I only discussed that with them about 10 or 12 days ago.

As far as the hon member for North Western Cape is concerned I informed him that although this was the result of a unity arrangement, if I was to blame then others were also to blame. However, I informed the hon member that I took full responsibility for the decision. It was a difficult and painful decision but I took full responsibility for it.

How about the slur in the Press?

Mr Chairman, we do not want to cast any slurs. [Interjections.] I did not tell the hon member for Camperdown that he had foot and mouth disease, so hon members must please not take that out on me.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quoted the Constitution. There is one thing I want to say tonight and that is that I will not go down. I will not go down. We did make mistakes in 1984 when one of the 11 members—not the Chairman and not another member—telephoned my wife and everybody else for the nomination, and he got the nomination. He got the nomination in spite of the fact that people said that defeated candidates should not be nominated.

Gratitude!

The hon member for Umzinto is quite correct. Let us give a proper meaning to the word “gratitude”. We are not asking for gratitude but let us at least give the word its proper meaning.

Let us say that we resign. We number 19 here. I want all the hon Ministers to know that yesterday we could have had a majority. We would have had the majority—we would have numbered 24—and then I could have approached the hon the State President to restructure the Ministers’ Council. However, I did not do it. I mentioned to them…

Why did you not do it?

I did not do it because I did not want to make a mockery of the situation. [Interjections.] I say that we could have had the majority yesterday.

What will happen if I resign? We number 19 and we only need four more. Hon members opposite can announce the Cabinet, and it is going to make people happy and also make people sad. However, they must know that we are master tacticians and so their great dream…

Are you still dangling carrots?

I have not dangled carrots.

No, you are dangling lollipops.

I have not dangled carrots but if we look at the speeches that were made in May last year, in spite of all that was said to me then, when one looks at the speech that I made in the no-confidence debate one will see that I did not express bitterness in respect of anyone. I am not expressing bitterness tonight either. When people tell lies during the fasting period, when people put their hand on a photograph of the property of Mohammed and take an oath, they have to live with it, not me.

What is the property of the prophet Mohammed?

Well, I am just saying that. I am not going to mention names. [Interjections.]

I do not want to give any legal interpretation to the amendment moved by the hon the Deputy Minister. I do not want to make people wise. However, if the amendment is adopted those hon members must not come back to me to find out how to amend it again. I want to leave the matter at that. I say to them: Do not come back to me and ask me to come back to the House to amend it again. I say this because the implications of it must be considered very seriously indeed.

Mr Chairman, it is very important that blasphemy should never be committed in this House. It is blasphemous for anyone to say that there was a photograph of the prophet Mohammed.

I did not say that.

There is no such thing as a photograph of the prophet. In terms of Islamic laws, there can be no reproduction of anything which God created. I therefore ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to withdraw that expression.

You did not hear me correctly.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills is on his feet.

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council used the expression—and I heard him use it—that someone put his hand on a photograph of the prophet Mohammed…

He said property, not photograph, I think.

Oh, property. Well, that makes it doubly blasphemous. I can recognise his tremendous plea, but it is doubly blasphemous to take the name of the prophet Mohammed in that context.

Order! Can the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council repeat what he said?

I said the property of the prophet Mohammed.

Order! In order to see to it that nobody takes offence, can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council kindly withdraw that?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. If I heard him correctly, he quoted from the constitution, section 24. However, he left out a few words when the read the section on the appointment of Ministers. I wish to read the whole quotation for the record, as well as the benefit for hon members, and I quote:

1. (a) No Minister shall hold office for a longer period than 12 months unless he is or becomes a member of a House.
2. (b) A Minister of any department of State for own affairs of a population group shall—
   1. (i) be a member of the population group in question;
   2. (ii) at the time of his appointment as such a Minister…

The operative words are “at the time”. I now come to the Chairman, and I quote from section 21:

So, when a Minister is appointed, the hon the State President has to be satisfied that he must have the support of the majority at the time of his appointment. When the Chairman is appointed, the Chairman must come from the team of Ministers in the Ministers’ Council.

