Mr Chairman, in common, probably, with many other hon members in this House I should like to begin by conveying my congratulations to the SA Police Force on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. I should also like to single out a specific member of the Police Force for special mention. I refer to Gen Lothar Neethling, to whom fell the exceptional honour of having a building named after him. I want to extend my sincere congratulations to him in that regard. For someone in his position, this—particularly in view of the data that will be available to the SA Police Force in that building—is really something exceptional. We share with pride that high tribute paid to him.

In the second instance I want to say that the annual report we have received this year is undoubtedly an improvement on those of previous years in the sense that it does enable us to acquaint ourselves with the situation in the Police Force up to the end of 1987. I think this is a major improvement. For that, too, we must thank the Commissioner of Police and his staff.

The exceptional achievements of the Police Force are remarkable particularly when we bear in mind the circumstances in which they achieve these successes. This Force is undermanned. We are all in agreement in that regard. It is a Force which in the current situation also has to conduct activities outside the normal. I note in the report that the Police Force has devoted two million man-hours to work which should really have been done by other departments. When we also bear in mind that the Police Force is involved in the unrest situation in our country and that it has to maintain its position in a situation in which we have experienced the abolition of influx control—and therefore an increase in the population—and that it has nevertheless, despite these circumstances, succeeded in scoring these successes in the detection and combating of crime, we believe that is truly an exceptional achievement. We wholeheartedly congratulate the Police Force in this regard.

Having said these things I want to deal with another aspect. During a debate relating to crime which took place here this year the hon the Minister vehemently criticised me for having supposedly made irresponsible statements and for having dealt with sensitive matters in an incorrect way. He said, inter alia, that when I referred to the increase in crime in the form of Black on White, I had been very irresponsible. He said that I was irresponsible and reckless. [Interjections.]

I want to say to him in regard to those allegations he made that in the first instance I was relying on research by the HSRC. In the second instance we can all see with our own eyes what is happening in our country at the moment. We see that iron bars and fences are going up around houses, and that guards are being stationed. We ask whether this is really a normal situation.

However, this is not the only thing in regard to this irresponsibility of which I am supposed to be guilty. The hon the Minister himself should take a look at the statistics. He quotes statistics to indicate that there are supposedly more Whites murdering Whites, and so on. My point, however, was that there had been an increase in murders of Whites by Blacks.

I could have made a calculation error—we are all susceptible to that—but I do not believe that these would be major errors. I have here the Census and Statistics surveys—this is at the disposal of the hon the Minister—from 1981 to 1985. What do these statistics say? They say that during the period 1983 to 1987 there was in fact, firstly, an increase of 25% in murders of Whites by Blacks and secondly, an increase of 40% in robberies of Whites by Blacks. [Interjections.] Thirdly there was an increase in rape of 15%. There was a further increase of 25% in regard to assaults on police in the performance of their duties.

I think it is irresponsible of that hon Minister to fail to face the facts squarely and then to come and tell the people in this country that there is no such situation. [Interjections.] What does the hon the Minister say about the statistics? They are indisputable. He can go and read them himself.

The hon the Minister should therefore bear in mind that we, too, are responsible when we make statements in this House. He is the irresponsible one. He does not want to face the facts squarely and recognise that we have a race problem here.

The White Paper on Police, which was issued recently, is a fine White Paper. It should really be on the shelves of every citizen countrywide so that he can see precisely where and how the Police function in this country. It is a fine report which should really have been published long ago but there is one aspect of the hon the Minister’s introduction in particular which I want to discuss with him. [Interjections.] The rest of the report is 100%.

He made a mistake again.

Yes, it is an error. In this White Paper the hon the Minister says that crime is on the increase throughout the world. He says:

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I go all the way with that hon member. I quote further:

In other words, the hon the Minister is identifying precisely what we say. He identifies that one is creating, in an integrated society, an ideal condition for unrest and crime. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister then makes the point—once again I agree with him—that the Police per se can do nothing about this situation or cause of crime.

That is why the neighbourhood watch system and everything it involves must be introduced. We agree with that. The Police cannot do that. However, the Government can do something about this. He identifies the problem, but his answer to this…

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

I am not answering questions. The hon member may as well resume his seat. [Interjections.]

After all, it is true that this kind of integrated situation is problematical. One knows that the situation in countries with a homogeneous population is different. [Interjections.] Just look at the city of Tokyo where there is a homogeneous situation; there is virtually no crime.

Order! Things cannot go on like this. Hon members are conversing too loudly. The hon member may proceed with his speech.

In New York… [Interjections]… with its heterogeneous population, on the other hand, one has the situation that the Black man, who comprises 10% of the population, commits 45% of the crime committed against 75% of the Whites. That is the factual situation.

In our own country we have today—we have always had it—the following situation. In Soweto, where people belonging to different peoples are brought together and are pushed into one place, one encounters a far higher crime rate than in the homelands, for example. This kind of situation is fundamental to our problems.

We call upon the Government to take cognisance of the fact that this situation, this mixing and this interwovenness, is a breeding-ground of crime.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to accord the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip, Sir.

The second aspect is the violence and unrest in our country. Our real problem is that the hon the Minister says that we must resolve this situation of violence by doing three things. [Interjections.]

The first is security action, and we have no problem in that regard. The second is good government. In the nature of the matter we also agree with that, but there is of course a lack of good government on that side. [Interjections.] The third aspect is the provision of a constitutional solution that is acceptable to the majority of people affected. [Interjections.]

Now hon members must listen to what that hon Minister also says—what a blunder this was as far as the function of the Police is concerned. He writes as follows in the foreword to the White Paper:

Of course!

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte is making too many persistent interjections. I call upon him to refrain from doing so. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

What this amounts to is the politicisation of the Police. The Police are there to apply the laws. Here it is required that each member of the Police Force be an enthusiastic implementor of the Government’s policy. Surely hon members know that there are innumerable supporters of the right-wing element in this country in the Police. They are there! How can the Government make of such a person an enthusiastic implementor of a constitutional policy that he does not accept? It is the party-political utilisation of the SA Police… [Interjections] … to make place for the Government in its planning.

The Government states that the answer to the problem in our country is reform, reform in a specific direction.

We have data here—those hon members know it—indicating that reform in this particular direction is the very cause of the violence situation in our country. [Interjections.] Now those hon members want to put forward the cause of the situation as a cure. That is one of silliest things I have ever heard in my entire life. [Interjections.] This has been going on since 1984, and they persist in trying to cure this disease with bars. It will not work.

This matter which they bring forward has been going on since those times. Even today they do not have the answer, because they know, as we do, that there is no acceptable plan for the majority in this country except perhaps—that is what they are heading for—the plan of the PFP. [Interjections.] Yes, they have a plan which they say is acceptable. However, the NP stops at nothing. They accept the policy of one state, of equality and liberty for all the people within that state, but when it comes to the implementation of the principle they come to a dead halt.

After all, that is justification for other people to rebel. Surely that is a basis of justification for them to rebel. One cannot create expectations and then somewhere along the line stop and want to prevent this happening. That is the mistake. The direction in which they want to carry out reform is the basis of the problem in our country.

Now the police have to be in the cross-fire in order to give the NP’s reform the opportunity to go ahead. They have to be used for the “changing of the hearts and the minds of the people”. That is their policy. After all, according to their policy it is pointless our assuming new forms; we must undergo a change of attitude. The police must be used for that. They now have to be the concrete expression of that and that is why it has happened that the Police are acquiring the image of an integrated State institution, an integrated set-up. This is something that those hon members must take cognisance of. They must even be seen from the outside to be putting the Government’s views into effect.

You are looking for votes!

We have them!

We do not have problems with that. We are trying to establish what the problem is of the police in this country and why they are having such a hard time of it in current circumstances. We are looking at the picture as a whole.

Mr Chairman, I understand my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, this morning we listened to what was probably the most unconstructive contribution that an hon member could have made in this House. [Interjections.] We were not listening to a member of the CP this morning. This morning we were listening to the voice of the AWB. [Interjections.] It was the voice of the AWB that used terminology such as: “We shall resist.” I am making this statement this morning that that hon member promoted resistance here. He spoke with the voice of the AWB. This morning he made use of clichés such as “mixed”, “interwoven” and “integrated”.

Those are the words of your leader! [Interjections.]

Did the hon member make a constructive contribution to the image of the SA Police here this morning? [Interjections.] After having listened to both the debates in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, yesterday afternoon, I am ashamed that such a dissenting voice should have been heard in this House this morning. [Interjections.] What was he trying to make an issue about? [Interjections.]

You are a liberal! [Interjections.]

I am glad I am not a hardened verkrampte like that hon member.

This morning, the hon member for Ermelo made a tremendous fuss about racial problems in this country and said that they could be projected onto the crime statistics of the country.

I am thankful that I can say I am not talking about a racial problem in this country, but of a challenge of intergroup relations. [Interjections.]

This morning the hon member made a great fuss about how people were suddenly fitting burglar bars to their homes.

Is it not true?

I shall discuss it in detail later. However, the hon member should state whether this is peculiar to South Africa or whether is a worldwide tendency. The hon member is obsessed with Black versus White. I expected that kind of statement from the hon member for Overvaal, but not from the hon member for Ermelo.

No, he is a pigmentocrat.

My bench mate is correct; the hon member for Ermelo is a pigmentocrat. [Interjections.]

I should like to take the opportunity, this morning, to congratulate Mr Leon Wessels on his appointment as Deputy Minister of Law and Order. Those of us on this side of the House know him to be someone with outstanding qualities, and we are grateful that it was he who was appointed to that post. [Interjections.]

Order! I am hearing a great many interjections, which makes it very difficult for the person speaking, to do so coherently. Hon members must control themselves. The hon member may proceed.

As the chairman of our study group we came to know him as someone with leadership qualities, and we thank him for his service in that capacity.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the outgoing Deputy Minister of Law and Order, Mr Roelf Meyer, for that he did in that regard.

I want to refer briefly to the White Paper which was tabled this week. While studying it, I noticed one part in the Preface that I thought was outstanding. I consider this to be the composition of South Africa, and I quote:

1. (a) security actions against revolutionary and radical elements;
2. (b) good government to demonstrate to the inhabitants of the country that the government is concerned about them and will see to their needs;

Most important is—

1. (c) the institution of a constitutional solution that is acceptable to the majority of the people who are affected thereby.

I want to congratulate the SAP, the hon the Minister and the Commissioner on the tabling of an excellent White Paper.

On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Police Force—which I shall refer to later—we remember the hundreds of members of the Force who died in the line of duty during the past 75 years. In 1987 alone, 67 members of the SAP died in the line of duty. I need only refer to the latest incident in Fish Hoek last week, when Warrant Officer Hendrik Barnard and Const Hawton had to make the supreme sacrifice. This is characteristic of people who are prepared to sacrifice everything for their work, their country and their people. On the eve of the funeral of these members of the SAP, I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to what they meant to the SAP.

The newspapers of the past day or so have been full of the heroic courage that Warrant Officer Hendrik Barnard displayed during the execution of his duties. In this morning’s Cape Times, in an interview that was never published, I read the following quotation from Warrant Officer Barnard:

The result was that this deceased policeman could not always find enough time to be with his children at home.

I then read a small notice in the funeral column of Die Burger this morning which was placed by his daughter and which contained inter alia the following words:

That sums up a member of the SAP who sacrificed everything for the blue uniform.

With reference to an article in Die Burger, we should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Genl Ronnie van der Westhuizen on his promotion. I think it is well deserved.

I am making the statement this morning that this hon Minister, together with his Commissioner, his general staff and every member of the Force, has succeeded in changing the image of the SAP—to use the words used by the hon member for Mamre yesterday in the House of Representatives—from that of a persecutor to that of a protector.

Hear, hear!

This did not come about of its own accord. It came about as a result of the attitude that their doors were always open and that they were always prepared to listen to complaints and criticism. It is for this reason that we have heard so many encouraging words about the SAP during the past two days.

The annual report of the SAP bears witness to thoroughness and effective administration. One thing that stands out is that this annual report shows an apparent decrease in the incidence of visible violence in the revolutionary onslaught in comparison with the previous financial year.

If you read further you will come to the truth.

I want to mention another publication, namely Servamus which is the official magazine of the SAP. I think this magazine has made a large contribution to the promoting of the positive image of our Force. I can tell hon members that I am frequently moved by the human dramas in the letters column of this periodical.

In this House this morning, we are also praising the SAP, as well as our other security forces, for the assistance that was rendered during the flood disasters that devastated our country during the past year. I want to quote from Die Burger of 24 March 1988:

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon Whip for the concession.

I want to refer to an incident that took place in George in which constables were accused of murder, or alternatively of culpable homicide. I am only referring to an article in Die Burger of 24 April 1988. I trust that the hon the Minister will deal with this matter or with similar matters in detail. However, I want to make it clear here today that it is a pity if it is true and that such incidents do occur. On the other hand, it proves that this hon the Minister and his Commissioner are not prepared to cover up any possible malpractices. They want the image that is projected to be one of an unsullied Police Force.

I want to issue a warning this morning as well—I am directing it at the hon member for Claremont in particular—that we should not elevate the exception to the rule. The SAP consists of ordinary people like you and me, Mr Chairman. Decisions often have to made on the spur of the moment. We all know that the police are subject to provocation. It is also true that in the execution of their duties, the police sometimes make mistakes. I do not know of anything this side of the grave that is perfect.

You do not know Helen Suzman!

We are celebrating along with the SAP this year. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Commissioner on the presentation of an excellent programme. I am referring to the exhibition in the H F Verwoerd Building, the memorial service at the Voortrekker Monument on 24 April and supplements to newspapers. I want to boast by adding that I believe that the first supplement to a rural newspaper about the SAP in the Southern Cape was distributed by the Caxton Group.

The SAP can look back on a proud record. We have a relatively small Police Force in comparison with other countries. I have been told that even if we were to eventually expand our Police Force to 87 000 members, we would still have a lower ratio than cities such as New York and Moscow.

The opposition will have to learn to emphasise the successes of the Police to a greater extent, rather than merely emphasising the negative aspects. In the struggle against conventional crime, police action has succeeded—I am saying this for the information of the hon member for Ermelo in particular—in curtailing the crime rate from 1985 to 1987 by 18%. With reference to stolen vehicles, the recovery rate increased to nearly 60% last year. Attacks on the elderly have decreased since the commencement of the special crime prevention programme to protect senior citizens. Today, the crime rate in the RSA is no higher than that in the average Western countries. The degree of success in the solving of crimes is among the highest in the world.

It is a fact that South Africa’s history has shown over the years that problems with regard to security have always been part of the SAP as a result of their sense of responsibility as well as the fact that they have always been in the thick of things. I am referring to their participation in the two World Wars alone. Apart from that, the police actively participated in the counter-insurgency struggle in Rhodesia as well as in South West Africa.

It is general knowledge that the communist onslaught on the RSA is increasing. As a result of their tactics the SAP is increasingly becoming a target for criticism.

With regard to the workload the police have also had to make a sacrifice, especially since the increase in unrest in 1984. In co-operation with our intelligence sector, the SAP have also proved themselves in the field of counter-espionage. By way of example, I need only mention the arrests of the spies Loginov, Goslov and Dieter Gerhardt. The happenings in Broederstroom last week are still fresh in our memories.

The SAP deserves all the honour for their unselfish service with regard to the curtailing of the revolutionary onslaught during the past 75 years.

The Government is serious about curtailing crime, but the Government is also responsible for and pays attention to poverty, inadequate housing and unemployment, which are causes of crime. Our crime rate is unacceptably high, but this tendency is not peculiar to the RSA alone. The NP Government employs the maximum number of policemen and women that the Treasury can afford.

However, the public also has a role to play by actively taking part in the Reservist Force, by keeping their eyes peeled, by trying to prevent crime and by being less careless.

The SAP is a proud Force with a proud record. It is a modem Force with modem ideas and equipment. Here, I am referring to the forensic and scientific laboratories.

On this occasion, I should like to thank all responsible members of the Press and the SABC for their sympathy with regard to the struggle.

The revolutionary forces realise that the SA Police will have to be destroyed or discredited before democracy in South Africa can be overthrown. I am asking the hon the Minister this morning to again consider the duties of the police with a view to including certain facets in their daily programme such as the taking down of particulars with regard to accidents.

An enormous reserve of goodwill exists towards the SA Police in South Africa. Opposition groups should not be allowed to contribute to the undermining of this goodwill. We need a strong security force in order to continue with other campaigns in this country, such as constitutional reform. The SA Police need more support and less criticism. We are paying tribute today to members of the SA Police for their long and uninterrupted hours of service, often in extremely difficult circumstances. However, their duties are performed with a positive attitude, and this I can vouch for, and we on this side of the House say to the SA Police this morning: May you continue in this way; you shall receive all the support that you deserve from this Government.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I would like to join with the hon member for George in expressing condolences to the families of those policemen who gave their lives in the course of their duty during the past year. I would also like to join him in the sentiment he uttered about changing the image of the Police, from oppressor to protector. I will have more to say about that later on.

I also want to join him in congratulating the hon the Deputy Minister on assuming office as the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. I see that he has also been elevated to the knighthood. I have a copy here of the magazine Sarie in which he appears as one of the “ridders van die Parlement”.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Later on in the article they devote quite a lot of space to him, and according to them, he belongs to “’n klomp prikkelprinse wat knieë kan laat knak”. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, I cannot say that he has done that to me as yet! [Interjections.] Maybe I am a little old for him, or perhaps he is somewhat young for me. They also refer to him as one of the most charming and up-and-coming members of Parliament.

Do you agree?

Well, we will wait and see.

Now I want to turn to much more serious matters in the debate on this Vote. To my mind, and I think to the minds of many concerned citizens in this country, the main issue that should receive attention under the Law and Order Vote is the ongoing state of emergency and the powers exercised by the Minister—and others to whom powers are delegated—under the emergency regulations to detain people without trial, to ban organisations and individuals and to severely censor the media and close down publications.

It is now just under two years since the total state of emergency was declared over the entire Republic, and prior to that—hon members will remember—there was a partial state of emergency over large areas of the Republic which was imposed on 21 July 1985 and which continued until March 1986, thus making it three years minus three months during which South Africa has endured what I call a twilight existence under a state of emergency.

There have been the Government’s oft-asserted statements—we have had several of them—that the unrest in the townships has abated, and indeed the latest report of the department states that public violence decreased by 75,80% in 1987. That is the statement by the Government, and it is confirmed in the report, although of course none of us are really able to judge whether this is a correct assessment of what is going on in the townships, because the Press and the media are excluded whenever there is an unrest related situation in those townships.

Nevertheless, going on the Government’s assertions, why then is there no indication that the state of emergency will not be re-imposed when it lapses at midnight on 11 June 1988? On the contrary, Sir, both the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Defence, as well as the former Deputy Minister of Law and Order, have indicated that the Government has no intention of lifting the state of emergency. The Government has therefore no intention of restoring confidence in the stability of South Africa, and perhaps even attracting a little investment capital.

Will the hon the Minister tell us whether we are going to be deprived of our civil rights indefinitely, because that is exactly what a state of emergency means? Are we to be deprived of the protection of habeas corpus and of the rule of law, which are, as we all know, the hallmark of civilized Western society? In accordance with the principle of habeas corpus nobody can be deprived of his liberty without due process. That is the issue. Today we have no due process.

It is, of course, unfortunately true that when the state of emergency does lapse at midnight on 11 June 1988, even if it is not re-imposed, there will still be laws on the Statute Book—permanently there, on the Statute Book—which give powers of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, such as sections 28, 29, 30 and 51 of the Internal Security Act, 1982, and indeed the hon the Minister tells us, in answer to a question put by me, that 519 people have been held under section 29 during 1987. That, as we all know, is the most draconian of all sections. It allows for indefinite arbitrary detention without trial, in solitary confinement, for the purposes of interrogation. Out of this number—again according to an answer given to me by this hon Minister—only 81 people have been charged with various offences ranging from terrorism to the possession of prohibited publications. People have actually been held under section 29 for the crime of possessing prohibited publications. It has certainly never been the intention of the law that this draconian measure should be used for an offence of that nature.

As at 11 February 1988 altogether 195 people were still being held under section 29. The most distressing thing about all this is that the general public of South Africa have become so inured to living under a state of emergency that I believe it is high time they were reminded of the alarming extent to which the Government has made use of the wide arbitrary powers that it has taken unto itself under the emergency regulations.

Eight thousand people were detained without trial for periods of at least 30 days during the partial state of emergency between July 1985 and March 1986. About 15 000 were detained during the eleven months from June 1986 to May 1987, and from 12 June 1987 until 15 May 1988 just over 3 000 people were detained, thus making a total of 26 000 people held for longer than 30 days since the first and partial state of emergency declared in July 1985. These are the official figures tabled by the hon the Minister in terms of section 3(4) of the Public Safety Act.

Unofficial figures given by monitoring groups such as the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee are considerably higher, because the hon the Minister’s figures exclude all detainees who were not held for longer than 30 days. The law does not make it necessary for the hon the Minister to table those names. Indeed, Sir, because of the narrowness of the requirements of that section, one has to prise out of the hon the Minister, by way of questions, any detailed information about detainees because the hon the Minister declines to give us any information beyond that required of him in terms of the law.

The names on the lists he supplied are not in alphabetical order. In reply to a question from the hon member for Groote Schuur he said he was not required to do anything like that. However, that does make it extremely difficult for people to trace missing relatives. Since no details are given in the lists, it is virtually impossible to check when persons were detained, where they are being held or even whether they are still in detention when the lists are issued, or have in fact been released.

Replies to questions put, in an effort to prise information out of the hon the Minister, reveal that 1 338 persons under the age of 18 and 290 under the age of 16 were detained in 1987, and that 234 children under the age of 18 were still in detention in February 1988.

It takes considerable research to extract information about detainees because, like the report that was issued by the Department of Justice, which is in charge of the prisons in which detainees are held, neither the report of the SA Police nor the White Paper tabled by the hon the Minister of Law and Order a few days ago makes any mention of the existence of detainees. One would think there was no such thing in South Africa. They are apparently a figment of the imagination of the enemies of South Africa.

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete her speech.

I thank the hon Whip. I thought he had forgotten.

I reminded him!

Then I would like to thank you too, Sir.

Of course there is no mention of the numerous court cases in which the far-reaching and often ambiguous emergency regulations have been challenged, some successfully, so that the hon the Minister has had to come back and re-issue amended regulations. There is no mention of the numerous hunger strikes which detainees have undertaken.

I must also mention that it takes considerable ingenuity to ascertain just how long a detainee has languished in jail under the emergency. In fact, many have been detained for over a year.

About 1 000 such people have been identified by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits University as having been in jail for over a year without trial, and without undergoing any form of interrogation. They have just been held in preventive detention. [Interjections.]

Have you seen how few necklaces there have been lately?

There are people like Zwelakhe Sisulu, editor of the now banned New Nation, Mosando of the UDF, Vusi Khanyile of UCT and Constance Hlatshwayo. [Interjections.] Surely many of these detainees were held because of their activities in the 17 organisations banned in February of this year. If that is so, why are they not released now that those organisations are banned? They can no longer continue with those activities, so what is the point of keeping those people… [Interjections.]

They are not banned at all. [Interjections.]

Very well, they are restricted. They are emasculated. They are unable to carry out the normal activities of the organisations for which they were originally established. [Interjections.]

They are restricted, not banned.

I do not know why the hon member is so sensitive about the use of the word “banned”. We have been banning individuals in this country since 1950. The hon member should be quite used to it by now.

There is a big difference.

There is a big difference, is there? To be restricted in such a way that one cannot carry on any normal activity of the organisation to which one belongs is, to my mind, just as bad as being banned. There are some people who, like Raymond Suttner of the law department at Wits, have been in detention since day one, that is for just on two years.

What sort of a country have we become, for heaven’s sake? How long does the hon the Minister think that he can keep these people in prison without trial, without their being charged with any crime or convicted by any court? The havoc wrought in their lives is incalculable.

Their family lives are ruined, there is a loss of earnings and there is probably the permanent loss of jobs and psychological trauma more particularly in the case of the thousands of young people who have been detained. Their education is also interrupted. Sometimes their education is interrupted permanently because they are told they are too late to register for the schools when they get out of jail. Have hon members ever heard of anything like that? It is like Russia; they put one in jail there and when one comes out of jail, one is charged with being a parasite because one has not worked during the period one was in jail. Here they put people in jail and when they come out of jail, they cannot go back to school because the period in which they have to register for the next term has passed. It really is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is true that detainees are being asked to sign undertakings that they will not involve themselves in this or that activity and are told that if they do sign those releases, they will be let out of jail? Is it true? Is this a repetition of the eschewing violence clause before politicals are released? It is ridiculous because, if people continue with their activities which are considered unlawful, they obviously end up in jail again.

I want to point out to the House and to the country as a whole that lack of due process is one of the major reasons why South Africa has become an outcast among civilised nations. I know what I am talking about because I have spoken to people overseas. It is one of the major reasons. It is not that people hate White South Africans. It is not that at all. It is not even that they just hate South Africa; they hate the fact that this country has joined the ranks of those countries which have given up habeas corpus—the hallmark of a civilised country. They have given up due process. That cannot be explained away in any language whatsoever. [Interjections.]

I want to quote the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, but first I want to point out to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis who complained that the British Foreign Secretary was “sticking his nose into South Africa’s affairs,” that he had better be careful because if the British do not stick their noses into South Africa’s affairs any longer, we will have sanctions imposed by the European Community and we will have sanctions from West Germany. The British Foreign Secretary is one of the bulwarks against sanctions. To say that he should not stick his nose into South Africa’s affairs is a provocative and extremely silly statement. The hon member ought to be disciplined by his own party for that. [Interjections.]

The British Foreign Secretary said the following:

I agree with him totally. He goes on to say:

Way back in 1963, when I was a member of Parliament already, the infamous Sobukwe clause was passed in the General Law Amendment Act of that year—I think it was clause 4. It enabled the Government to hold a man in prison after the expiry of the sentence which had been imposed on him by a court of law. It was only ever used against one man and became known as the Sobukwe clause because it was only used against Robert Sobukwe, leader of the PAC, who had to serve a six year sentence on Robben Island beyond the three years imposed on him by the courts for inciting defiance of the pass laws. Six further years—it was a most disgraceful episode!

It has not been used again. Now, however, we have emergency regulations which are being used in exactly the same way as the disgusting Sobukwe clause, except that these people have never been found guilty of any crime. They have never been tried for any offence. In a way it is therefore worse than the Sobukwe clause and it is used against thousands and thousands of people.

What a sad reflection it is on 40 years of National Party rule that the Government cannot maintain law and order without taking powers which totally abrogate normal democratic practices!

Mr Chairman, I am always amazed at the hon member for Houghton. She is the chief spokesman for the PFP on law and order and, as usual, she had no good word for our policemen today. I just wish to make it very clear to her that if at this stage she still does not know it, she should realise that we are standing with our backs against the wall, against this revolutionary onslaught against our country.

Who put us there? [Interjections.]

The fact remains that this country has been in a state of emergency ever since 12 June 1986. [Interjections.] Ever since that day we have had comparative peace in our Black townships. It is a fact that the ordinary moderate Black man wishes the state of emergency to be in force, because it is the only way by which he can go about his peaceful, everyday job. It also means that his children can go to school… [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central realises he has such a loud voice.

They can go and do their jobs every day and the children can go to school peacefully.

The fact that we do have these people in detention is not a good thing. I admit that. However, the fact remains that those detainees have acted against this country and wished to take the law into their own hands in order to make the country ungovernable. If there are youngsters in detention because they are prepared to pick up a stone or to throw a petrol bomb, they must also be prepared to take the consequences. [Interjections.]

*South Africa is proud of its Police Force today; we are proud of the men and women who fearlessly perform their duty, which is to deal with criminals and perpetrators of violence so as to make this country a safe place for us to live in. They have a beautiful motto: “We protect and we serve.” I want to express my admiration for them today.

Fortunately, the inhabitants of this country are increasingly beginning to realise that they also have a responsibility to society and that they must take steps to protect their own property and their own homes. One often hears people say: “I am a taxpayer, so the Police Force must protect me and assume responsibility for our safety in this country.” That standpoint is no longer valid, for it has been proved that the more public involvement there is, the less crime there is in our country. Mr Robert Kennedy said:

We have those men today who maintain law and order and security in our country.

What is particularly worrying is the increase in the number of elderly people who are being attacked, murdered and/or robbed these days. However, this phenomenon is not unique to South Africa. In Great Britain and especially in the US there has also been an alarming increase in the incidence of this type of crime. A source of particular concern is the large number of young children involved in attacks and murders of this kind, especially in the US. South Africa is not the only country where this is happening, therefore. The fact that so many of our senior citizens grew up in times when crime was not as widespread as it is today has made them a very easy target for these attacks.

The life expectancy of our people keeps rising. It is said that by the year 2000, 22% of our entire population will be over the age of 60 years. Quoting statistics is sometimes misleading, however, for the fact is that we no longer know at what age a person can be said to be old.

Elderly people living alone are a particularly easy target, and between January and June last year, 116 people were in fact assaulted in their own homes. However, the police are constantly giving attention to this matter, and it is promising to be able to state here that 65% of the persons who assaulted all those elderly people have already been arrested and will have to answer for their deeds.

The SA Police have also published a comprehensive guide in which they suggest preventive measures that can be taken by elderly people. They have already distributed 120 000 copies of this document. In addition, the police have launched an intensive campaign aimed at making elderly people aware of the problems they have in our society.

I think our neighbourhood watch system can do a great deal to create a safer environment for the elderly. We must look after these people who did so much to build up our communities. Even the active senior citizens can get involved in this by serving on the security committees established by the police.

The neighbourhood watch system was introduced in the US during the seventies. Unfortunately, it degenerated into militant vigilante groups that tried to take the law into their own hands. The same system was created in Great Britain in 1983, but in a much more refined form. When neighbourhood watches are established, it is important that the police should be their backbone, because they provide the training and assist these people by word and deed. It is an indisputable fact that crime is on the increase as a result of increasing urbanisation as well as unemployment. The neighbourhood watch system is an excellent way of involving the public in the protection of their own property as well as that of their neighbours.

When riots became more widespread between 1984 and 1987, large numbers of policemen were withdrawn to be used for combating the riots in the Black townships. However, the crime rate in our suburbs rose in spite of burglar-proofing and alarm systems, about which the hon member for Ermelo told us so much today. The unfavourable economic climate, as well as rising insurance premiums, caused the man in the street to realise that he would have take steps to protect his own property. In 1986, there was a spontaneous revival of neighbourhood watches. The climate was right and the police immediately took steps to ensure their success. A well-known insurance company sponsored all the signs that advertise the neighbourhood watch system today.

The hon member for Pinetown is not here this morning, but I think we must mention the fact that the local authority of Pinetown made a very important contribution by compiling the draft manual setting out the universal principles of the neighbourhood watch system. This manual was officially approved by the police in June last year.

We note with appreciation that a police officer has been appointed in every police district today to assist these neighbourhood watches which are now being introduced all over the country. Since January this year, 859 neighbourhood watches have been formed in South Africa, and since 1985, there has been a turn-about in the crime rate. Since 1985 there has been a drop in the crime rate, especially in our White residential areas. Not only has the unrest abated, but the successful introduction of the neighbourhood watch system has done a great deal to make this possible.

The neighbourhood watch system is successful. It has caused a drop in the crime rate, and the police can now be used to a far greater extent for investigating serious attacks. We therefore want to convey our thanks today to our community leaders who took the initiative so that others could follow in order to make a success of this neighbourhood watch system. We thank the Police Force for having been prepared to assist us in this great task. We commend them for having done so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale said nice things about the police. She also made an appeal on behalf of our threatened elderly people. We associate ourselves wholeheartedly with that. We are profoundly grateful to the police for what they have achieved for our elderly people in unfavourable circumstances and we appreciate it.

It is a special privilege to participate in the discussion of the Law and Order Vote, not only because in general I have the highest appreciation for the tough and sometimes ungrateful work performed by the police force but because I can speak with special pride of the neat and dedicated policemen in my constituency. I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to lieutenant Nel and his second in command, Warrant Officer Van Emmenis, as well as the other staff of the police station of Naboomspruit. A week from today three awards are to be handed to this station, namely the Christo Pienaar Trophy for the best indigenous garden and awards for the neatest station in the Far Northern Transvaal and the second neatest station in the entire country.

That takes some doing! I can proudly say that this is not the first time that this type of award is being made to the station.

I am also grateful for the new police station at Warmbaths which was officially opened in April. I am grateful to the people who gave us a hearty welcome there. Unfortunately the situation is that in the future this police station is really going to need the new facilities because they are going to have far more work on their hands in view of the fact that the Government, despite repeated appeals by various White bodies in the Warmbaths area, is going on with the expansion of the Black township there.

I should like to emphasise the need for a strongly motivated White police force; or rather from the Government’s point of view a strongly motivated White component of the Police Force. In contrast to the NP and the PFP, we represent Whites in this House and we prefer to speak about the interest of Whites.

Hear, hear!

In contrast to those parties we do not like to speak for and on behalf of the other population groups. [Interjections.]

Of course, the CP believes in an own White Police Force as a subdivision of the White Government in an own White fatherland. This of course does not mean that no non-White at all may be employed. It does mean, however, that in the own White Police Force the striving to achieve White autonomy, self-protection and self-sufficiency must be given effect to. At the same time we not only do not begrudge our neighbouring peoples the right to their own police forces, but we are prepared to assist them as far as we can to establish and maintain such police forces. In contrast the NP believes in a colourless, differentiation free police force consisting of members whose race, colour or ethnic links are totally unimportant, because they all form part of one nation in one undivided South Africa.

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

I am not prepared to answer questions.

This is the post-apartheid era which the hon the Minister of Defence envisaged this week.

Unfortunately I also find the same colourless, peopleless concept of a nation on page 2 of the Annual Report up to the end of last year. Reference is made to the SAP’s “service to the multiracial South African community”. The “community” in the singular appears to refer to the one undivided nation-in-the-making. I find the same concept in the foreword by the hon the Minister of Law and Order to the White Paper that has just appeared. He states that the revolutionary onslaught can only be checked by way of a threepronged total counterrevolutionary strategy of which one prong is, and I quote:

The hon member for Ermelo dealt effectively with that. Reference is made here to “people”— simply people, inhabitants of the country—irrespective of their race or ethnic links. The solution must simply be acceptable to the majority of those people—and that while the vast majority of those people are Black! It should also be borne in mind that the HSRC has found that in the Black majority community, 43% of the Blacks are of the opinion that the ANC is the strongest, 20% that the UDF is the strongest and only 4%, for example, are for Inkatha! Fourty-two percent support the leadership of Mandela, 10% support Tutu and only 5% support Buthelezi. [Interjections.] Despite that, the Annual Report of 1987 tells us on page 1, and I quote from where the hon member for George did not want to quote further, that:

This is so despite the fact that the hon the Minister himself complained about the released Marxist Mbeki that he has only brought the Government pain, and is now engaging the attention of policemen who could be engaged in other, valuable work. This is the case despite the fact that this Government, since the fateful referendum, has called one state of emergency after another and even now can give no indication of when we can return to normality. [Interjections.] No indication is given of when it will free the hand of the police and other security forces so that they can deal with the enemy in a correct military way. [Interjections.]

This hon Minister and his Government are obsessed with one common, multinational, multiracial nation. They are obsessed with mixing at all levels. They have an obsession for mixing up everything and everyone. Why should our Police Force also have to suffer from this?

Why should the traditional White Police College be subjected to constant mixing? Why should our White boys be forced on occasion to share one dining hall and one sleeping area with nonWhites? Why is it so important that Whites and Blacks in the Force, who traditionally were separate, are now forced on each other at receptions and other social functions? Why must the Indian Lieutenant Naidoo be appointed second-in-command in Scottburgh at a police station whereas there are no Indian inhabitants, businesses or even a Black township in Scottburgh? What point do they want to make? [Interjections.] Why do they have this obsession with so-called equal remuneration if the situation between White and Black is so full of inequalities? Why must people, in the name of inequality, receive such equal remuneration while the Government knows that for the most part there is not equal responsibility? Why should a person who can accept no higher responsibility than that of a guard, be placed on an equal footing with a commander? Must it happen just because he is Black?

The Black man is not being helped in this way and the White policeman is not being motivated. The Government is harming relations that could in the normal course have been sound. What they are doing is that matters such as these have to discussed because they are insensitive to the sensitivity of our ethnic problem in South Africa.

What is the Government trying to achieve hereby? Are they trying to create a single common nationalism for one nation? That is an absolutely unrealistic expectation.

The only real and lasting solution is some form of separateness. It is a natural need among people to form groups on the basis of their ethnic identity and for the group to segregate itself. Any Government that is seriously concerned about goodwill and neighbourliness of neighbouring peoples will recognise this need and support it as part of its policy. It ought to be a principle of State authority. It is essential for ethnic relations and relations among people for the integrity of the own group to be recognised, respected and upheld.

We call upon the hon the Minister to follow the course of true nationalism, which is one of the greatest realities of the world. He can begin by again recognising the love of the White police for their own, and by permitting that separateness within which that love, national pride and patriotism can flourish and give rise to a strong, motivated White Police Force.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to cross swords with the CP this morning.

You got too hurt in Randfontein!

However, the remarks made by two hon members compel me to do so. The hon member for Potgietersrus rose to his feet here and insinuated that hon members on this side of the House did not represent Whites. I consider that a far-fetched insinuation. [Interjections.]

Of course the NP, just like the CP, represents Whites in this House, but the NP fully realises that White interests cannot be protected in isolation. For that reason the NP is also concerned about promoting the interests of other groups who share this country with us. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Potgietersrus that if it were not for the Coloured component of the Police Force, we would find it very difficult to maintain law and order in South Africa.

Not among the Whites!

The hon member for Ermelo said here that the escalation in incidents of unrest was caused by reform. This is a remark which is very wide of the mark when it comes to logic. It is like arguing that because an accident happened at 12 noon while the sun was shining, it had happened because the sun was shining.

Reform is not the reason for the escalation in incidents of unrest in South Africa. [Interjections.] With that remark the hon member for Ermelo simply revealed his ignorance regarding the nature of the onslaughts. South Africa’s enemies have realised that reform is an excellent counter-revolutionary strategy, and that they must do everything in their power to neutralise the advantages arising from reform measures. That is why the onslaught was intensified…

Like the present state of emergency!

…and the hon member must really reconsider his standpoint on this situation.

On 29 February of this year several spiritual leaders, including Dr Alan Boesak and Bishop Desmond Tutu, were arrested here in Cape Town because in the opinion of the police they were contravening section 3 of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act. These arrests elicited protests world-wide, but today I want to defend the actions of the police in this regard for a very specific reason.