For certain reasons I do not want to analyse the amendment, but I think strong note must be taken of what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has stated. If I heard him correctly, he indicated that the amendment is actually similar to the motion he submitted and which was ruled out by Mr Speaker.

I am convinced that there is no difference between the motion of the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the amendment. The only difference is that that motion calls upon the hon the State President to take action, while this motion asks for the resignation of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

In effect it is a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council.

In the Chairman.

In the Chairman.

In the Chairman, and one definitely cannot separate the Chairman from the members of the Ministers’ Council.

That is not true.

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills says that that is not true, I will not accept it. I have seen the opinions, right? These opinions come from the best legal brains in the country. For example, one cannot separate the State President from the Cabinet. If one has a motion of no confidence in the hon the State President, then this includes the Cabinet. Likewise a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet will include the State President. [Interjections.]

If the State President dies, the Cabinet does not also die.

That is obviously a different situation, where nobody is moving a motion of no confidence. However, let us get the legal interpretation, which is a similar situation to section 39(3)(1)(b). If the three Houses move a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet within 14 days, the State President would have to do one of two things; either he dissolves Parliament or he himself resigns. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is in a similar situation, playing the role of a mini-president in a smaller situation.

No. [Interjections.]

Hon members must realise that the present hon State President is an executive president. He is not like the former president who had a prime minister. He is an Executive State President. Therefore I do not want to make people wise to the implications of the decision. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no difference between the motion and the amendment.

Mr Chairman, on a point of personal explanation: Somebody demanded to know why I was doing the work for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I normally do the work for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon member for Reservoir Hills woke up. He has an excellent record of a recrimination and vituperation-free speech this evening. I think he undid that record tonight, by casting an aspersion on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

It was a legal point.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that we are in rough waters. There is turmoil and I can see that anyone in this seat a as Minister of Education and Culture would have to face rough waters. Look at African politics, for example. How many of the great African leaders who were in the liberation struggle survived the first few years when change came? One can identify but a few of them in the whole of Africa. Therefore in a changing situation like this, where one has to take flak and face the storm, it is always the main leader or head that suffers the first impact of the storm.

Regarding the question of maladministration, etc, it is a master strategy of the national chairman of Solidarity. He plans it and he makes sure that this is dished out regularly.

Mr Chairman, I would like to appeal once again that I would like to move for the closure of the debate. This is merely a repetition of the same thing over and over again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I want to state that hon members are impatient and that this is a big no-confidence debate. One of my no-confidence debate speeches lasted three hours and forty-five minutes!

Just ask us to read it.

If someone were to read it, it would take four and a half hours. I feel that I must have my say because everything is directed at me. For everything people say, “blame the Chairman”.

I was telling some of my hon colleagues this morning that disability grants have been cancelled. We all know the procedures and one cannot even blame the hon the Minister. Yet every time disability grants are cancelled in Chatsworth and certain areas people blame and curse the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for everything. However, I want to tell my friends in the Ministers’ Council that if I were to have a bad headache tonight they would not survive.

The taxpayer contributes a lot towards keeping a Minister in office.

R1 million a year!

The taxpayer contributes a lot.

It is a waste of public money.

Sometimes I am asked by the hon the State President to do certain things and all I do is perform my duty.

And your Ministers?

All I do is perform my duty.

To obey the hon the State President.

No, not to obey the hon the State President; I do so to ensure that there is production because I put 32 ounces in my pound and my standards are high.

I do not spend three quarters of the day walking from office to office in this new wing. The hon member for Reservoir Hills will know who walks around checking whether the Minister is doing work. Everybody knows who the one is who walks around; the moment he arrives in the parliamentary complex he walks from office to office. Has no one amongst the 22 members questioned whether he should not go instead of the Chairman? Is he not doing his job? I do not want to mention names, but it is common knowledge.

The hon member Mr R S Nowbath made a speech in this House previously and the hon member for Umzinto, in my opinion, also made a very good speech. If we had respect for values then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would know that as sure as day follows night there is no need for this motion. If there had been, I would have called him to my office and I would have said we should go to the hon the State President and I would have handed in my resignation. There is no respect for values. In some of the cases the panic-button was pressed and it is a question of some of the hon members in the centre wondering to which side the flag would fly. [Interjections.] This has been happening even right up to this time.

The hon member for Cavendish must know that I can also say who troubles me at night. I took the hon member for Eastern Transvaal home one night and when I saw someone standing there, I hooted. There was another time when I saw the hon member for Stanger standing at the door and just walked in on a social visit. Why should we be enemies? I was nearly crucified for that. Therefore, when I am asked who makes calls at night and who hoots at night, I say I hooted because I saw a friend and I did so to attract his attention.

However, I want to come to the hon member Mr R S Nowbath. He moved an amendment that this House has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and he added a rider to that that in terms of section 39…

3(3)(b)(i).

… and if that is carried, the hon the State President must dissolve the House.

This House has to consider two things. If the 22 hon members—basically there are 22 members, but 21 without the Chairman—reject his amendment…

Mr Chairman, could you enlighten me as to whether it is proper for an hon member who was never elected to office to ask that other people be elected? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr R S Nowbath actually polled the highest votes because all those who elected him had confidence in him and he had their votes. In effect, therefore, he got the highest number of votes. [Interjections.]

I think that the country must know that this House is in a Catch-22 situation. One point is that there are two amendments. One is that this House has to decide whether it has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, and if hon members vote against it they will be taking a double decision. If one votes for the amendment of the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and if one votes against the amendment, that goes to show that in one breath such a person would be saying that he had confidence in the Ministers’ Council and then simultaneously he would be saying that the Chairman must resign.

[Inaudible.]

Therefore it is not this side of the House that is in a Catch-22 situation; it is that side.

The hon member for South Natal was the only person who criticised me. There was vituperation in his speech. He is shaking his head—I suggest that he gets a copy of his speech tomorrow and studies it. I want to say that I am not dragging the House of Delegates through the mud. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr R S Nowbath knows about this vituperation. I do not want it from that side; let us not have it from this side. We are not picking at details now. In fact, if a person makes a contribution towards uplifting the image of this House of Delegates, the community will pass judgment on that.

I want to suggest that we have an NPP meeting in Ladysmith; let us see the response. I just wish to make the suggestion in a very friendly way— when I land in Ladysmith, let us see the difference. I do not wish to say that in a negative sense—please do not misunderstand me. I want to say that what I honestly believe is that if I allowed certain things to be committed; if I were a lame-duck chairman; if I were a lazy chairman; if I closed my eyes and allowed myself to be manipulated, this would definitely not have happened.

I gained a lot of experience as the Minister of Housing, and in the course of that experience I came to know people. Someone came to my office one day and asked me: “Did you receive an envelope? A person has an option.” I shall not say whether he is an MP or whether, if he is an MP, he is among the eleven, but he told me: “You know, that option is my option.” I was sworn at over the telephone because I could not give a reply. He is not a Transvaler; he is a Natalian. I was sworn at—it is not the hon member for Isipingo. I never said that.

If one does not do wrong things in relation to teachers, one is denigrated and considered a bad man. It is a point against one. That is the crime of being Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I want to say that if I had in fact allowed myself to be manipulated, if I had bowed down to other people’s whims and fancies, I would have been untouched. I would have been left alone.

I want hon members to take very careful note of what I said in the no-confidence debate in February. This House is now a hung House. Even if decide to quit as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, it will still be a hung House because there are 19 hon members on this side. Every attempt was made to reduce that number, but it remains 19, so that threat of getting 23 will always be there.