If the police had not arrested these people who were leading this protest march, this could have created the impression that civil disobedience was being condoned, and we dare not allow civil disobedience, by anyone at all, to be perpetrated or condoned in this country.

I am very worried that certain spiritual leaders are in fact encouraging civil disobedience in the name of religion. As recently as 18 April 1988 Dr Beyers Naudé said the following in a Dutch magazine, De Standaard:

On 25 February 1988 Dr Boesak said the following in an interview with a New York television network:

Sir, if every second person in the street claims the right to civil disobedience, we are heading for anarchy in this country. It seems to me that civil disobedience is actually being propagated mainly on the strength of three reasons.

The first reason is a theological reason. This is the reason advanced by Dr Beyers Naudé: You must obey God rather than the people, and for that reason you must contravene the laws of the land. In this respect I simply want to remark that one should not take a scriptural text out of context and then simply make it applicable to every situation. This scriptural injunction concerns two matters—a prohibition on the teaching of the scriptures and a prohibition on freedom of worship. Where this exists one must, within the context of the Scriptures, obey God rather than the people. I want it placed on record that there is no prohibition on the preaching of the Scriptures in South Africa and that there is no prohibition on freedom of worship in South Africa either. For that reason one cannot use this scriptural injunction as a reason to preach civil disobedience.

The second reason being advanced, by these spiritual leaders too, is that civil disobedience is now permissible owing to the institutional violence which is part of the system. Again I want to make a brief statement. We are living in a broken reality in which no such thing as a perfect political dispensation exists.

In every political dispensation in which there is any suggestion of law enforcement we are therefore going to come across elements of institutional violence, and if on the strength of those elements of institutional violence everyone were to claim the right to counter-violence or civil disobedience we would be heading for total anarchy.

The third reason why civil disobedience is being encouraged is that the body politic is ostensibly not legitimate. Yet again the only criterion for legitimacy cannot be general acceptance. Legitimacy is also a matter of the ability of a government to govern, to maintain law and order, to establish the basic infrastructure, and also international recognition. If these criteria apply this system is legitimate. If acceptance were to be the criteria for legitimacy and a lack of acceptance of the system were to give one the right to civil disobedience, this would mean that every group which was dissatisfied with a specific system and did not accept it would have the right to civil disobedience. It is clear that this would also lead to chaos.

I think the spiritual leaders must examine their own consciences and ascertain whether they are not being manipulated by other forces in order eventually to establish a Marxist regime here. I want to point out that Lenin said that religion was probably the most fertile breeding-ground for the dissemination of Marxism because clergymen were very gullible and could very easily be misused.

In a book on disinformation, The Truth Twisters, Richard Deacon devoted an entire chapter to “the taming of the churches”, in which he indicated how the World Council of Churches was already being manipulated by both the Marxists and the Soviet Union. For that reason I want to reiterate that spiritual leaders must be careful not to allow themselves to be misused for the purposes of revolution in South Africa. Die Kerkbode appealed for the state of emergency to be lifted. However, as long as clergymen participate in these activities they are in fact delaying the lifting of the state of emergency.

Sir, a final remark on a totally different matter. I want to associate myself with the hon member for George, who spoke about the work-load of the Police Force. I am saying this specifically with reference to what has happened during the past week. The fact is that suicide is not a crime in South Africa. I should therefore like to ask whether the police should be burdened with handling this matter, particularly considering their already overfull programme. I should also like to hear the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s view on this.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the recent sentencing to death of two former members of the SA Police Force, Capt Jack la Grange and Sgt Robert van der Merwe. These two gentlemen were found guilty by the Transvaal Supreme Court on two counts of murder and one of attempted murder. As a result the supreme penalty was imposed on them, namely the death penalty.

There is no doubt that we are dealing here with a clear-cut case of murder and of the abuse of position and of power, and that one therefore cannot really criticise the verdict. However, there was one element in the course of this trial which made me extremely uneasy. This was a part of the plea by Adv Bill Maritz, who appeared on behalf of Sgt Robert van der Merwe.

Order! The hon member for Green Point must please help me now. Is this matter sub judice owing to the pending appeal?

Mr Chairman, I can help you. The matter is not sub judice. The application for leave to appeal has already been turned down. However, the petition has not yet been submitted to the Chief Justice.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am quoting the words Adv Bill Maritz used in his plea on behalf of his client.

Have you already spoken in this House about those six terrorists who have been sentenced to death?

Oh, shut up!

The hon member for Langlaagte must listen carefully. Adv Bill Maritz said the following, inter alia:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Johannesburg North tell the hon member for Langlaagte to shut up?

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman!

Order! The hon member for Green Point may proceed.

I would like to quote further, as follows:

Adv Maritz continued as follows:

That is a reference to Sgt Van der Merwe—

I was disturbed by this suggestion because it rang a bell. I have gone to some trouble and researched this case extensively. I have also spoken to Mr Maritz, the defending advocate, about this issue and have been referred to certain elements in the case record.

*I came to the conclusion that this allegation by the advocate could be valid. I am not suggesting that the trial court, or even the court which heard the appeal, acted incorrectly. There may possibly not be precedents for this to be considered mitigating circumstances. However, I do feel this is a matter which this House and the hon the Minister must take cognizance of.

I have discussed this matter before, and I think it is relevant here. An atmosphere has been created in South Africa, through propaganda and also through the activities of the Government and some of its officials, in which one gains the impression that once a person can be classified as being part of the total onslaught, as being revolutionary, or can be described in some or other unfavourable way, all legal measures are lifted, and this person is then treated as if he has no rights and can simply be disposed of.

This atmosphere has been created over a long period of time. [Interjections.] I have referred to this before and I specifically…

If that had been true, you would not have been here!

That hon member had better listen. I complained in particular about remarks made by the hon the Minister of Defence from time to time, which contributed to this situation which created legal uncertainty and did not make it clear to people where one should draw the line nowadays.

I am also referring to the vindictive propaganda which is sometimes used for political purposes in this country. I want to say at once that I am referring specifically to propaganda used on behalf of the governing party in 1987. This is contributing to this unfavourable atmosphere. [Interjections.]

I am also referring to the long list of acts of terrorism and attacks against left-wing critics of the Government in particular, which have remained unsolved to this day. The hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister will know about these cases.

I hope you are going to quote!

I can refer to a few of them in passing. There is the case of the four Black leaders from the Cradock area, Goniwe, Mkonto, Calata and one other, whose deaths have remained unsolved to this day. There were bomb attacks on the offices of Cosatu here in Salt River. There were a number of such attacks which have remained unsolved to this day.

One is left with the impression—even I am left with this impression—that the search for the culprits in these cases is not undertaken with the same enthusiasm. One clearly gains the impression that somewhere at Government level—albeit in the security establishment or in the Government itself—there is sufficient sympathy for this kind of behaviour to let these people get away with things others do not get away with.

Are you now referring to the two policemen?

I am also referring to another element which is contributing to this atmosphere, namely the decision by the hon the State President, and some of his functionaries, to put a stop to a murder trial in South West Africa. In the charge sheet it was clearly stated that a man had been murdered with knives and pangas and clubs. The trial was stopped in terms of legislation which stipulated that the State President could do this when it became clear that the relevant actions were bona fide and in the interests of the security of South Africa.

Now I ask myself in what state we are in this country when a man can be killed with a knife and clubs and pangas and this is considered to be bona fide. What state are we in?

Where does this state of affairs leave people like Capt Jack la Grange and Sgt Robert van der Merwe? What must people like them, who are now awaiting execution, think of the double standards which are being maintained and of the legal uncertainty which is being created by all these elements and all these activities?

This is a disgraceful speech.

No, the hon member must listen. What must those people be thinking regarding where the line must be drawn nowadays between what is allowed and what is not allowed? I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to give attention to this matter. I want to address four specific requests to him.

In the first place I want to ask him to give specific attention to and bring pressure to bear so that this list of acts of terrorism, attacks or whatever against critics of the Government, particularly the left wing, which are probably or quite possible perpetrated by the right wing, can be solved with more enthusiasm and clarity.

Secondly I want to ask the hon the Minister to warn his own party, his hon colleagues and others—I do not care who it is—against using vindictive propaganda for short-term political objectives. This creates the impression among the more unsophisticated people of this country that certain things, which would otherwise be totally illegal, are now suddenly acceptable. Then it is not clear to them how they must behave under these circumstances. They gain the impression that the normal legal order has been set aside by this situation which applies. [Interjections.]

Thirdly I want to ask the hon the Minister to address himself specifically to the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Defence, who probably contributed to this, and warn them against the pernicious consequences of actions such as the stopping of that trial in Windhoek. I am not suggesting that I want these people to be ruined or found guilty and sentenced to death. That is not what I want. I say the law must be given a chance to run its course and if the hon the State President wants to intervene, he must do so at the right time after the case has gone to court. He should do so then, otherwise this is creating a pernicious state of affairs in this country which augurs no good for us.

Fourthly I ask the hon the Minister very seriously…

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his 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. Fourthly I ask the hon the Minister to exert strong pressure on the hon the State President, specifically in the case of Sgt Robert van der Merwe, for a reprieve to be granted and for him not to be executed. I am not suggesting he should not be sent to prison; obviously the man committed a vile murder. However, his death penalty should be commuted to imprisonment. This may well apply to Capt La Grange too, but I am not acquainted with his contribution to this affair. I am asking the hon the Minister because he is the responsible Minister and the departmental head of this person.

As long as this atmosphere which I have referred to exists in this country every person who contributes to its existence is jointly responsible for the behaviour of which people like Sgt Van der Merwe and Capt La Grange were found guilty. We cannot tolerate such a situation. As long as that atmosphere exists no person in this country should be sentenced to death. The underlying cause of this situation must be identified and eradicated. I am asking the hon the Minister to give serious attention to this.

Mr Chairman, forgive me, but I cannot bring myself to follow on the hon member for Green Point, but I fully associate myself with other hon members in congratulating the SA Police on its 75th anniversary.

Having been one of the founder members of the Police Reserve, I have been associated with the Force for well-nigh on 27 years, and I can say without fear of contradiction that we have one of the finest police forces in the world. The calibre of individual members is impressive, as is that of new recruits turned out by the police colleges in Pretoria, Hammanskraal, Wentworth and Bishop Lavis. I recently had the privilege of lecturing the new intake at the Pretoria college on suicide prevention and crisis intervention, and I am grateful that the hon the Minister has included this subject in their curriculum. The tragic events in Fish Hoek this week illustrates only too well how dramatically the role of the police has evolved over the years, and perhaps the time has come for specialist, small task forces to be formed in each police division to deal specifically on a reactive and proactive basis as regards suicidal and homicidal persons. The problem is that the public unfortunately expect the policeman to be every type of specialist, besides being the law enforcement officer.

I wish our financial circumstances could permit us to reward the SA Police with the salaries and improved conditions of service they so justly deserve. I am sure that in the years to come Government will make every endeavour to address this problem. I also wish to thank the hon the Minister for his recent amendment to the regulations to the Police Reserve as regards rank, and would earnestly express the hope that he will see his way clear to extending the same privilege to those temporarily appointed after retirement.

I believe that were it not for the loyalty and dedication of the 60 535 members of the Force who annually investigate upwards of two million crimes, apart from carrying out their other duties, our society would have been in a sorry state. The police serve everyone, no matter what colour, race or creed. They carry out the laws of the land, yet, I am sorry to say, all too often they are the target of malicious slander and political opportunism. The fact that action has been taken against certain elements whose political views are a blot on the record of the Force, is to be welcomed. There is no place in the ranks of the SAP for extremists, whether they be to the left or the right.

The primary function of the police is without doubt the prevention of crime at all levels of society—a difficult task given the nature of our society, but one which the police carry out despite the onerous demands on the Force in these difficult times. In this regard students of the various police colleges have made a valuable contribution by taking part in focused weekend crime prevention operations. From 21 April to 31 December last year, no fewer than 5 052 students took part in these activities. Perhaps the time has come to consider making greater use of the student potential in crime prevention and other areas, such as charge-office work, obviously without prejudicing their academic studies.

The role of reservists in crime prevention can also not be overestimated. Between 14 April and 31 December last year, 74 726 reservists did weekend duty with the result that no fewer than 35 145 people were arrested, 6 643 warned and 6 462 summonsed. Reservists render this valuable service without any financial consideration, and we are fortunate to have 406 women reservists in the SAP.

I would reiterate my plea to the public at large to become actively involved in crime prevention by joining the Police Reserve because, as I have often noted, the days of non-involvement are over. It is not generally known that no fewer than 104 crime prevention units have been formed nationwide. We are also fortunate that since the amalgamation of the Railway Police with the SAP more members have become available for crime prevention operations. Last year these units were responsible for the arrest of 3 698 people for serious crimes; in fact, in some police divisions the action of these units was responsible for a marked decline in the crime rate. In addition, members of the riot squad are also used for crime prevention operations as and when circumstances permit.

One might be tempted to hazard the thought that in the light of these statistics one can afford to be complacent. Alas, in common with the rest of the world, crime in our country is increasing. Criminals are becoming more violent and more sophisticated. Extraneous crimes, if I may call them that, have made their appearance as a result of the ANC-SACP revolutionary onslaught.

Sanctions and the attendant loss of jobs have also created a destabilising effect conducive to crime. In the face of this, even more vigilance is called for. The police alone cannot be expected to deal effectively with the crime onslaught.

As I have remarked before in this House, it is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to help the police as much as possible by reporting suspicious movements and the like, whether they make these reports anonymously or otherwise. Much has been said and written about the incidence of crime on the Witwatersrand. Strictly speaking, every crime, no matter how small, is a matter for concern. The police do not ignore any matter reported to them. The thuggery and violence that takes place on an almost daily basis is certainly intolerable and distressing. However, to put matters into perspective, the crime frequency per 10 000 people over the past three years has fallen from 934 to 676. Given the population density of close to two million in this area, it is clear that the more the public becomes involved in fighting crime, the better, and the lower the crime rate in the long term.

It is worth noting that on the Witwatersrand the SAP’s robbery reaction unit, the motor vehicle theft unit and Sanab have scored dramatic successes. In the six months to December last year the robbery reaction unit apprehended 881 criminals; the car theft unit, with public help, achieved a decrease of 21,49% in thefts—a decrease from 23 227 cases in 1986 to 19 517 cases last year. The number is still high, but I believe that motorists, vehicle manufacturers and insurance companies could do a lot more to assist the police. Perhaps the time has come for anti-theft devices to be included in cars at the manufacturing stage, and for a uniform code of security devices, that are effective, to be drawn up by all insurance companies and adhered to by every motorist.

The task of Sanab is complicated by the alarming abuse of alcohol, drugs and related substances. The onus to combat these evils rests upon the parent, upon every responsible citizen. While the laudable educational programme recently announced by the Cabinet will achieve this in the long term, urgent stopgap measures are called for. Nevertheless, Sanab’s success during the period March 1 to December 31 last year deserves to be highlighted. There were 636 arrests for liquor offences; 708 arrests for drug offences; and 369 prostitutes were arrested. Among other things, the drug haul was no less impressive: 1175 kilograms of dagga, 14 618 mandrax tablets, 188 grams of heroin, 403 grams of cocaine and 550 units of LSD. Again it is abundantly clear that far more drastic penalties are called for in cases where people actively traffic in drugs—perhaps life imprisonment—and for mandatory rehabilitation for all who are charged with possession and/or drug usage. This ugly monster in our midst has to be destroyed before it destroys us, and the battle standard has to be raised by society at large.

In addition, as far as just one aspect of trade, namely shrinkage, is concerned, it has been shown that insiders are mostly responsible for this hidden crime wave. In one case last year a certain company discovered that shrinkage was costing it R3 million a year. Three months of concentrated work by a reputable security firm and a rewrite of the company’s systems all but eliminated these losses. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I like speaking after the hon member for Bezuiden-hout. He made an able speech, in which he gave a careful review of police activities. He put the case very positively, and this signifies a man with many years’ experience in the Police Force. Later in my speech I shall come to the aspect of reservists in police activities.

Firstly I should like to add my congratulations to the newly-appointed Deputy Minister of Law and Order, the hon member for Krugersdorp. There is no doubt in my mind that a very promising career awaits him in the Department of Law and Order. I should also like to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the Police Force for the opportunity they recently afforded me to attend an early morning parade at Bishop Lavis. It was really enlightening. It was an opportunity for us to communicate with police recruits on their level. When one is eating from a dixie (varkpan) there is no difference in one’s status or thought processes. Then one communicates at a level where the really difficult task of the Police Force in this country can be appreciated.

It is really strange, when one finds oneself in that milieu, to hear a young Brown woman—a matriculant from the Beaufort West area—telling one that her aim in life is to become a member of the Police Force. One realises that in this country there are differing aspirations, that there are people who want to serve in the Police Force, regardless of other factors which might be a hindrance.

I also want to pay tribute to the police for setting up a new unit in the Force. This unit is so new that it is not even referred to in the annual report. The White Paper does deal with this unit though. For that I am very thankful. This unit is the Child Protection unit which has been set up in three divisions in the country. One is in Durban, the other in Cape Town and the latest addition is in Johannesburg.

I am most grateful that the latest addition to this very important task force is situated in Johan Coetzee police station in Johannesburg. This is an area where child abuse occurs on both sides of the police station, and where they are on the spot to give attention to such matters. This division has investigated 19 cases since the beginning of this year. When one realises that 19 cases of child abuse have been dealt with in that area from February up to the present, one also realises the extent of this problem.

There is surely no better idea than a unit of the Police Force to protect children. We are sometimes inclined to forget that the child also has rights. Very few of us ever concern ourselves with the rights of the child. Perhaps we should also look at our Afrikaner custom of believing that a child should be seen and not heard. Our behaviour sometimes seems to imply that we deprive the child of his rights as a human being.

However, one is shocked to learn that a three-year old child is left outside in the dark because he wet his bed. That is one of the 19 cases which were investigated this year. When one sees how children are treated and the bodily injuries inflicted on them to discipline them, one realises that many parents are irresponsible and immature.

The police therefore have a task not only of prosecution, but they also have to see that a certain amount of educational work should also be done in the community. This is what makes it such a pleasure for me to see the role reservists are now playing in this newly established division.

On the staff of Warrant Officer Willem van Zyl at the Johan Coetzee police station, there is a woman, a certain Mrs Phil Hattingh, who has been involved with voluntary reservist service since the inception of this unit. She devotes approximately 100 hours per month to assisting the police. This is done without recompense.

I do have one problem though. This police unit will find it difficult to carry out their work without effective transport systems. Unfortunately transport is always a problem in the Police Force, because there is always something urgent cropping up which needs attention.

I should like to ask therefore if consideration cannot be given to providing petrol to those people who serve voluntarily in this particular division of the Force when using their own cars for work purposes. In cases of child abuse, it is absolutely necessary that transport should be available when there is really no time to waste and immediate action is necessary. In many cases the child has to be taken to a district surgeon or a place of safety.

I think in this regard we could give consideration to the situation in the Defence Force. When Defence Force officials have their own aircraft, and they use them in the execution of their duties, the Defence Force supplies them with fuel, and they are compensated for the use of the aircraft. In my view the taxpayer also has a responsibility in this regard as well and the least one can expect from him is to provide the fuel. It could bring about a considerable saving for the police, because the vehicle which is needed elsewhere, could then be used for a more essential or urgent purpose.

Another matter which in my view should receive attention is the fact that many people would prefer to report these cases anonymously. It is very difficult to do this under present conditions, and it would probably be desirable to have a telephone answering service, as is done in other divisions of the Force, to deal with anonymous calls.

When a reservist is prepared to voluntarily give 100 hours per month to assist and support, it should be made possible for him to enrol for the correspondence course which is offered for the promotion of police work. Perhaps the opportunity should be created, in a specialist division such as this child protection unit, for persons to train themselves at their own expense to enable them to play a more worthwhile role in this division for which they have already shown a preference.

I foresee that the reservist with the necessary guidance and expertise will be able to play a special role in this newly established unit. Once again I should like to express my thanks to the police for their far-sightedness in forming this unit at this stage.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by referring to the speech of the hon member for George. We hear that he is the governing party’s new chief spokeman on Law and Order, and we should like to congratulate him on this appointment, which is obviously a responsible appointment in that party.

I also want to refer briefly to the new Deputy Minister of Law and Order, the hon member for Krugersdorp, who is also handling his first Vote in this capacity. We want to wish him everything of the best in his very important task in this regard.

I should like to come back to the hon member for George, and it is a pity that I must unfortunately say a few things about the speech which was, as it were, his maiden speech as the NP’s chief spokesman. In his speech the hon member again referred to the hon member for Ermelo’s speech, and alleged it was the AWB talking. We have now reached the point in this debate where this must cease, because the hon member is just as aware that he cannot attribute the actions of the AWB or the movement itself to the hon member for Ermelo as he is that we are not entitled to attribute the actions of the ANC and the organisation as such to the governing party. [Interjections.]

If the hon member wants to refer to the spirit of certain things and constantly wants to hang the AWB label around the CP’s neck, I want to refer him back… [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow any hon member to be shouted down. The hon member for Roodepoort may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to refer back to what the hon member for Innesdal said, and I want to ask the NP’s new chief spokesman on Law and Order whether he thinks that what the hon member for Innesdal said in his article Inside South Africa, at the beginning of last year, was beneficial to the climate in which the SA Police had to perform their duties. He said:

Further on in the article he said:

According to the hon member for Innesdal one of these myths is the following:

According to him another myth is:

He also mentioned a further myth:

This is the background against which I am asking the hon member for George to consider the climate which his party’s spokesmen, like the hon member for Innesdal, are in the process of creating in South Africa, and whether he thinks that climate is beneficial to the SA Police.

The hon member for Innesdal went on to say that the Government should not be accused of the following things:

At first glance this may seem fine, but what is this hon member in effect saying? He is saying that the same organisation without whose participation he said one could not find a constitutional solution in South Africa, is now doing things we do not like and they must realise that they cannot achieve their goals in this way; they must do so in another way.

The hon member for Innesdal then went on to say the following in that article:

He went on to say:

He went on to say:

He is saying that there are people here who must free themselves from the violence of apartheid, whereas the colleagues of the hon member for Innesdal are still practising sectional apartheid in their policy, because they are maintaining the homeland policy. They are maintaining this policy with regard to self-governing and independent Black states. He says that these people are committing violence—“the violence of apartheid”!

He went on to say:

What does the hon member for George say about these remarks by his hon colleague in the NP? [Interjections.]

Order!

What was the finding of the court?

The hon member knows very well what the finding of the court was. It concerned a totally different matter. Different allegations were made to those I quoted here. It was in regard to those additional allegations that judgment was passed against the CP. [Interjections.] Yes, let us also place that on record so that there cannot be any further confusion regarding remarks like these. [Interjections.]

What other allegations were made?

Oh, listen to old Lucas! [Interjections.]

Order!

I came across a further creation of a climate in which the SA Police Force must carry out its task in The Citizen of Saturday, 14 May 1988. Chief Buthelezi, who is held up to us as a so-called moderate Black leader, with whom the NP would very much like to talk, inter alia in the National Council, addressed a group of foreigners. He was reported as follows in The Citizen:

Later on in the same report he was quoted as follows:

Later still he was quoted as saying:

He again refers to revolution—

Mr Chairman, is the Government going to allow this man constantly to use language of this kind with impunity? He says we must make a choice. He says we must either accept this political model or there will be a violent revolution in South Africa. What is the Government going to do? [Interjections.] We are looking forward to hearing whether the Government is going to take steps against him, and whether the price of the success of the National Council may not be too high to make action against him possible. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Chairman. My time has virtually expired. [Interjections.]

As regards the remark by the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis regarding the interference by the British government in South Africa’s domestic affairs, I should like to refer to a front page report in The Citizen of Tuesday, 17 May 1988. From this it would appear that one of the four ANC terrorists arrested recently in Broeders-troom is a British citizen. In the said report it is stated inter alia:

To those persons who took it amiss of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for telling these hypocrites that they should keep their noses out of South Africa’s affairs, we say that we are not going to tolerate behaviour of this kind. We are not going to allow people in other countries to be recruited as terrorists. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, apparently the statements of Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche on the participation of the AWB are unclear to the hon member for Roodepoort. Mr Eugene Terre’ Blanche alleges that there are five members of the AWB in the ranks of the hon members of the CP. He alleges that the hon member for Ermelo is undoubtedly one of the AWB members in the CP caucus… [Interjections.] He also alleges that the hon member for Ermelo serves on the executive council (hoofraad) of the AWB. [Interjections.] No, these hon members must really not try to distance themselves from the AWB.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is on record that the hon member for Ermelo has stated in this House that he is neither a member of the AWB nor a member of the executive council of the AWB. The hon member for Vryheid has to accept his assurance and he may not refer to it.

Order! The hon member for Vryheid must accept another hon member’s assurance. He may continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, I shall accept it, but Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche does not. [Interjections.] The hon member for Roodepoort is trying to place the hon member for Innesdal in the dock here simply to get himself and his party out of it.

He tries to equate the AWB and the ANC with each other, but we do not doubt—no one can have any doubts about this—that the NP and this Government is fighting the ANC. The question I want to ask is whether they can exercise control over the statements of the AWB and Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche. I want to ask if they agree with his statements. If they do not agree with them, they should say so. If they now want us to monitor the statements of the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, we ask them please just to try to denigrate or monitor the statements of one of their leaders—I want to assert that he in fact is one of their leaders. If they do not go along with that, they must say so.

Today I want to discuss stock theft. Whenever that hon Minister sees me, he asks me how the stock theft is coming along. He says I discuss it every year. [Interjections.] We have the greatest appreciation for the involvement of the police with regard to the combating of this problem for the farmers in South Africa. To indicate the extent of the problem I want to look at what is happening with regard to cattle in the various provinces.

In the Transvaal during the past year 8 372 head of cattle were stolen, of which 41% were recovered. In the Free State 2 377 head of cattle were stolen, of which 32% were recovered. If we look at Natal, however, we see that almost 13 000 head of cattle are stolen annually. The figure with regard to the Cape is 2 000. Natal therefore has the greatest problem by far, almost greater than all the other provinces put together. As far as sheep theft is concerned, the greatest problem is in the Cape. Every year 26 000 sheep are stolen there, which is almost equal to the total of losses of all the other provinces.

This is a very serious problem. We greatly appreciate the involvement of the stock theft units of the police of which there are 15 in Natal; seven in the Transvaal; six in the Orange Free State; and seven in the Cape Province. They do wonderful work, but the fact remains that it is a great problem which causes the farmers tremendous losses.

I want to assert that there are certain areas where, to put it this way, the farmers are being robbed off their farms. That is caused by various problems. In Natal the terrain is one problem. The only way to solve that problem is on foot, not even on horseback. Believe it or not, there is territory that one cannot even tackle on horseback. We could also mention helicopters, but a helicopter is an expensive thing and due to the cost it can only be used selectively to transport people.

I have been in Parliament for 10 years now. [Interjections.] During that time some of my cattle were stolen three times. The first time seven animals disappeared, and my herdsmen and I personally succeeded in getting the cattle back after weeks.

Who took them? [Interjections.]

The CP members!

They were Whites—they probably include CP members as well—who took them. [Interjections.] Hon members should not negate White involvement. We are not dealing with people who poach for the pot. We are dealing with large-scale organised stock theft where a farmer’s animals are driven away in a truck and in which Whites are involved. I can prove this.

What do the Nats steal?

I think there are also CP members amongst them. [Interjections.]

When some of my cattle were stolen again I got them back through my own involvement and that of my herdsmen. On 30 March of this year 14 of my cattle were stolen. [Interjections.] After spending 12 continuous days in the veld my son and my herdsmen together with the police recovered some of the cattle. The important thing, however, is that some of the cattle were brought back of which only four were mine. After 12 days—today is the 20th day that they have been out in the veld—they found 70 of the other farmer’s cattle in inhospitable terrain. They had been in the veld the whole time.

To us this is a very serious problem. For example, there was one man who belonged to the stocktheft unit who spent days and nights for hundreds of kilometres walking with my son. I want to say how difficult it is to find the cattle in the places where they are hidden away. My son and the herdsmen walked around in the veld on unoccupied farms. These were not Black areas. The White owner is in Pretoria and he does not know what is going on on his farm. We found 70 head of cattle on that White farm—not in the Black area. They could see signs of grazing, but there were no cattle on the farm. They then found the cattle in kraals in dense bush where they were closed in during the day after they had grazed on the farm during the night. After the stock thieves have kept the cattle there for a while, they are taken away in trucks. As a result a fair-sized racket has been exposed. It is important that farmers are able to assist in solving the problem. I can tell hon members exactly when my cattle were stolen. It was on Saturday night, 30 April. The cattle have to be counted every day. The stock thieves attack the easy targets. They go to the farmers who they know do not check their cattle regularly. That is where they strike.

It is not only the cattle of White farmers that are stolen. There are many Blacks who suffer losses. In recent times the thieves have gone for the cattle of Blacks in particular because they are marked, but not branded.

Any person who tries to combat stock theft without having his own herdsmen on his side can forget about it. In many cases—the Police know this too—the herdsmen of the farmers are involved in cases of stock theft. As far as the scope of the problem is concerned, it must be remembered that stock theft takes place in Northern Natal which is a difficult area. We are close to the borders of Swaziland, Mozambique and KwaZulu. I have here a letter in connection with this written to me by farmers. Month after month, when the moon is full, they loose approximately 300 head of cattle—300 cattle per month! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am glad the hon member has recovered some of his cattle. I know that considerable problems are being experienced in that area. [Interjections.]

Earlier this year, I made a speech in this House about the situation in Pietermaritzburg. In his reply to my speech, the hon the Minister attributed certain words to me which I had not used in precisely that context. I should just like to clear up some of these matters, therefore.

I said that the control of the security situation in Pietermaritzburg had had a great deal to do with the deterioration of the situation. I said that as political action against leaders increased, the ordinary maintenance of law and order deteriorated. In particular, I referred to certain very pertinent cases of public violence which had occurred as far back as the end of 1986. I went on to say that more than a year had elapsed since then, and still the violent murderers had not been arrested. That was not an accusation. It was merely a factual statement that I made.

When the hon the Minister replied in his usual somewhat high-flown language, he attacked me and said that I had made an unbalanced speech. It was a disgraceful speech which could only harm the police and which presented them in a very ugly light. He said that the speech could only be of benefit to the UDF, and he went on to say that the radicals in Pietermaritzburg were the ones who were making the task of the police so difficult. He added that I had made some wild allegations.

All I want to say is, in the first place, that in every case I referred to, the deterioration of ordinary law enforcement had been a contributory factor. At that early stage, there were only highly sporadic cases of violence in that vicinity. The specific case in Howick was the beginning of an escalation of violence in that area.

As I have said, I did not make any accusation; I simply made a factual statement. I also said that the identity of the suspected murderers was fairly generally known in that area.

I just want to refer to a judgment given in the magistrate’s court at Howick in April this year. It was reported as follows:

†She named two people. It is also reported—

It was also reported that the guards of these people were instructed by very senior members to take the four victims to hospital, but indeed they took them out onto the road, which was where those murders occurred.

It was therefore simply a statement of fact. It is now almost 18 months later, and I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what action has been taken now, given the fact that the magistrate has named these nine people and has said that many more could in fact be implicated.

As I said, that was the beginning of the whole problem in the Pietermaritzburg area.

*There is a second aspect that I wish to mention. Referring to the circumstances there, I told the hon the Minister that there was a need for ordinary law enforcement in the traditional sense of the term. No one, but no one, wants people who have committed a crime to go free. Surely that is the kind of law enforcement that they want. The cases I have mentioned marked the beginning of the problems.

The second situation to which I referred was the whole question of neutrality, in the sense of neutrality in the approach of the Police Force to anyone in this country who commits acts of violence. In this respect, one can only endorse what the hon member for Green Point said. Once one has begun to identify as the enemy political organisations with which 80%, 50% or 60% of the Black population identify themselves, it becomes very difficult for one to talk about neutrality.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I do not know where that hon member’s friends are sitting.

If one is unaware of what is going on in the Black political situation and one speaks so lightly in this House of the revolutionary onslaught and one links the UDF to the ANC, etc—not that they are not linked—my point remains that if one is to deal with the security situation, one cannot possibly describe half the population as “the enemy”. If one does that, it becomes impossible to talk about neutrality.

As far as neutrality is concerned, I referred to a specific incident in which shotguns, incendiary bombs, petrol bombs, etc, were used in an attack that was made on a house. Once again I made a factual statement—not an accusation—namely that after a week, nothing had been done to follow up that specific case. The fact is that the people whose house had been attacked were members of the progressive organisation. All I said to the hon the Minister was that one could not allow neutrality to be compromised, for then one would simply end up in a terrible morass. I submitted the evidence to the hon the Minister, and I wonder whether…

[Inaudible.]

I gave the hon the Minister the incendiary bombs and the particulars concerning the place, date and time. I just want to know whether anything has been done about that specific matter up to now.

With regard to the whole security situation and the so-called onslaught that we are experiencing at the moment, I want to say that it is an undeniable fact in South Africa at the moment that ordinary people are rebelling against the situation in which they find themselves. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys talked about civil disobedience. He said that it could not be allowed and that action should be taken against such people. I agree with him, and I think that any state should consider itself in duty bound to act immediately against what I want to call dissident minorities. However, I do not think this is the situation we have in South Africa. We are not dealing here with a lot of disorderly dissidents, each of whom is agitating for something different. I think there is a very clear guideline, especially in respect of those people who propagate the charters. They have their own ideal for the future of South Africa, and that is a non-racial democracy, if we want to call it that. Much more importance is being attached to that at this stage by anyone who knows and who is interested in Black politics. Those who know what is going on there will know that the present tendency is definitely more to the liberal than to the Marxist side of the spectrum when it comes to the interpretation of the Freedom Charter, for example.

I simply want to say, therefore, that to refer so superficially to a rebellion of ordinary people against the apartheid system and to dismiss it as a revolutionary onslaught which is being fuelled from outside does not hold water.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

In conclusion, I want to come back to what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said. I want to point out to him that the people who are so rebellious, according to him, are mobilising themselves and are identifying themselves with a goal which is probably supported by 80% of the Black population of South Africa at this stage. It is a common goal, so one can no longer regard it as a purely dissident movement. Then one must seriously ask oneself, if this question is assuming such proportions, what is wrong with our internal dispensation. [Interjections.] Then one cannot simply look at what is happening outside.

Another interesting point is that the hon member referred to Lenin. According to him, Lenin said that one should use the church for such a movement. However, Lenin was simply a good strategist, and I think that anyone who is mobilising people politically would use exactly the same strategies. Lenin only happened to codify these aspects for his own purposes and to appropriate them. The NP has done the same; it has also tried to get the church on its side in this connection. This is what the CP is also trying to do at this stage. [Interjections.] Ultimately, one tries to mobilise all the institutions of society in such a way that they will help one to achieve one’s own objective. So there is nothing sinister, in my opinion, about the methods people use in this country as well in order to get rid of apartheid in this way.

Mr Chairman, I wonder what Lenin would have said about who the “useful idiots” in this debate were if he could have listened to it. I was reasonably calm when I listened to this debate, but the hon member for Greytown quite succeeds in pushing up one’s blood pressure unnecessarily. I want to tell hon members that I am a little disappointed to think that my friend, the hon member for Randburg, is that hon member’s leader and that he has to live with that speech. If time permits me to do so, I should like to come back to those hon members.

To begin with, I should like to express a word of thanks to the hon member for George and other hon members on this side of the House who were so kind as to congratulate me upon my appointment to this post. I appreciate their words sincerely, and want to tell those hon members that I am convinced that there is a serious need in these days we are living in, in an extraparliamentary sense, and given South Africa’s circumstances, to talk to one another despite the extremely busy lives all of us in this House lead. I want to congratulate the hon member for George, in contrast with the hon members who congratulated him upon his appointment, on his election, because this is a democratic party, at least in that that hon member was elected to that post. I truly want to congratulate him. [Interjections.]

†I would like to react to the speech made by the hon member for Houghton. There are two Helens of Houghton whom I know. The one I love—she is an ally; the other one I respect—she is an adversary. During the first three minutes of her speech, we saw the Helen of Houghton of whom I am very fond.

That is just because she always says nice things about you!

Yes, she always does, but only partially. [Interjections.] I have always been impressed by the hon member’s dedication and I have always regarded her as a parliamentarian to admire. I thank her for the kind words that she has expressed towards me, but…

But…!

Yes, of course… but when the hon member for Houghton joined issue with us on the state of emergency she was consistent in her opposition to this Government. Now I must disappoint her. I will also be consistent in my opposition to her views. I may not be all that charming, but I will respect her. I hope to react to some of the statements that she made.

*I do not see the hon member for Roodepoort here now, but nevertheless I want to thank the hon member for what he said to me. I want to give him the assurance that I appreciate it sincerely.

I want to record just one note of personal disappointment. It is something of a cultural adjustment to accept the responsibility of being involved in many extraparliamentary activities, in that I am not physically present here and had to make my maiden speeches in the other two Houses. I want to tell hon members that during the first five minutes of this debate here today, I have experienced more acrimony than I experienced in either of the other two Houses or have ever experienced in any capacity in which I have made contact with people outside this House. I think it is important for me to say that.

Never mind, after the next election you will not hear it any more.

Does the hon member for Carletonville want to put a question to me, since he is humming and hawing so?

Yes, Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

Yes, the hon member is welcome to put a question.

I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me whether or not he is prepared to resign his seat in Krugersdorp so that we can hold a by-election? [Interjections.]

Order!

I thank the hon member for that question, because that interjection and question were so characteristic of the hon member. He does not even make a speech, but he has a great deal to say by way of interjections. The essence of the matter is that it is the preservation of this Parliament that is at issue, and we on this side of the House undertook to pass all the constitutional legislation that we consider in this Parliament.

There are powers and forces at large that negate this Parliament and want to take over its powers by means of violence; yet this hon member arrogates to himself the luxury of making a senseless interjection.

Answer my question!

My answer is that I shall defend the Krugersdorp seat in the next Parliamentary election. [Interjections.] What is more, the NP and I will remain a source of irritation to that hon member and all his colleagues. [Interjections.] I shall do that for the sake of the hon member for Overvaal.

You are damaging your image in the Sarie! [Interjections.]

It was my privilege to see how this revolution was burning in South Africa’s slums and how it was being fuelled in our prestige residential areas. I was finally convinced that this revolutionary onslaught knows no colour and that perpetrators of violence do not select their victims on the basis of their colour.

I tried to immerse myself in the theories and thoughts of the radicals, and owing to my office, I became actively involved in the evolution of our counter-revolutionary strategy.