I was crucified because we had an alliance with Solidarity. I was told “Don’t go to that area—it is controlled by Solidarity members!” There are people amongst the eleven who signed an agreement with Solidarity.

In what direction are we going? The NPP was crucified for having anything to do with Solidarity, and yet there are hon members sitting amongst the eleven today. It is a marriage of convenience. Unfortunately, with regard to some people, somebody played a trick and pressed the panic button. It was not dissatisfaction; it was a question of saving the jobs.

Even if I show some evidence of 22 tomorrow morning—hon members will find the scale will tilt—can we allow this to continue? Even with 22, we will not be content to continue in a hung House.

I do not want to deal with the question of an election now, because we were told that an election was a related issue. We were taunted. Hon members told me that in terms of the Constitution, it was the prerogative of the Ministers’ Council to request the State President to call an election. It is therefore up to the Ministers’ Council’s to call for an election. I cannot divulge confidential discussions or decisions taken by the Ministers’ Council, so if I talk about an election people will say it is sour grapes.

I have given the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a lecture tonight, and he must understand when I tell him that what he is involved in is a seven-day wonder. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knew what I meant when I said “Et tu, Brute!” I said “You too, Brutus!” because I knew something. I know of two sets of meetings. I know who was not invited to the planning meetings. I know everything.

I told the Press that there was a master plan, and hon members must accept that as a fact. There is a master plan.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon member for Stanger requested the closure of debate, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council pleaded for time in order to rebut allegations made against him, but in the past hour I have heard no rebuttals. [Interjections.] I still have my rights.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

For the benefit of the hon member for Camperdown, I want to say that the motion is against the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as an individual. Surely, then, it concerns the career of an individual who has made tremendous sacrifices.

What we require is the indulgence of the House. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or the hon the Deputy Minister stands up and wants to justify his draft resolution or amendment I do not think anybody on this side will complain and say that the question be now put. With regard to this matter it is not a question of a majority or a minority. I am serious when I say that if some hon members in this House respected the word “value” there would have been no question of a draft resolution. I would have tendered my resignation to the hon the State President immediately. That would have been according to the dictates and the principles of the Westminster system.

Whoever planned and piloted this will have to live with his conscience. I do not want to say anything beyond that. The NPP will not collapse and it will not die. I know that this motion will be carried but 22 persons are really in a Catch-22 situation. If one does not support this amendment it shows that one has confidence in the Ministers’ Council, so one will be sending a double message to society. The one message is that one has confidence in the Ministers’ Council and the other message is that one wants the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to resign. If one says that one has confidence in the Ministers’ Council but one wants the Chairman to resign then the Chairman is not even morally obliged to resign. We are therefore not in an awkward situation of Catch-22.

In spite of what people have said of the hon member for Isipingo I know his relationship with the present Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I know the hon member for Isipingo does not want the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to collapse personally. I know the feelings within him. [Interjections.]

I have indicated that I accept the good and the bad. When one is a Minister, one has to be a strong Minister, when one is a chairman, one has to be a strong chairman and when one is a leader, one has to be a strong leader.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I draw your attention once again to Standing Rule 80 which deals with the question of repetition in the House? The hon the Chairman of Ministers’ Council is repeating the same points over and over again. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to inform the hon member for Stanger that it is the future of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that is at stake here. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is entitled in terms of the Rules to put his case to the House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I was talking about the responsibilities of the people who are in charge of affairs. One has to take decisions that are painful and that hurt people. One also has to take decisions that please people. When one takes decisions that hurt people one is considered not to be a good chairman. I have been attacked and criticised for decisions in the Administration which were unpopular with the people. I have been told that it is interference. There is also interference from the Press.