I reached two conclusions. We are winning, and the ANC-SACP alliance does not like that at all. The reason that the counter-revolutionary forces are eventually losing is that they sit back and rest on their laurels when they are winning. The second thing I learnt is that the devil does not know what it means to be idle. There is an element of tragedy when one listens to this debate and other debates in this House, because here and there one is listening to the voices of Moscow, the ANC-SACP alliance and the UDF. These are the circumstances in which the SAP has to fulfil its task, and in which the Government has to develop and evolve counter-revolutionary strategy.

I have no doubt that we have broken the cycle of unrest. We are succeeding in establishing relative stability in Black residential areas. There is an increasing number of Blacks who no longer want all or nothing. They are relinquishing their view with reference to a takeover of power and are more willing to participate in power.

In a calmer tone, and with all due respect to my friend in the CP, the hon member for Overvaal, I think he is naive and he is underestimating the intensity, calculation and dedication of these forces. The CP is not going to rid itself of those forces with its policy.

The process by means of which we are effecting socio-economic development is certainly yielding the desired results.

I want to react only in broad outline to statements that were made here with regard to the state of emergency. I should like to remind hon members that there was a time when we in this country were faced by an extremely violent, visible onslaught against the country and all its power bases and structures. I want to remind hon members that in one hour on a given day in 1984, 25 of the 36 council members of a specific Black area experienced damage, assault, injury or death. Anyone who tries to claim that this did not take place with the necessary advance planning and single-mindedness is naive. Between six o’clock that morning and eleven o’clock that night, there was an unrest-related incident of some or other kind every two and a half minutes.

It was against this background that the hon the State President declared a state of emergency on 12 June 1986 in order to effect a return to stability and normality and to proceed with the process of reform.

I really need half an hour to talk to the hon members of the NDM, but I think it is appropriate to do so now, even in the limited time at my disposal. In approximately 18 months, I have never crossed swords with the hon member for Randburg, and I find it very irritating to have to do so in his absence now. The reason I did not do this before, is that the hon member for Randburg and I have had a long association, and I think that as a result of our friendship, we respectfully differed with one another on certain subjects.

Liberal allies!

That hon member will have no understanding for this kind of difference between men. He does not have the spiritual power to differ with that kind of man. Consequently he must please keep out of this.

He is too shallow!

I want to tell the hon member for Randburg and his colleague that I find it disgraceful that when the hon member for Randburg addresses his congress, he says that this state of emergency was declared to keep the hon the State President in power. I do not think that that statement is worthy of the hon member for Randburg, given the way in which the hon the State President has treated him, both in private and in public.

He spoke about security legislation, and not about… [Interjections.]

Sir, now the hon member for Durban Central wants to help his leader to get out of trouble! He is an hon member who went to Dakar.

[Inaudible.]

They had 15 minutes at their disposal during this debate, and not one of those hon members got up to elucidate their standpoint. I want to confine myself to saying that that allegation was disgraceful, given the circumstances and the fact that the hon member for Randburg was a member of the NP when the state of emergency was declared, and that he agreed with it at least by implication, if not wholeheartedly.

They also made a second statement, however, which was an almost ridiculous statement. They said they admitted that there was a need for special emergency powers, viz controls by Parliament and the courts. They stood here and spoke for 15 minutes, and not one of them explained what they meant by that. The fact of the matter is that when one is dealing with a state of emergency, emergency conditions and emergency powers, one’s objective is efficient action in order to accommodate the time-consuming processes and mechanisms of Parliament and the courts, given the circumstances, because one is dealing with an enemy. I shall tell the hon member what I mean by an enemy.

What about… [Interjections.]

The hon member had 15 minutes at his disposal, and he elected to say nothing. I am talking to the hon member for Greytown now. He got up here and said we should be careful when talking about the enemy. When we talk about the enemy, we are talking about terrorists; not about guerrillas. We are talking about terrorists who murder or injure innocent women and children in the most terrible ways, irrespective of their colour.

If the police kill other people, you do nothing about it!

Order! No, the hon member for Greytown has had his turn to speak; he must contain himself now. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

That hon member has made a statement, and I claim that the effectiveness of our action in Natal had to do with our investigating criminal offences, irrespective of the person’s sympathies, and I personally had discussions with an officer in command there, and acquainted myself with the facts. I am satisfied that that officer in command did exactly what I am describing here now, viz he did his duty when crime was at issue, irrespective of the political sentiments or loyalties of the person against whom he took action. [Interjections.]

Certain statistical comparisons with reference to unrest-related incidents, deaths, injuries and attacks on security forces during the period between January and June 1986 and January and June 1987 show a definite reduction in violence. I think certain aspects of this can be explained on the strength of the fact that this was followed by a flare-up. Nevertheless I think it is important to place on record that despite the fact that statistics prove that the state of emergency has effected a downward trend in visible unrest, this reduction does not sketch the full picture, since the underlying thoughts and emotional attitude of the population are not reflected.

Radical and revolutionary organisations still have a considerable ability to distribute their propaganda in certain areas of the country in order to create a climate which can give rise to unrest. One must also keep in mind that certain dates have obtained an emotional meaning for radical and revolutionary organisations. The planning of symbolic actions to correspond with Sharpeville Day—21 March—Workers’ Day—1 May—Soweto Day—16 June—as well as 26 October, for example, could give rise to increased unrest. This organisational ability, as well as varying degrees of intimidation, are still such that counter-measures are essential to prevent radicals and revolutionaries from enforcing their will on the majority of moderates.

Meaningful reform is only possible against the background of stability. The Government is responsible for ensuring that the reform process is not disturbed by violence and unrest. It is common knowledge that the ANC is launching certain political, reform-directed initiatives; that they are also involved in certain diplomatic offensives. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter is that despite this image that the ANC-SACP alliance is presenting, not one of them has given a convincing indication, either in private or in public, that they are relinquishing their original violent objectives.

Now there may be a lot of “do-gooders” and “useful idiots”, to use Lenin’s terminology, in this country. South Africa will not be foiled by this ingenuity, however. That is why we are not impressed by those diplomatic and reform initiatives of the ANC, but shall proceed on the course we have adopted, as set out by the hon the Minister.

I regret to have to say that there is no answer whatsoever to the shooting syndrome that exists among certain people. It must certainly go hand-in-hand with the needs in the socio-economic sphere as well as the needs in respect of politically accommodating the country’s population. I cannot hear what the hon member for Houghton is trying to say. It seems she has something on her mind.

Mr Chairman, in terms of his reasoning, does the hon the Deputy Minister then want to tell us that we are going to have a state of emergency for ever in South Africa?

Mr Chairman, that should demonstrate to the hon member for Houghton that even I can make a mistake when I say I respect her as a parliamentarian. She should know that that power does not vest in me.

Oh, come on!

Of course, it does not! [Interjections.] The state of emergency was declared by the hon the State President. I am in charge of law and order matters. I only make certain inputs such as I am making here today. The power she refers to does not vest in me, and I do not take that decision. My whole line of reasoning should indicate to the hon member that in spite of the fact that we are succeeding in curtailing violence and unrest there are still serious threats posed by people who have objectives in mind other than those of changing this country by way of peaceful, evolutionary methods.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I should like to express my sincere sympathy to the next of kin of all those policemen and women who gave their lives for the Force and for South Africa during the last year. We mourn with them over the family members or friends whom we miss because they are no longer with us. We should like to pay tribute to them and we honour their memory.

I should also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation here in public today to the Commissioner of the SA Police and, through him, to every policeman and policewoman who is serving in the SA Police today. As we heard this morning and yesterday from this side of the House, and often hear, these people render an excellent service to our country and our people. I am very pleased to hear that this was the standpoint of hon members on this side of the House throughout. The SA Police is the A-team, and we are proving it every day.

This does not mean that we do not make mistakes or that people do not sometimes overstep the limits. After all, we are ordinary people. These things happen, and we do not turn a blind eye to them; on the contrary, the Commissioner of the SA Police and myself are intent on eradicating errors as far as possible and on leaving no stone unturned in relentlessly eradicating any transgression of powers or any irregularities that may come to our attention. We simply do not tolerate anything like that, and we make no secret of it inside or outside the SA Police.

We are wholeheartedly supported in this approach and in these actions not only by the entire leadership of the Police Force, but also by 99,9% of all members of the Force. These members are proud of the Force, and they are merciless towards anyone who may damage the favourable image of the Force in any way. They work hard every day to improve the image of the Force. For this reason, we find that it is policemen, and no one else, who expose malpractices of colleagues and who take them to court to answer for their actions regardless of who they are.

We do it, although it is painful—it is indeed painful for us—because we believe that law and justice must prevail because we want to be worthy of the trust that our public places in the SA Police.

The Bureau for Information carried out an interesting investigation recently into the image of the Force. It was based, inter alia, on reports in the media, and it contains valuable information which will help us to rectify and eliminate any errors that have been made. I should like to give hon members the assurance that we shall purposefully continue to do this.

However, this matter also has another side to it, namely the positive side. These pains—figuratively speaking—and embarrassment that a minimal number of members—namely 0,1%—cause the Force from time to time, in reality comprise only a tiny part of the really outstanding work that members of the Force do throughout South Africa, day in and day out.

This may never be the rule, and the SA Police may not be measured by these exceptions. That is not the norm. The norm is something entirely different.

Fortunately the public in general understand and appreciate the difficult work that we do. The many tokens of gratitude and appreciation that we receive daily bear witness to this. I want to read only one example that I received during the past few days. On Friday, 18 March, the Barag-wanath Hospital received a bomb threat. The writer of the letter refers to what then took place:

This is what we receive—numerous indications of the professional, swift and efficient action of the police. It is normal. It is the rule.

We are also grateful to take note—hon members themselves do so as well—of articles and editorials which appear from time to time about the actions and the image of the SA Police—we believe that nowadays they are appearing more frequently in the Press. The very positive report which appeared recently in an English morning newspaper about the extremely efficient actions of the police at D F Malan Airport when reporters Chris Steyn and Willem Steenkamp tested our security measures, is only one of these cases that I should like to mention to hon members.

It is this kind of action which is taken daily by the police that reflects the norm and quality of our service. That is the yardstick that we ought to be measured by. It is for this reason that the SAP is looking back with pride this year over the 75 years that lie behind us—75 years of service to South Africa and its people. During the past 75 years we have had many high points. We have also experienced low points, but there were many more high points. We had to endure many rebuffs—over the years, some came from this House. I am referring to the rebuffs that we heard again this morning from some benches in the House.

However, we can be justifiably proud of the effective way in which we have kept criminals in check over the years despite having had to do so under very difficult circumstances. We also succeeded in effectively coming to grips with revolutionary and radical activists who threatened the security of our country and our people. I should like to give hon members the assurance that we shall continue to do so during the next 75 years.

We are celebrating our 75th anniversary with money we have contributed from our own pockets. The SAP deserves to be able to celebrate this anniversary. As we look back, we are very grateful, as we said in the White Paper, for what we have received from our Creator during the past 75 years. When we look ahead we are filled with courage for the future. We are positive and not in the least pessimistic about what awaits us.

I came to listen with interest and with an open mind to this debate this morning. Hon members must excuse me when I say that I got the impression that the CP, the PFP and the other movement, unfortunately gave a political slant to this debate. They merely tried to hold a political debate. I cannot describe it in any other way. It is a pity. I must honestly say that it is a pity that it occurred in a debate about the security of our country and about crime.

Surely crime has no colour. Crime has no colour, although those hon members try to pin a colour to it. It has no colour. [Interjections.] Of course, the hon member for Ermelo tries to make crime Black. [Interjections.] However, I am telling the hon member that that is not true; crime has no colour, it affects us all regardless of who we are. That is the evidence that we have accumulated over the years. It is a great pity that hon members dragged politics into this—perhaps it is because they do not really have anything against the police—and for that reason they pester us in this way. It is really a great pity that hon members adopted this standpoint here today. [Interjections.]

The police reject all party-politicking with contempt. We say it loud and clear and unequivocally. We are not prepared to allow party politics in the Force. [Interjections.] This is accepted by the leaders as well as the members of the SAP.

Sometimes the hon member for Middelburg appears to be quite a sensible member. [Interjections.] He agrees with that. A few other hon members on the other side do not agree with it. [Interjections.]

Order!

For those of us in the SAP, security is more important than party politics. The security and protection of our people is more important than party-political loyalties. For this reason, party-political participation is forbidden in the Force. We do not allow it. For that reason we dismiss police reservists who are members of the AWB and who do not want to renounce their membership of the AWB. [Interjections.] Today, the CP tried to hijack the police for their party politics. They also tried to hijack the police for the AWB.

The hon members do not realise how much damage they are doing. In the short term they derive great pleasure from talking to the public about this. According to feedback that we receive from people overseas, those hon members boast that the police are CPs and AWBs. However, are those hon members aware of the image that people abroad and ordinary people in South Africa have of the AWB? [Interjections.] Ordinary people in South Africa and overseas believe that the AWB is a Nazi movement. [Interjections.] I do not know if it is true, but that is the impression they have. [Interjections.] The fact remains that those hon members are trying to politicise this Police Force, which has to protect and serve everyone regardless of whether they are supporters of the CP, PFP or NP. That is the result of the actions of the hon members of the CP and the AWB. [Interjections.] The hon members have caused this damage through their actions here and I hold it against them. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, are hon members aware of what the PFP is trying to do? They are trying to intimidate the police so that they will not take action. Yes, they are trying to make the police so careful that they become paralysed in their actions against this group of liberals, the leftists and the radicals. Yes, the hon member for Claremont is sitting there and staring at me, but it is true and he knows it is true. He is trying to intimidate the police with his monitoring so that we will not act. As soon as we act, he reports us. [Interjections.] For this reason, I want to say that those members are also doing the SA Police in this country a disservice by carrying on in that way. [Interjections.]

On the other hand—let us be fair—the hon members on this side who spoke, really analysed the matter and debated and discussed the real task of the SA Police. They looked at the problems that we have to deal with.

I now want to say the following: Neither the CP, the AWB, the PFP, or any other political party— I want to include the NP—will succeed in hijacking the police for its own ends. I am making that quite clear to hon members. I mean it when I say that we are not prepared to allow party-politicking in the SA Police. The safety of our people, the protection of all South Africa’s people against crime is more important to us than party politics, and I should like to place that on record.

Order! I should also like to tell hon members that what I am not prepared to allow, is a general discussion. I am also not prepared to allow an uproar. I shall allow interjections within limits, but I am not going to allow this debate to dissolve into a general discussion and an uproar.

Now we are on the same wavelength, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell hon members that the SA Police will carry out to the letter its statutorily imposed task. We shall do what was prescribed to us by this Parliament and according to the laws of this country. Under all circumstances, we shall act bearing in mind the question, “What is in the best interests of South Africa and its people?” We have a guideline, namely our motto: “We protect and we serve”, regardless of who it is.

With regard to the debate, I should like to extend a warm welcome to my hon colleague, the new Deputy Minister of Law and Order. I want to tell him that he is welcome in the SA Police. No doubt, hon members noticed the enthusiasm with which he joined the debate. He is an ex-police-man and is back with the family and the A-team. I must say that his contribution here today was outstanding. We have gained a valuable team member.

I can also not do otherwise than to express a word of thanks to his predecessor, the previous Deputy Minister of Law and Order. I want to thank him for the sacrifices he made during the time he spent with us. I want to thank him for his outstanding service. We should like to wish him everything of the best with the task that he is now undertaking.

My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, referred to the ANC and their actions, as well as the fact that they are the enemy who are doing certain things. I also want to briefly mention the ANC.

The ANC has recently suffered severe losses, and the conviction that the ANC is involved in a futile struggle, has already begun to grow upon them. For the first time in a very long time—perhaps for the first time in the history of the ANC—their leaders, like Thabo Mbeki, are prepared to openly admit that the ANC’s morale has reached an all-time low.

During 1987 the security forces eliminated 490 terrorists, of whom 44 were shot dead. During the period 1 January to 30 April 1988, 79 terrorists have been arrested and 10 shot dead. Several ANC terrorist cells have been uncovered, and the latest arrest of four highly trained White ANC terrorists emphasises once again the futility of the ANC’s attempts against South Africa.

From time to time, information is received with regard to terrorists who have become disillusioned with the ANC’s harsh and inhuman plans and who refuse to take part in them any longer. The ANC’s punishment camp, Quatro, is the fate of many a misguided and disillusioned terrorist. The hon member for Yeoville also referred to it recently. According to terrorists who have served in this camp, the conditions in Quatro are appalling. Detainees are treated inhumanly, and many people die in detention.

I have in my possession a detailed report on this particular punishment camp north of Luanda, and it tells a shocking tale of what takes place there. At present there are approximately 80 people in detention, of whom most are South African exiles. A person’s life is worth very little in such a camp.

The time has come for terrorists and people who want to join the ANC—young people are often misled by these people—to come to terms with the reality. They are heading for a disaster which may eventually mean death or suffering, a long prison sentence or even torture in the ANC’s punishment camps, inter alia, Quatro.

Terrorists who return to the Republic or who are sent here, embark on a suicide mission—as we have seen recently—because confrontation with the security forces of the Republic means only one thing for them. If they become involved in a confrontation with us, they lose. For them, that means certain death or a long period in prison.

Therefore, I want to issue a serious warning to everyone to think seriously about this and not to allow themselves to be misled by the ANC’s propaganda. That goes for all our people. The ANC offers no future for these people. To those who are already in the clutches of the ANC, I want to say: “Get out before it is too late. Return to this country before you stain your hands with blood and there is no longer a future for you.” There is no future for this country in the SACP-ANC alliance. The young people who join them, and who make these attempts to murder and kill our ordinary people with the weapons of terrorism, are in a cul-de-sac.

Various ANC terrorists have recently severed their ties with the ANC and joined the SAP where they have a new future. They are now fighting side by side with our people to curb terrorism and anarchy. I want to say today that they have already made a enormous contribution to our systematic destruction of the ANC.

I want to thank the hon member for George very sincerely for his positive contribution, for his kind congratulations and his remarks about the SAP. He also said that the people who made mistakes, were the exception and not the rule. I want to thank him sincerely for that. The hon member asked us to investigate the workload of the Police. We shall do so and keep the hon member informed in that regard.

I want to thank the hon nominated member, Dr Geldenhuys, for an excellent contribution. He touched on an important matter, namely the question of civil disobedience. I want to make a few remarks about the so-called clash between the State and the Church. The hon member touched on that as well. A while ago the hon the State President made the standpoint of the Government on this matter very clear when he said:

That is the standpoint of this side of the House. We are not in confrontation with the Church, and as the hon the State President said, we do not want to become involved in a confrontation with the Church. The State and the Government are not seeking confrontation with the Church. However, there are certain members of certain churches who are recklessly heading towards a confrontation with the authorities. It is as if these people are being driven by demonic powers towards confrontation, dispute and strife.

It reminds one of the biblical story about the Gadarene swine. They are heading directly towards a precipice. They are running and nothing can stop them. There is absolutely no question of talking, of holding discussions, or of friendly persuasion. In the process, no respect is shown for the laws of the country. That brings us to what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys spoke about, namely civil disobedience. It is now being openly expounded. In fact, they are slyly and cleverly being manipulated in order to achieve the greatest propaganda value from the contravention of laws. That includes people who act under the banner of the Church. That is what is disturbing. It is a tragedy.

Fortunately, these confrontation-seeking radical clergymen, these activists, do not represent the churches in South Africa. People abroad consider them to be representative of the people in the Church of South Africa. The reason for this is that they are the darlings of the overseas media, expert propagandists and the most convincing liars this country has ever produced. It is shocking to see how scandalously they malign and harm our country, and how recklessly they gamble with people’s livelihood. This suffering and misery that they cause for people of all colours in South Africa, does not bother them in the least. Like whited sepulchres, they fold their hands and roll their eyes while people starve. Although people are unemployed, sanctions are being screamed for and a livelihood is being taken away from those who need it most. These hypocrites do not really care about the plight of ordinary people. While they themselves live in luxury on contributions from ordinary, good Christian people in South Africa who are not always well-off, they plead for sanctions and for misery for these people.

I want to give hon members an example of something that has now come to our attention. Once again, the dubious role that certain clergymen are playing was brought into sharp prominence when a plot was uncovered in which these clergymen had planned to involve members of certain churches in a political campaign. I have here a document in which church members are requested to write letters to the hon the State President in which certain political objectives are advocated, and thereby inundate the office of the State President with letters. I quote from this document:

That is their name—

namely the State President—

Several different topics are then proposed for the campaign which must now be conducted by congregants who should be occupying themselves with other things. It is a pity that at a time when millions of people in our country have not yet received the true message of the gospel, these church leaders are wasting their time in this way. I should like to appeal to the members of the churches not to allow themselves and their churches to be misused for political purposes by this kind of activity.

Our people must be aware of this. I am giving fair warning that these people are going to make these proposals. That is what they are busy with. The clergymen who want to do these things, should think carefully about what they are doing in South Africa. They should think carefully about what they are really engaged in in our country.

I am making haste now because I still want to reply to a few speeches made by hon members. I shall come to the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition later in the course of the debate. I want to devote some time to him. Therefore, I quickly want to thank the hon member for Edenvale. She spoke about the question of the aged and made a good speech. She made short work of the hon member for Houghton. The two ladies deal with each other effectively, they are able to address each other on the same level. I want to congratulate the hon member.

I want to tell the hon member for Edenvale that next to children, the elderly are very dear to us. It is a very high priority in the SAP to take care of them.

The hon member for Maraisburg also made a good speech in which he referred to child abuse. Children are very dear to us. In the space of a few minutes he painted a shocking picture. It is an extremely important matter, and I want to summarise it by saying that regardless of their colour, children are important for the future of the country. They are important to their people and to South Africa. Therefore, child abuse is enjoying a very high priority in the SAP. Someone who abuses a child must not expect any mercy from the SAP. He must not expect to be able to hide behind someone else and get away with all kinds of excuses.

We are asking the public to help us. They must not hide behind all kinds of professional excuses and say that they cannot report the assault of a child. They must tell us, because we all have a responsibility to eradicate child abuse and to ensure that the guilty parties do not jeopardise and ruin our children and our future.

The hon member also asked that these units be provided with transport. He suggested that we pay for the petrol when people made use of private transport. We shall attend to the matter and give him an answer. We may be able to implement a system of that nature. The hon member also asked that we make it possible for reservists to enrol for courses and write examinations. We shall give attention to that as well.

The hon member for Vryheid referred to cattletheft. That is an extremely important matter. He made a positive contribution to this debate. We share his concern about cattle-theft in his area. The hon member himself was a victim of it. As a result of these problems, the Commissioner and I issued orders on the grounds of which the cattletheft units in the district of Vryheid took action. During the period 2 to 11 May 1988, 73 stolen cattle were recovered of which 68 are being related to seven cases. One Black man was arrested and convicted. Besides that, four cattle which belonged to the hon member were also recovered. I am pleased that we were able to recover at least four of his cattle. [Interjections.] The hon member should have a small braai for the police. We shall accept with gratitude. He must also invite those of us who are here. We know the hon member well, and I am sure that he is going to have a braai for the police in Vryheid. We are thanking him for it in advance.

Now that ox is also missing!

As a result of the seriousness of the matter, my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice has already decided that parole will not be granted in Vryheid to people who are being held on charges of cattle-theft.

That is a good thing. That is excellent.

The fact is that cattle-theft is a matter about which I, the Commissioner and the SAP feel very strongly, and I ensure the hon member and the House that we shall leave no stone unturned in our efforts to come to grips with the situation.

†I want to thank the hon member for Bezuiden-hout for his contribution. As usual it was a valuable contribution and I want to thank him for that. He referred to the tragic events at Fishhoek on Tuesday. It is indeed a pity that we lost two capable policemen in such a tragic manner. However, the protection of life and property is one of the statutory duties of the SAP. This is a duty which we intend to maintain diligently and therefore we shall consider any suggestions and recommendations that may improve efficiency in this regard.

*The hon member for Ermelo was the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition on this very important matter. The hon member is a lawyer and I am a person who respects lawyers. However, I must tell hon members that having listened to that hon member, I really do not know if one can carry on like that. The things that the hon member said were absolutely astounding. Today he set up his skittles and then knocked them down one by one by himself. He attributed things to me that I have never said. He read things in this White Paper that I did not write there and that do not even appear there.

The hon members for Potgietersrus and Roodepoort did the same thing, and I shall still come to them. [Interjections.] No doubt it is by the mercy of God that those hon members do not govern this country, Sir. Only misery can come from what they want to do, from what they are planning and from what they think they are going to do.

The hon member attacked me here because, on a previous occasion, I said that he was irresponsible in his assumptions. On that occasion, I did not argue with the hon member about where he got his figures, but I argued with him—I want to tell him to his face today—about his irresponsible action. I took issue with him because he had said that Black people deliberately assaulted White people. That is the crux of the matter, Sir. He maintains that Black people assault White people. What does he want to achieve with that?

Do you not know what the crime “assault” means?

What does he want to prove? Mr Chairman, I am not speaking to that young hon member who is sitting in the back-benches; I am speaking to the hon member for Ermelo who is the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition. What does the hon member want to achieve? [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many hon members taking part in the debate at the same time. Only the hon the Minister alone was called upon to speak. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I shall tell hon members what the hon member for Ermelo is going to achieve— I do not know if he wants to achieve it, but he is going to achieve it. White people are going to say: “Oh, so, the Blacks are now assaulting us!” What does that cause in South Africa—peace, or friction? The hon member must tell me. I want to know because we are in the middle. We are between the Whites and the Blacks who are going to want to attack one another after hon members have stirred them up. Now the hon member is sitting over there without a single word to say. He is not making comments. For this reason I tried to place the matter in its correct perspective by saying, and I should like to repeat it today, that 3,4% more Whites are murdered by Whites than Whites by Blacks. That is the correct perspective. The fact of the matter is that we must indeed attend to this. Before I go any further, I want to say that it is true that all forms of crime in South Africa have increased. I do not argue with the hon member’s figures in this regard, and I said that we found it unacceptable. However, the correct perspective is that 121,8% more Whites are raped by Whites than by Blacks, and 115,7% more Whites are assaulted by Whites than by Blacks.

Was the ratio the same in the past?

The point is not what happened in the past. I am talking about the realities that we have to deal with now, but those hon members walk around saying that Black people assault Whites, murder them and rape them. That is what they say!

Is it not true?

What do they achieve? [Interjections.] I have now tried to restore the balance.

It is AWB propaganda!

The hon member is angry with me because the crime rate is rising. I have already mentioned it, but just allow me to make a quick observation on it. I obtained figures that indicated what the situation was in other countries of the world. We say that we find the crime rate unacceptable, but let me mention what happened in Australia in 1986-87. Theft increased by 31%, while it decreased in South Africa by 4,72%. House-breaking increased by 15% in Australia, while it decreased in South Africa by 10%. Serious assaults increased in Australia by 17,5% as opposed to the increase of 10% in South Africa. That is the point that we are trying to make—crime is on the increase, but we are trying to deal with it. Motor-theft also decreased in Australia by 6%, but in South Africa it decreased by 10%. The point is thus that crime is not on the increase in South Africa alone.

Who doubts it?

Oh, the hon member accepts it?

Of course we accept it!

He will therefore never raise that point again? If that is the case, then at least we understand each other with regard to that point. [Interjections.]

That hon member is also at odds with me about the White Paper. He read aloud the following sentence from the White Paper under the heading “The crime sphere”:

Then, without further ado, he simply added that the Minister had said that an integrated society was the cause of crime. Now where did he read that?

Right there!

Where is that written?

Right there!

You see, Mr Chairman, it is not written here. I just read the paragraph aloud. [Interjections.]

Just put your glasses on!

I read the paragraph aloud. Besides, I am wearing my glasses! I can see. I think it is the hon member for Overvaal who cannot see. [Interjections.] The hon member for Ermelo now goes further. [Interjections.]

Order!

On the following page he read that I said:

The hon member objects to that! He says that we are now politicising the Police Force. However, the following sentence reads as follows:

Why does the hon member not read that sentence as well? Surely that places the matter in perspective. [Interjections.] I really and truly cannot understand the hon member. [Interjections.]

You should try harder! [Interjections.]

The hon member quoted from what I was supposed to have said with regard to the counter-insurgency plan. Then he said that we were—he used these words—“changing the hearts and the minds of the people”.

Mr Chairman, we are trying to see if we cannot win people over. I want to tell that hon member here today that if we do not succeed in changing people’s attitudes, we are going to lose them all. We are going to lose everyone. The CP is going to lose as well. The hon members of the CP are going to be the first losers because with their policy they are not winning over the hearts and minds of people. I am saying this on the strength of what I have just quoted with regard to their standpoint about crime; crime between Blacks and Whites.

Now you are bringing politics into the debate again! [Interjections.]

Order!

The PFP, on the other hand, overemphasises certain other matters. The fact of the matter is that we have a standpoint. Our standpoint appears here in the White Paper. What is our standpoint? What is our plan? How are we going to deal with the counter-insurgency situation in South Africa? We have a plan that could work. One of the facets of our plan is good government. Good government means—in fact, I have already said it here—that we must see to the interests of the people. [Interjections.] The hon members of the CP have standpoints about good government. One must prove that one cares about people. Their standpoints have no firm foundation and are still going to destroy this country. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon member for Ermelo can gesticulate as much as he likes! I shall read to him what they say. Part of good government is that we should address people’s grievances, those things that are wrong in the community. That includes things such as the provision of water and electrical power and the repair and maintenance of streets. Do you know what the CP says, Sir? The CP says that they want to destroy the instrument that the Government created to help it in this regard, namely the regional services councils.

Yes! Of course! [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, there we have the significance! They want to destroy them.

What does that have to do with the Police Force?

The other day the hon member for Lichtenburg said…

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to answer questions now. [Interjections.]

The other day, the hon member for Lichtenburg said here that they were going to try to destroy the regional services councils.

What does that have to do with the Police Force?

He said that the regional services council of Lichtenburg-Groot Marico was being controlled by the CP. He said that the Blacks asked for a sum of R400 000 for taps, and when the council said that it did not have that much money, they said they would be satisfied with R200. [Interjections.] On top of that, he boasts about it! He is seriously jeopardising the safety of South Africa with actions of that nature. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, at this stage I should like to sit down again. I shall react to the speeches of the remaining hon members later.

Mr Chairman, there are two hon Ministers of Law and Order whom we know. There is the one we meet in his office and in the corridors of Parliament. He is friendly and sympathetic in regard to the problems we have, and he gives them a great deal of attention. For that we are grateful. Then there is the hon the Minister whom we saw here today, who overreacted entirely to everything that had been said. He does not understand that we in the PFP want the police to do the job for which they have been trained and for which they are being paid.

We are interested in the return of the rule of law, and, as the hon member for Houghton said, we want habeas corpus to be restored in this country. It is as simple as that.

Mr Chairman, I note from the Commissioner’s recently issued report that the approved establishment of the Force as at 31 December 1987 was 61 197. This is an improvement of 12 206 on the situation as at 30 June 1985, when the approved establishment was 48 991.

I note further from the report that the incidence of selected reported crimes in one year is as follows. Rape increased by 14,7% and assault with intent by 10,04%. Residential housebreaking showed a decrease of 6,22%, but the figure of 140 835 incidents still alarmingly high. There are areas of my constituency where people in every house on the street have suffered a housebreaking at some stage or another in the past year or two. In shoplifting there has been an increase of 7,3% and in motor vehicle thefts, a decrease of 10,55%, even though the number of incidents is still very high at 59 936. This means that almost 5 000 vehicles are stolen every month.

The point I want to make is that the task of preventing crime and investigating offences, as described in Programme 2 of the estimates, is obviously not being given adequate attention. The number of police has been increased by 12 206, but where are they? I imagine they have been allocated to the Black townships to enforce the emergency regulations. What about the rest of us?

I want to illustrate this state of affairs by referring to a recent incident in Rosebank, Johannesburg. An innocent bystander was killed in the crossfire during a shoot-out between taxi-drivers. Together with the city councillors in my constituency, I have done what I can to improve the situation by arranging with the Johannesburg City Council and the senior police officers in the area to move the taxi rank to a more convenient position in the shopping area, away from the residential part of the constituency. [Interjections.]

What is needed is a more visible police presence. The police officers with whom I discussed this problem told me that they were short of men. The police were not short of men, however, when 28 members of the Black Sash were standing in silent protest here in Cape Town some weeks ago. On that occasion they were surrounded by a posse of armed policemen who sealed off both ends of the block with parked vehicles to ensure that they did not escape. What an overreaction!

Where are all these policemen when little old ladies are mugged and their handbags stolen? Where are the policemen when men and women are attacked and their possessions taken or when motorcars are stolen?

I have spoken before about the need for the bobby on the beat, and I want to repeat that plea here today. I have spent some time with the London Metropolitan Police, and last year I spent a day with the New York police. I rode with two young policemen on their regular patrol up and down Broadway. [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that the bobby in London or the cop in New York patrols the same beat each day and is familiar with circumstances and individuals in his area. He is known to the residents and is aware of changing circumstances. This is what we need in South Africa, not only in Rosebank, which is a rapidly changing area and is fast becoming a mini-CBD, but also throughout our residential and business areas.

We need policemen and not troops, as has been suggested by one of the NP candidates in the Johannesburg municipal election. I want to ask the hon the Minister what he thinks of the ridiculous idea that the army should be sent to patrol the streets of Johannesburg. Does he agree that the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Rosebank is like Beirut, and that troops should be deployed in the suburbs? I look forward to his reaction to this very stupid suggestion.

I want to refer to the position of our policemen in the self-governing states, and in KwaNdebele in particular. These policemen are trained in our colleges, and a number of our senior police officers are seconded to the self-governing states. In KwaNdebele Brigadier Chris van Niekerk was replaced by Brigadier Herzog Lerm in August 1986. This happened after Brigadier Van Niekerk apparently declined to detain certain leaders opposed to the current regime. Brigadier Lerm, on the other hand, with his heavyhanded approach, appears to have found favour with the executive to the extent that he has been appointed private secretary to Chief Minister Mahlangu. This is a most unusual position for a commissioner of police, except in the most repressive of states.

Many of Brigadier Lerm’s actions have caused concern, not least his incredible action in prohibiting Prince James Mahlangu from taking any action to oppose independence and the instruction to prohibit the residents of Moutse from travelling to Bloemfontein to hear the outcome of their application to the Appeal Court after the illegal incorporation of that territory into KwaNdebele.

I attended a seminar this past Monday at the University of Pretoria where the future of KwaNdebele was discussed. The seminar noted—

The seminar called for a judicial commission of inquiry into the activities of the police and vigilantes in KwaNdebele.

It was stated at the seminar that it was notoriously difficult to control police assaults, and unless senior policemen unequivocally condemned this kind of conduct, it could only become rife. It was stated that in KwaNdebele, not only does the tone of the police leadership promote such assaults, it positively encourages them.

It was mentioned that the Commissioner, Brigadier Lerm, is cited in two separate Supreme Court actions for damages for having assaulted detainees in the presence of a group of other policemen. It was also stated that the Station Commander of the Kwaggafontein Police Station allegedly made no efforts to control a programme of torture of children which lasted approximately one week during May 1987.

Warrant Officer Botha, the Commander of the KwaNdebele Murder and Robbery Squad, has apparently been named in a number of actions for damages arising out of torture including electrocution, suffocation and genital abuse. There are many other instances mentioned and I would like the hon the Minister to advise us what his attitude is to the call for the judicial commission of inquiry when he responds to the debate.

He must not tell us that the police in KwaNdebele are under the control of the KwaNdebele Government. These people are trained in our colleges. The senior police force officers are sent there to act on our behalf and I believe that something has to be done about the situation in KwaNdebele as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on what was said by the hon member for Johannesburg North. I find it strange, however, that as a member of the PFP, which prides itself on advocating equality for everyone, he should object to what is possibly a greater than normal police presence in Black residential areas owing to the conditions prevailing there. I find it odd that he nevertheless also wants law and order to be maintained in those areas.

I just find it curious that laws in this country should only apply to certain people, and that if the Black Sash breaks the law, the police are not permitted to take action; then suddenly there is more important work that they should be doing.

The same applies to the question of residential areas. The PFP is so keen to have all residential areas open to all races. As soon as problems are created by Black taxies in the hon member’s constituency, however, he is quick to ask for these taxi ranks to be moved. I actually find these double standards very amusing.

The SAP is so often criticised for the acts of individual members of the Force. They are so seldom commended, however, for the positive work done by the overall majority of the members. The major contribution that is quietly made, without any fuss, should surely be highlighted and given recognition on an occasion such as this.

If, for a moment, we could forget about the maintenance of law and order and crime prevention and focus our attention on the assistance rendered by the police, the importance of their role would become clearly apparent; not only in individual cases, but also at the macro-level, as in the case of the recent flood disasters which hit the Republic of South Africa.

Not only are statistics often uninteresting to listen to, but frequently they do not give a complete picture of what they set out to represent. As far as the recent flood disasters are concerned, it is in fact necessary to share certain statistics with hon members to give an indication of the enormous task carried out by the police in this instance. Out of a total of 19 police divisions, 12 divisions, covering the length and breadth of the country, were affected by the floods to a greater or lesser extent and had to render assistance. A total of 4 329 members were specifically employed on tasks related to the floods and did a total of 90 378 hours of overtime, representing 11 250 normal eight-hour work-days. Add to this the 372 022 kilometres travelled by vehicles—9,25 times the circumference of the earth—and one can see clearly what virtually impossible demands were made on members of the Force.

A division of the Force which is not very well-known to the general public is the Air Wing. I shall be coming back to this, but here I merely want to mention that during the rescue efforts and other assistance necessitated by the floods, helicopters clocked up a total of 347 hours of flying time. A total of 17 police boats were also employed very successfully during the rescue efforts.

The above statistics really are impressive, but what does this really mean in terms of rescue efforts and assistance rendered? During the rescue efforts 1 008 people of all races were rescued, frequently involving great danger to the lives of members of the Force. Unfortunately the floods resulted in great loss of life. With the tragic loss of life of loved ones, the blow could be softened somewhat by the fact that in the majority of cases, bodies were quickly traced and recovered. The uncertainty experienced by survivors was hereby eliminated. A total of 376 bodies were recovered.

The above two aspects are two of the most important tasks carried out. Over and above the aforementioned tasks, the police were also responsible for issuing flood warnings, safeguarding property, delivering emergency supplies, food and stock feed, and also urgent medical supplies, monitoring the conditions of roads and farm dams, and many other flood-related tasks such as assistance and support services in restoring telephone communication, electricity and radio communications.

One could quote many examples of specific cases of assistance being granted, but suffice it to say that that task was undoubtedly one of the most comprehensive rescue and assistance projects yet undertaken by the SA Police on behalf of the community. Our special thanks and appreciation go to every member for the role that he or she played, frequently without regard for their own personal safety or convenience. A word of thanks, too, to the spouses and families of members of the Force for the positive way in which they assisted members in this extremely difficult task.