The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a role, a function and a duty. I would even propose that we should get the hon the State President to define the duties of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I should like hon members to know that when a call comes from the community—I am not talking of running to electoral divisions; I am referring to our duty to South Africa—the six members of the Ministers’ Council respond instantly, whether it is Wednesday night, Saturday or Sunday. Which of those hon Ministers answers “It is a Saturday, my rest day”? Hon members must ask themselves that question. Must the man who works the hardest then be destroyed? The hon member for Isipingo was a witness when I asked somebody to come with me, and he heard the response himself.

I do not work for five days a week. I do not stop work at 16h00. I do not take lunch breaks. How many times have I been seen in the restaurant at Malgate? I am not a clock-watcher. Are these the reasons why the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must resign? Are these the reasons why he must go? When my children are on holiday, I cannot be with them. My duty comes first. That was probably a mistake in my life. I should rather have loafed and shirked my duties. I should have closed my office at 16h00 and gone home, and said “To hell with our responsibilities!” If I had done that, we would most probably not have been faced with this situation today.

I have been called an autocrat. I want to answer this allegation, because the Press carried it nationwide. I have also been called a dictator. [Interjections.] I am neither an autocrat nor a dictator. I have a strong personality and provide strong leadership, and the UDF knows that. A strong personality should not be mistaken for an autocratic one. What do I do? I do not dominate. The point is that if people perform their duties properly—I am talking generally, and not just about Ministers—there is no need for me to step in. I do not dominate and I am not a dictator, but I have a strong personality. Hon members must not misinterpret that strong personality and think that I am an autocrat.

I think it was the hon member for Cavendish who accused me of dealing with the school calendar. I indicated that no political arm should deal with school calendars, as that was an administrative decision. [Interjections.]

I had never seen so much mischief and gossip before we arrived here in February. For instance, people say “You know, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has done you a disservice. You are supposed to be a Minister. Why are you not a Minister?”. So that man searches his soul and says “Well then, I must go against the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council”. Then they go to another person and say “You know, you are going to be dropped as a Minister. A certain person is being groomed”. So suspicion is aroused in the mind of that person. I have never seen so much mischief!

Since we arrived in Cape Town in February, there has been nothing but gossip, cliques, backstabbing and whispering. There was no time to counteract this, because we sat down at our desk. We went to the field and carried on with normal work. Nobody can complain about that aspect. As far as my department is concerned, my desk is clear and my work is up to date. My work has not suffered; neither has it affected me psychologically.

This evening I am very calm. In fact, I am happy because I believe the hon member for Montford says I may have something up my sleeve.

Plenty!

Looking at the qualities of individuals, I am reminded of what the hon member for Reservoir Hills wrote long ago in a column in the Graphic, accompanied by a photograph. I was surprised, because he had attacked me for 18 years in a row and never published my replies, to open the Graphic one week and see the words “Know the professional”.

The hon member for Montford says that even while we are debating this now, some people may be in trepidation because they do not know what we are going to do. As far as this motion is concerned, I shall not lose any sleep over it. It is the person who has a conscience who will lose sleep. [Interjections.] Those people who have a guilty conscience are the ones who will not sleep well tonight. [Interjections.] I am not worried.

When the new party was launched they did not come to me and have a discussion and say: “We eleven have these grievances; let us discuss them”. They did not do so before launching that party. [Interjections.]

I asked you for a commission of inquiry.

The hon member did ask me for a commission of inquiry but I think he should also have the courage to tell the House what additional things he told me. We share confidences and I am not going to mention them in public. I think the hon member must understand why I am not going to mention those things in public.

However, a motion has been moved to the effect that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must resign. What is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do when a person under the charge of the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture absconds halfway through an inspection?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether he will inquire from the hon the Minister as to the circumstances of another appointment which was previously made?

I did not mention names. [Interjections.] I am not mentioning any names. What is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, Sir, I think all of us will accept that one should hear the other fellow out. I also think all of us subscribe to the audi alteram partem rule.

Not in this House on March 15!

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills is on his feet.