I have now referred to the formal assistance granted by members of the Force. This is also a good opportunity to convey the thanks and appreciation of the country as a whole to the members of the Force for their individual financial contributions to the Disaster Relief Fund. Since October 1987 an amount of R436 314 has been paid into this fund.

The above-mentioned tasks were performed over and above normal police functions. Criminals did not disappear during the floods. In fact, certain elements specifically regarded the chaos which ensued as an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of people already dealt a severe blow by natural forces. Here, too, the police also did their job with great distinction.

At this stage I unfortunately cannot resist the temptation to place on record that I do not know of any White person in distress who refused the assistance of a Coloured member of the Force. It is strange that colour is of no importance when an emergency situation strikes, but that people try to make political capital out of situations such as White woman being served by a Black member of the Force when he is on duty in a charge office. The double standards applied by the Official Opposition would be laughable if the tragic aspects were not so conspicuous.

I should like to devote the last part of my speech to the Air Wing of the SA Police. As a result of conditions of unrest, amongst other things, during 1975 the Police came to realise that it was impossible to institute efficient crime prevention measures solely by way of routine patrols and that additional assistance would be necessary. [Interjections.] Air patrols appeared to be extremely successful, and after a modest start with four helicopters, at present the police have more than 12 helicopters and two fixed-wing aircraft.

These helicopters and aircraft are used for the following tasks: The prevention and combating of large-scale unrest, the deployment of forces and action against terrorist attacks; the speedy investigation of stock theft and tracing stolen livestock; investigations into bank robberies and other armed robberies; dagga raids; rescue operations; dealing with strikes, safeguarding oil pipelines and railway networks and also in actions taken against acts of sabotage and in the prevention and combating of crime in general. In the period between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 12 helicopters clocked 3 700 hours of flying time.

What success has already been achieved by the Air Wing? From April 1987 to March 1988 552 arrests have been made in action taken against dagga-smugglers and dagga-growers, and a total of 210 005 kilograms of dagga have been destroyed. Can hon members imagine what would have happened if that dagga had also found its way onto the market at this stage?

In stock-theft operations, 1 765 stolen head of cattle were traced and returned to their rightful owners. In action taken after tribal fights, 89 arrests were made and one stolen motor vehicle was recovered. A total of 960 arrests were made in connection with schedule 1 offences.

Air reconnaissance in several unrest-related incidents prevented buildings and vehicles from being set alight. During operations relating to schedule 1 offences and unrest-related incidents, eight stolen vehicles and 67 stolen fire-arms were recovered.

For the enormous task carried out by the Air Wing during the floods a separate speech would be necessary to furnish all the details. Without the contribution of these men the loss of life, whether by drowning, exposure or lack of food and essential medical services, would definitely have been higher.

The Air Wing is a relatively young unit, but already it has left an indelible mark and has proved itself to be an indispensable part of the Police Force.

I hope that it has become clear from my speech that the SAP assiduously adheres to its motto, which is: To protect and to serve. During the 75th anniversary of the SAP we paid tribute to the men and women in blue who ensure that we can carry out our daily task in relative peace and enjoy a well-deserved night’s rest. They deserve our utmost support. Let us not, by any thoughtless action or negative statements, make the task of the police even more difficult, thereby playing directly into the hands of our enemies.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to react to the speech made by the hon member for North Rand.

I want to take this opportunity today of conveying my sincere congratulations to the former Divisional Commissioner of the Western Cape, Brig Ronnie van der Westhuizen, on his promotion to Major-General. I have personally come to know him very well over the years as a person of whom the Police Force and all of us may be very proud indeed. In saying this, however, I want to make it quite clear… [Interjections.]

Order!

Waxing lyrical about the good men in the Police Force, who are far more numerous than the bad ones, is not enough. It is the bad apples who give the Police Force a bad name; not the good ones.

Although I admit that the hon the Minister is really doing his best—I say this to him quite openly—to get rid of the bad apples or to exercise more effective control over them, he is faced with the problem that when he receives complaints about the conduct of these bad apples, he is in many cases dependent for his information on the very persons against whom the complaints have been lodged.

†Where the police are finding themselves increasingly in the frontline of the struggle between the State and the people, and where the police are increasingly in the position of being accused, it is impossible to expect them to be a neutral investigator or arbiter.

As this conflict is increasing—and I believe this to be the fault of the politicians and not of the police—I believe that the establishment of an independent investigative tribunal consisting of legal experts, which would act as the investigating body in cases between the people and the police, should be given serious consideration.

In at least four cases this year and last year when I accused certain policemen of irresponsible behaviour and when I requested an investigation, the hon the Minister’s reply to my questions in Parliament on these cases consisted of a complete vindication of the policemen about whom I had complained and their actions and an unqualified rejection of my version of the events. I believe the main reason was the fact that he had to rely for his information on the very same policemen I had accused. To illustrate this dilemma I will give details of one such case.

*On 14 December last year, my wife and I arrived at the Good Hope Centre, where a protest meeting was to be held that evening against the banning of a meeting which was to have been addressed by the recently released Govan Mbeki.

As a result of the way in which one Col Kellerman behaved to me at the centre, I went to the charge office of the Caledon Square police station at about 8 pm to lay a charge against him.

The subsequent events in the charge office I were written down by me in a sworn statement which I made the next day in the presence of a Col Pieterse. I emphasise that it was a sworn statement.

I quote from my sworn statement:

Mr Chairman, would the hon member answer a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer a question now.

I quote further. He said to me—

[Interjections.] Before leaving the office, I said to the young policemen behind the counter: “I am leaving now; my two minutes are not up yet, so you need not arrest me.” I was alone and I did not feel very optimistic about what would happen to me if I was arrested. [Interjections.] When I said this to those two young policemen, one of those men looked at me and blushed, because he was feeling ashamed. He said: “Sorry, Sir,” and he pointed to the colonel, “but he is our boss.”

This is the whole truth about what happened in that charge office that day. I made that statement under oath and I shall make the same statement under oath again in this House today.

On 16 February this year, in reply to a question by me about this incident, the hon the Minister said that my allegations, which I have just repeated here, had been “proved unfounded” after an investigation.

In his reply, the hon the Minister gave the following version of what had happened in the charge office. I quote from his replies to my questions. In reply to the question whether I had tried to lodge a complaint, the hon the Minister said that I had not tried to lodge a complaint. In reply to the question whether I had been refused permission to lodge a complaint and prevented from doing so, the answer, once again, was “No”. In reply to the third question, whether I had been ordered to leave the charge office, the hon the Minister again replied “No”, and then went on to say:

I saw that on the video tape.

In the charge office? There is no video in the charge office. Do not talk nonsense!

On the earlier ones.

I quote further:

That is absolute nonsense and completely untrue.

†Let me immediately stress that it is quite irrelevant that I happened to be the person involved in this incident. I want to stress that. I happened to be the person who went to lay a charge at this police station. However, it is irrelevant that it was I, but at least I have other means at my disposal to do something about it, as I am doing here in this House today. Ordinary members of the public do not have that privilege. What I want to point out to the hon the Minister is that if a member of Parliament can be chased out of an SAP charge office—I say I was chased out of there like a dog—when he wants to exercise his right to lay a charge, then maybe we can understand what difficult ordinary Black people have when they try to lay a charge against policemen in the Black townships.

I have been present in at least one case where a Black person who wanted to lay a charge was chased away. He had been assaulted. I took him back and we managed to get him to lay a charge. However, it happens all the time. What I am saying, is that if it can happen to a member of this House then I can understand it when those people in the townships say to me that they have no faith when they go to the police stations in the townships that they will get justice.

How do know about all these things?

I make it my job to find out. Hon members won’t tell us about it.

You are everywhere!

Yes, I try to be everywhere. It is difficult, for I do not have much time.

†In not taking action against this Col Kellerman and in condoning his actions the hon the Minister is giving the green light to other policemen all over this country to chase people out of the charge office who want to come and lay charges against policemen who have allegedly committed some offence. That is the effect of him deciding that that policeman made no mistake and was quite correct. By doing this the hon the Minister is bringing the whole system of justice into disrepute It is no wonder that an increasing number of people believe that there is no longer any justice in South Africa and that the security forces can act with total impunity and with no fear of being taken to task for transgressions. This is a recipe for anarchy. When the people believe that they cannot obtain justice through the normal channels they start resorting to things I reject totally such as people’s courts or kangaroo courts. That is what people do when they feel that justice cannot be obtained through the normal channels.

*This worries me, because it will affect us all. I want to make it quite clear that the reply given by the hon the Minister makes me out to be a liar. There is no doubt about that.

But you are a liar. [Interjections.]

Hon members may say “Hear, hear!”, but that is the implication of the hon the Minister’s reply.

Order! Did an hon member say: “But you are a liar”?

I did, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the member for Claremont may proceed.

If the hon the Minister stands by his reply, he is saying not only that I lied, but that I lied under oath. That is quite a serious crime. This is a despicable accusation which I reject with absolute contempt.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising only to afford the hon member the time to finish his speech.

The fact is that every word in my statement is the truth and the version given to the hon the Minister by Col Kellerman is an infamous lie. It creates grave doubts about the reliability of any information or replies given by the hon the Minister to this Parliament. It creates doubts about this Parliament’s ability to convey correct information to the public and to the outside world.

You are talking nonsense!

It is not nonsense. In the light of the fact that the hon the Minister not only furnished incorrect information to Parliament in this case, but has furnished similar incorrect information to this Parliament in reply to my questions on three other occasions, I must make it clear that the people who provide the hon the Minister with this information are lying to him.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, that hon member is calling the hon the Minister a liar in this Parliament on the basis of replies given by the hon Minister. My submission is that the hon member must withdraw that statement. [Interjections.]

Order! As I understand the hon member for Claremont, he is suggesting that the hon the Minister is dependent on the information he receives, that the information he receives is not correct, and that the hon the Minister’s replies are therefore not correct. The hon member for Claremont may proceed.

Those people lie to him, but because they lie to him and he repeats those lies in this House, I say to that hon Minister that he, in his turn, lies to this Parliament.

Order! The hon member must withdraw his last statement, ie that the hon the Minister lies.

Mr Chairman, I cannot withdraw it, for then I would be a liar.

Order! To allege that the hon the Minister tells lies has a certain meaning, and the hon member is not allowed to make an accusation to that effect against the hon the Minister. Therefore he must withdraw his statement.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot do so, for if I were to withdraw it, the implication would be that I was lying.

Order! I appeal to the hon member once again to reconsider, otherwise I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

I cannot do that, Mr Chairman.

Order! I am sorry, but in that case the hon member will have to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on a point of order just before the hon member leaves the Chamber. I gained the impression that the hon member’s behaviour was calculated to achieve this end. I submit that this is a very serious offence, and I should like to have your ruling on this point—that he should withdraw his entire speech.

Order! I cannot come to that conclusion on the basis of the facts available to me at present. I shall study the Hansard and react to the point of order at a later stage.

He wanted to be sent out! He did it on purpose!

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, I would have preferred the hon member for Claremont not to wait until now before making a statement necessitating his leaving the Chamber, because I have always thought that if he were courageous enough to make allegations against the Police, he would be courageous enough to listen to the replies to those statements. However, today it is obvious that the hon member—I am going to refer to his behaviour—is only prepared to criticise and make negative statements, and when the time comes for us to deal with him, he takes to his heels. I now have no option but to discuss some of his actions in his absence.

I want to start with, what happened at the Good Hope Centre. I want to explain that I saw a video recording of what happened there. The facts I am giving tie in with the video recording I saw myself.

Who are the actors?

The hon member has not told us about what he did at the Good Hope Centre. He did not tell us that the Attorney-General refused to prosecute after he and others had made statements under oath, that there was a video recording available for viewing and that an independent decision was taken that there would be no prosecution. Why does the hon member not divulge that information to the House?

On 14 December 1987 he was at the Good Hope Centre and, together with others present there, was warned in the prescribed manner by an officer to disperse, because the meeting that was to be held had been banned. The hon member then started to argue with the officer concerned, whereupon the hon member and the officer were referred to Col Kellerman, who explained to him that the meeting had been banned and that he had to leave the area.

His presence and his inclination to argue with Col Kellerman attracted a large crowd of people. He ignored the warning and tried to continue with his arguments.

I maintain that the hon member should have been arrested that day, because he was not obeying the laws of South Africa, but to save him embarrassment, Col Kellerman took him by the arm and once more asked him to leave.

I saw that too!

He then called two policemen, and they escorted him to his car. Why does he not tell us how he behaved in public?

I should also like to deal with a few other aspects regarding this hon member. The hon member for Claremont uses the privilege of this House to bring White, Black, Indian and Coloured members of the Force under suspicion. This side of the House will not allow any single hon member sitting here without a policy—because we do not know what his policy is; he has never told us what it is—and without a mandate for a policy, if he has one, to try to humiliate honourable people without giving the voters some perspective from which to judge the hon member for themselves.

I wish the hon member disapproved of the SACP and the ANC as strongly as he disapproves of the SA Police. [Interjections]. However, that would mean that the hon member would have to act positively, and that he cannot do; he can only be negative, and the best proof of that is his behaviour in this House today.

In 1986 this hon member proposed, at the PFP congress, that selective sanctions should be applied to those who supported the Government. In 1987 he advocated a PFP boycott of the opening of Parliament. When that did not find favour, he suggested that they should come to the opening of Parliament wearing black arm-bands. When that did not find favour either, he boycotted the opening all on his own. He just wants to be seen. He wants to have the public’s attention focussed on him. That is why he is sitting here today as an independent, single hon member. He was not invited to Dakar, and therefore he left the PFP. He is not used to that and does not want to subject himself to the discipline of a caucus. That is why he sits here, independent of the other independents.

No, Gastrow is protecting him! [Interjections].

Because he did not do military service, he made a few leftist volte-face manoeuvres. On 17 June 1987 he warned the Government in this House against the AWB and the CP. On 18 February this year he nonetheless made the shocking allegation that partition is a more reasonable policy than the NP’s policy of power-sharing.

That is right!

I want to tell the public… The hon member for Greytown says it is right. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell the people—the Coloured public—that the hon member for Claremont and the hon member for Greytown supported large-scale removals in South Africa as a more honest policy than that of power-sharing with Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.)

Order!

People of colour must be told what the standpoint of these two hon members is. [Interjections.]

Order!

With regard to the NP, he has also changed his attitude. On 17 June 1987 he said that the NP was on the road to reform. On 1 March this year he accused the NP of being the most oppressive military regime in the Western NP world.

As far as the PFP is concerned, he has also changed his viewpoint. When he was a member of the PFP, his hon leader said there was a revolution in the politics of South Africa. Earlier this year the hon member said here in this House that there was not a revolution in South Africa.

There are a few other things which have to be said about the hon member for Claremont. On 7 March this year he asked that members of the Police Force must be removed from Black towns so that they could serve in the Claremont area. He said they should be on duty there to guard the foot-bridges, the trains and the subways. What he is saying, therefore, is that the Police Force must be moved from the Black towns to the White area in which he lives. He is not concerned with chaos in a Black area, just as long as there is security where he lives. The hon member for Claremont is only worried about himself.

We must also remember what happened in the KTC squatter camp. When the Police were tracking down people who had thrown petrol bombs, the hon member for Claremont spoke to them in an attempt to stop them arresting people. Why did he not want the Police to arrest people when they were throwing petrol bombs?

The mayor of Kaya Mandi said that this hon member overturned rubbish bins and then asked women and children to stand there so that he could take photographs of them. Then he asked them to get rid of the legally elected local authority. Just as the CP wants to get rid of the regional services councils, this hon member wants to get rid of local authorities.

Let us look at what happened on 21 April in the Supreme Court. There sat the hon member for Claremont in a group of people who stood up and…

You do not need to shove us into those rubbish bins too!

Keep quiet! [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal does not have to come to take up the cudgels for the hon member for Claremont. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Claremont sat in the Supreme Court in Cape Town amongst people who stood up and shouted amandla and gave the Black-power salute. The hon member stood up himself. He also spoke when they said amandla. I should like to know what the hon member said. That is why he took care not to be here this afternoon. I want to know from that hon member if he also shouted amandla. Did he also give the Black-power salute, or did he just lift his tiny fist, half-ashamedly to shoulder height, as the hon member for Greytown did? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Claremont says we are a minority government. He stands for the interests of the majority in the country. Who, he asks, are the majority? On 9 September 1987 he said here in the House that the ANC had majority support in this country. That is where the hon member stands. He stands by the ANC. However, after 14 April when he so grossly vilified the SA Police—I cannot put it any other way…

Order! What does the hon member mean exactly when he says the hon member for Claremont stands by the ANC?

Mr Chairman, I mean he stands by what he himself said. He stands by the majority, and he said—it is on record in Hansard—that the majority in South Africa is represented by the ANC. He says the majority political view is far and away that of the ANC. I am only repeating his own words.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

After the hon member for Claremont had attacked the Police on 14 April, an hon member of one of the other Houses wrote a letter to the hon the Minister in which he said:

[Time expired].

Mr Chairman, before I link up with the hon member for Vryburg, I merely wish to contend that the hon member for Claremont was guilty of a calculated and fragrant breach of parliamentary privilege. Linking up with what the hon member for Sunnyside said, I want to ask that the hon member for Claremont’s conduct be investigated as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

During his speech the hon member for Vryburg exposed the hon member for Claremont for what he is. I want to link up with that and ask the hon member for Greytown to convey that to him, because he defended him here all afternoon. I suspect that new political nuptials are in the offing. I think it could be a beautiful ceremony. It could be solemnised by the hon member for Durban-Central. [Interjections.] I imagine the hon member for Green Point could be the pageboy. [Interjections.]

I also wore the uniform of one of the security force components, and I am proud of that fact. Please permit me, Sir, to make a few remarks about that hon member who took to his heels here this afternoon. That hon member does not have the moral right to refer to the security forces in South Africa. Someone who thought fit to relinquish his citizenship temporarily—citizenship which I think that even my colleagues on the PFP side regard as being very valuable and which they treasure—merely to escape his civic obligations, does not have the right to besmirch the maintenance of law and order in such a gross fashion.

The enemies of South Africa and the anti-South African media could come and take a lesson from this hon member’s distortions and misrepresentations about our security services.

Order! Is the hon member contending that the hon member for Claremont purposely distorted facts?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I have kept my eye on him. Apart from the fact that he was asked to leave, he is very seldom in this House. He merely comes here to make speeches which border on the subversive and then he leaves for the purpose of disseminating half-truths in unrest situations and to collect court cases…

Order! I am appealing to the hon member. He must moderate his language in referring to the hon member for Claremont. The hon member for Germiston District must withdraw the statement that the hon member for Claremont’s actions border on the subversive.

I withdraw it, Sir. Let me say that it does not border on the subversive. [Interjections.]

He negotiated extra time in this debate so that he could use every minute to vilify the police. Let me tell the hon member that the ANC-SACP alliance would not find him acceptable either, despite the fact that he is courting their favour so assiduously. I shall now leave the hon member at that.

On the seventy fifth anniversary of the police I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the Commissioner of the SA Police on their proud record in keeping our country as crime-free as possible.

The SAP is the friend of all communities whose object it is to live together in an orderly and peaceful fashion. The task of this Force becomes more difficult by the day in a society and in a country in which unscrupulous politicians do everything in their power to polarise the extremes even further. The object is to create a state of lawlessness and anarchy and to replace evolutionary reform by anarchy so that the existing order can be subverted.

On the one side we have the ANC, the SA Communist Party and their fellow-travellers, and on the other there is the CP’s so-called cultural organisation, the AWB, some of whose members have already had suspended sentences imposed on them as a result of the unlawful possession of weapons of Russian origin. These two poles feed each other, and the police have to maintain order. I greatly sympathise with them.

I even wish to submit that these two poles acknowledge each other’s existence in that the ANC presents the Whites in South Africa to the world as being people with an AWB mentality, as the hon the Minister has said, while the AWB leader has, on occasion, referred to members of the ANC as freedom fighters. In the first information document drawn up by the leader of the AWB’s regional council in Germiston, a certain Koen Vermaak, he stated it in the following terms:

I am referring to a relevant report in Die Burger of 11 February this year. I should like to know whether the CP members in this House who are members of the AWB agree with him. Their are as silent as the grave.

No! [Interjections.]

Order!

In this situation of political polarisation a relatively small police force must maintain law and order. It is a virtually superhuman task which has to be performed by people such as hon members and I, with their human weaknesses and predispositions. That is why I am telling hon members today that in this esteemed Force there is as little place for a supporter of the ANC as there is for a supporter of the AWB.

What about the Broederbond?

Order!

That hon member must keep quiet—he speaks like a political guerilla. [Interjections.]

Order!

During this session hon members asked questions about the dismissal of AWB members from the police reserve. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to be consistent in the actions taken against members of both these radical organisations who might want to infiltrate the Force with a view to undermining it. Those who preach opposition and make a show of arms at their political meetings create a situation which is dangerous to the security of our system and they create a climate of revolution; it does not matter whether they are left-wing radicals or right-wing radicals. Their conduct remains untenable and they are a threat to law and order.

That is why we on this side of the House have also appreciatively taken note of the attention being given at present, in the course of police training, to sound community relations. In all facets of training opportunities for this are being created during basic training, in-service training courses, riot training and in management-training courses. In addition attention is also focussed on this objective in practice. It is the responsibility of commanding officers and those occupying a supervisory position to make members of the Force, down to the lowest echelons, aware of the necessity for sound police-community relations. They must also ensure that members of the Force carry out relevant provisions, instructions and orders to the letter.

One must realise that these policemen are certainly not all little angels; they are ordinary people who are also, at times, guilty of transgressions or offences. What is important, however, is that these transgressions or offences are not condoned by the Police Force or by the hon the Minister. The action taken against them, in terms of South Africa’s legal system, is relentless.

The police have an obligation towards the public, but the public also have an obligation to the police. We must morally support our police Force and have some understanding for the difficult task it has to perform. We must grant our cooperation to its members and have the right attitude towards them. It does not behove us to cast suspicion on them in this House and to belittle their task. In this connection the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—and I am saying this with all due respect—should also take note of the fact that statements such as “they cannot even deal with car theft” does not promote morale.

For good policing it is essential for society and the police to form a partnership. Situations of tension should be obviated, and where they do occur, the problem must be solved quickly. We must see policemen as our friends, because they personify the maintenance of an orderly society and are not there to oppress people or to prejudice law-abiding citizens. The objective of those who unjustifiably try to cast suspicion on the Police Force can only be to benefit our enemies and to promote lawlessness.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of establishing a police station in the southern portion of my constituency, Germiston District. In the Dawn Park residential area, Klippoortjie and the adjacent industrial areas there have been several complaints about inadequate policing. With the planned large Indian development in the newly proclaimed Villaliza area a major need is developing in the southern area of Germiston. I trust that the hon the Minister will give this request his attention.

Mr Chairman, please just allow me briefly to reply to one of the statements made by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys who alleged that it was not the NP’s reform policy which could be held responsible for the political unrest prevailing in our country. I just want to quote to him what was said by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid on 21 April 1985:

He went on to say that he thought that at least for the more sophisticated Black people political grievances were one of the main causes of the unrest of recent months. The source of my quote is available.

I hope the hon member will understand that since that time that is the whole point I am trying to make—that situation has continued. It has even grown worse. The Government is trying to curb it in a specific way, and is not succeeding. I shall come back to that.

I am not going to emulate the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I am not going to get personal. I am not going to humiliate myself by comparing legal men, but I do want to tell him that we have a certain degree of esprit de corps. Let me tell him that I as an advocate and he as a messenger of the court have certain common ground, and let me speak to him on that basis. Let us try to maintain some esprit de corps. [Interjections.]

Let me tell him that in the White Paper it is stated that there are certain prevailing circumstances which create the proper climate for crime and for an increase in crime. One of the factors mentioned is that we have lumped together a Third World and a First World in one country. It has also been stated that the police can do nothing about that, and I agree with that. It is not the task of the police, but my whole point is that that hon the Minister and the Government can do something about that. They must relinquish their mixed policy, their policy of integration, and thus change the situation. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows that his effort at indicating that we in the CP had something against the police, and the way in which they dealt with the crime situation in this country, have so little bearing on the truth that it is incredible that he can even mention this. We specifically commend them for what they have managed to do, particularly in the most difficult of difficult circumstances.

When was the first Black man appointed to the Bench?

Of course I was opposed to the admission of the first Black man to the Bench. [Interjections.] I have no problem with that, because I say—that hon member will realise this—wait until a Black man sits in judgment on that hon member’s White child. Wait until he imposes his background and culture on him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, you must not concern yourself overmuch with that muttering; they cannot do much more than mutter, because they cannot speak. Let them mutter.

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

No, I am not prepared to take any questions, Sir. I do not have the time.

I now want to come to the hon the Minister who apparently cannot read very well either. The second sentence which he completed and which I quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the first sentence. Let me just try to explain to the hon the Minister. Surely every policeman in this country has the right—regardless of what political party he belongs to—to remain a member of the Police Force regardless of that affiliation. [Interjections.] Surely that is an indisputable fact. He must perform his task regardless of his political convictions. He must serve the State, not any political party. The hon the Minister says, however, that all the members of the Police Force should be enthusiastic supporters of the constitutional model of the governing party, the NP.

It is true that we have entered into a dispute with him. We are saying that he politicises the issue. That is why we have joined issue with him, because he wants to make this issue one of political expediency. We say that is wrong.

There is also something else on which I want to warn the hon member. He referred to the AWB and the Defence Force and said that owing to their political convictions, members of the AWB should be dismissed. Not one of those people to whom the hon member referred, left the Police Force owing to their competence or lack of competence. They merely belong to a specific organisation. [Interjections.] Today I want to tell the hon member that he is treading on very dangerous ground, because he says that such members cannot be members of the police and members of a radical organisation—even though it is a registered political organisation.

The hon member referred to hon members on this side of the House as radicals. So merely because of the fact that the hon member has called us radicals, our members of the Force run the risk of being dismissed. The hon member is venturing on dangerous ground. Unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, today I want to thank the police for proudly and unashamedly blocking the path of those revolutionary forces which want to take over this country of ours. I think that the recent successes by our Police Force are something we can be very proud of. I sincerely want to thank them for that.

In the White Paper which was tabled, under the heading “The Revolutionary Sphere”, it is stated:

I want to ask the hon member for Ermelo, the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on Law and Order, whether he agrees with this. If he does not agree with this, I wish to submit—as stated in this White Paper—that it is only malicious-or-apathetic people who do not want to realise or accept this fact. I do, however, think he agrees with that. What does he have to say about our counter-revolutionary policy? What does he say about the counter-revolutionary strategy which is clearly spelled out in this White Paper? What objection does he have to that?

The hon the Minister already focused on that when he said that as far as our responsibilities went, in the future it was our intention to continue to support that strategy and expand on that. Surely the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition knows what the sphere of responsibility of the SAP is. He prides himself on the fact that he is an advocate. Surely he must have that insight. Surely he must know what it is all about. [Interjections.] His objection is completely unjustified.

What is more, he is specifically opposed to the fact that we are trying—these were the words he used—to win the “hearts and minds” of the majority of the population. He was specifically opposed to the fact that we on this side of the House were trying to change the attitudes of the majority of the people in South Africa.

Our counter-revolutionary strategy is not a pipedream, but is based on the reality in our country, and with due consideration for what all the experts throughout the world have written and said about this. Let me just quote a few passages to emphasise this point. Let me quote from JJ McCuen’s The Art of Counter-revolutionary War. In that work Mao Tse-tung is quoted as having said:

McCuen went on to state:

Is that the task of the Government or the police?

He went on to state:

Our counter-strategy is very clear. What is the Official Opposition’s counter-revolutionary strategy?

Not to use the police to carry out our strategy! [Interjections.]

Let us examine that. Today the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition did not spell out to us what the CP’s counter-revolutionary strategy was.

They do not have one.

I know why. It is because they have no counter-revolutionary strategy!

You must ask Eugéne about that.

If they have one, I invite them today to spell it out for us.

Eugene is the head of that department.

You see, Mr Chairman, it is extremely important to all of us, to every voter in this country, because in what we are talking about here puts our future on the line.

Let us examine a few aspects of CP policy. They say the would deprive the Blacks in South Africa of citizenship if they ever came into power. Is that part of their counter-revolutionary strategy? They also say that they would ensure majority occupation for the Whites in South Africa. How are they going to do that? Either they will remove the Blacks by force, or they will take the action described by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition according to the hon member for Brentwood’s speech of 9 February:

He is thus saying that in their state too—ie the White state they will have—there is going to be another Soweto. The only thing it must not do is proliferate. How do we stop that, however? In a policy document at the congress the hon the leader of the CP gave the following reply:

I am now asking those hon member whether that is part of their counter-revolutionary strategy!

He would not give them water! [Interjections.]

My submission is that that is a recipe for revolution. Their whole policy in regard to people of colour in this country is a recipe for revolution. If an effort were ever made in this country to implement their policy, that would be the best strategy for bloody revolution in this country.

Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche, whose ideas they embrace, says there is no place for moderates in this country, but only for the ANC and the AWB. That is why he is a member of the AWB. I can tell hon members that he is completely wrong. I believe that the overall majority of people in this country are moderates. If the CP, with its supporter, the AWB, were ever to come to power, Eugéne Terre’Blanche’s words would come true, because then there would be no place for moderates in this country.

Today, with all the seriousness at my command, I want to appeal to the CP to reconsider. Do so in the interests of our country and in the interests of our police, and help our police in this revolutionary struggle, his onslaught on our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo has concentrated on tackling the CP in respect of their counter-revolutionary strategy and I do not plan to follow on that subject in any detail. However, the hon member did refer to the CP policy as being a recipe for revolution, and on that subject I certainly agree with him. However, given the fact that the NP has been in power for 40 years—and when they came into power there was not what they refer to today as a revolutionary climate—the hon member and his hon colleagues should surely ask themselves why now, 40 years later, they consistently talk about the revolutionary climate in South Africa, as they have been doing for the past few years. Perhaps they should look at their own policies as possibly being recipes for revolution. In terms of their counter-revolutionary strategies, they are breathtakingly simplistic. In many respects they are comprehensive but simplistic and very often counter-productive.

Mr Chairman, today I wish to address the hon the Minister on the subject of vagrancy. This is a serious problem in many parts of South Africa and it is getting worse. The causes of vagrancy are many and varied. They include unemployment, poverty, housing shortages, inadequate education, broken families etc. I would like to quote from a newsletter of an agency that tries to assist with the vagrancy problem, and this is what they have to say:

It goes on to say:

Vagrants themselves vary. Some of them would like a stable job and a stable home life. One can go right through the spectrum down to those who are down-and-outs and who are probably beyond any form of significant rehabilitation.

The results of the vagrants, irrespective of how they get there or why they are there, are the following: Deterioration of neighbourhood environment, anti-social behaviour, some petty crime and a potential screen behind which some serious criminals may hide; and, on the part of the public, apprehension, distaste and annoyance, and in most cases an adverse effect on race relations in the area in which the vagrants happen to be.

I am the first to recognise that vagrancy should not be a police problem in the first instance. I discuss it under this Vote because welfare matters are an own affair in terms of this farcical tricameral system. There is a serious vagrancy problem in my constituency, Cape Town Gardens. The vagrants are predominantly Coloureds. However, there is no hon member in this House whom I can address on the question of the rehabilitation of people who happen to be classified as Coloureds. Therefore it is now landing in the lap of this hon Minister. This is an own affair. I have to tell my constituents that the Coloured vagrants in the Gardens constituency are Coloured own affairs and they, as White voters, must please not be worried about it and must not interfere with the own affairs of another population group.

[Inaudible.]

I am handing the hon the Minister the baby as he is the general affairs Minister of Law and Order. I am delighted that we have general affairs police… [Interjections.] So the problem is landing in the lap of this hon Minister and I know he is going to solve it.

The police can do their best, but at best they can in most cases simply move the problem to a new location. When one receives a complaint of a congregation of vagrants who are causing a disturbance in a particular place, and one approaches the police and they see what they can do, very often the end result is that the vagrants move away from that area and a few days later there is another problem area in a different part of that area or a surrounding suburb. If the police go further and start charging people with antisocial behaviour or vagrancy, what happens is that they get involved, they have to go through all the documentation, they arrest the person, the police themselves then have to spend valuable time in court giving evidence, and the person is maybe found guilty, or even not. If they are found guilty and sentenced to gaol, for many of them it is not a great hardship because they are going to get more food and more warmth than they did as vagrants anyway, and in many cases, in terms of the prisons policy, which I think is sensible anyway, they get checked into the prison at one door and they get thrown out at the back door, and then it is a race between the policeman and the vagrant as to who gets back to the Gardens the quickest. [Interjections.]

I sympathise with them regarding this problem, Mr Chairman, and I do not think in that sense there is a great deal more that the police can do about it, other than having more bobbies on the beat.

The problem of vagrancy deserves the urgent attention of the Government. We need a multifaceted approach to tackle the problem from many angles. These include additional rehabilitation facilities, night shelters, voluntary daytime work centres, and adequate policing of the trouble spots. All this needs money and the active support of the authorities, and I appeal to this hon Minister to put pressure on his colleagues to do more to resolve the vagrancy problem before it gets completely out of control and takes up even more of the police’s scarce time.

Mr Chairman, to the men in blue I say thank you for their service and devotion to protect the lives and belongings of the innocent people of South Africa, which I know places a heavy responsibility on their shoulders.

My close involvement with the Police Force goes back many years, and I have only the highest respect and admiration for them. In paying tribute to our SA Police Force, let us not forget their wives and their families. These women are of a very special calibre, because of their devotion and unselfishness they have made it possible for the SA Police Force to uphold their dignity and dedication, at times under very difficult circumstances, in the interests of all of our people.

The most sacred duty and obligation of a civilised society is to care for and accept responsibility for children. Conversely, the surest mark of a degenerate society is evidence of the abuse, neglect and exploitation of children. Yet, revolutionary and radical movements are using and abusing children here in South Africa for their own political purposes, and yet the world has nothing to say.

Since the start of the unrest in 1984, the ANC and the SACP strategy, and the primary element of their battle plan has been to involve the youth of South Africa into their so-called people’s war and place them at the forefront of the conflict. The horrendous deeds committed by these so-called young lions, who are trained, incited and motivated to commit acts of terror, arson, sabotage and necklacing, are for me the greatest tragedy in South Africa today. An ANC spokesman speaking in defence of necklacing said the following at the California State University: “We want to make the death of a so-called collaborator so grotesque that the people will never think of it.” How is it then possible that radical activists in our own country utterly and completely associate themselves with these barbaric acts?

On 5 May 1988 in Geneva, the International Commission of Jurists charged South Africa’s security forces with widespread use of torture and violence, even against children, as part of the repressive strategy under White minority rule. This is scandalous and disgraceful. At no point do they back up their allegations with substantiated facts. All of their allegations are based on hearsay and on untested and biased claims drawn up by four Western European lawyers who were in South Africa in February of this year. To put the record straight, I would like to point out that as at 27 April 1988, a few days before this statement was made, only slightly more than 200 juveniles were in detention.

Do they expect the SA Police Force to condone the atrocities and the lawlessness of these juveniles and children? Do they not understand that in order to expose the guilty, so that they can be tried and punished, investigations are continuing, but that such investigations are hampered by the fact that the witnesses are intimidated, not to give evidence or be necklaced.

Do they believe that the Government can permit these kinds of atrocities by children to pass unnoticed and unpunished? Do they not understand that the aim of the detention of juveniles and children in terms of the emergency regulations is also to protect the community at large against these lawless elements? Do they not realise that where it is evident that parents or other members of the community are capable of exercising control over juveniles and children, they will be placed in the care of their parents and other responsible members of the community?

Do they not realise that this Government is not unsympathetic towards juveniles and children? At the same time, however, they are responsible for the safety of all of our people, and they cannot allow a situation in which children are either forced to participate or voluntarily participate in funeral pyres, arson, looting and the destruction of society.

In terms of the emergency regulations, it has been essential to detain youths of 18 years and younger in unrest-related crimes that have included serious crimes such as murder, homicide, damage to property, violent intimidation, the disruption of schools and essential services and the enforcing of boycotts and other lawless activities.

The sensitivity of the issue of the detention of juveniles in terms of our emergency regulations has been stated repeatedly in public. Taking away a child’s freedom is not only a traumatic experience for the child himself but, to a similar degree, results in the creation of a negative emotional perception in the parent and therefore in the community.

However, when a young person commits atrocities such as those I have mentioned, surely action has to be taken to protect the community. Why will the world and radical elements here not realise and understand that each case involving the detention of juveniles is judged according to its merits? Where alternative methods can be found, such as parent care and by dealing with the child in terms of the Children’s Act, there will be no hesitation in applying such methods.

It is all very well for the United Nations and their church equivalent, the World Council of Churches, to blame us. They, like Archbishop Tutu, parade a pseudo-morality which, like all half-truths, is more dangerous than the lie itself.

One wonders at the same time if the traditional neutrality of the foreign service is still intact, when certain diplomats are to be found at the funerals of activists, yet not at the funerals of the innocent Blacks who are savagely murdered by those same radical activists—these so-called innocent children whose perfidious acts are so often life-threatening and murderous.

Let it be understood that the onslaught by external forces is aimed at violently disrupting and undermining the established order in South Africa, and they must be stopped. We know from experience that inciters stir feelings which, once generated, can be a starting point for conflagration and destruction over which the inciters have no control.

It is said that a law-abiding society is recognised by the absence of riots, turbulence and violent crimes. I believe that the Government has a duty to maintain a stable society. If these children have to be detained in certain circumstances in order to prevent the spreading of unrest and violence, then so be it. I believe that the Government would be negating their duty if they failed to act accordingly.

Those who constantly harp on the so-called psychological effects of detention on children should also ask what the long-term psychological effect is on the very children who are, for political purposes, being used in these dastardly acts.

Mr Chairman, I think that the hon member Mrs Chait—or Mrs Thatcher, as hon members here refer to her—made a very meaningful and constructive speech. She referred to violence, which in all its forms we should reject, and I should like to endorse that. We must eliminate both defensive and structural violence in our society.

This afternoon quite a few members referred to the hon member for Claremont. I listened to what hon members had to say about him. Both the hon member for Vryburg and the hon member for Germiston District gave him quite a drubbing. It now seems to me there is not only a total onslaught (aanslag) on the country, but also a complete disaster (gatslag) for the hon member for Claremont in this House. [Interjections.]

The tragic events in Fishhoek on Tuesday have merely re-emphasised the SA Police’s constant willingness to protect and to serve. Our heart-felt sympathies and condolences go out to everyone who lost their nearest and dearest in the events that took place there.

My theme this afternoon is, in the first place, the training of policemen and, in the second place, the better utilisation of the SA Police Force. The truth of the matter is that members of the Force receive a very intensive and thorough training. This training course of theirs has both a practical and an academic component. As far as the academic side of the training is concerned—the training takes place at the Police College in Pretoria—English, Afrikaans, legal subjects, police administration, police relations and police attitudes are included as subjects. As far as the practical side is concerned, there are subjects such as marksmanship, physical training and self-defence.

Yet in spite of a properly balanced course, I believe that more can be done to build up attitudes and relations in the Police Force. The SA Police Force is there to serve the community, and therefore one cannot afford an air of paternalism or condescension. Very often—and I am saying this with all due respect—people of colour in the Force are referred to with an air of condescension. One even sees this amongst young constables who do not evidence the necessary respect towards people of colour who are their seniors or who are officers.

I therefore want to ask that we re-examine the training course which members of the Force undergo. At present someone who wants to become a member of the Force has to have a matriculation certificate. One can no longer, as in the old days, join the Police Force with a Std 6 or Std 8 certificate. The training course is given at the Police College in Pretoria and lasts for approximately six months. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I think that one could shorten that training course to three months. Someone with a matriculation certificate has no problem in mastering the academic side at the Police College. What is actually the point at issue is the practical side. Here, as it is, we are dealing with someone who has more experience of life and who has a matriculation certificate. The benefit of this to the Police Force lies in the fact that it would be possible to post the new men more quickly, saving costs in the process.

Could we not send Jan van Eck on such a course too?

Yes, perhaps we could also send the hon member for Claremont on such a course. [Interjections.] Very well, let us cancel that invitation, Sir. [Interjections.]

Thirdly I want to argue for more joint training. It is a fact that at police stations policemen work together. There is no such thing as White or Black crime. The hon the Minister quite rightly made that remark. Criminals come in all colours. I therefore ask that more emphasis be placed on joint training and preparation of members of the Police Force.

Fourthly, in view of the onslaught on the country, which is now being launched from within, it is of cardinal importance to expand the Police Force. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to reconsider that system of national service.

According to the 1987 annual report a mere 123 national servicemen were allocated to serve in the Force. Give matriculants or those who have to do their national service, an opportunity to decide for themselves where they want to do that national service, in the Defence Force or in the South African Police.

I now come to the second part of my speech. This deals with the better utilisation of members. It is here, in particular, that I have a problem. On 10 May I put a question to the hon the Minister about how graduates were employed in the Force. The hon the Minister replied that as far as possible they were suitably employed, and that no instances were known of those people not being suitably employed.

However, I am aware of quite a few graduates who are not suitably employed. In the Force these graduates are compensated in accordance with their qualifications. They are better paid than ordinary constables who have only a matriculation certificate. There are so many cases, for example, of someone who is a final year LL B student student being appointed as a court orderly. Frequently they are better qualified than the magistrate on the Bench. Someone else may have a B Juris degree but is a gate-attendant, and someone with an honours degree in labour relations is employed in the task force. We should re-examine the situation to see whether graduates cannot be employed in accordance with their qualifications.

The result of such discrepancies is that graduates in the Force are frustrated people. They only stay in the Force for four years and then pack their bags and leave. One sees that only 36 graduates joined the Force in the period 1 June 1986 to 31 December 1987. We cannot afford to lose graduates. We need their resourcefulness in the Force. We must ensure that these people are productively employed to the benefit of the Force and of the country.

Secondly, in speaking about the utilisation of manpower, I believe that students in the Police College can be employed more effectively. When a student goes to Police College, within two to three weeks he is equipped with his bush-training uniform. Once he has been equipped and is a full-fledged policeman, undergoing his training in the college, he can be more effectively utilised.

Why can one or two squads not be sent into Hillbrow on a Saturday or Sunday? The presence of policemen there is necessary. A police constable could go home every second week-end, but on week-ends when he has been gated, as it were, he can be more productively employed. A squad or two could be sent into Hillbrow or Verwoerdburg. It is true that there are no problems in Verwoerdburg at the moment, but they could be sent into Hillbrow to patrol the area there. Police presence would mean a great deal to that area. When all is said and done they are there, after all, to maintain law and order.

†Allow me a few remarks as far as Hillbrow is concerned. According to an analysis made by the South African Institute for Race Relations on figures which they obtained from the hon the Minister’s department, there is no substance in the claim that there is a relationship between the degree of residential integration in an open area and its crime rate.

*I think it is of cardinal importance that one does not simply come to the conclusion that if there are 50 000 people of colour living in Hillbrow, the crime rate is necessarily higher. If one looks at the figures furnished by the department to the South African Institute for Race Relations, and Hillbrow is compared with Mondeor for the period from January 1984 to June 1986, the following is stated:

†It shows that, in fact, the crime rate in Hillbrow is lower despite the fact that Hillbrow is more densely populated and an integrated area. It is not only the MP for Hillbrow who has problems with the police, but it is also the residents of Hillbrow. [Interjections.]

*While I am still here, let me say that we want law and order. Whether I remain here or leave, Hillbrow will still be there. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister, in all honesty and respectfulness, whether something cannot be done to the manpower situation in Hillbrow. If Hillbrow is going to be declared an open area, it is vital to maintain law and order and to maintain standards in that area.

Therefore I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, particularly now that Hillbrow is entering into this experimental era, as it were, and could prove to be a prototype for the rest of South Africa. So many times I have said that where Hillbrow stands today, the rest of South Africa will stand in 10 years’ time. If we could achieve success in Hillbrow, we would also achieve success in the rest of South Africa.

That is not true!

That is very true. The hon member for Parow knows it only too well.

That is not true!

I want to ask the hon the Minister to see whether we cannot increase the manpower in Hillbrow by at least one third, or at least place a mobile police station at the disposal of all the inhabitants of Hillbrow.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to take the floor after the hon member for Hillbrow, and I endorse what he said. He is a good friend of mine with a good sense of humour. I merely want to tell him, however, that I hope he had no ulterior motives in heaping so much praise on the Police this afternoon. [Interjections.] I do, however, agree with what he said.

Permit me, first of all, to extend my sincere congratulations to a friend and colleagues of mine, the hon member for Krugersdorp, on his appointment as Deputy Minister. I think it is an appointment which is welcomed by all hon members on both sides of this House. It was the right appointment to have made. He is a man who has been sympathetic to the Police Force for a very long time now. I think he was given the right portfolio, and I should like to tell him that we wish him everything of the best.

Please permit me to say, too, that it is really a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate today, in particular because this is the 75th anniversary of our SA Police Force. It is a special year for them, and if I may be so presumptuous as to thank and congratulate them on behalf of my constituency, it is because we greatly appreciate the protection that they give us and the fact that they do such a fine job of serving our people.

This afternoon I am going to speak briefly about one of the major police divisions in our country, namely the East Rand division, because there are many things I can say with pride about that division. I should like to commend them for the fine results they have achieved. Before doing so, however, I should like to express a particular word of thanks and congratulations to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Since his appointment to this portfolio, he has really gone out of his way to convey a positive image of the Police Force to the outside world. He has made use of repeated opportunities to do so. I want to tell him that those efforts have had positive results. We also want to tell him that we shall continue to assist him in conveying that fine image of our Police Force.

If I could ask the public at large, the people of our country, to give the Police Force a wonderful present on this 75th anniversary, it would be to teach our children, from their earliest years, regardless of colour or race, to have respect for our Police Force. They are people who must look after our interests in dangerous times and in difficult circumstances. Today I should like to tell the public at large to start doing that. I want to mention an example of this. I do not think this is always meant in a derogatory sense, but how many parents do we not still find speaking in front of their children of the “cops” or the “pote” or the “speedcops”. One might perhaps laugh about that, but children who grow up in such an atmosphere develop a negative image of our Police Force. Would it not be a wonderful day indeed when the people of our country express their appreciation to our Police Force for what they do by teaching our children to have respect for them? We shake them warmly by the hand in great appreciation for what they are doing.

I should like to speak for a moment, about the East Rand division of the Police. As I have said, this is certainly one of the largest divisions in the Force. That division is under the command of Brig Olivier. When the police station in Benoni was opened by the hon the Minister predecessor, I also had a great deal to say there about the Police. When I had finished speaking, the hon the Minister’s predecessor said that I was a real “braggart”. Now I really want to come and brag here this afternoon. We have a police division there that we can be proud of, we are very proud of them. This police division serves three million people and must look after their interests. Apart from the East Rand, they must also look after areas such as Suikerbosrant, Heidelberg, Balfour, Greylingstad, Delmas and Devon. Those are local rural areas; it is a tremendously large area that they must look after.

From the PFP we mainly get criticism of the SA Police Force. On this 75th anniversary—I am specifically going to concentrate on the East Rand division—I think it is perhaps time for us to examine their achievements. In recent years up to 90% of the murders committed by Whites have been solved. That is a tremendously large number of murderers who have been caught. The same applies to bank robberies that have been committed. Here the Police have been successful in solving 50% to 80% of the cases. I think that is a fine achievement. Hon members will remember a murder which was recently reported in the newspapers. Twenty-seven years after the crime had been committed, this unit traced the murderer. He happens to live in Benoni too. [Interjections.] For me this is a fine example of the long arm of the law.

I want to furnish a few interesting statistics about the Narcotics Bureau, which has a branch in Benoni. During the past year they have seized slightly more than 40 000 kg of dagga. In December 1987 they seized 30 762 Mandrax tablets, which transport contractors brought from Zambia to the East Rand by lorry. In five separate cases 878 grams of cocaine valued at almost half a million rand were confiscated. Eight members of the syndicate were arrested.

The achievements of the Narcotics branch at Jan Smuts airport are equally impressive. In April 1987 they arrested a White man with 91 000 Mandrax tablets in his possession. In September 1987 they arrested a White man, two Black men and one Coloured woman with 881 grams of heroin, valued at R220 000, in their possession. In October 1987 they confiscated 4 500 Mandrax tablets in Benoni. In January 1988 they confiscated 39 000 Mandrax tablets at the Kokfontein border post. Five Black men were taken into custody. In April 1988—I am specifically mentioning the dates so that hon members can see how busy this branch really is—they seized 101 000 Mandrax tablets in Potgietersrus. For the sake of interest, let me say that these tablets were found concealed in a lorry’s tyres. The value of all the Mandrax tablets confiscated during the year was R2,355 million. We never see the PFP standing up here to thank the Police Force sincerely on their achievements. Surely these are aspects which can be brought to the attention of our children and our people.

I could speak at great length about quite a few matters, but I should just briefly like to mention a few more examples. In an 8-month period the Diamond and Gold branch of the SAP—I do not want to go into details—seized unprocessed metals, consisting chiefly of non-gold metals, platinum and rhodium, valued at R1,634 million. Now I want to advocate to the hon the Minister that a motor vehicle theft Act be placed on the Statute Book, an Act similar to the Stock Theft Act of which mention was made here this afternoon, because of tremendous shortcomings in the existing legislation. The time is perhaps ripe for an in-depth investigation into this matter. Perhaps the time has come to incorporate very heavy fines in the legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not reply to him. I have very little time and I want to raise one or two other matters with the hon the Minister.

The first matter is that I want to ask the hon the Minister if he would please tell me what has happened to the inquiry that we initiated last October when we came to see him in Pretoria and presented a number of affidavits about excessive behaviour of the police in the Eastern Cape. We saw the hon the Minister and the Head of the Security Police, and I was accompanied by the ex-member for Walmer, Mr Andrew Savage, and Mr Rory Riordan of the Human Rights Trust of Port Elizabeth. The hon the Minister said he would send a senior officer from Pretoria to investigate, but we have heard nothing further and are very anxious to know the result.

In the second place, the hon the Minister rightly highlights the fact that the police have obtained the image of oppressors. He calls it a distorted image and to some extent he is right, but I must also tell him that police actions during the unrest when they used sjamboks on students on campuses and when they shot children in the Black townships contributed very largely to that image which they have obtained, not to mention the years of having to implement the hated pass-laws which are now fortunately a thing of the past. The hon the Minister wants to change the image from oppressor to protector, and I fully concur with that objective. However, I want to tell him that there is very little likelihood of this happening as long as the special constables or “kitskonstabels”, as they are known in the townships, are allowed to operate, virtually conducting a reign of terror across the length and breadth of the Republic. I totally disagree with the White Paper’s assessment of the “kitskonstabels” which appears on page 10 and which blandly proclaims that—

That is true, but it states—

I totally disagree with that assessment.

In September 1986 when this idea of “kitskonstabels” was first mooted, and they were then only getting three weeks of training, I warned that it was a recipe for disaster to send badly trained, ill-disciplined men with three weeks’ training, armed with lethal weapons into the townships. I am afraid that I have been proved to have been correct.

A further 2 673 “kitskonstabels” were trained at Koeberg, after the original 1 000 had been trained. Instead of bringing stability to the townships, they have proved to be a totally disruptive element in the townships, cordially hated and widely feared.

There have been innumerable charges laid against them. These charges include murder, attempted murder, rape, assault, robbery and house-breaking. Yet, the hon the Minister informs us that the “kitskonstabels” are the victims of a campaign to discredit them. He tells us that where these special constables are found to have exceeded their powers, action is taken against them.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister about three specific cases and I want to know what action has been taken against the 16 constables at Oudtshoorn and the 12 constables at Aberdeen who featured in the affidavits that were presented to the Supreme Court, and against whom interdicts were granted to prevent these people from further harassing, threatening and intimidating the residents of the Black townships of those areas. I might say that the township at Hofmeyr is also in the same situation and, as a result of this, a judge has issued an interim order restraining 13 “kitskonstabels” from harassing residents.

Has the hon the Minister taken action in these cases? Have these constables been summarily dismissed from the Force and have warnings been issued to the “kitskonstabels” generally that they are not protected against illegal acts? I ask this question because they seem to have the idea that the indemnity under the emergency regulations allows them to do simply anything.

Sir, I could quote at length from the affidavits which have been submitted to the courts but I do not think it is necessary, since the judges have issued the interdict. However, what is necessary is for us, the public at large and the residents in the townships to know what action the hon the Minister has taken against these people.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to follow on a senior member of the PFP. I am very pleased to hear that the hon member for Houghton says she welcomes the idea of helping to build a new image for the SA Police. [Interjections.]

However, Sir, during this very debate hon members in that party have been very negative towards the SA Police.

Oh, come on!

Instead of helping us to build up the image of the police, that party is breaking it down all the time. It is up to those hon members to decide whether they are going to help us build up the image of the SA Police or not.

*Sir, I shall not pursue this matter. I should like to pay tribute to the police in the Durban Point constituency. They perform their task there under very difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, and on behalf of the residents of my constituency I should like to thank the men and women in our Police Force. However, in my constituency the task of the police is made more difficult by a shortage of staff. This is a matter we must give urgent attention to.

I want to give hon members a few statistics to indicate the incidence of crime in my constituency. As regards theft from motor vehicles, there were 735 cases in the 1985-86 financial year. Last year this figure decreased to 444 cases. It therefore decreased by 40%. I consider this a wonderful achievement. To a great extent this may be ascribed to the fact that holidaymakers who live in small towns—particularly holidaymakers from the Transvaal and the Free State—are used to leaving their cars unlocked. When they come to Durban they think they can do the same thing. However, then items are stolen from their cars. [Interjections.] I hope our Free State and Transvaal holidaymakers will learn something from this!

Next I come to drugs. In my constituency in the 1985-86 financial year there were 582 cases of people who were caught with drugs, compared with 522 cases last year. This is a decrease of 10%. The position with regard to house-breaking remained more or less the same, namely 442 cases in 1985-86, as against 447 cases last year.

Sir, we now come to prostitution. [Interjections.] In the 1985-86 financial year there were 178 cases as against 232 cases last year. This is an increase of 30%. If we had had more staff we could have halved that figure. That is how drastically prostitution has increased in my constituency.

Motor theft increased by 19%. In the 1985-86 financial year there were 186 cases, compared with 222 cases last year. As regards theft, the position remained more or less the same, namely 154 cases in 1985-86 and 158 cases last year. In both years there were 81 cases of serious assault. As regards pocket-picking there were 91 cases in the 1985-86 financial year and 81 cases last year. As regards murder the figures during the same two periods were 16 and 9 respectively—this is a very fine decrease—and as regards rape there were 16 and 17 cases, respectively, in these two periods.

Although theft from motor vehicles declined dramatically, the picture is by no means rosy in Durban Point. Apart from these problems we also have certain restaurants, night-clubs and escort agencies which are causing us problems.

Today I want to ask the hon the Minister whether serious consideration cannot be given to introducing a dog patrol in the Durban area. We have a shortage of policemen, and I believe that a dog patrol will improve the situation.

Dog patrols can be introduced in areas like Smith Street, Pickering Street, Point Road, Rutherford Street, Gillespie Street and at the top of West Street. I believe that this will have a drastic effect on combating crime in these parts of my constituency. For the first time in years the residents of Point will feel safe and secure when they venture out into the streets.

†I mentioned earlier that certain nightclubs, restaurants and escort agencies have caused problems in my constituency. Examples of these problems are the playing of loud music till three or four o’clock in the morning, excessive drunkenness and fighting and stabbing on the pavements. I want to say that my people are sick and tired of this disgraceful behaviour of certain people, and that the time has come to take action. I believe that we must have another look at certain laws to give the police more power to combat this unruly behaviour. If nightclub owners allow their patrons to misbehave, I believe their liquor and/or trading licences should be suspended immediately, and maybe after two suspensions those licences should be taken away.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the SA Police for establishing a charge office in Broad Street in my constituency. I think it is the most modern charge office in the whole of South Africa. As one walks in, one sees a nice red carpet, nice pot plants and a nice desk, and my constituents are certainly very pleased and happy about that charge office.

I would like to come to the issue of drugs. On Wednesday of this week we saw a programme about drug smuggling between Colombia and the USA, and one came to the conclusion that the USA is becoming a sick nation through drugs, and they are already openly admitting that they have lost the war against drugs. The booming “crack” business is tearing the heart out of cities in the USA, because they are outmanned and outspent.

What are we doing in South Africa in this regard? Are we going to permit a Mafia-type drug-trade to gain a firm hold in South Africa?

*The police now have a very effective way of eradicating dagga plantations. The first action of this kind took place in March this year. In this period 2 538 dagga plantations were sprayed with weed-killer. Three days later these plants had died. Previous eradication programmes usually lasted 10 days, and 80 to 100 men were used. With this new method we only used 22 policemen and two helicopter pilots and achieved far better results.

Apart from this eradication programme the Narcotics Bureau also launched several programmes over a period of time, in which dagga plantations were eradicated by hand and harvested dagga was confiscated. It is estimated that thus far dagga with a street value of R5,2 billion has been destroyed. One should take a look at the tremendous figures, and I want to quote the figures I received. As regards Mandrax during 1986-87 Mandrax to the value of approximately R1 million was confiscated after court cases. Last year this figure rose to R14,8 million. One can carry on in this vein. The question is whether this is the tip of the iceberg or whether we found most of the drugs at that stage. I believe that the penalties in existing legislation are inadequate and that very severe penalties should be imposed.

In conclusion I want to say that the interception of mail should also be investigated. This is a very important new method of investigation for which provision must be made in South African legislation.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to assault the hon member for Houghton verbally and to come to the rescue of my private secretary. [Interjections.] I should be pleased if she would leave him alone now and resume her seat because I want to react to a statement she made in her speech a while ago.

The hon the Minister and I are politically responsible for what we believe to be a proud and disciplined Police Force. We also know—I can state that categorically—that the Police Force guard their honour jealously by taking strict and prompt step against members of the Force who overstep the mark. Therefore, when I lay down my head at night I am at peace because I know the Force will not fail to take action against any member who is guilty of behaving in an undisciplined or unlawful manner. That is why I want to state that the remarks made in relation to the special police constables were quite one-sided. There is also another side to the coin.

I have stated that due action will be taken when necessary. Furthermore I want to tell the hon member for Houghton there is a passing-out parade tomorrow of special constables who have just completed their training period of eight weeks. The hon the Minister will deliver an address there in which he will talk at length on the subject of special constables. I should like to invite the hon member for Houghton to honour us with her presence there tomorrow. I promise her we will see to it that she receives proper VIP treatment. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, what is of cardinal importance is the fact that the special constables play a very important role in the sense that they maintain a vital presence in unrest situations. Statistics indicate that where special constables were used there was a decline in the level of unrest in the relevant areas. I was also interested to learn that at this stage not a single request had been made by a Black area for the withdrawal of Black special constables. At present 4 389 of these Black special constables are being used. What is more they march through parts of Black townships, where they are received with great enthusiasm and delight. People even sweep the ground over which they are going to march. I therefore believe that we must guard against attributing the behaviour of individuals to the entire corps of special constables. This corps is playing an extremely important role in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, we have now come to the end of a whole day’s debate, and I must say that so many matters have been raised here that one could almost not keep abreast of them. I did not draw up a list of everything hon members discussed. After all, a few dozen hon members participated in the debate and raised dozens of matters. In the time which still remains it will not be possible for me to react to all these matters…

Never mind, you have a whole ten minutes!

I want to tell hon members … I see the hon member for Overvaal is in a hurry. He would like to go home. I promise I will not keep him too much longer. [Interjections.] Yes, besides it is Friday afternoon. My hon Whips told me that I must not waste time; I must finish off now. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to say that we will go through hon members’ speeches properly in Hansard, and react in writing to matters which I may perhaps omit here.

I want to begin by making a few remarks with reference to the hon member for Houghton. The hon member for Houghton spoke about representations made to me in relation to certain problems experienced by us in the Eastern Cape. I have a note here, dated 11 May 1988, which I want to read out for the edification of the hon member:

†I shall therefore inform the hon member as soon as I receive any further information regarding this matter.

Thank you.

The hon member’s questions on special constables were replied to fully.

†I hope the hon member will accept the invitation to attend the passing-out parade of special constables tomorrow. I really hope I will be seeing her there. We promise to look after her very well. [Interjections.]

Why wait till the last moment before inviting me?

I am sorry, but next time the hon member will be invited in good time. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I promise that we will send her an early invitation the next time.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, today the hon member for Cape Town Gardens made one of his best contributions ever in this House.

†He spoke about vagrancy, and this is indeed a problem for the SA Police as well as a big problem for the whole community. This does not actually fall within the ambit of my responsibilities but, because of the fact that this is a problem for the SA Police, I can assure the hon member that I will do my utmost to see if there is not something we can do in this regard. I will come back to the hon member later. I think he made a good contribution here this afternoon.

Then who is responsible?

They are interrupting me again, and I want to speak to the hon member for Houghton now.

[Inaudible.]

It is not the hon member for Houghton herself who is interrupting me. They say one should not call her “tannie” because then she calls one “oom”. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the lifting of the state of emergency, and she remembered correctly. There was a partial state of emergency from 21 July 1985 to 8 March 1986. During that time many representations were addressed to the hon the State President and to hon Ministers. We were told that we should lift the state of emergency and begin to negotiate. Hon members will recall that at the beginning of that year the hon the State President provided certain guidelines for negotiation.

We were told that if we lifted the state of emergency “then we will come to the conference table, and we will negotiate the future with the Government, Mr Heunis, etc”. The hon the State President unmasked those people by lifting the state of emergency on 8 March 1986. Do hon members know what happened? No one came forward to say “Here we are; now we want to negotiate”.

There was a terrible series of events. [Interjections.] Unrest-related incidents, which at that stage had numbered approximately 1 000 per month, immediately increased to almost 3 000 in May 1986.

†In other words, these people who told us that they would come forward to negotiate with the Government used that time to organise and to create unrest and problems in the Black communities.

*Now the hon member for Houghton speaks, quite correctly—I have a great deal of respect for her—of civil rights. During those two or three months, as well as before and after the time, the police and other departments were completely inundated with representations from Black people. They came to plead with us: “Help us! Help us to deal with these radicals who burn down our houses, who intimidate us so that we cannot go to work, so that our children cannot go to school and we cannot live a decent life.”

I want to tell the hon member it is easy to sit here and speak highly of civil rights that have been curtailed by the state of emergency, but we never hear about civil rights from those groups or ordinary people in the Black residential areas who are burdened by all this affliction the radicals and revolutionaries have brought upon them. We took steps against those people. I admit it is a pity that in the process we may also have encroached upon the civil rights of other people.

As far as this matter is concerned I just want to say this as well. We cannot simply pick up a person because we do not like his face. The policeman cannot simply lock a person up because he does not like him. The Act provides that we must have information at our disposal, which the police must consider—actually I must consider it after 30 days—which indicates that that person had been engaged in activities which endangered the safety of the public, the preservation of public order or the ending of the state of emergency. Consequently there are three conditions I have to comply with before I can arrest anyone.

I must be prepared to submit that information I have at my disposal in a court of law. It is tested in our Supreme Courts. We were repeatedly taken to court by inter alia a person whom the hon member mentioned today, Mr Zwelakhe Sisulu. Now I just want to quote a single passage from the judge’s judgement in that connection, after he had considered all the evidence we submitted to him, and which I had at my disposal:

Here the judge was now applying a test. It was not done to find a person guilty; that was not the issue. The judge applied a test as to whether I had information at my disposal which complied with the requirements laid down by the law, and this is the finding which he arrived at at the end of that long trial. Consequently I do not think it is correct to say that we simply detain people. We do not do so. We must be prepared to submit to the court the information we have at our disposal that these people were engaged in activities of this kind. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the fact that we lost applications and then changed the regulations.

†Since 11 June 1987 nine applications have been made to the Supreme Court of the Republic of South Africa, attacking the validity of regulations issued in terms of the Public Safety Act and administered by the Minister of Law and Order. None of these applications has as yet been successful—since 11 June 1987. [Interjections.] None of these applications has been successful. Five applications are at present sub judice and no judgement has been passed with regard to them.

*We have good legal experts, who do good work. We drew up good regulations, which were within the limits of the law.

The hon member also discussed the question of detention. I just want to make one observation in this regard.

†A person can only be detained in terms of section 29 of the Internal Security Act if there is reason to believe that such a person has committed an act of terrorism or subversion.

*We cannot simply detain a person. That is the point I should like to make clear to the hon member.

†The hon member asked me whether it is true that certain detainees must give certain undertakings. I want to read my note to her. According to my knowledge it is not the practice of the South African Police to require a written undertaking from a detainee that he will refrain from deeds that may endanger the safety of the public, the maintenance of public order or prolong the state of emergency before he is released. With regard to the release of detainees in terms of regulation 3(9) of the regulations published by Proclamation R96 of 11 June 1987, as amended, it is a condition of release that an order, addressed to the detainee and signed by myself and containing the conditions, is handed to the detainee concerned.

The hon member said that she was concerned about people in detention.

*There are many people in this country who are very worried. It is true. I am also worried. I do not like detention without trial. However I receive representations, a letter dated 3 February 1988, in which a request is made for the furnishing of reasons for the further detention of a person and for permission to be granted for an attorney to visit his client. When we investigated the matter we found that this person had already been released on 14 December of the previous year. This is not only one case; there are many such cases! [Interjections.] These are the people who care so much about that person. [Interjections] They are so involved with these people. Here I have another one. On 3 February I received a letter in which permission was requested to visit a person, and I must furnish reasons for detaining him, but in the meantime he had been released on 15 December. [Interjections.] There is a great deal of politicking involved in this matter, and not real concern. I am not blaming that hon member now.

The hon member also spoke about South Africa being an outcast among nations. We could become the most popular country in the world if only we…

All we must do is get another government!

We must, so help me, not get them! We must just not get the CP as a government! Then we would see something!

We must simply do what the government in Zimbabwe did. We must simply surrender to the revolutionaries. Then we shall be accepted at once. The moment we do that, however, we are on the same road as Mozambique, and where do we stand then? Where will we be then? Surely that is not acceptable to any political party in this House.

Is that why you stick to apartheid?

Oh please, Sir, we are not sticking to apartheid. We have already said that apartheid is an outdated concept. The hon the State President said it in this House. [Interjections.] Now the hon member is returning to his old theme. That is also part of our problem, namely that the hon members harp on their old theme like donkeys trundling around a bucket pump. [Interjections.] We must stop doing that. Let us forget about that old story. [Interjections.]

The point I want to make, however, is that if we must choose whether we want to be outcasts or whether we want to be like Mozambique, surely we have to tell one another that we cannot satisfy those people. If that is the case we must remain standing and try to get through this thing together to see whether we cannot create something better.

The hon member for Green Point put a whole lot of questions to me. I cannot reply to everything because I do not have enough time. However, the hon member raised one matter to which I want to react. What he actually told me was that I must put pressure on the hon the State President to do certain things. I do not know whether the hon member thinks that I have lost my sense of fear. [Interjections.] The hon member says I must warn the hon the State President. That is what he says. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member we must rather not talk about those things. [Interjections.]

The hon member said he was looking for a list of the names of people and of murder cases that had not yet been solved. I want to tell the hon member that every unsolved crime worries us. It worries the police. A murder dossier is never closed. It remains open and we keep on looking. However, the hon member must not look at the matter from one political point of view only. There are numerous cases of unsolved crimes and murders. Policemen have been murdered. For example we are sitting with the case of Mr Justice Cooper. These are things we must be careful about. So far we have not been unable to solve that case either. That murder dossier has never been closed. The dossiers of murdered policemen are never closed either.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, of course. The same applies to activists who are murdered. Their dossiers are never closed either. I can give the hon member that assurance. The SA Police are not dragging their feet on one side and running on the other. A murder is a murder, and we investigate it. [Interjections.] Yes, ask the hon member for Hillbrow. He was a policeman, and he knows. The fact of the matter is that that is how it is done. [Interjections.]

In regard to the other matters the hon member raised, I shall give him a reply in writing as soon as possible.

I must at least say a few words to the hon member for Greytown. [Interjections.] I do not have much time, but I want to tell him that my hon colleague was correct when he said the hon member for Greytown had devoted 15 minutes to explaining something which really needs no explanation. I did not intend to refer to this, because we are still investigating those matters. However, the last time the hon member spoke to me about these matters in this House, and about the war lords of Pietermaritzburg, I asked him simply to bring me the particulars. The hon member then came to my office. I told him that I had a policeman here who would take down a sworn statement from him on the information he had at his disposal. Hon members should have seen that hon member then. I do not want to say anything further here, but the hon member has now raised this matter here again today. The fact of the matter is that the hon member is unable to give me that information. That is the point I want to make. The hon member was unable to make a statement under oath. Subsequently the hon member wrote me a letter. That letter is at present receiving attention in Pietermaritzburg, where these things allegedly happened. I undertake to come back to the hon member on these matters. However, the hon member must not do this kind of thing, where he makes use of this forum to noise certain matters abroad, but is subsequently unable to produce proof of what he is saying. [Interjections.] Then it becomes mere gossip-mongering. We in the police have become accustomed to treating people at face value. If a person says he has information on a matter, he must be able to substantiate it. The hon member was very sure of his case that day in the House. He was very certain that he did have information at his disposal. However, one must then be prepared to disclose that information under oath.

He was not prepared to disclose it under oath. [Interjections.] I have the statement here which he did not want to sign. Let us therefore leave the matter at that. I shall come back to the hon member later in regard to this matter.

The hon member for North Rand tendered an apology; he had a plane to catch. He made a very good speech. He spoke about the wonderful work the police had done during the flood disasters. That is true; what the police did to save human lives makes wonderful reading. He also referred to the air wing of the SAP. When one sees all the things the police succeed in doing with this air wing, one really cannot believe we got along without it for so long. They are rendering an excellent service. I thank the hon member for his contribution in this connection.

The hon member for Benoni is a very good friend of the police.

That is very ambivalent!

The hon member for Overvaal is also a very good friend of the police. I cannot say it of everyone, but the hon member for Overvaal is a good friend of the police. I should like to give him credit for that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Benoni is interested in what is happening among the policemen in his constituency, and in the work they are doing there. He made a good speech. He boasted about his division, but he is entitled to do so. They are doing excellent work. I want to congratulate the hon member on that. He also discussed the major problem with vehicle theft. He is right, but I want to tell him that we envisage introducing vehicle theft legislation which has been changed somewhat and made a little more potent in Parliament during the next session, that is to say in 1989. The hon member will take cognizance of this at some future date. I thank him for his fine contribution.

Among other subjects the hon member for Durban Point discussed drug abuse. The situation in regard to drug abuse in South Africa presents a disturbing picture. We are very worried about it. As I said earlier this afternoon any person who maltreats children or harms elderly people and who peddles drugs must not expect any sympathy from the SAP.

Hear, hear!

We co-operate with the Department of National Health and our co-operation with other police forces and departments abroad is sound. Drug abuse is a world-wide problem. I think the time has arrived to introduce much stricter legislation and far heavier penalties in respect of drug peddlers—people who traffic in drugs. One must be merciless with these people. If there can be countries in the East in which such persons can be sentenced to death for offences of this kind—I know what the penalty in our country is—we must go into this matter, because our impression is that the penalties are too light. I want to thank the hon member for having brought this point to our attention so that we could exchange a few thoughts on the matter.

The hon member for Umbilo discussed the counter-revolutionary strategy. He made a good, constructive contribution and I thank him for doing so. One could hear that he had made a study of these matters, and if one has not done so one cannot understand them. That is in fact why we had problems. People skim lightly over the subject and think they understand it. When one does that one gets a distorted idea of what is happening. One must make a study of it. We do not have a monopoly of wisdom. However, there are countries in the world in which this strategy which we are applying has worked, a strategy with which the ordinary people of those countries beat the revolutionaries and the radicals. Surely there is not one of us here who wants the radicals to win. Surely it is Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche who wants them to win. Surely it is Oliver Tambo who wants the revolutionaries and the radicals to win. We do not want them to win. That is why I thank the hon member for a sound contribution.

†I have already referred to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I thank him for a good speech.

*The hon member for Germiston District asked for a police station to be established at a certain place in his part of the world. I made a note of it, and we shall go into it. We have a bit of a problem with funds. We are engaged in a project of building cheaper police stations—smaller offices, cheaper, functional and more efficient. We want to see whether we cannot provide people with police services more rapidly.

The hon members for Vryburg and Germiston District referred to the hon member for Claremont. I should not like to gossip behind someone’s back. However, I just want to say that the voters of Claremont must know that an hon member rises to his feet here, makes certain statements and, as the hon member for Vryburg effectively indicated, tells only half the story.

After having said all those things about the police, he refuses to withdraw certain things so that the other side of the matter can also be stated to him. Surely the police are looking after the voters of Claremont as well, and that is how that hon member speaks about the police. That is how the representative of those voters speaks about the SAP. They must take cognizance of this! He sits here in this House, with the privilege and the protection of this House, and then slanders and denigrates the police on an unbelievable scale. Then he walks out of here and refuses to listen to the other side of the matter. I thank the two hon members for having presented this matter in its correct perspective.

I want to say that the hon member does not have the courage to sit here and listen to the other side of the matter, because he is probably on his way to a place called Lawaaikamp. Lawaaikamp is situated near George. It is tragic that the efforts being made by the central authorities and the local authorities there to improve the living conditions of people and to alleviate their plight are being undermined by mischievous people and organisations. [Interjections.] The town council of George, for example, is arranging for 202 families, living in the most deplorable conditions in a squatters’ camp, to be moved to a properly planned residential area by the name of Sandkraal. I now want to mention the organisations that are trying to undermine this project. We must now begin to mention the children by name, so that we know who are causing trouble for ordinary people outside. It is the Black Sash, Nusas and the UDF and various people who are engaged in attempts to stir up the inhabitants of Lawaaikamp, so that they refuse to move to Sandkraal. They do not hesitate to arouse emotions which could prejudice the preservation of public order. I reiterate that they are arousing emotions which could be detrimental to public order. I am choosing my words carefully.

If you were moved out of your house, wouldn’t your emotions get stirred up?

I am going to mention the names of Mr Jan van Eck, MP for Claremont, who is playing a leading role in this connection, and other people of whom we know and of whose actions we are aware. They think we are fast asleep, but we see what they are doing. These are people like Mr Dugmore, Mr Omar and Bishop Tutu. We want to warn them that they are playing with fire and we are watching them very carefully. We shall not allow the preservation of public order to be endangered. [Interjections.]

The situation is very carefully monitored, and instead of criticizing in this House we must let a voice be heard saying that a stop must be put to these things so that orderly development of these people can take place. [Interjections.] There is a place to which these people can move so that they can live in decent conditions. The hon member for Claremont is probably on his way there because that is the plan. Tomorrow, on 21 May, and next week all these things will take place again…

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens will probably join them tomorrow.

No, he spoke so well today that I do not think he is going to join them. He is a responsible hon member now. No, he is not going there. [Interjections.] We have achieved something here. Look how pleasantly the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is smiling now. Honestly I have acquired great respect for him. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon members for Roodepoort and Ermelo. As regards the speech made by the hon member for Ermelo, I honestly want to tell hon members now that I do not want to participate in petty personal politics. If the hon member wants to read that into what I said, he was wrong, because that is not the way I would act. I do not want to participate in petty political squabbles and mud-slinging. I shall ignore it, and the hon member can make of it what he wishes.

I have said what I wanted to say about the White Paper, and I shall let that suffice. I still think the hon member misinterpreted it, because it was not the intention at all to state it in that way. He read something into it that was not there.

That is part of the problem those hon members have. They read things into statements which are not there at all. [Interjections.] See how heartily the hon member for Overvaal is laughing. He reads quite well, I must say, but sometimes he is a little wilful.

The hon member for Roodepoort also referred to the AWB and in passing picked up a quarrel with the hon member for Innesdal. I have already referred to the AWB and I just want to say that the standpoint of the SAP and my own and that of the Commissioner of Police in respect of this organisation was spelt out in a reply I gave to a question put by the hon member for Green Point.

We are absolutely convinced that there is no salvation for South Africa and its people in extremism and radicalism, of whatever kind. We stand by that conviction; we sided with ordinary moderate people against the extremists or radicals. It was a carefully considered standpoint and the SA Police will adhere to it, because we have the interests and the safety of this country and its people at heart.

This morning the hon member for Potgietersrus became very excited when I did not react to him immediately. Now I do have something to say to him. He said something very interesting. He said there was a place near Potgietersrus—I think he was talking about Warmbaths—where the police are now going to have a great deal of work to do because the Black town is expanding. Now I want to ask the hon member this question: Where must those Black people who are working in that White town, live?

Go and ask the former hon Deputy Minister of Development Planning…

No, Sir, now the hon member is saying that I must go and ask the former hon Deputy Minister where those people should live. Does the hon member want them to live in the backyards of the Whites?

No! In their own area.

That is surely where they are living now.

That is what I said. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, this is the kind of thing those hon members say so easily.

The hon member said something else as well. He said they believed in a White Police Force. What does he mean by that, Sir? He said they believed in a White Police Force.

Yes, I said that.

Yes, but what did the hon member mean by it? [Interjections.] Must the White police do all the work?