In view of the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has also twice indicated that he knows full well what the result is going to be tonight, may I appeal to him to wrap up his speech? [Interjections.]

The Hansard record is there for posterity. It is not going to collect dust in the archives, and the media are writing about everything that was said here this afternoon. It is important that I be given the time to state my case. I do not think my political career is at stake. [Interjections.] I think the political careers of others are at stake tonight. [Interjections.] I want to ask: What is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do when an inspection takes place—I want the hon member for Mariannhill to say yes or no—and someone says it is a waste of time?

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare whether he was not insulted on a public platform. [Interjections.] Was the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare insulted on such a platform in the presence of the public? [Interjections.] When the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council performs his duty, he is a bad Chairman.

Ministers are appointed for South Africa. Ministers are not appointed for certain areas.

Like Stanger! [Interjections.]

However, when the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tries to rectify that state of affairs, he is a dictator. He is an autocrat.

He is a tyrant!

One day the hon member for Springfield asked questions, like his hon colleagues in the House of Assembly, about certain details. I hope that one day the travelling movements of those people who want me out can be made available.

Then the people on the other side will understand that if I perform my duty, I am not liked. It is a point against me.

The hon the State President taught me a very good thing. He told me we must rule by example. If we want our senior officials not to look at the clock, we must not look at the clock ourselves. As Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I cannot ask my Ministers to do things if I do not set the example myself. I am not a clockgazer.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition only gave the numbers as reason why I should resign as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. His only argument was the numbers. However, if the motion is accepted, I will not be legally bound to resign, but I will be morally bound to resign. That is the argument that will be put to me. Let us apply that argument to the situation when the new party was announced. The correct thing to have done would have been for those hon Ministers who crossed, to have resigned, on moral grounds. Then the Ministers’ Council would now be depleted with two people and in terms of the Constitution we cannot fill the vacancies, because one needs the majority to fill the vacancies. That would have been the morally correct thing to do. In any case, we can terminate Ministers, but we need the majority to appoint a Minister. So we already have a hunghouse Ministers’ Council.

Of course, to the credit of all the present members of the Ministers’ Council…

Your soliloquy is leading me to somnolence.

When I say we must rule by example, we must be ever ready to be of service to this country, some people worry about somnolence. I am making a soliloquy, but the hon member for Reservoir Hills feels that this soliloquy should lead him to somnolence. If it leads him to somnolence, then my explanation of putting my side of the story on record is getting positive results, because if I succeed in putting others to somnolence, then I win the day.

I want to come to the Administration. I can say that nobody can point a finger at me. If I want to pre-empt people, I have checked things. Hon Ministers are aware of this. I want to tell hon members something. I asked my colleague, the hon member for Moorcross to move for the appointment of a commission of enquiry, but I warned some people that they should be prepared to get hurt when that commission is appointed. However, the person on whom aspersions have been cast, will go unscathed. I can justify what I have done as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but if only two things come out about some other people they will not be able to face society.

In our Administration, the Indian officials belong to and support various parties. One does not know what details they may be keeping against the heads or against Ministers. We also have the experience of leakage of documents. I do not believe there is anything that is confidential. Let us look at the situation. Since January of this year, things have been leaked out. I cannot blame anybody specifically because a number of people had knowledge of these matters. However, this leakage only started from January of this year. This was done to embarrass me. I want to say again that I cannot point a finger at anyone because I do not know who leaked the information. However, it was not accidental. These things were cleverly designed to try to place me in an embarrassing situation.

As Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and as a politician, I accept the fact that one has to face up to these things—that there are going to be these leakages. I know that the hon member for Reservoir Hills received information over a period of many years.

He was on the receiving end of the leaks!

Of course, I know that the hon member for Reservoir Hills will say that he received this information anonymously, even accidentally! [Interjections.] This year a large number of documents may have gone out.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but in fairness to the administrative staff as well as to hon members themselves it is now time to adjourn both the debate and the House.

Debate interrupted.