But I said that was not the case. [Interjections.]

The hon member he said it was not the case. We shall never discover what those hon members mean.

Then the hon member said a very strange thing, Sir. He said the solution—I have a note of it here and I hope I did not record it incorrectly—is some form of separation or another.

He used those very words.

How does the hon member want to bring that about in the SA Police? Perhaps he was not referring to the SA Police. That may also have been the case. [Interjections.] I just want to say this, Sir, the SA Police is one Force. We serve everyone. Whites serve Coloured people and Black people; and the Coloured people and the Black people also serve the Whites. We are one Force. That is why we draw no distinctions in the SA Police. We are one Force and stands for the preservation of law and order. We want to carry out our statutorily imposed task in a purposeful way: We do not protect and serve exclusively the Whites or the Coloureds or one person or another; we protect and we serve the country and all the people of the country. [Interjections.] No one can fault that standpoint.

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

No, Sir, I do not have the time.

It is a short question.

No, Sir, I do not have any more time. Really, Sir, I should have been seated already.

It is a short question.

Yes, but it is the short questions which require long answers. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member for Potgietersrus that that is our standpoint.

The hon member for Hillbrow said he had trouble with the police. I would prefer not to discuss it now, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon member made quite a number of good recommendations. Really, I think he made a good contribution. I shall look at each one of his recommendations and provide the hon member with a reply. At this stage, however, I just want to tell the hon member that the people of Hillbrow and their safety are also important to us. We are not simply going to leave the people of Hillbrow in the lurch; we are not simply going to abandon them; we shall look after those people.

Yes, but it has taken you a long time to act. [Interjections.]

There someone has suddenly woken up! Oh, my goodness me! He has nothing to do with it, Sir. He sticks his nose in everywhere… [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Hillbrow that the safety of the people of Hillbrow is important to us and we shall see to it that matters are set in order there. We shall see whether we cannot appoint more policemen there so that we can preserve law and order properly and allow the people of that area to live safely.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North spoke about our getting the army to patrol the streets in Johannesburg. I want to say that the maintenance of law and order in any democracy is primarily the function of its police force, and the position in South Africa is no different under normal or ordinary circumstances.

The reason for that is simply that in South Africa the police are trained to deal with crime and criminals—this is the situation the world over. For obvious reasons the army is not trained to fulfil such tasks. The utilisation of the army is a temporary measure, and—in particular circumstances—it may in the short term be beneficial to the community, but only if they act in support of the police.

*This is our view on this matter. We use the Defence Force to assist the SA Police because we do not have enough manpower.

Mr Chairman, I have now come to the end of what I wanted to say. There are still a few matters remaining, but I see my time has run out and that hon members are getting a little restless.

Tell me about KwaNdebele.

The hon member is now referring to KwaNdebele. That matter is receiving attention at the moment, and we shall take certain decisions in regard to the matter as soon as possible. In any event I am not in a position to appoint a judicial commission. I may not do so. That government must do so itself. Nor do their police fall under my control, but this matter is receiving attention because I am personally interested to know what is happening there. I want to give the hon member that assurance.

Mr Chairman, I just want to conclude by thanking hon members—particularly the hon members on this side of the House. They made sound contributions. On the opposite side of the House, as I said, there were negative noises. We say thank you very much for the few positive responses that came from that side. There were not many of them—there was a great deal of negativism—but we of the SA Police would like to give the undertaking that we shall also protect and serve them. We have been doing it for 75 years, and we shall continue to do so in future. We consider it to be a privilege and an honour to serve and to protect South Africa and its people.

Hear, hear!

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I should like to raise a point of order. Parliament will now adjourn and sit in Cape Town, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg in extended public standing committees. Section 36 of the Constitution provides that Cape Town is the seat of the legislative authority. The English translation reads: “Cape Town shall be the seat of the legislature of the RSA.” It is imperative that Parliament should sit in Cape Town, because the legislative authority is in Cape Town. The question is: What is the legislative authority? Section 30 of the Constitution lays down that the legislative authority “is vested in the State President and the Parliament of the Republic, which, as the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic, shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic.” The question is: What is the function of Parliament? It is naturally Parliament’s function to make laws. It must make those laws at the seat of the legislative authority, and that is Cape Town. The legislator has also made provision for this. If Parliament is to convene in a place other than Cape Town, provision for that must be made in legislation. For this reason there was an amendment to Act 99 of 1985, which provided that “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 36…” which provides that Cape Town is the seat of the legislative authority “… a joint committee may, in terms of the joint rules and orders applicable to it or if otherwise authorized thereto by each House, meet and exercise or perform its powers, duties and functions at a place beyond the seat of Parliament.” There is consequently legislative provision for joint committees to meet elsewhere, failing which the joint rules would have been ultra vires.

In 1985, public joint extended committees had not yet been envisaged by Parliament. Extended joint committees first came into being or were given substance in 1988 when this Act was once again amended. The joint committees mentioned in section 64(4) of the Constitution are not the same joint committees which will meet in the respective capitals of the provinces next Monday. Those joint committees are defined in the Standing Orders, specifically in Rule 35, which reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, this is therefore a different committee to that provided for in section 64(1) of the Constitution. I quote section 64(1):

1. (a) “joint committee” means a committee consisting of members of each of the Houses.

An extended public committee is therefore a joint committee plus something else, namely all other members of Parliament who do not attend the proceedings of the extended public committee. It is therefore more than a joint committee. Therefore section 64(4) should be further amended in order to provide, too, for a joint committee to include the members of a public extended joint committee. Section 64(4) should also have been amended to provide for section 36 not to be applicable to the proceedings of a public extended joint committee.

The legislature—Parliament—realised this, because it provided in Rule 66(4) of the Standing Rules and Orders that the meetings of an extended public committee can take place at a place other than the seat of Parliament. This is, in fact, provided for in the Standing Rules and Orders. That is not enough, however, because Standing Orders cannot supersede an Act of Parliament in its binding validity. Consequently, because the Constitution has not also been amended to provide that an extended public joint committee may meet in other cities, Parliament is not empowered to meet as four extended public joint committees in the four capitals.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, I would like to ask you to rule that we do not proceed to split up into extended public joint committees in the respective provinces.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on the hon member for Brakpan’s point of order.

Section 29 of the Constitution provides that save as is otherwise provided in section 36, Pretoria shall be the seat of Government. Section 36 of the Constitution provides that Cape Town shall be the seat of the Legislature. If we were therefore to argue that the interpretation of section 36 would mean the Legislature could only meet in Cape Town, we could similarly argue that the Executive may meet only in Pretoria.

This would therefore mean that all the decisions made by the Executive, if it were to meet in any place other than Pretoria, according to the hon member for Brakpan’s argument, would be null and void. They would therefore be ultra vires. This is patently absurd.

The second argument I should like to raise is the following: Section 36 of the Constitution does indeed provide where the seat of the Legislature is. It does not, however, provide that Cape Town is the only place where the Legislature has to meet. There is in any event an interpretation that wherever the Legislature should meet legitimately and a proper quorum is present, it may make decisions which are lawfully binding because the Legislature itself made such a decision.

The third argument is—this is extremely important—that it was once again the Legislature that made the decisions with regard to the extended public committees and where they should meet. It is therefore the Legislature that may under the Constitution make rules also in respect of its proper functioning and about where it is going to meet. For that reason I maintain that the hon member’s deductions are incorrect.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you further on that point of order. In the first place I should like to refer to the hon the Minister’s argument with regard to the question of whether a provision exists under which the Executive may meet in Pretoria only. This is not the question at issue. There is an explicit provision, namely in section 36 of the Constitution, in which it is stated that the seat of the Legislature shall be Cape Town. [Interjections.]

On the basis of the Afrikaans text one could argue that it is merely an indicative provision, because it is merely stated that “Kaapstad is die setel van die Wetgewende Gesag van die Republiek”. If we were, however, to look at the English text by way of analogy, as we would do if there were any doubt in respect of the Afrikaans text, we would see that “shall be” is emphatically stated there. The hon the Minister’s argument therefore does not hold water, because it is a provision to which meaning should be attached.

If we were to attach no meaning to section 36, it would mean that section 36 would be deemed pro non scripto, and that can surely not be the object of the legislation. Our entire constitutional history—we should examine the historical means of interpretation—has for that matter been based upon the fact that the three authorities of Montesquieu have been divided into the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, which are embodied in the three capital cities; hence section 36. If it is read with section 30, it still does not acquire the marked meaning that a specific connotation should be attached to section 36.

The second argument I should like to raise is that the provision in the Rules with reference to joint public committees is something that is referred to as subordinate legislation. It is, if you will allow me to use the term, “trite law” that subordinate legislation is subordinate to a statutory provision, in other words to the principal Act. On page 103 of the second edition of Wiechers, mention is made of the fact that subordinate legislation is subordinate to a statutory provision, which is the principal Act. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: It is customary that there is silence while you are being addressed on a point of order.

Order! I am following the hon member perfectly well.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is the hon member really addressing you on a point of order while debating the hon the Minister’s point of order?

Order! I am of the opinion that the hon member is addressing me on a point of order.

Yes, Sir, but it is not a further point of order, because at the moment he is arguing the point of order of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Order! I understand the point the hon the Chief Whip is making, and it is valid to a certain degree. I think the hon member is adding to what the hon member for Brakpan said. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, to demonstrate that subordinate legislation, just as the rules and regulations of Parliament as contained in the Standing Rules and Orders, in which reference is made to public committees, is subordinate legislation, I should like to refer to the decision Komani nomine officii v Bantu Affairs Administration Board, Peninsula area. I am only reading the heading.

Order! The hon members are making it difficult for me to follow. I must concentrate. The hon member may proceed.

I am only reading the heading. In that court case mention was made of a regulation 20 (1), that had to be read with Act 25 of 1945. In this instance the court in question, the Appeal Court, specifically held that:

It is therefore our submission that if it were the intention of the amendment to amend section 36, it should have been done specifically. Because it was not done specifically, there is a contradiction—conflict between the provision in the Standing Rules and Orders, which refers to public committees, and this section. It has not been specifically adapted—to put it that way—by section 36, read with section 30. For this reason this point of order is valid.

Order! I think I have now given all the hon members an opportunity to speak.

In the first place I should like to thank the hon member for Brakpan for consulting me in my office and for mentioning that he would be raising this point of order. He did it at a very late stage, but the fact of the matter is that I wanted to reflect on it, and for that reason I thank him for his friendliness.

Firstly it is quite clear that section 64(4) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding the provisions of section 36—section 36 is therefore not applicable—a joint committee may, in terms of the joint rules and orders applicable to it or if otherwise authorised thereto by each House, meet and exercise or perform its powers, duties and functions at a place beyond the seat of Parliament.

The question which now arises is whether action is taking place in terms of the Joint Rules and whether such joint rules do exist. If one looks at Rule 66 (4) (c) (ii), one will notice that the rules do exist. The Rule reads as follows:

There are therefore two facts. In the first place the Act states that action may take place if there is a joint rule, for example, and, secondly the situation is that a joint rule does exist.

Furthermore the question arises whether proper notice was given of where the extended public committees would meet. According to Rule 103 of the Joint Rules, the Chief Whip of Parhament, after consultation with interested parties, shall decide what business on general affairs will be dealt with at a joint meeting or at separate meetings of the Houses or in extended public committees, and shall arrange all business on the Order Papers of the Houses according to the provisions of these Rules. The question which arises is whether it has been complied with. It has been complied with. If one looks at today’s Order Paper, one sees that it has been complied with.

The following aspect I should like to mention, is the first part of the statement, which I should like to mention. If one looks at section 63 of the Constitution, the following is stated:

This is in terms of the Constitution. It is very clear that these Rules have been accepted and adopted by this House, which I serve as chairman. It is not for me to say that this legislation has not been adopted correctly. The Act has been adopted correctly and on these two points I therefore rule that the point of order of the hon member shall not be accepted.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on one more point which I raised in the argument?

No, I am afraid that I have given my ruling, and the hon member is aware of the fact that I examined it thoroughly. I abide by my ruling.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of the discussion of these Votes, I should like to broach two matters which may serve as clarification and which may give direction to the debate.

†My colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has informed me that distortions and malicious interpretations about the amending Bill to the Labour Relations Act are being spread abroad in order to discredit the measure in advance. This is being done, of course, as part of the international boycott campaign against South Africa.

I therefore wish to state categorically in this House today that comparable provisions exist in the labour legislation of Western countries including the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and I trust that this attempt to distort what we are doing will now cease and that the media will present the true picture and convey the correct position of the legislation to the public in South Africa and abroad.

For instance, it will be interesting to see how many countries in the world’s industrial community have an unfair labour practice which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex and creed. I dare them to show those clauses in their legislation to me.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon the Minister is reading a statement. If the hon member wants to put a question, he must address it to me and I shall refer it to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

In addition, a country such as the United Kingdom has, under certain circumstances, a probation period of 24 months whereas in this Bill a probation period of only six months is proposed as an exclusion from the unfair labour practice.

What is more, South Africa’s labour legislation complies with international standards and it is in fact some of the most modern labour legislation in the world, particularly on the matter of unfair dismissals, which could be a model for the rest of Africa. The entrenched principle of equity is further refined and strengthened in the amending legislation. I would like to convey my appreciation to the standing committee who suggested many improvements to the principal Act. I think those amendments resulted in one of the finest pieces of labour legislation that has ever been presented to Parliament.

*At the beginning of the debate, I want to talk about the question of unemployment. Unfortunately unemployment has increased a great deal over the past few years. Naturally this is not restricted only to South Africa, but is a worldwide phenomenon in both the developing and the developed countries.

Fortunately, with regard to the provision of employment in the non-primary sectors—excluding agriculture and mining—the number of employment opportunities increased by approximately 76 000 or 1,8% between the first and third quarters of 1987. That is gratifying. In comparison with the figures for September 1986, there was an increase of 99 000 people who were provided with employment. Naturally the figures are not strictly comparable. Meaningful increases in the number of workers took place in the construction, trade and accommodation, finance and insurance and Government sectors, whereas there were decreases in the electrical, transport and communication sectors.

The improvement in the provision of employment in respect of the different population groups also had an effect on unemployment among these groups. Registered unemployment showed a decrease among all population groups, except Blacks, as from August 1986. The number of non-Black unemployed people decreased by more than 21 000 during the period from August 1986 to November 1987. Registered unemployment among Blacks, however, increased by 16 000 over the 12 months up to November 1987; an increase of 35%.

At this stage I want to broach a matter which is of cardinal importance to all of us in the country. As the Minister of Manpower, it is my function and duty to take care of the interests of all the workers in South Africa, irrespective of language, creed, race or culture. We are experiencing a situation in South Africa where unemployment has decreased among the Coloured, White and Asian population groups, but is showing a 35% increase among the Blacks. When unemployment became a problem, among other reasons because of sanctions and disinvestment, the Government saw what was coming and realised what was awaiting us. Despite the fact that our economy was in a deep recession, and that we had to cut down on essential services and expenditure, the Government allocated R1060 million in order to combat, reduce and solve the problem of unemployment among all people in South Africa.

With this R1 060 million—this is South Africa’s own Marshall Plan—we raised 720 000 unskilled unemployed people to the level of semi-skilled people. With this R1060 million we created work for man-days. That is how much work we provided for the unemployed. During this period we at no stage had any fewer than 125 000 people in our service in the various places in South Africa.

I want to go further. We enabled these unemployed people to begin their own small enterprises inter alia and to produce products which they could sell. This South African Marshall Plan resulted in the following among other things. Under the special building programme, 922 houses were built during the training of the unemployed, and it was planned to complete another 319, which were in progress, by 31 March 1988. I am sure hon members would be interested to know that as an initiative to help trained unemployed people to find a livelihood in the informal business sector in particular, the Department of Manpower is encouraging some of the larger training contractors to establish work centres where trained unemployed people can work for themselves by manufacturing and selling articles. Close co-operation is maintained with the Small Business Development Corporation in this connection.

Once they have been trained, we involve the unemployed in the economy. A significant percentage of them end up in the informal sector; a large percentage end up in the building industry and the special building programmes of local authorities, the South African Housing Trust as well as private building contractors. A large number of these people then act as independent contractors which do divergent kinds of piecework in the formal and informal sectors. In addition an increasing number of these people are entering the informal sector in manufacturing, selling and service capacities.

I now want to tell hon members—perhaps many of them have heard of this—that we presented an international exhibition at the recent Rand Show to display what these new entrepreneurs, unemployed people who are making articles, have been doing. There were more than 80 exhibits at the show, and it was a spectacular promotion of the small business sector, especially the informal sector. The show gave the exhibitors the following excellent opportunities: Demonstrations of training in the informal sector; demonstrations of the making of products by the special employment creation programme; displays of the products of the special employment creation programme; and an opportunity to sell existing stocks. Sales promotions and the taking of orders for later delivery were other benefits enjoyed by the exhibitors.

Spectacular things happened at that show, but these unemployed people sold out what they can produce during the next two years at that show. The point I want to come back to is this: We have succeeded in training people, especially among the Black population group, and then putting them in a position in which they can manufacture certain products on a very economic basis.

We took further steps and at Crossroads we erected a building in which we provide factory space for the small entrepreneurs, approximately two to three square metres in which they can work. We are doing this throughout the country and at present training is being provided at more than 300 places. We have a problem, however, in that these products which are manufactured by the unemployed do not have an export market. That is one of our problems. I want to go further and say that the Department of Manpower has provided various African states with training facilities in South Africa. These countries sent students here and we trained them extremely successfully. The success we attained was such that I have received requests from various African states to set up training centres in their countries and to train their people. We have built up expertise and knowledge in the training of unskilled people so as to make them productive so that they can manufacture and market products. This is South Africa’s own Marshall Plan for the rest of Africa. We want to help, because we want to build a prosperous community in Southern Africa.

I said that South Africa had appropriated R1 060 million for this wonderful campaign and the success we attained, because if we had not started to do this, unemployment would have been a big problem. We are experiencing difficulties, however, in finding a market for products that are manufactured by Black unemployed people in particular. I want to put a question to certain members of the American Congress and Senate from this House today. In the first place I want to say that I have very good friends among the Americans. I have been to America, and they treated me very well and very decently. I came to know the ordinary American, the man in the street, as a person with high moral standards and a strong sense of justice. America is a country which has made great strides in the technological sphere and other spheres. I came to know the ordinary American as a reasonable, sensible and sympathetic person. I want to appeal to those people today to pressurize those who are preparing intensified sanctions legislation against South Africa, so that South Africa can export the products of its unemployed people to the USA. To those who are drawing up the sanctions legislation, I want to say that I challenge them to stop me if I want to market the products of unemployed Blacks—remember, they are unemployed as a result of the sanctions America instituted against us—in America. If they feel morality is at issue, I want to tell them it is immoral to leave people in South Africa unemployed as a result of disinvestment and sanctions.

†Those people are on the wrong side of morality. Those people are denigrating especially the Black people in this country. They cause hardship, suffering and famine in our country, as well as in Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why, in his opinion, the Americans want to institute sanctions against South Africa? Is it simply because they do not like us, or what is the reason?

Sir, I did not expect that kind of question from someone who should know better. Of course there are many reasons for their wanting to institute sanctions against us.

But what is the major reason?

Sir, they do not like our policy! That is one thing.

Oh, that is all I wanted to know.

I want to tell hon members something, however. When Rhodesia accepted a system of one man, one vote, and Muzorewa won the election, they were not acceptable to the Americans either. This was because Muzorewa was not a radical. One will only satisfy America and the world if one puts the ANC in power here. We must be frank with one another today. The world would not be satisfied if the UDF were to take over, for example. They want the ANC to take power in South Africa. The sooner we tell one another that, the better.

I am not saying that there is nothing wrong in South Africa today; there are still faults. We are people with a good spirit, however. We are positive people, and we are working at changing and reforming this country. Everyone in this country will be treated fairly. Our labour legislation is the best example of this…

That cannot be true!

Is an hon member saying that that cannot be true? [Interjections.] Sir, I am talking about serious things. I am making appeals for the sake of hungry people—people who have to go home at night to their hungry children—and hon members are joking about this. [Interjections.] Hon members must be careful that I do not start holding meetings in their constituencies and telling the unemployed what their representatives tried to do here today.

You must not threaten us! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to come and tell the people in my constituency that he does not want to abolish the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

Wait a minute. Sir, we are talking about labour now. I shall tell hon members what their people will tell them. They are going to say the residential areas must not be thrown open so that they can be inundated by Blacks. We can go and test whether that is the case, Sir.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Order!

We are not dealing with the Group Areas Act at the moment. We are talking about hungry people and unemployed people.

Take a look at what led to that!

I challenge the Americans, who are drawing up this sanctions legislation against South Africa at the moment, to do away with sanctions in cases in which people have lost their jobs as a result of those sanctions. We must be able to continue manufacturing those products, so that we can export them to the Americans. The Americans do not like our policy. I want to ask them why they import products from the Russians and the dictatorships here in Africa. Why do they trade with countries where people have fewer rights than people in South Africa have?

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with me that the speech he is making here now would have sounded better in America than it does in this House?

Mr Chairman, the hon member is quite correct. I am pleased that that hon member has made a number of speeches there. What we need at the moment is people who can persuade the Americans not to intensify the sanctions against South Africa. They must also hear the voice of reason from this country. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that South Africa has its Marshall Plan. It is helping its people in the country and is trying to help its neighbouring states as well. We have declared war on poverty and starvation.

His Marshall Plan is job reservation.

I want to ask them…

Sir, that hon member who spoke about job reservation is 10 years behind the times. Job reservation has been abolished.

It still exists! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West must please not interrupt the hon the Minister in that manner. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, that hon member is so ignorant that no amount of reading from the Scriptures or prayers will enlighten him. [Interjections.] I want to go further and say that if only that hon member were well-informed about the laws of the land… [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member want to put a question?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I object to the hon the Minister’s saying that I am ignorant.

Of course the hon member is ignorant; he proved it by his question.

The hon the Minister is talking nonsense.

The hon member is ignorant; he proved that by his question. Job reservation was abolished in the House of Assembly in 1979. That was when job reservation and the labour laws were abolished. Those are the facts. That hon member is nine years late. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is talking nonsense.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I understood the hon member for Klipspruit West correctly, he said that the fact that the majority of people in South Africa were unemployed as a result of being unskilled was a direct consequence of job reservation. That was what the hon member was really saying.

That is not true.

It is true. [Interjections.]

People in South Africa are not unskilled as a result of job reservation, but as a result of insufficient training and education facilities.

It is because of a policy.

That matter is being addressed now in that the fastest-growing item in our country’s budget is training and education. It is a priority, and that is a fact. That is what is growing fastest in the budget of this House; in fact, it is growing faster than any other Government expenditure in any of the Houses. Let us improve our attitude. One cannot build a future…

On apartheid.

… on injustices and the bitterness of the past. [Interjections.] One must be positive. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us look ahead, because after all, we are living in this country together. [Interjections.] Let us take that as our point of departure. Let us unite against those who want to destroy us, because the only thing the outside world wants with South Africa is to eliminate this country as an exporter of coal, chrome and many other strategic mineral products. Who wants to take our place? The Canadians, the Australians and in certain cases the Americans. That is because we are keeping our prices low as a result of our competition and our effective mining methods. They want to make South Africa into a country like Mozambique, however; a country in which everything has fallen into ruins. [Interjections.]

I should like to confine myself to these few comments, and to listen to hon members’ contributions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Director-General of Manpower on once again submitting an excellent annual report. The report certainly gives one a comprehensive insight into the activities of the department for the year which ended in December 1987.

Our greatest concern is still unemployment, which is understandably a difficult subject to address, because even the department in its report admits that measuring unemployment, as is the case all over the world, creates many problems and in South Africa it is further complicated by the dual character of our economy.

The main system used by the department for measuring unemployment is the so-called current population survey—“die lopende bevolkingsopname”—and this system defines an unemployed person as a person who is willing to work and satisfies the following requirements: Firstly, he has no work—that is, he has worked for less than five hours during the previous seven days. Secondly, he has intended to obtain work during the previous month; thirdly, is able to fill a vacancy within a week; fourthly, he is 16 to 64 years old in the case of males, and 16 to 59 years old in the case of females.

The problem with this system of measuring unemployment is that a total of 1 147 561 in August 1987 does not include workers in the agricultural sector. A further complication is that the figure mentioned is completely unrelated to the number of registered unemployed persons, which was 131 911 for the same period.

This brings me to the department’s own personnel. In the introduction to the report it is stated that the department’s personnel has been expanded considerably during 1987, but in spite of the increase in the number of posts the personnel position has not noticeably improved. Some 5,44% of the department’s posts are vacant and I would like to know from the hon the Minister how many people this percentage of the total work force represents and why these posts have not been filled instead of offering bonuses and overtime to the existing staff.

On page 17 of the report we read that the department has launched an intensive recruitment campaign among all population groups, but could only recruit 187 men with std 10 and 207 females with std 10 during 1987. We have hundreds of matriculants who could not be accommodated in training colleges and I would suggest that hon members in this House be provided with a list of vacant posts. I am sure that we will be able to provide the department with any number of matriculants it requires.

I want to repeat that unemployment is a difficult subject to address. I fully understand the difficulties with which the hon the Minister is faced in combating unemployment, which is largely due to our low economic growth rate over which the hon the Minister has no control, but it must be borne in mind that unemployment contributes to a large extent to the unrest which we are experiencing in the country today. I want to urge the hon the Minister to give serious attention to implementing the White Paper on Strategies for the Creation of Work Opportunities in the Republic of South Africa which, according to the report, was tabled in the House of Assembly in 1984.

I now want to address the matter of May Day. It is common knowledge that 1 May is celebrated as the workers’ day throughout the world and is universally recognised as such by governments. South Africa, however, has chosen to be out of step with the rest of the world by declaring the first Friday in May as Workers’ Day with the flimsy excuse that it will disrupt work in the middle of the week. Furthermore, Workers’ Day is not even a paid holiday for all workers. I want to quote from the Cape Times of 30 April 1987:

This decision was met by widespread resistance from trade unions, as can be seen from the headlines in the same newspaper article which read “Labour Day stayaway in SA expected”. The article reads:

The net result is that 6 May has been ignored by workers to a very large extent, and they are celebrating May Day on 1 May anyway. This could be deduced from the following newspaper reports. I quote from the Argus of 1 February 1987, as follows:

I would now like to quote from the Sunday Tribune of 28 June 1987, as follows:

In order to motivate the fact that the first Friday in May should be regarded as Workers’ Day, I would like to quote an article from the Cape Times of 29 April 1988, as follows:

I would also like to quote an article from the Cape Times of 2 May 1988 which has the following to say on the same issue:

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

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

Therefore there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of organised labour want 1 May as a holiday. The fact that more and more agreements to this effect are being successfully negotiated with employers gives credibility to the perception that the Government’s regulations can be ignored.

May Day can be traced back to ancient times. Thus the Encyclopaedia Brittanica states:

This last piece of information is not strictly true in our modern time, because the festival is by no means celebrated only by socialists in the context of communist countries today.

To give an example I can say that the trade union of which I was the general secretary was affiliated to the International Metalworkers’ Federation, an organisation comprising over 50 non-communist countries. Every year we would exchange May Day greetings purely as a gesture of workers’ solidarity. I quote from The Argus of 1 May 1986. The article is headed “May Day has roots in ancient history”, and reads:

Mr Chairman, I feel we should revert to the concept of celebrating May Day purely as a show of worker unity and not, as the Government apparently fears, as a day of protest and unrest. I urge the Government, therefore, seriously to consider introducing legislation to proclaim 1 May a paid public holiday for all workers and to remove the restriction that it may only be celebrated indoors.

Mr Chairman, we are living in difficult economic times. Inflation remains one of the serious questions for the very reason that it hits the wage-earners and the salaried persons the hardest. At the same time there is the unemployment problem which has resulted in great hardship for many workers and their families. I think the Government should be worried about unemployment which is occurring over a wide front in a variety of departments and institutions.

Unfortunately there is no instant solution to unemployment—not in South Africa and not in the rest of the world. In Western Europe, for example, there are more than 18 million unemployed people and in the United Kingdom alone there are more than 3 million unemployed.

We all know that the creation of work is not the task of the Government alone, but the task of all of us. The combination of economic growth and its promotion as well as the Population Development Programme remains the single most important method for the alleviation of the unemployment problem. Although we are saddled with the sanctions problem in South Africa, I do not think that our high rate of unemployment is the result of sanctions. Nothing less than complete surrender to the evil forces will make sure that sanctions against South Africa are terminated.

The problem of unemployment in South Africa is mainly a structural one. That means that the population growth of 2,2% per annum is one of the highest population growth rates in the world.

The Manpower Training Act defines a work seeker as follows:

Headmasters of senior schools in my constituency tell me that despite their guiding students in the technical and artisans’ directions, students just cannot be placed in jobs after they have matriculated. I have dozens of matriculants in my constituency who are walking the streets unemployed. Some of them are extremely frustrated while others take jobs as cleaners in factories— jobs for which they do not even need a matriculation certificate. [Interjections.]

Others are sent for training, but to no avail. I think we have started to bring our labour relations and planning for the future—as far as manpower resources are concerned—as well as the general development of this country and its resources, to a very important level. I must admit that the documentation made available to us by the department contained some of the most impressive and informative articles I have seen for a long time. We appreciate their efforts to explain to us the development of the present situation now under their control. It is a magnificent piece of reading material and information.

I want to come back to the relevant point, because the LP wants to see certain changes in this country. We want to see race relations, as far as the majority of workers in this country are concerned, put on a very definite course. Our workers are a very important resource in South Africa and we would like to contribute towards the welfare of our country. The aim of the LP is also to raise the status of all workers in this country who are working for a minimum basic wage. I also want to refer to what we hope for and expect in participating and contributing towards the development of this country.

We want equal opportunities for all people in all spheres of life according to their abilities. According to the department, job reservation has been abolished and no provision for jobs in any sphere is made exclusively for one race or the other. I am very happy about this, because it clearly indicates that we are moving away from discrimination. However, in some spheres and Government departments discrimination is still being practised as far as both the grading and designation of certain posts are concerned. For example, there are two people—one Black, one White—doing the same job. Instead of using the designation “operator” for both, the one is called a driver and the other an operator. The one man is thus favoured as regards the grading of the post and this means a difference in salary. This is nothing but discrimination and this is what actually takes place in practice.

I want to ask the hon the Minister a question. Last year we received letters from his department regarding the nomination of names for vacancies on various rent boards throughout the country. I know of a certain person who was recommended to serve on such a rent board. This man worked for his previous employer for 18 years, but being 99,9% sure that he would be accepted for the position on the rent board, he gave up his job with his former employer. He is still walking the street today, looking for a job. Will the hon the Minister please tell us what went wrong, because none of our recommendations were accepted.

Although education is a very important and essential service to society, it cannot be planned in isolation, because it does not function in a vacuum. The State must meet all the diversified demands of society, such as health, education, defence, housing, transport, telecommunication services etc. It is also possible, as has happened so often, that the total demand for functions outstrips the available funds. It is obvious that the State allocates only limited public funds after setting their priorities, taking into account the political, socio-economic, demographic and related factors which have an influence on current developments in this country. It is an accepted fact that education alone does not promote economic growth, nor does it create jobs. No country or region can in the long run hope to maintain its economic position or experience growth, if the majority of its people are to remain indefinitely in a position of economic, social, political and cultural deficiency. We can only create a safe South Africa if we satisfy the expectations of our people. Let us change our attitudes towards one another and towards all inhabitants of South Africa. Let us realize that opportunities for all, regardless of race, colour and creed, are essential if we want to prosper in South Africa. We have a challenge in South Africa. We have to stand together to see how we may or can solve our problems by means of creating opportunities for one another.

There should also be more involvement on the part of the Department of Manpower with regard to the subsidisation of industries that want to establish themselves in rural areas.

There should also be work for the small businessman. It is very important that we do away with unnecessary and obstructive regulations within our local authorities that only hamper the small businessman in his activities. These regulations discourage people and actually prevent them from launching the smaller kind of business enterprise. Therefore, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to use his influence on the Cabinet level so that an enquiry into these regulations can immediately take place.

I do not want to bore this House with examples. Allow me to mention just two examples, Sir. One concerns a regional services council and the other the Cape Town City Council. Let us take the example of a hawker, who tries to make an honest living, who pulls his lorry behind the Goodwood Showgrounds to sell his snoek. As we all know, snoek is a perishable item. If he stands there for longer than one hour, he gets a fine of R50 for having traded for longer than one hour in one place.

I want to raise another matter which has to do with my constituency. In order to obtain an ordinary pedlar’s licence—we all know that a person needs a pedlar’s licence before he can sell loose sweets, cigarettes and chips, for example, from his home—he must first have a store. Often the store is about two kilometres away from his home. These regulations can really become ridiculous, especially when they are applied in the case of a poor person who is trying to make a living in an honest way. I appeal to the hon the Minister to give this matter urgent attention. These regulations, which prove to be obstacles in the way of small businessmen, should be scrapped.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Department of Manpower on their dedicated service to the country. I should like to place on record today that the management corps of the Department of Manpower and, to my knowledge, all the officials in the Department, are among those who make the biggest effort to keep their work up to date.

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

I also want to convey my special thanks and appreciation to them—and particularly to the Director-General, Dr van der Merwe, for the very capable way in which he manages that department.

In conclusion I want to touch briefly on the question of the training of unemployed persons. I also want to pose some questions. Firstly, I want to read a letter to hon members which I received from someone who lives in a constituency that is adjacent to mine. I am not going to mention the name of the firm or the lady concerned, because I want the department to investigate this matter fully. I quote from the letter:

Sir, this is surely a sore point.

I have a problem with a letter which is not good publicity for one of these training centres and which is not a good reflection on the department’s good work. I am already negotiating with the department to have this particular matter investigated by the department’s inspectors and I want to make a request to the hon the Minister to allow me to accompany these inspectors when they do go out for the inspection of this particular place.

I want to pose a few pertinent questions for record purposes. Firstly, how often are these training centres visited by the department’s inspectors? Secondly, how are these training inspectors registered? Thirdly, how many of these training centres are registered in the Western Cape? Fourthly, how many of these training centres are other than White in the Peninsula? Fifthly, what is the remuneration by the department to these training centres for an individual trainee per week? Sixthly, has the department any control over wage agreements with the tutors of these centres? Seventhly, are these tutors of the training centres controlled by a wage agreement under industrial councils; if not, why not? In the eighth place, are these training centres subsidised for rental, etc, and to what extent are they subsidised? Ninethly, who pays the nominal allowance to persons who are trained and when do they get paid? In the tenth place, what remuneration does the training centre get for each individual being trained? In the eleventh place, what happens to any training centre if it is found guilty of not paying “UIF” to his staff or any other fraudulent measures? I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to try to dodge the answers to my questions; I want them for record purposes.

Furthermore, there are five subprogrammes, and my last question is how I go about to provide food for the unemployed, as I have dozens of unemployed people in my constituency who are starving. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pity I have so little time available to me. I cannot even start off with a little story. [Interjections.]

Before I touch on some important points in my speech, I should like to start by congratulating the Director-General and the hon the Minister on the very informative yet succinct annual report of the department. I think that the department can be very proud of it, particularly as it can be held up as an example to other departments of how manpower can be used productively. According to the annual report, in 1987 the labour market did not differ much from what was generally expected. It is encouraging to note that there has been much progress since 1979. It is pointed out in the report, however, that clearly many challenges still await us on the road ahead.

The sanctions and disinvestment campaign against South Africa has been and remains one of our greatest challenges. It is with sincere gratitude that we note that its intensity has decreased slightly. We are, of course, profoundly aware that the ordinary and unskilled labourer is the most detrimentally affected by sanctions. Nevertheless, we are deeply grateful to the hon the Minister that an amount of R198 million has been voted once again under Programme 4: “Training”. According to the Monthly Bulletin of Unemployment Statistics, January 1988, of the Department of Manpower there were, for example, 10 909 unemployed White men and 13 346 White women, a total of 24 255. There were 17 849 unemployed Coloured men and 8 285 unemployed Coloured women, a total of 26 134. There were 6 019 unemployed Indian men and 2 782 unemployed Indian women. This gives a total of 8 801. The total of unemployed White, Coloured and Asiatic men was 34 777; that of White, Coloured and Asiatic women, 24 413; Black men, 52 714 and Black women, 17 510. This amounts to an astronomical total of 70 224 for the month. These are persons above the age of 15 years. I do not want to burden hon members with statistics, but I do want to stress once again the vital necessity for and importance of the training and job creation programme offered by the department. We must ask the hon the Minister to change the name of the department from “Manpower” to “Muscle Power”.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister to view these two mainstays very sympathetically, and to extend and maintain them, with the aim of stimulating the economy and warding off the pressure of sanctions from abroad. The training centre at Goodwood comes to mind as an example, as well as various similar training centres. We appreciate the fact that, in spite of everything, a total amount of R175 million has been made available for this job creation programme for the 1987-88 financial year. R75 million of this amount was earmarked for the training of the unemployed. Approximately R100 million has already been voted in total for special job creation programmes since March 1985. We should like to express our thanks for that. A tight rein must be kept on this. Sanctions will have to peter out. We shall and must come out on top.

Job creation is, on the one hand, a deathblow to sanctions and, on the other, a life-giving shot in the arm against unemployment. In my view training and job creation are the only solutions to our unemployment problem. Miracles are being performed by way of job creation, particularly in the rural areas, for example by the building of community halls and sports complexes. There are only a few of them, but everything contributes to development.

Lastly, I want to say very quietly—here I might be overstepping the mark a bit—that I should like to express my joy at the fact that for the first time in history, there is a very strong probability that oil has been found on the Cape West Coast. I am elated and proud. I do not want to say this out loud, but it is in my constituency. The West Coast oil source is known as the AGL. The rich oil sources of the Arabs were found in deserts, and I predict that this West Coast desert of ours will one day outdo the oilfields of Saudi Arabia. Namaqualand is “tuned in”.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to bring a few points to the hon the Minister’s attention. [Interjections.] I have a problem. Firstly I want to speak about applications for unemployment allowances. In the overall process there are, in fact, people who receive these allowances while they are still employed. I condemn that practice. On the other hand, however, one finds situations in which people mistakenly receive payments. They are then expected to repay that money. When I made enquiries, it was explained to me that the official concerned was exempt from any blame. Those who have to repay the money, however, are perhaps people who cannot afford to do so, but they have to do so even if they pay R5 per month. I feel that the official concerned should be disciplined or taken strongly to task. In my view one should reexamine the rule in accordance with which such an official is exempt from blame.

The second point I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention relates to the self-help projects. The Department of Manpower has been asked to focus its training on the self-help projects too. This worked well, but then Bifsa lodged an objection. The help granted in building halls, etc, could therefore no longer be granted, because Bifsa had objected. In the Department of Manpower’s training use was made chiefly of sand and lime, and people were asked to use this in the self-help projects too. Regardless of Bifsa’s objections, however, the self-help projects are continuing. I cannot understand the objection. The department’s training and the self-help projects can be linked together for the upliftment of our community and for solving our problems. The self-help projects caught on like a veld fire. People everywhere benefited from them. I therefore feel that one should re-examine the linking up of the Department of Manpower’s training and the self-help projects so as to promote the upliftment of our community.

I now come to a very tricky question. I am referring to the advice offices. The advice offices are there to help our people who are unemployed. Pamphlets are sent out in which it is stated: “Come to the advice office. We assist job-seekers.” What happens, however, is that the advice offices exploit the unemployment situation. People go to the offices to obtain assistance, but eventually have to return and pay a subscription. They are therefore recruiting the unemployed a members of a trade union. I do not know how one can make someone who is unemployed a member of a trade union, but he has to pay a subscription. There have also been other cases of money being taken from such people for services rendered. Those bodies profess to help people, but actually they are grossly exploiting the unemployment situation. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate this matter thoroughly. When an advice office is guilty of such malpractices, immediate action should be taken to close the office down.

Unemployment in our communities has led to the exacerbation of the crime situation and to an increase in the crime rate. Hon members only have to watch “Police File” to see how many robberies and other crimes are committed. I think that purposeful steps must be taken to counter the unemployment situation. This has also led to an increase in shebeens. Perhaps one cannot blame the people concerned; they have to make ends meet, they have to pay the rent, and perhaps the best thing one could do would be to get a can or two or a “family block” to keep one’s family going. I am advocating that something be done about this.

I have read through the department’s annual report and was quite impressed by the training scheme mentioned in it. We still have a problem, however. This morning at five minutes to seven I received a telephone call from my daughter. Two years after having matriculated, she is still without work. Thousands of matriculants are without work, and sooner or later the devil will find work for idle hands. That is why I am making a serious plea for purposeful action so that these thousands of matriculants can obtain employment. Last year there were approximately 10 000 of them who were unemployed, and I think that this year there could easily be 15 000 unemployed roaming the streets.

Perhaps there is a problem as far as subject choices are concerned. If that is so, I am requesting an in-depth investigation of the matter. It might mean that matriculants should study a specific subject for another year, but it is important for them to have some or other job orientation. Things cannot go on this way. The house was deeply moved yesterday when the hon member for Bonteheuwel spoke about criminal gangs. That is only the beginning. If those practices were to spread, they would engulf the entire Peninsula. They would become a nationwide phenomenon. I am therefore requesting an immediate investigation into the situation. Our matriculants are children who have studied and who have done their best in the hope that they would not have to hang around the streets one day. The unemployment situation is going to result in our children’s losing interest. They will wonder why they have to study and where it is all leading to. Their friends have been without jobs for two or three years and cannot find work anywhere. This engenders frustration that eats one up from the inside.

†Sir, the report mentions the training courses with regard to security guards. I also note that quite a number of those who followed these courses have been employed. However, there is something that we have to look into, as I feel that some of the security firms are a law unto themselves. It came to my attention that when these people are hospitalised, they do not receive any payment. I agree that security is important in our country and everybody… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this morning, as I came in from the cold outside, I saw how hot things were at the hon the Minister’s, and I thought that was the right place to be today. [Interjections.]

I want to begin my speech with a quotation from Hansard: Representatives, 31 August 1987. I quote:

†Sir, I should like to reiterate those sentiments today, for my committee and I are still of the same opinion. May I also thank the hon the Minister for his prompt written replies to my query with regard to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I believe that words alone cannot cherish the memories of those men—of all races!—who have paid the ultimate price for our beloved South Africa. May I also compliment the department on not only presenting a very comprehensive annual report—it is easily readable and also attractive in appearance—but also being true to its aim of providing new prestige accommodation and modernising the existing buildings under their control. They have started right at the top of the hierarchy with complimentary photos of the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy. When one looks at the smiling face of the hon the Minister in the annual report one sees quite a different face to the one I saw this morning. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, privatisation is the “in” word today. Of all the Government departments, however, the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, because of the nature of its activities, is in the vanguard. This department has privatised projects such as the building of the Houses of Parliament, office accommodation blocks, housing and even fencing on our borders. They have employed private architects, quantity surveyors, land surveyors, engineers and contractors. If other departments rendered less lip service and got on with the job like this department has, privatisation would become a reality.

The extensions to the parliamentary buildings have been completed. The style and image of the new buildings has been integrated with that of the existing buildings. Complemented by Tuynhuys, Stalplein and the beautifully cobbled avenue, the parliamentary complex also has the majestic Table Mountain in the background like a natural curtain. All this impressive splendour and beauty should make all of us proud to be South Africans.

However, while we on this side of the House take cognisance of all the Government’s constructional and material achievements, we are in total disagreement with the NP government’s policy of separate development. As I said last year, until this Government is able to win over the hearts and minds of all South Africans, these splendid buildings will be insignificant to those underprivileged South Africans who are being discriminated against. They go on seeing these buildings as merely another sign of oppression. After all, is it not true that with the Chamber of Parliament able to accommodate only 340 members, provision has not been made for the largest section of the population—the Blacks—to be part of the parliamentary system? I only hope and pray that the day will soon come when all South Africans will be able to share in the decision-making process in our country in one Parliament.

At times one is amazed, Sir, at the contradictory statements made by the Press. I should like to quote just a few. In the Financial Mail of 1 May 1987 there is an article headed: “Bureaucrat boost”. The article goes on to read:

Further on the article reads:

The article continues, and I quote again:

Sir, if the State owns these buildings, they are State-owned and that means they belong to the taxpayers. I thus cannot understand the argument in this article. They talk about a convention centre, but the top of Plein Street is definitely not the right place for such a centre. If one looks at the Heerengracht complex and its convention facilities, it had to be closed because of lack of support. I do not think we need another convention centre in Cape Town. In the third instance, reference is made to “US-backed companies”, but—as the hon the Minister also pointed out—if the US would only put their money where their mouth is, and not listen to those preaching sanctions, perhaps it would be better for all South Africans as far as work opportunities are concerned.

The article also states that the new development will not be able to accommodate all the civil servants, which is true, but why the outcry, because Garmor House, Jewellery House and Louis Botha House were commercially enterprised before the State took them over. The only thing that changes now that the State has taken them over, is the fact that they will be upgraded, which private enterprise could not do. I am therefore in favour of what the State is doing.

If one looks at what is happening in the immediate vicinity of Parliament, we must also remember that in the years ahead security will be of the utmost importance. What better way to implement this than by securing one whole block instead of a number of little buildings scattered all over town. I am also sure that it will be cheaper in the long run.

The same newspaper, four months later, on 4 September 1987, said, and I quote:

Sir, everybody says the State is spending excessively and of course they are, but the moment the State negotiates office rentals for R10 instead of R16 per square meter, there is a big hue and cry again. What I am saying is, if one looks at the same newspaper four months later, they are actually contradicting themselves. There is, however, one honest man who, referring to State rentals, says, and I quote:

When one looks at the Press, one sometimes gets the impression that they do or say things simply to try to sell their newspapers. I therefore do not think this newspaper article gives the reader a fair and objective view as far as buildings and accommodation leased by the State are concerned.

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

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

Thank you. I refer hon members to column 2649 in the same Hansard edition of last year. I then said to the hon the Minister:

The hon the Minister then replied that he would let me know. However, Sir, I am still awaiting that reply. I hope the hon the Minister will now respond in this regard.

The piece of land about which we are talking is not very large. It is situated in a very decent area of my constituency. However, it is very overgrown, and the city council refuses to clear it because they say it is the responsibility of the hon the Minister’s department. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give instructions that the piece of land be cleared. I have had many complaints from residents in the area. They say that vagrants sleep under those bushes and break into their homes when they are out. It is also claimed that three young girls have been raped in those bushes. Furthermore, it is becoming a dumping ground which is a real eyesore.

The way I reason is that even if we are not going to build now—the money has already been allocated—the area will have to be cleared at some stage. I am asking whether that part of the work cannot be done first, so that we can at least get rid of all the rubbish and put an end to the undesirable things that take place there.

There is one other matter which I want to raise. I know it is not the hon the Minister’s responsibility to make the allocation in this regard, but I still want to raise the matter with him. At Steenberg we have a police station right in the middle of the residential area. What is important is that this police station has, for two years in a row, won the prize for the best-kept police station. Many young men come to that police station. They live in various parts of the Peninsula. I believe the department has already received requests that single quarters be built for them. I should like to know when the department will be able to start with this project.

Mr Chairman, at long last I am granted the opportunity of speaking with my landlord. I want to speak to my landlord, the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, about a house. I am referring to House No 1, Laboria Park, which I lease from him at a rental which I think does not fit the house. I see that my landlord plans to build and is in the process of building a number of houses and other structures throughout the country. Before he continues with that, I want him to listen to my tale of woe.

Someone recently told me that the house in which I live had originally been condemned as being unfit for occupation. I certainly will not vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but what I will underscore is that the house has a number of defects. [Interjections.]

Incidentally, Sir, I am told that the reason why there are so many ants in the park is because it is built on a cemetery which has fallen into disuse. [Interjections.] Apparently the ants are now searching for new bones to feed on! Whether the presence of the millions of ants is a health hazard, I do not know. I do not know whether they can transmit diseases, like Aids, from person to person. What I do know, however, is that they are a real darn nuisance!

Sir, let me return to House No 1, Laboria Park.

This house has no doorjamb. Instead of this a few strips of wood were nailed to the door cavity and thereon the door was hung. [Interjections.] I do not know whether other hon members suffer the same inconvenience as I do. [Interjections.] I find it most uncomfortable to lounge near the door, as there is a constant draft from that end. Should one be forced to be seated there, one is compelled to plug the gap under the door. For this purpose, the gap being so big at No 1, we normally use a sleeping bag to keep out the draft. Whenever somebody wishes to leave or enter the house, we first have to get rid of the sleeping bag. I am sure that my landlord, the hon the Minister, will appreciate that this is rather an uncomfortable and inconvenient state of affairs.

Just as poor a job was done on the window frames, but what really is not cricket is that not once, since I have been domiciled at No 1, have the window fittings been serviced. Perhaps I have to see to the servicing myself, but then somebody must inform me to that effect.

Incidentally, because of prolonged delays by my landlord, I had to see to the cleaning of the carpets myself. [Interjections.] I hired a reputable firm to do the job, settled the account and sent the receipt to my landlord. He still owes me for it. Perhaps the standards of those who built my house in Port Elizabeth in 1970 were too high. Perhaps my house is too well built, thus giving rise to the fault-finding. Still, I can only describe the plastering job on No 1 as slovenly. If I had been the inspector on that job, the plasterer would have had to do it all over again. [Interjections.] The plumbing also seems to be defective and one still wonders why the toilet has not been tiled; perhaps the stock ran out. Have hon members ever tried to sweep a brick inlaid surface such as the surface of my stoep? I have spent hours trying to get all the sand out of the crevices. It is simply not possible to do it. [Interjections.] I simply cannot succeed in it. Hon members would be well advised to look carefully at the way in which their kitchen cupboards are fitted. [Interjections.] Inspect the level of the doors, as well as the way in which the cupboards are attached to the walls. Hon members may be in for a surprise.

I have become quite attached to this away-from-home shack of mine, but at times I am inclined to wonder whether it is worth the rent that I am paying for it. Perhaps the rent can come down. We will not boycott; we will just ask for the rent to come down. Would it not be wiser to sell Laboria Park to private enterprise and build a better type of house for Parliamentarians closer to Parliament? [Interjections.] Let us erect the houses in District Six. Now is the time. [Interjections.] Let the Parliamentarians be at the forefront of the return to District Six. Let us return District Six to the total community and not just a section of the community. After that we can go to South End in Port Elizabeth. The only prerequisite in respect of the new homes would be professional craftmanship. That is as far as my house is concerned.

According to the memorandum by the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs I note with appreciation that accommodation for the Police will be provided at various places in the Republic. At Ellisras 14 houses are to be built at an estimated cost of R1,42 million, which gives us an average price of approximately R101 500 per house. At Empangeni six houses are catered for at a cost of R780 000, giving us an average cost of R130 000 per house. Hoedspruit gets nine houses at R217 000 or a mean of only R30 000 per house. [Interjections.]

Ten prefabricated houses will cost R350 000 or R35 000 per house at Kwazekele in Port Elizabeth, whilst five houses at Badplaats will cost R750 000 or an average of R125 000 per house. This is what should be provided for the Police. It is essential for the Police Force to be unhindered by accommodation and other problems. In this way the members of the force will remain uncorrupted and faithful to their task. Still, one is amazed at the astronomical differences in the cost of houses in, for example, Empangeni, Hoedspruit and Kwazekele. Perhaps the hon the Minister will give an explanation for this during his reply. I just hope that there are no racial connotations attached to that.

It is no use being paranoid about these things, but one must of necessity often refer to the peculiar position which appertains with regard to accommodation in the Brown community. Homes are overcrowded—that is a fact. There is an unimaginable shortage of homes all over the country— that is another fact. That this problem affects Brown policemen is also a fact. So, I am astounded that no provision whatsoever is made for the accommodation of the police of the new Bethelsdorp police station. There are numbers of unmarried members of the force for whom, at least, single quarters and recreation facilities should be provided. This is a must, because right now these members are being exploited by unscrupulous landlords and landladies. Some find themselves in environments totally different from those which they are used to, resulting in these youngsters often going astray. The hon the Minister must agree that this is not an acceptable state of affairs.

Married members of the Police Force in Bethelsdorp are exposed to the same difficulties. When a member is transferred there he is forced to leave his family behind, wherever they are. Again I say this can only lead to a lowering of moral and social standards and I appeal to the hon the Minister to provide for accommodation for members of the Police Force at the Bethelsdorp police station under the item “Unforeseen services which arose”.

*While we are on the subject of the Bethelsdorp police station I should like to enquire when, if ever, the parking area in front of the main entrance to this beautiful building will be tarred. I have enquired from just about everybody I could get hold of, but nobody was able to be of assistance in this regard. Now I ask the hon the Minister to see to this menial task himself.

†If the hon the Minister could see the eyesore I am talking about, he will agree with me that it only detracts from the aesthetic beauty of the complex. I was going to address myself to the hon the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Manpower, but time will not allow me to do so. I have thus written a note to his officials and I presume that I may get a reply from them afterwards.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department very sincerely for the fine police building which they provided at Caledon, of course on tender. It was officially opened recently, and I trust that as soon as applications are received for the construction of the police station in Hawston, they will also ensure an equally high standard of workmanship and that a fine building will be constructed there too.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Mamre’s question in this debate last year. He requested the use of local labour when the Department of Public Works constructed buildings in the rural areas. To this the hon the Minister then replied, and I quote from Hansard: House of Representatives, 1987, col 2665:

On page 58 of the annual report, in paragraph 5.1.4, I read the following, and I quote:

In the light of that fact I am asking the hon the Minister to ensure that when tenders are prepared for publication in the State Tender Bulletin, a special clause be added to indicate that those who are going to tender for the work should take note that use must be made of local labour. Every contractor or firm must only be permitted to take along its technical staff.

I now come to Laboria Park. The previous speaker said something about Laboria Park, but I should like to say something about the condition of our roads there. The roads there are in an atrocious condition. There are potholes everywhere, and I wonder whether the roads in Akasiapark are in that condition. [Interjections.] I hope not. Only this morning, when I alighted from my car right in front of the supervisor’s door to collect my post, another car drove past, through a pothole brimming with water, and splattered me with mud from top to toe. It is scandalous that we should have roads which are in such a condition.

Recently a start was made on the cleaning and renovations to houses. Some houses, however, were only cleaned on the inside and are still dirty on the outside. The places are in the process of collapsing. They are in a state of disrepair and the walls are covered in cracks. When will we start ensuring that these places are properly restored and maintained? Are we going to wait until the cracks grow larger and we are ultimately saddled with greater costs for the repair work, or is this going to be done now, while the costs are lower?

Let me refer to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs’ annual report. In paragraph 1.3 on page 3 in chapter 1, under the heading “Establishment”, the following is stated:

On page 14, in paragraph 2.1, we find:

Housing is now an own affair as far as Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned. So why is there an increase in the number of posts in the A and B divisions of the department? Hon members know that Black people have become homeowners. Is there a staff shortage after some of them have been transferred to the own affairs administration to deal with the 100% housing loans? Do they have too small a staff to provide for the needs of the Black people?

I now come to page 5 of the report. Just above the table, reference is made to deeds controllers … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is good to see the hon the Minister in such a fighting mood this morning. In Parliament and outside Parliament he is known for his political acrimoniousness. We do not always agree with him.

I should like to begin by thanking him and his department for their initially accommodating attitude towards the envisaged establishment of 3 SACC base at Midlands, Kimberley. As the Minister in charge of the department which has to provide for the establishment of facilities, he is frequently overwhelmed with requests. These requests often reach his department at the eleventh hour. The hon the Minister and his department nevertheless declared themselves prepared to change the location of the base at the very last moment. The change cannot but benefit the community concerned. Perhaps the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister would inform us in greater detail this morning about the problems involving the envisaged base and perhaps he would inform us of the estimated cost. That is all we are interested in at this stage.

In the House yesterday the hon the Minister of Law and Order announced that an investigation was being instituted at present into cheaper ways of constructing police stations. In this regard, however, let me sound a cautionary note. If we had erected cheaper structures in this country 30 years ago, we would have been able to see today how the high maintenance costs on the one hand and the country’s financial position on the other had influenced the maintenance of those buildings. I think we would have been saddled with quite a number of dilapidated structures. I therefore want to sound a word of warning.

This debate began on a very impassioned note this morning, and the hon the Minister could perhaps have made the mistake of thinking that he was locked in an election battle. We remember very well how he was hounded by the rightwing element in the last election campaign, and today it happened once again with people from the other side of the political spectrum. The fact is, however, that the hon the Minister and his department are at the forefront of the changes taking place in the South African work-place. We concede that they frequently embark on action which is in direct conflict with vested practices and which quite often elicits emotionally-laden discussions. That certainly is the case. If and when steps are embarked upon for the removal of discriminatory measures—as we have witnessed in this House on numerous occasions during the past three years—the hon the Minister can expect nothing but support from us. It is also true, however, that hon members in this House come from a milieu that differs radically, at times, from that from which the hon the Minister comes.

Historically speaking, for years now—I am not flinging brickbats at the hon the Minister—we have felt the effects of job reservation. It is true that job reservation has been removed from our Statute Book; we concede that point. Such cases still occur, however, because our problem in this country goes further than merely the Acts on our Statute Book. The situation is directly influenced by human relations and distorted perceptions— incorrect perceptions which are encouraged by statements made at the wrong time or place and incorrect perceptions engendered by right-wing political groupings in this country. That is also true, Sir. One therefore often feels that they can do certain things and can no longer use the excuse that there is this or that provision in the Act. They nevertheless do not do so. When we therefore mention such instances in this House and speak about job reservation, we are not speaking of it as if the relevant legislation were still on the Statute Book; we are speaking about what is happening in practice.

Let us also address the position of the Black worker and speak for a moment about productivity. Sir, is it not strange that the Chairman of the National Manpower Commission, Dr Hennie Reynders, has pointed out to us that although White management staff profess to be positively orientated towards the promotion of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians to managerial positions, in actual fact there is an unwillingness or even an inability to demonstrate this in practice. This development allows us to emphasise this fact, because managerial expertise and the formulation of realistic policies in the utilisation of human resources are also important to increased productivity. Surely that is so. In this regard there is a need for the employment of more Black staff, particularly in managerial posts, so that they can play a role in staff motivation and the inculcation of pride and discipline in the workers. Let us not forget that the overall majority of our workers, particularly in our factories, are Blacks.

†Mr Chairman, while the role of the private sector and community leaders cannot be overemphasised when it comes to productivity, it is also true that as a society we all have been and will be—I hope not for long!—over-regulated. That is a fact, Sir, and something will urgently have to be done in this regard.

*For that reason we welcome the appointment of the hon the Minister’s hon colleague who is specifically going to examine aspects of this.

It is also true that vested interests in the private sector frequently oppose the removal of regulations for the protection of specific interest groups. This impedes deregulation, increases costs and consequently also has a detrimental effect on productivity. At the moment, for example, we find that as far as artisans are concerned, Black people are working chiefly in the construction, printing and furniture industries. At present there are 7 000 Black apprentices, in comparison with 52 000 artisans in the other population groups. As far as qualified artisans are concerned, at present there are 160 000 Whites, as against 12 500 Black people. The hon the Minister may perhaps say that until fairly recently these posts were not accessible to Black people. I believe, however, that in spite of the backlog, tremendous pressure should be exerted to allow as many people as possible to qualify as quickly as possible. For that reason I welcome the present job creation problem as a good starting point, but things should not be left there. In a changed world the emphasis is increasingly going to be placed on the professional fields. Only six engineers out of the present total of 20 000 are Black people. Not one of those Black people is a chemical engineer. That is the present position. As far as technology is concerned, the picture is equally sombre. Fewer than 300 Blacks, as against approximately 12 000 Whites, are technologists. At present there are 320 Black general practitioners as against more than 13 000 White medical doctors. This indicates the tremendous role that education will have to play in the future, and therefore we in this House will always applaud the expenditure of money on education and job creation. Extended education and training are necessary for greater productivity in this country.

Mr Chairman, the annual report of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is a very illuminating document. What interests me the most, however, is comparing it with the budget speech of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House on 21 and 22 April of this year. Before I come to that, J briefly want to refer to the history of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs.

As hon members themselves know, the department is one of the oldest government departments in the country. In 1981 this department became the Department of Community Development, but that was of short duration. Late in 1984 the department changed its name and became the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. The main function of the department is actually the provision and maintenance of accommodation for a variety of Government departments responsible for general affairs, including Parliament. Looking at the beautiful new extensions to Parliament, one is given some idea of what the department is capable of. The beautiful layout of the Tuynhuys garden is a further example of the department’s ability. That garden is really a pleasure to behold. As hon members know, with the establishment of the new dispensation certain functions of this department were transferred to the Administration: House of Representatives. That is where I want to boast a bit about our hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, and I want to do so on the basis of the speech he made in this House earlier this year.

It is very clear from the speech that never before has so much been done in regard to Coloured housing, the building of schools, etc, as in the brief period since 1984. If the department is ever in the Waenhuiskrans or McGregor area—that is the constituency of my colleague, the hon member for Robertson—I want to ask the department to have a look at the beautiful school buildings erected there. That is proof of the fact that we on this side have worked hard in an effort to reduce the backlog.

The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs does the books for the National Housing Fund and the Community Development Fund on an agency basis. I see from the report that the National Housing Fund payment for the 1986-87 financial year was approximately R742 million. Of this, R220 million was spent by our Administration. We are grateful for that.

I have a further vote of thanks before I come to other matters. In certain areas, in times of unrest, various members of the security forces were left homeless. With the positive co-operation of the local authorities, this department succeeded in providing 276 families with accommodation within seven months. Many of our people were involved in this. Hence my sincere thanks.

I have already referred to the department’s enormous administrative task involving the administration of the housing fund and the development fund. In time this task will be taken over by our Administration. I should like to explain to hon members why I call it an enormous task. If, in principle, the Administration’s Housing Board approved a project for the construction of 100 houses at Steinkopf for a specific amount, for example, tenders would be called for. After a specific tender has been accepted, the contractor commences with the construction of the houses. When a certain portion of the work has been completed, a payment must be made to the contractor. We all know that. When the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has certified that the work has been carried out satisfactorily, the account is sent to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. The latter department must make the payments. That sounds easy, Sir, but it is a gigantic machine that has to be set in motion. The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs keeps a record of all payments made in regard to the project, including the capitalisation of interest. It also controls the increased advance payments and many other aspects. On completion of such a project, the account is closed and the final cost of the project is determined.

Let us suppose that the imaginary project for the construction of 100 houses was carried out by the local authority in Steinkopf, with the assistance of a loan from the National Housing Fund, and that the rental and the purchase payments had been determined. Every six months the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs sends an account to the local authority. If 30 people, for example, were to purchase their homes for cash, the relevant amount would be paid to the department. The calculation of the final cost of the project would then have to be amended, and the correct amount paid into the account of the Administration’s Housing Board.

I should now like to come to the point I want to make. I shall not go into this matter in any greater detail, because I am not an expert on finance. Hon members can see, however, that this is an enormous task. This must be a well-oiled machine so that things can run smoothly. We therefore express our thanks to the department.

I now want to come a bit closer to my constituency. It is a pity that the tenor of my speech has to change when I come to matters in my constituency. I must mention these matters, however, to get them off my chest. Recently things happened in the small town of Port Nolloth which stand out like a sore thumb. In that small town there is one Coloured diamond company amidst a number of White diamond companies. This Coloured company is being denied the right to process its diamond-dust on the beach, while all the other White companies have that right. [Interjections.] If that is not blatant discrimination, I do not know what discrimination is.

I also want to associate myself with the hon member for Bethelsdorp who spoke about the accommodation at Laboria Park. The craftsmanship at Laboria Park is in striking contrast to that on which I commented earlier in regard to the department. While one is eating one’s food, one sometimes finds the lights in those houses simply exploding before one’s eyes. One just hears a bang and the pieces of glass are scattered all over the table. [Interjections.] I do not know whether other hon members have also had that experience, but it has happened to me on more than one occasion. Such things are regular occurrences.

I also want to refer briefly to the furniture. The chairs are so hard that one cannot sit in them comfortably. It is much better to watch the news on television in an ordinary office chair than to sit on those chairs, because for those of us who are fairly well-proportioned, sitting in those chairs is an uncomfortable experience. One continually feels uncomfortable. I actually want to invite the hon the Minister to come and have a cup of tea with me, and he must then sit on one of those small chairs. [Interjections.]

Then I want cake too. [Interjections.]

The craftmanship is really poor. Even the carpets are in the process of unravelling. We describe this by saying: “Die mat staan van die vloer af op.” I do not know what is going on there.

Then there is also the problem of roofs that leak. Hon members are free to come and have a look at No 62. If it rains while one is bathing, one is drenched in cold water. That is because the rainwater is running down the wall into the bath. [Interjections.] I am not joking. That is what it is like at No 62. I am asking the hon the Minister to come and have a look so that we can discuss the matter over a cup of tea.

Mr Chairman, I have not actually prepared a speech, since in point of fact I wanted to reserve the time available to me in case any hon member wanted to make a contribution about land affairs. Before I refer to certain matters, I merely want to ask hon members of this House to reread the announcement made here this morning by the hon the Minister, and also what he said in his introductory speech.

I am vaguely under the impression that hon members do not quite realise what important aspects the hon the Minister touched upon here this morning. One gains the impression that hon members are not quite aware of the effect that sanctions would have on South Africa. [Interjections.] It may be that the Whites in South Africa are even more aware of the danger of sanctions to South Africa because at present they have a major share in this country’s economy, and because at the moment they are, for the most part, the employers and the major producers. For that reason I want to ask hon members to re-examine the plea the hon the Minister made in this House this morning. Hon members know as well as I do that hunger and an empty stomach promote communism in any country.

We are merely asking hon members not to create a climate conducive to these people’s making further inroads into our country. I also want to request that we be careful not to elevate minor differences that may exist between various parties and even various Houses—sometimes simply about methods and procedures—to the level of national problems, thus preventing us from living together harmoniously in this country as a cohesive group.

I merely want to say a few words about deeds offices. We are frequently blamed for the fact that there are such constant delays in the deeds office that those who are dependent upon the registration of deeds lose money in the process, etc. That may be true, and in the past it was largely true, but what hon members lose sight of is that the attorneys who have to submit these documents to the deeds office are often not very punctilious about the state in which documents are submitted to the deeds office. We have experience of this, particularly in agriculture. Documents repeatedly have to be sent back to the attorneys, but the attorneys do not convey this information to their clients. They simply refer to the deeds office which is not doing its work or not doing it quickly.

As I have said, in the past it may have been true that there was a large backlog in the deeds offices, but now things are much better. I can mention examples of the number of days that elapse between submission and registration: At the office in Pretoria it is eight days; in Johannesburg it is 11 days; in Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, King William’s Town, Kimberley and Vryburg it is six days. If these documents are submitted properly, it therefore takes approximately one week for registration to take place. We should therefore be careful not to blame only the deeds office for the delays.

If hon members were to look at page 42 of our report, they would see the scope of the work done by this office. If one were to add up the number of documents under the heading “Deeds of transfer, bonds, etc”, one would get a total of 810 987. If one were to add up the number of documents under the next heading “Sectional Titles”, one would get a total of 98 131. Under “Leaseholds” one gets a total of 51 425. It is the increasing extent to which leaseholds and property for Blacks are being registered in particular which places a tremendous burden on the deeds office. The deeds office, however, has not appointed special staff; it has merely worked more efficiently and has worked longer hours to make this possible. We also want to express our thanks to these deeds offices.

I also want to give hon members what they will consider to be good news, and that is that two deeds controllers from the Coloured community have been appointed in the Cape Town office. This shows once again that if there are people of merit, if there are people who are competent, this department’s doors are open to them for appointment.

The next point I want to touch upon involves the question of the land information system. The idea behind this system is to facilitate the proper, centralised computerisation of information about land in South Africa so that when information about every piece of land in South Africa has ultimately been incorporated into this system, one can obtain all the necessary information about a piece of land within a few moments. This is not only essential for the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, but also for local authorities and other departments.

I want to point out to hon members, however, that the information one receives from a computer is no better than the quality of the information one has fed into it. If one does not feed proper and correct information into a computer, it is not worth anything.

This land information system can give us positive information as a result of the good surveys and systems of registration which we have had over the years and from which we can compile the information in this central computer system. In our various survey offices—hon members will find this in the annual report—we already have 30 000 general plans and 2 million maps covering 4 million pieces of land. That is a wealth of information that can be computerised. This office in Cape Town has already made considerable progress with the establishment of such an information system, and the intention is to have it extended to the other provinces.

Something else I want to touch upon involves the problems being experienced with expropriation, valuation and the payment of fees. The State is frequently placed in the uncomfortable position of being compelled to expropriate land for dams, roads, etc. Hon members must remember that this is a totally different position to that in which a voluntary buyer or seller finds himself. There one has a transaction in which both parties act voluntarily. When one compels someone to sell, however, that person really deserves the State’s sympathy. The idea is also that such a person should be given a fair deal and that he should be fairly compensated. There are specific procedures which we adopt in terms of the Expropriation Act and which are, to our way of thinking, correct procedures, but since the Expropriation Act has been in existence since 1975, it is perhaps necessary for us to re-examine it at this stage.

I therefore want to inform hon members of what we want to do in this connection. Last year the Association of Law Societies recommended to the authorities that an investigation be instituted into the operation and provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1975. The Act came into operation on 1 January 1975, and in the 11 years since then it has been thoroughly tested in practice. Important court judgements confirming or extending certain principles have been furnished and we can justifiably say that the Expropriation Act is a fair and just mechanism used by the State to provide for its land needs. The time has come, however, to examine the Act as a whole to see whether it still meets the requirements. In 1975, for example, pioneering work was done when provision was made for the establishment of compensation courts in an effort to settle smaller disputes more cheaply. One ought to ascertain how successful this has been. Compensation is still the most important aspect of any expropriation action. One could also take a critical look at all the relevant components and the applicable underlying elements with a view to ascertaining whether these underlying elements would be applicable to all expropriations. Those are but a few examples of aspects that should be examined.

A committee consisting of representatives of interested Government departments, the provincial administrations, the Association of Law Societies, the general Bar Council and the United Municipal Executive has been constituted to investigate the matter in depth, and for the purpose of making recommendations. The committee will shortly commence with its proceedings. We hope that the investigation by this committee will give rise to recommendations which will make our expropriation procedure even more streamlined.

I want to make a final remark, and this relates to the alienation of State land. The department and the State are in the process of alienating surplus State land which will not be utilised immediately or in the foreseeable future. The land will first be offered to departments and other Government institutions first, and if the land is not needed, we shall examine the alienation of this State land for other purposes. The function of this department is to identify the land for the purposes for which it will be used and then to transfer it to the relevant body.

A great deal has been said about that in this House. I now want to appeal to this Ministers’ Council too: Where such State land is made available to them once we have identified it, they should ensure that the land reserved for agricultural purposes is divided up into proper economic agricultural units.

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture fully agrees with me that we should not create a communal system of farming again. That only leads to poverty, and all one gets as a result are people who are struggling. In my area there are successful large-scale Coloured farmers who are in possession of economic units. There are also approximately 300 uneconomic farming units. I want to request the department to institute an investigation to determine whether farmers cannot be given an opportunity, if their cases merit it, to have their units consolidated and whether those who are farming more profitably cannot be placed on economic units in other areas.

I now want to come back to the point I made initially. The more joint responsibility every group in South Africa gets in regard to property ownership and production, the more unified our efforts will be in defending ourselves against the country’s enemies.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking hon members who took part in the debate for their participation and contributions. A wide variety of subjects was discussed and in many respects the discussion was very enlightening.

†I would like to come to the hon member for Belhar. He said that the measuring of unemployment is a problem that is due to the different formulae that are being used. I agree with him. Many factors surround this question and as a result most of the surveys merely give one an indication of certain trends that are taking place.

The hon member also said that the department’s personnel had increased and he wanted to know why a certain percentage of the various posts was not filled. One of the problems that we are experiencing is to get suitable qualified persons to fill these posts. Sometimes when we need people with certain skills in the department, we advertise but do not get the necessary response.

*The posts are advertised in the public media regularly. We are experiencing shortages particularly with regard to the post of inspector of occupational safety, which is actually a very specialised post. In addition there is a shortage of vocational counsellors—people who must at least have a degree—and experienced, trained clerical administrative staff. What we are talking about here, therefore, is graduates with B Sc, BA and MA degrees in psychology, and trained staff. We advertise the senior posts and mid-level posts in particular, and often do not even receive applications, although there are applications for the posts on the lower level. It takes quite a few years, however, and requires further training before these employees are able to fill some of the higher posts. In addition some of the people do not have the necessary qualifications.

The Department of Manpower has initiated a training programme in which employees can receive in-service training so that some of the gaps can be filled. If hon members are aware of qualified people who can fill these posts that we are advertising, I should appreciate if they would draw this to the attention of those people and the department. We really have serious shortages in certain areas.

†The hon member also made the point that unemployment creates unrest. I agree with him on that point. That is why I pleaded this morning for us to take a joint stand against sanctions. We should pressurise the outside world into allowing us to export especially those products that are produced in labour-intensive industries by unemployed persons. In that way we can get a market in order to feed those people and give them a means of earning a living.

*I only want to say this about unemployment: The drama and the trauma an unemployed person experiences is terrible. Someone who gets home at night, after spending the whole day looking for work, and has to face his wife and hungry children, feels guilty. He feels guilty, even if he has done everything in his power to find work. This leads to tension in that house, because the husband gets the feeling that his wife and children do not think much of him, because he cannot get work. This leads to crime. It drives that person to a point where he steals to get food for his family. This is a serious matter, Sir, and it is those people that I was appealing for this morning. Hon members must please not question my motives.

There were also reactions about why we have sanctions. Hon members talked about the injustices of the past. I do not dispute that, but I want to make an appeal to hon members. If we are going to build upon the grievances of the past, we are going to destroy the country. On the other hand, if we tell one another now: “Very well, we all have pasts in which there are a few skeletons in the cupboard, but let us forget about that now and look ahead to see what we can do to make South Africa a happy home for all its people in future,” we shall go a long way.

The hon member also broached the question of May Day. He said we were completely out of step with the rest of the world with regard to the question of 1 May. That is not the real situation, Sir. The USA does not recognise 1 May. They also have a workers’ day, but it is the first Monday in September of each year. Nor do the states of Canada recognise 1 May, because they attach a communist connotation to this day. This also applies to America: They also recognise 1 September. Then there are a number of South American states which do not recognise 1 May. Nor does Switzerland recognise 1 May. I can mention a number of countries, but I do not want to dwell on this point for too long. I may mention that at the moment I am in discussion not only with employees and employers, but also with a number of trade unions about the question of Workers’ Day. As hon members know, the question of Workers’ Day and all the holidays has been referred to the President’s Council, and the President’s Council has released a report. This report is being considered by the Department of Home Affairs at the moment. It will be discussed later and this whole matter will be considered then.

†The perception has been created by the hon member that the Government interfered after employers and employees had reached a mutual agreement that they take 1 May as a holiday. We never prescribed; and if the employers and employees agree that they want to take 1 May as a paid or even an unpaid holiday it is up to them to decide. We will not prevent them from reaching their own decision. As far as we are concerned, however, we have a Workers’ Day and at present that day is the first Friday in May.

The hon member made the point that the overwhelming majority prefers 1 May, and he may well be right. On the other hand, when I consider the requests that have been channelled to me for a long weekend—some people suggested, in fact, that I make it the first Monday in May, because the people who work in the shops do not have a long weekend if the holiday falls on a Friday, because they then have to work for half the day the following Saturday—I feel inclined to recommend to the Cabinet that we consider making the first Monday in May a public holiday. That will then give the people who work in the shops long weekends as well.

There are ways and means to establish what the majority of the workers feel. There is strong pressure on me to move it to the Monday, because workers say they want long weekends, especially those people coming from the national states who only go home over weekends.

Sir, I also want to refer to the hon member for Elsies River who said unemployment was not a problem only in South Africa, but worldwide. He is quite right about that. In Europe there are 20 million unemployed people and the main reason for that is automatisation, mechanisation and the development of all other types of labour-saving devices. The population growth in Europe is relatively low and even they struggle with an unemployment problem. The hon member also said it was a structural problem and mainly due to the high rate of population increase in South Africa. However, we have another problem in South Africa apart from the high rate of population increase, and that is the fact that people from our neighbouring countries are entering this country illegally in their thousands. A very good guess of the number of people from neighbouring countries working here legally and also of those who are here illegally, would be nearly 1,5 million. They come to this country to try to find employment. It is interesting to me that most of the countries they come from vehemently attack South Africa and accuse us of mistreating people. Despite what their governments say about us, those very people are trying to get into this country by risking even their lives against electric fences and the like, just to come to this land of oppression. The fact that they are coming here is proof of the fact that this is not such a bad country after all.

The hon member referred to the rent board and I want to reply to his question regarding the appointment of members to the board. The hon member said that none of their recommendations were accepted. My reply is that the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is negotiating with the three various own affairs administrations regarding the nomination of members of certain rent boards. More nominations than the number of vacancies have been received and we are still looking at the matter. It is therefore not a question of certain nominations having been ignored. We are still looking at situations where the nominations were in excess of the openings.

Sir, may I ask the hon the Minister, in the event of receiving more than one nomination, will the nomination by the House of Representatives receive priority above the other nominations?

Yes, Sir, definitely. There are, however, many factors that will have to be taken into account. For instance, if somebody has a criminal record, then obviously he will be disqualified. I can nevertheless assure the hon the Minister that we will seriously consider their nomination.

If we differ, I undertake to come back to the hon member so that we can discuss the matter.

*The hon member for Elsies River put a number of relatively technical questions.

†He made one point which impressed me. He said that we should change our attitudes towards one another and work and build together. I want to endorse that statement with enthusiasm. He also referred to regulations in the informal sector which are inhibiting. I agree with him. I think we must have the hawkers back. They provide a service and they provide competition. I regard that as a form of private enterprise. Unfortunately, this is not a matter which is dealt with by my department. However, the department of the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation takes care of these matters.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it is true, as my hon colleague over there has just said, that it is actually some of the local authorities who are making it impossible for the hawkers to sell. Some of their regulations are absolutely unbelievable.

The hon member also mentioned the question of the training of unemployed persons. As I said this morning, that is a priority with us. My dream is that we must get more money so that we can train more people and thus put more people in business as new and small entrepreneurs. Let us hope that the financial position of the country will improve and that we will then be in a position to train and employ more people.

The hon member also mentioned certain problems. If he furnishes me with the details, I will ask the department to investigate. I can just mention to the hon member that there is quite a substantial number of private training centres. Not all of them receive support from the department. However, I will investigate the matter in order to see if any irregularities are taking place.

The hon member asked a lot of questions and I must apologise, since I could not keep pace with him. He asked them rather quickly. With regard to wage control and subsidies for rentals, I will reply to the hon member in writing after I have read his Hansard.

*I now come to the hon member for Springbok. I want to thank him for paying tribute to the department and for his support of the question of training. As I have said, one would like to provide more training, but funds are a restrictive factor. The hon member referred to the possibility of there being oil in his constituency. For his sake I hope that that is realised so that he can become the sheik of the Cape in his constituency!

I now come to the hon member for Bishop Lavis. He said that some people still draw money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund even once they have begun working. Naturally that is completely irregular. We shall take immediate action if hon members draw our attention to any cases of this nature. Of course it is possible for a person who has applied for payments from the Unemployment Insurance Fund still to receive a cheque in the month in which he has begun to work. That is why we make people sign a register every month in which they specify that they are still unemployed and that they are available and able to work. I concede that there are people who try to deceive one, and I must say, in view of the number of cases that have to be dealt with, that it is very difficult to exercise proper control over this matter.

Just for the sake of interest, I want to mention that in 1985 we had 426 000 applications for benefits. In 1986 there were 424 000 applications and in 1987 there were 395 000. Mistakes do happen, but nevertheless this compares well with what is happening in the private sector. There is a full-time inspectorate at the various offices which constantly attempts to restrict mistakes. Administrative measures are taken when officials do make mistakes. The hon member made the point that an official is protected if he makes a mistake. That is not really the case. That official is reprimanded and disciplinary action can be taken against him. If money is paid out by mistake, however, it has to be recovered, because that money is not State money. The State contributes only R7 million to the fund, whereas the greater part is paid in by the employer and the employee. They each pay 0,9% of the remuneration received by a worker. It is money that belongs to the public sector, therefore, and if a mistake is made, the money has to be recovered. Nevertheless we try to be as sympathetic as possible, so that the repayment can take place in instalments.

The hon member also referred to the advice offices. Of course the advice offices are private sector offices. If the hon member is aware of any irregularity, he must please convey this information to the department as soon as possible so that we can take steps. I assure the hon member that firm action will be taken in the case of irregularities. There is also legislation in that connection, which makes it difficult to take firm action.

The hon member also said that he experienced a lot of problems with young people who had passed matric and could not find employment. I am in full agreement with the hon member. We have a great deal of sympathy with young people who have passed matric, but then cannot find employment. That is one of the consequences of sanctions and disinvestment.

That is true; Tutu must find them employment.

I agree with my hon colleague; Tutu must find them employment. Unfortunately there is a restriction on what the State can do to create employment. According to the President’s Council report and the White Paper on the Creation of Employment Opportunities, it is really the private sector that should provide the employment. The State has to restrict its numbers and its expenditure, so that the private sector can provide employment. That is one of the problems we are experiencing. We cannot get funds; there are sanctions in respect of the funds that may enter the country, and we need that capital for further employment creation. To a great extent I share the hon member’s concern about this matter.

I now come to the hon member for Retreat.

†I want to thank the hon member for his compliments towards my department and myself. We are very appreciative of that. The hon member mentioned the acquisition of the stands and the buildings to the other side of the H F Verwoerd Building. I can give him a little bit of background on that, namely that we acquired that land for future use by Parliament. We have an acute problem in this complex, even after the new Chamber has been erected. This land was acquired for future needs in the vicinity of the parliamentary complex. What is important is that the private sector had a development in that area in mind.

However, they could not proceed—I do not know exactly why not—and the land was then offered to the State and we bought it for the future use of Parliament. Considering all the problems that we have with accommodation and parking, I think it was a very wise decision to acquire that land. It is now available to Parliament for future use.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp really moved me when he told us about the very bad conditions in Laboria Park. We may have to consider giving the hon member emergency housing outside of that dangerous area. I once visited the hon member to see for myself. I must tell him that the inhabitants of Akasiapark are also complaining. They maintain that this House has better accommodation than they have. However, I will let the department have a look at the hon member’s house as well as that of the hon member …

All houses!

Very well, at all the houses. The hon member can invite me for tea, especially when he has chocolate cake, so that we can have a look at the house. [Interjections.] Whisky would be even better.

Order! Now hon members and the hon the Minister are conducting the discussion, and I am merely sitting here. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I am sorry, Sir, we shall include you in the discussion too. [Interjections.] The hon member also said that perhaps we should call the department the Department of Muscle Power. That is a good suggestion. With all the training we provide, perhaps we should call it the Department of Brain Power.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis made a point in connection with the training of unemployed people and Bifsa. I merely want to say that the Department of Manpower and Bifsa have come to an agreement to train people for the self-help building scheme. During the 1987-88 financial year, for example, 15% of all people who were trained were trained for the informal sector, whereas another 24% were trained for the selfhelp housing scheme. During the 1986-87 financial year, these figures were only 5% and 13% respectively. I want to assure the hon member that we regard the self-help building scheme in a very positive light. I think it is one of the ways in which one can provide quicker relief more cheaply than in the case of the conventional kind of housing.

The hon member also mentioned the fact that exemption is usually granted from the Industrial Council’s regulations—in other words deregulation—so that those projects can be dealt with more quickly and are not hampered by unnecessary red tape and unnecessary industrial council provisions.

I want to come back to the hon member for Bethelsdorp. He referred to accommodation for the South African Police.

†The hon member for Bethelsdorp pointed out that in some areas a house costs R100 000 and in other areas just R35 000. Let me say, first of all, that my Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is a service department and does not determine the priorities of other departments. We only advise them. We are merely a servant— to put it that way—of all the general affairs departments. The own affairs departments have their own works departments and the provinces also have works departments. When other departments, after having done the exploratory work, point out the need for specific accommodation or whatever, we merely advise them as to the feasibility of such a project. Big differences in house prices such as those mentioned by the hon member are sometimes due to the fact that in some areas there are no services such as water, electricity and sewerage available. The department then has to provide those services which cost a great deal of money. That is the main reason for the price differences between various housing schemes. Where there is a developed township, people only buy the erven, but where there is no development streets, street lights, water, sewerage etc have to be provided by the department and these services cost money.

As far as the Police are concerned, I do not know whether there are differences in the standards of their housing. We as a department merely render the service according to their wishes. The Department of Law and Order allocates its money as it wishes. I have no say in the matter. We merely render a service.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp also mentioned other projects. I am not sure of all the details in respect of what the hon member mentioned and therefore, with his permission, I should like to reply to him in writing.

*The hon member for Hawston expressed his thanks for the fine police station we built there. I appreciate that. The hon member said we should make more use of local labour when we grant tenders. I can merely tell him that a great deal of pressure has been exerted on us, when we undertake projects in the rural areas, to consider only tenders from that region. We must not consider tenderers from other areas. Of course the final decision is taken by the Treasury and the Department of Finance, because the Tender Board falls under them. This matter has been considered very thoroughly in co-operation with the department, however. The argument was that if there was a great deal of unemployment locally, we should erect State buildings there and expedite the programmes. In most cases, however, one finds that the local tenderer is a small businessman and that his tender is much higher than that of the medium-sized or larger enterprises, and in many cases the local tenderers cannot do specialised work. Nevertheless, we encourage them to tender.

What usually happens is that when they receive the tenders, they get their core group of workers together, the artisans for example, and hire less skilled people from the area. They have an incentive for this practice, because this eliminates the housing problem for the workers while they are doing that work. We encourage these people. The Treasury was most insistent, however, that we should grant preference to the lowest tender for the work. As hon members know, there could be very serious financial implications if we did not follow that policy. It would mean that a specific structure would cost much more, which in turn would mean that one would be able to provide fewer services and that it would take longer to erect school buildings, police stations, etc.

The hon member also wanted to know why the number of officials in service was increased once the housing function had been devolved to own affairs administrations. The hon member was referring to the wrong paragraph, however, and he must look at page 26 of the annual report in which the 100% housing loan scheme is discussed. This will indicate how the number of applications for loans escalates every year. That is why extra staff is necessary, because the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs administers this 100% housing loan to public servants.

I also want to refer the hon member to page 23 of the report. There is a table at the bottom of the page which indicates the registrations in towns of the Black population groups in particular. If the hon member looks at this, he will understand why the number of officials cannot be reduced, but should rather be increased. It is because of the enormous increase in the volume of work despite the fact that the other functions have been devolved to the own affairs administrations.

I now come to the hon member for Diamant, and I should like to furnish him with an answer today. He and one of his colleagues—whom I shall not mention—came to see me last year and made a moving appeal in connection with a military base, 3 SACC Battalion in Kimberley. I want to inform the hon member that the remaining sections 17 and 2 of the farm Roodepan, which cover 232 ha, were expropriated on 18 March 1988 and we took possession of the property on 31 March 1988. We are still involved in negotiations about the price. If we cannot agree on a price, expropriation will have to take place and the courts will have to decide on a fair price.

The military base is being developed on a section of the property which covers approximately 75 ha. The remaining parts will probably be utilised for township development at a later stage. The whole 232 ha had to be expropriated, since the owner would have been left with an uneconomic unit otherwise. In such cases we expropriate the whole property and try to make use of it or sell it later. An initial consideration was to establish the base to the south of Kimberley, on existing land which had been granted to the SA Defence Force. Upon the request of the local MP, Mr L C Abrahams, and the local authority, it was decided to develop the base to the north-west of Kimberley, adjacent to the existing Coloured area. This was done so that closer cultural and other bonds could be established with the existing Coloured community.

A further reason was that the southern bases— the bases to the south of Kimberley—have limited services which would have had to be upgraded at great expense in order to provide these services. The local authority offered their cooperation in providing the necessary feeder services and the planning of the base will be submitted to the local authorities for their cognisance. I can also mention that the department is working very hard so that tenders for the first development phase can be called for as early as September. In the first phase provision is being made for the nuclear buildings such as a mess and sickbay for the whole base and sleeping quarters for a thousand troups.

The first phase will be taken into use in January 1989. The next two phases—each for a thousand men—will be developed during the following two years. The present estimated cost of this project amounts to R650 million. Once again I want to thank the hon member for his intervention in that connection which resulted in this base’s being located in a much better position.

The hon member said they know me as someone who can sometimes differ sharply in politics. That may be so, Sir, but I learnt my politics in the harsh Northern Transvaal and, as hon members know, things are rather rough there these days. [Interjections.] Hon members know that we have a few tough opponents there. Nevertheless, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going”. My motto is that I do not hit back, but hit first. [Interjections.]

Things are different here.

Yes, things are different here; at least I have friends here.

I want to carry on. The hon member for Steinkopf boasted with his hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. For the information of the House, I can say that this hon Minister serves on the co-ordinating committee with the other Ministers who are responsible for housing. He makes an exceptional contribution in that connection, and I can assure the House that he is a real champion for the improvement of the housing of the people of this Administration. We work together very well. I think that at the moment, now that we are co-ordinating the whole housing question on a national basis, we are negotiating for a certain amount of money for the State which we can then divide according to where the need is greatest, and in that way we are making progress.

I shall set out one of the problems to hon members. Naturally my department does not have executive functions there. We participate only on a co-ordinating basis. We merely monitor the matter and report to the Cabinet every three months.

There are certain problems, however, of which land is one. Sometimes there is doubt about the land’s geological formation, and then one has to drill first. There are also problems sometimes when it comes to obtaining certain services. We confront all those points, however, including the question of township establishment. With the co-operation that exists at the moment, we are accelerating the housing campaign.

Another important point which I have noticed in this campaign is that where people previously rented houses which were built by the National Housing Fund, we now give those people very favourable terms if they want to purchase those houses. It is strange that when someone rents a house, he is inclined to complain about it; the moment he buys that house, however, he begins to fix the house himself. In this way one changes a dissatisfied tenant into a satisfied tenant and proud home-owner. It is important that the State, including this Administration’s Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, has done a great deal to promote home-ownership in that they sold the housing which had been built by the National Housing Fund to the present tenants on extremely favourable terms.

Order! I apologise for interrupting the hon the Minister, but the hon member for Bethelsdorp would like to put a question.

Certainly, Sir. I am sorry, but I did not see the hon member.

Mr Chairman, does this apply to the tenants of Laboria Park, and does it mean that they have to buy their houses? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Chief Whip is so dissatisfied about that house of his, I shall certainly consider selling it to him. [Interjections.] I merely want to make the point that there are extremely favourable terms for purchasing houses. I do not know the conditions off-hand, but if a house that someone has rented or is renting—many of those houses are quite old—has structural faults such as problems with the foundations and so on, the purchaser immediately gets a 65% discount on the house. Then there is a 25% discount for cash. The period for which the person has lived in the house is taken into account, and there are extremely favourable conditions of payment. I have just got the conditions from the hon the Deputy Minister, which shows what a good Deputy Minister can mean to one.

We give a 65% discount for structural faults; 25% if the dwelling is bought for cash; 5% if the prospective purchaser has rented the house from the local authority for five years or longer, and 5% if it is purchased within the special sales campaign period.

That is giving it away!

One can almost say it is giving it away. It is very interesting to see that the Coloured population group is making use of this system on a very large scale, and I think this is thanks among other things to the serious attempts the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives is making. The new rental formula is going to be much more favourable than the old rental formula, because … [Interjections.] In certain cases it is not more favourable, but this matter is being reconsidered seriously. I merely want to say that the old system is not a fair one, because it does not really take the financial capacity of the purchaser into account. The people have been given certain rights now, however, since they will have to pay more when the new system is implemented. The Ministers’ Committee will investigate this matter. We do not want to antagonise anyone; in fact we want to make it possible for them to buy houses. [Interjections.]

One can permit those who are paying in terms of the old formula at the moment to carry on doing so, but one can make all new purchasers pay according to the new formula. Then they will not be able to complain, because they will not be deprived of any existing right. I can assure hon members, however, that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is investigating this matter very carefully, and we should like to do our best to satisfy everyone in that connection.

I should like to conclude by telling hon members that once again I have enjoyed being here. I may have offended hon members in some cases, and perhaps they did the same thing, but I like that. After all, they say, “Cowboys don’t cry; especially not in front of their horses.” There is nothing better than a good political fight; it keeps all of us on our toes. I also want to thank hon members for their contributions in the standing committee.

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

Certainly, Sir, there are so many questions that I have to answer at home, that I am just as willing to do so here.

The hon the Minister is reaching the end of his reply and this is the second time I have asked the question about that land at Steenberg, which is overgrown with bush and what not. Perhaps the hon the Minister could give me some sort of assurance on that.

My apologies, Sir, I missed out on that question. I will ask the department for an immediate investigation into the matter and we will try to furnish the hon member with an answer during the course of the next week. Will that satisfy the hon member? I am sorry, but the hon member’s question slipped my mind. It is not always easy to succeed in making all one’s points.

*Once again I want to thank hon members for their contributions in the standing committee, and for the good spirit that prevails in relations with the hon members of the LP in the Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs in particular. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the group that deals with public works. I think we are making progress. Everyone is making his contribution in his own way, and I should like to wish this House every success for the future.

Debate concluded.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Secretary to Parliament in which he asks leave to retire on pension with effect from 1 October 1988. The letter will be referred to the Rules Committee.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! I want to request the hon Whips to see to it that a list of speakers is available on the Table before the start of proceedings. I am at a loss as to where to start.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to take the opportunity of welcoming the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation. It is the first time that he participates in this debate on his new portfolio. He is very well-known to us and he is most welcome here this morning.

For too long the economy has been plagued by the misallocation and inefficient use of resources to the growth of State bureaucracy and the increased irregulations in the economy. The distortion of resource allocations can only have a negative impact on the creation of employment and the growth of the economy. It is therefore with cautious optimism that we review the policy of deregulation and privatisation as propagated by the hon the State President. I say “cautious” because there are many obstacles to be overcome if such a policy is to succeed. I say “optimism” because of the known ability of the hon the State President to carry policies in which he believes through to their conclusion.

The effective privatisation of parastatals coupled with deregulation leads to a more optimal allocation of resources. Subsidisation and even more important, cross-subsidisation, will be reduced. Competition will lead to greater efficiency and the realisation that benefits such as job security and periodic remuneration increments are no longer a right but need to be earned, will have a marked effect on productivity.

A few words of caution are, however, required. Vested interests, in an attempt to maintain the status quo, will be a strong force against privatisation.

Privatisation must lead to the decentralisation of ownership and control, and not encourage the opposite. The White Paper clearly states what have largely been accepted as valid criteria for privatisation. Consideration is given to reasons why privatisation should not occur. However, it is more important to seek means of overcoming obstacles to privatisation.

This further serves to highlight the need for ongoing, meaningful consultation with the private sector. To be effective, therefore, privatisation requires the support of all concerned parties, not only Government and employers but also trade unions and the public at large.

Privatisation and deregulation, while having some benefits in the short term, will mainly be felt in the medium to long term. Short term cyclical problems can largely be dealt with given the correct mix of fiscal and monetary policy. We have already seen the implementation of the monetary targets for 1988-89 and the South African Reserve Bank has shown every intention of defending these targets through the control of interest rates.

The link between excessive money supply growth and inflation is indisputable and it is therefore encouraging to see the efforts of Government to bring this economic ill under control.

As indicated in the 1988-89 Budget, it is the Government’s intention to limit expenditure growth to below the inflation rate. Administered prices have so far been kept in check, as the Post Office and South African Transport Services budgets have shown. Yet, possibly the strongest indication of the Government’s intention is evident in the freeze placed on public sector wages despite an election looming on the horizon. I am talking about the local government election. The political consequences of such a move may only have raised their head during the recent byelections in a number of constituencies in the Transvaal.

The Government has shown its willingness to tackle the country’s economic problems. It is therefore with some justification that a plea for co-operation by the private sector as well as trade unions and private individuals has been issued. The question is therefore: To what extent can the private sector and trade unions, and more especially industry, comply with this request?

Since 1981 the manufacturing industry has been faced with declining and fluctuating production volumes. This has ensured the need to improve efficiency and decrease overheads. Many industries have found the adjustment impossible and have bowed to financial pressures whilst others have only just managed to survive. Despite this, the growth in the Government sector has been evident and in many cases has been at the expense of the private sector.

Coming back to privatisation itself, I want to touch on a few aspects of privatisation. I must also tell hon members that the hon the Ministers’ Vote includes privatisation. It also includes the Commission for Administration and the improvement of conditions of service. I am not going to touch on all three of these aspects. I shall only touch on the aspects of deregulation. In this regard I appeal to the hon the Minister to give some thought to some of the priorities in his effective deregulation programme.

There are a number of alternative criteria for determining the most effective targets and priorities in a programme of privatisation and deregulation. These include, in ranking order, not easily saleable assets and services and areas of higher demand escalation which the State cannot meet, for example, health care, education and low income housing, for the greatest economic impact to revitalise the economy and to stimulate the job and entrepreneurship creation potential of the country. The financial organisations believe that while each of these are important, the priority rating for South Africa is from the last to the first of the above.

The next major question is: What is the best method of achieving the transfer of assets from the State to the private sector? This is a complex issue. The type of State assets which classify as services which may be privatised and deregulated differ widely. There are also differences between the levels of government, from central Government functions to municipalities and even the para-statal level, which needs to be considered. Assets and services can also be divided on a regional basis and this also needs to be considered.

For all of these reasons privatisation has to be achieved on a case-by-case-basis through a series of institutions extending from the local to national level. The overall programme for privatisation and deregulation must be controlled at Cabinet-level by a Cabinet committee, on which I know the hon the Minister serves, and which is responsible for overall policy guidelines and the monitoring of the progress of this strategy. The central economic advisory service should provide the necessary economic input to the Cabinet committee to ensure that privatisation and deregulation are fully integrated with the overall economic strategy and the White Papers on industry, agriculture, energy, etc. The overall responsibility for the implementation of the programme will rest with the Ministry in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Privatisation and the central economic advisory services in the Office of the State President.

The Cabinet committee and the responsible Minister should be required to act on matters relating to privatisation and deregulation after receiving advice from a permanent independent advisory council on privatisation and deregulation. The council should be broadly representative of Government departments and should include the Competitions Board, the Commission for Administration, the organised private sector, consumer organisations—including Black consumer groups which we must not forget—and trade unions. These should all act as representatives of the organisations nominating them for appointment by the hon the Minister. The council should function under a permanent and independent chairman and should be served by a dedicated professional secretariate of officials seconded from the civil service for a specified task and term. The council should appoint central working groups and a task force, and advise on the privatisation of specific areas, such as health, education, etc. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak on the Vote of my colleague, the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation.

The State has, over the years, expounded the idea of privatisation and deregulation where regulations impede the economic progress of our beloved country. I want to join the hon member for Laudium in extending a welcome to the hon the Minister to this House as the hon Minister commissioned with administration. I want to say to him: “Vat horn, Dawie.”

Privatisation is in the hands of the capable hon Minister and the administration officials under him, who are dedicated to their task and show tremendous interest in the advancement of private enterprise as well as looking at State enterprise and what can be privatised.

I am aware of the Competitions Board which is looking at this issue. However, privatisation should not necessarily lead to monopolisation. We should avoid the big fish coming in to eat the small fish. We need to be guarded as far as this is concerned. We have examples of big enterprises that are monopolising the country. In the UK, particularly, and other European countries we find large companies which grab everything they can. They only have their own interests at heart— not that of the country or small businessmen who also want to enter the field of the economy. This is my plea: We need to be guarded as to what we offer for privatisation, how it is offered and to what extent it is offered.

We in the Cabinet are also very concerned about the high rate of inflation. In the last year or eighteen months we have tried to arrest the situation. We have managed to bring down the inflation rate. We need to monitor the situation carefully, and try to have an even lower inflation rate. According to economists, increases in the interest rates will certainly affect the inflation rate. The higher the interest at which one borrows money, the higher the cost of the end product. That certainly will affect the consumer, too.

I do not want to advocate price control, although price control already exists under some Act of 1963. However, the State has to be very careful of sharks who want to take advantage of the situation. I think this matter falls under the hon the Minister of Finance, but is very important that we do not allow interest rates to escalate to such an extent that the end user has to pay for the high costs of such products.

What does privatisation really mean? It means a joint partnership between the State and the private sector with their large financial resources. The private sector has a very important task to perform in this country in relation to the creation of job opportunities for a ever-increasing population. The Commission for Administration has under its fold deregulation. However, I wish to take up the point made by the hon member for Laudium.

There are so many regulations in this country which impede the progress of business people in certain economic spheres. The sooner the Competitions Board goes out into the field and asks for some kind of evidence as to what people would like to have eradicated in the way of regulations that impede progress, the better it would be for all parties concerned. I made this point last year in a similar debate.

The local authorities in this country are the greatest impeders of progress by their town planning schemes. The small businessmen are very much hampered. The local authorities bylaws need to be looked at. If a person with a home industry makes an honest living out of his own initiative, he should not be stopped simply because the local authority bylaws prohibit this kind of activity in a person’s kitchen or home.

Every person who makes an honest living of that kind is self-sufficient. He helps to alleviate the situation of job seekers. This is an important point which I want my hon colleague to take cognisance of.

A further point I wish to make concerns the title deeds which in days of old were written in such a way that nothing could be done on properties, even vast acreages, where it was stated that this was only for a certain group and for a certain requirement. Unfortunately that was even more so the situation in Natal. Here the Crown policy of the English people dictated in their title deeds their rights in certain stipulations. Despite the fact that one can go to the Administrator and appeal against such a title deed or for the removal of their restrictions, it remains difficult. The hon the Minister’s department concerned with deregulation should look at that situation.

I would like to end off by saying to my hon colleague and his administration that this House is indeed very appreciative of the assistance and the service that has been rendered to us by the Commission of Administration. They have a proud record and they only consider merit when posts are allocated to people. Therefore this House is very appreciative of the very human service that the Commission for Administration is giving this House. It is also a proud tribute to the Commission for Administration that since the recent past they do not look at people to see to which colour group they belong. Merit is the consideration and this is what the country needs for forward mobility; the man for the job and all things being equal.

Mr Chairman, in this debate we are dealing with a department which is also responsible for the Public Service. This service comprises a very large number of people. Having regard to what has been stated by the hon the State President, that one of the essential requirements and something which should become a way of life in South Africa is the need to promote productivity on the part of everyone, I believe productivity is something which we all should be concerned about and to which we should commit ourselves anew each day. I believe it is abundantly clear that unless we have productivity, much of the ills that permeate our society will continue to be there and we will address these issues from time to time without attempting to find a solution.

I believe that productivity is not related to a machine operator or to a factory worker. Productivity is an all-embracing philosophy to which a nation should commit itself so that collectively, by our contribution, whether as public servants or as employees at different levels in the whole facet of economic and commercial activity, we are seen to be making a contribution, or else a country like South Africa will not be able to execute the many programmes that are envisaged for the forward mobility of our people, with special emphasis on the developing and undeveloped sectors.

When I say productivity I am referring to everyone in this country. This is not something that is directed at a particular sector of our population. It is a philosophy that must be imbibed by every South African at whatever level he enters the workplace.

It is a well-known fact that in those countries where people work and produce there is prosperity and progress. In spite of living in a highly-competitive world the Japanese come up with new surprises every month. They will continue to do so because their work ethic and approach is directed towards realising national goals and national goals are the first priority in that country.

I now want to come to privatisation. To some people this seems to be the cure to all our ills, but unfortunately that is not so. Privatisation in the UK and in the USA has a different meaning to privatisation in South Africa. I believe that having regard for the fact that our country comprises an underdeveloped sector, a developing sector and a developed sector, these criteria justify that any plans for privatisation to which we are committed must be carried out in such a fashion that it has the desired effect and carries forward the benefits to all sectors of our population. I just want to cite an example: The Post Office is responsible for the extension of telephone lines. There may be a community that has settled very far from existing services. The private sector will only consider that if it is a profitable operation, but the Post Office accepts that as a responsibility and a duty to the nation. It therefore extends that service at a charge which is reasonable to the consumer and that has been going on since 1948 after the NP came into power on the high priority programme to make a telephone available to every farmer. In terms of money that must have cost a fortune. If it had been charged at the price at which those services were executed, many of those farmers would not have had such an essential service. I therefore make that point not to argue against privatisation, but I say that there are certain fundamental requirements that have to be addressed. The philosophy of privatisation is not a paint-brush that one just uses to cover the whole wall. That would also have its negative repercussions.

The other point that I want to make is that I believe the hon the State President has made a commitment that deregulation is intended to remove in an orderly fashion historical practices, much of it enshrined in law, that militate against progress and in fact serve as an effective impediment to the realisation of certain goals and ideals on the part of people.

I believe it is the duty of all of us to direct these problems from time to time to the responsible ministry so that they have an idea of the nature of the problems that different people and different communities in different places have to contend with so that in the course of the foreseeable future we shall obtain relief with regard to many of these matters.

As the hon the Minister of the Budget mentioned, there are restrictions on the usage of land and unless people are aware that these matters could be remedied, they will have to live with it. Most people are unaware of what is being attempted and of what has been achieved thus far.

I think the process of deregulation calls for the examination of much of the provincial legislation with the view to identifying aspects of that legislation which have a historic discriminatory content. My hon colleague mentioned that the colonial rulers certainly introduced restrictions on the mobility of people of colour. It is important that we undertake such an investigation to eradicate where possible these onerous conditions which are costly and time-consuming to people.

On the other hand I want to say that I welcome deregulation in every form. However, I want to warn that we must not go into this holus-bolus. Let us learn from the mistakes of many other countries. The matter has pluses and minuses and as a nation we must avoid the errors made by other people. We must go about it in such a way that it will bring good to all the people that comprise our nation. We must take care that the infrastructural development which is intended for the forward mobility for all our people is not restrained or restricted in any way.

Mr Chairman, I am privileged to appear here this morning. Not only is it the first time that I appear in my new responsibility as the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, but it is also my first opportunity to participate in a debate in this very attractive and efficient Chamber. One can compare the debate this morning to something that we experience in nature, namely the calm after the storm of the night before. [Interjections.] I can say that this debate is pouring oil on the stormy waters of this Chamber.

Come back this afternoon!

I am well aware of the fact that I only took over my new responsibilities five or six weeks ago and that I still have a great deal to learn. It is in that spirit that I have listened to the hon members. I appreciate their contributions and I look forward to many constructive debates in this House on these subjects. I am convinced that in so far as administration, privatisation, deregulation and competition policies are concerned, there can be little difference of opinion between us. Let us then make contributions of the nature that we have experienced this morning which will enable us to really achieve our objectives in these fields.

A functional and effective State administration is to the benefit of all. I would like to make a few remarks about the public service and privatisation within the public service before I respond to hon members in broader terms with regard to the process of privatisation in general.

We have a very loyal corps of public servants. They often serve South Africa under extremely difficult circumstances and they deserve the gratitude of the whole of South Africa. They can be found in almost all walks of life and geographical areas—from the borders of this country to the South Pole, in the self-governing areas, in the TBVC-countries and abroad where they manage and serve in our foreign offices. They are right across the world to protect our interests.

I would like to assure them today that although there has been no general salary increase for public servants this year, the Government will not forget them when the general economy improves. I am encouraged by the developments in the economy, and so the sacrifices they have made will certainly be worthwhile in the long term.

I also wish to comment briefly on the role of public servants from a somewhat different angle. It strikes me that the core of public servants is an extremely important stabilising factor in any society. May I, Mr Chairman, briefly elaborate on this point? The stabilising influence provided by State officials derives in the first place from the main functions which have been entrusted to them: The protection of the country and its people; the creation of order in society; and the many, many programmes of a social and economic nature which contribute to the development of this country. In that way, they make a tremendous contribution to stability in South Africa.

Of course, stability is important in any country, but even more so in a country in transition, like our country. We are experiencing major changes, not only at the socio-economic level but also at the political level, and for that reason it is important that we must be able to rely on a very stable and loyal Public Service. In that regard I am delighted to say that my experience for almost seven to eight years as a Minister has convinced me that we can really be proud of our public servants.

A number of members have made remarks about privatisation. I shall come back to them, but one must understand that apart from the privatisation of State enterprises—the State’s economic enterprises and State corporations, the possible privatisation of Escom and Foscor and Iscor—there are also many activities and functions performed by departments that could perhaps be privatised. The Commission for Administration is at present engaged in evaluating the functions performed by all departments in an effort to establish whether there are functions that could be transferred to the private sector.

Numerous investigations are currently taking place in this regard; they are being undertaken by the commission and by a task force under the supervision of the commission in order to make progress in that respect.

Detailed privatisation plans, however, require thorough investigation and in addition it takes time to complete these investigations and to take the necessary decisions. However, I can already refer to a number of activities that have been privatised or are in the process of being privatised.

Within the agricultural sector, for example, approximately thirteen activities have been investigated and are in the process of being privatised. Road construction and maintenance as well as Government motor transport, have been investigated and privatisation plans are being compiled. Investigations are being conducted into the rendering of horticultural services; the operation of nurseries, building services; and various other activities.

Generally speaking, it would appear that substantial room for privatisation in Government departments exists. There is however, a large portion of the public sector that must still be attended to.

Privatisation affords the population the opportunity to participate in the capitalist system by means of shareholding and the performance of activities for their own account. I said yesterday in the House of Assembly that one can certainly raise many arguments in favour of privatisation. However, one that particularly appeals to me is the advantage of giving a larger part of the economy to people.

As a matter of fact, someone said that we should give the economy back to the people through a process of privatisation. We should reduce the role played by the Government and let people make their own decisions. Ordinary people, I believe, want that responsibility. They want to work to achieve things, and they detest the fact that they are often held back by restrictions and a host of measures that do not allow them to be true entrepreneurs. This is particularly true of the smaller businessman who very often finds himself up against a wall of restrictions. I therefore appreciate the remarks made by various hon members with regard to deregulation. We would certainly like to make more progress in that field and we are engaged in many actions in an effort to make further progress in that field.

In that respect, of course, we also face the reality that in many fields the responsibility for those regulations does not lie with the central Government but with local government. We shall therefore have to inform them and encourage, persuade and assist them to remove unnecessary restrictions. In that regard I am quite optimistic that we will make progress. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the Provincial Administrations. We are looking at the licensing procedures in a host of areas and I hope that we shall be able to make meaningful progress in that field because if we can change the licensing procedures in many fields, then we shall already have removed many of the restrictions that impede the progress of the small businessman.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred, as did my colleagues the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon member for Laudium, to the fact that privatisation must enable the employee to participate. That is certainly a very important aspect of privatisation. As I have said, one can quote many examples of successful privatisation programmes in the world today. It is not only the United Kingdom that has had success in this regard. Many countries, including smaller countries, developing countries and even what one would call socialist countries, have followed the route of privatisation with great success.

I read with great interest the other day a report on a speech made by Minister Ronnie Dumel, the Finance Minister of Sri Lanka. He explained the progress made in regard to privatisation in that country and the huge successes they have already achieved. I should just like to read the following paragraph from his speech to the House:

That was said by the Minister of Finance of Sri Lanka. Therefore, Mr Chairman, it is not only in the United Kingdom that a policy of privatisation has worked and has worked well for the economy. There are many examples. Moreover, we are not pursuing a policy of privatisation because it is in vogue or because it has been successful in the United Kingdom.

As a matter of fact, our situation differs completely from that in the UK. In the UK an active policy of nationalisation was followed since the thirties. Various governments, particularly Labour Party governments, increased the hold of the public sector in that country. In many respects, the privatisation of industries in that country today is merely to return to the private sector what belonged to the private sector. Our history differs completely from that of the UK, so we will have to follow different approaches and methods. The hon member for Laudium, and I think also the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, referred to methods. We will have to consider each individual case carefully, on its own merits and apply different methods for each.

The important reason is again to improve the efficiency, not only of these enterprises, but also of the economy in general. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about productivity. Certainly it is of great important to improve productivity in this country, but it can be improved through competition and by moving public sector enterprises and activities to the private sector.

It is often said today, and it is an accepted fact worldwide, that state-owned and state-managed commercial and industrial activities have a poor performance record. Criticisms are continuously voiced about the low return of capital employed, the poor price record, poor productivity and utilisation of manpower and the low level of customer-satisfaction. The reasons for these shortcomings are complex. They are not in the first instance the fault of management. I believe many of these enterprises have excellent management. The problem lies with the system. Within the public sector they are sheltered from the discipline of the market. Within the public sector they do not compete on the same level for capital and other resources with the private sector. They get State-guaranteed loans and they have other advantages within that sheltered environment.

What is also important in this respect, is that these activities which fall within the ambit of the State, are often open to political and bureaucratic interference. In many cases the social and commercial objectives of these enterprises become confused and that makes it extremely difficult for management to really run an efficient enterprise. Therefore, the original rationale for privatisation was to improve the efficiency of these commercial activities. The way to do this was to expose them to the rigours of the marketplace. This of course does not only imply privatisation, but also deregulation, in order to introduce more competition. We can never talk about privatisation or deregulation without keeping in mind that the main objective is to improve the competitiveness in the marketplace.

I believe that there are many important reasons why we should continue this programme in South Africa. If I can plead for one thing, it is that we should really not turn privatisation into a political football. We should really contribute to make this policy work, because in the long run it is certainly to the advantage of all South Africans and the economy as a whole and we will all benefit from this policy.

In the little time available to me, I would like to respond briefly to hon members and their contributions. Perhaps before I do that, there is one other point I would like to raise again.

This is often a discussion point in public and also in the Press. That concerns the participation of other population groups in the public service. Let me immediately say that the public service is not only manned by members of the White population. No sir, our officials come from the ranks of all population groups.

According to the most recent analysis, approximately 4% of the officials in Government departments are Indians. This figure emphasises the role played by the Indian officials in State administration. In the administrative occupations, the other population groups—and the Indian population group, in particular—have moved ahead with rapid strides in recent years. This can be ascribed to a large degree to the employment policy and practices applied in the own affairs administrations.

Substantial and gratifying upward mobility is taking place in these administrations, as well as in general affairs departments. In the Administration: House of Delegates approximately 90% of all posts are occupied by members of the Indian population group. Almost 800 Indian officers are receiving salaries in excess of R40 000 per annum, whilst approximately 19 Indian occupy posts in the management echelons which are salarywise on management level. Of these officials, five are employed in the Administration: House of Representatives, six in the Department of National Health and Population Development and four in the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal.

In order to promote the upward mobility of Indian personnel, a full-scale investigation into the staff position of the Administration: House of Delegates was conducted during 1985. One of the aims of the investigation was to determine the quality of personnel with a view to possibly more rapid advancement. A reasonable percentage of the officers evaluated were considered suitable for promotion to the next higher level of grading. It can, nevertheless, be accepted that progress for top achievers will in future will be more rapid as a result of the establishment of the own affairs administration and the employment policy which allows Indians preferential claims on posts of their own administrations.

I would like to thank the hon member for Laudium and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for their words of congratulations. I appreciate their good wishes. I have dealt with some of the matters raised by the hon member for Laudium. He expressed concern about the large participation of Government in the economy, and I fully agree with the hon member. This was spelt out in great detail in the White Paper. I would like to refer the hon member to paragraph 2.2.3 of the White Paper. I think two very important points were made in this respect. Rather worrying statistics are given in those paragraphs. I would like to summarise them, and I quote:

That is far too high. However, what is even more worrying, is the next paragraph, and I quote:

That is far in excess of what is acceptable. The objective is really to roll back Government, to give the private sector an opportunity to play their rightful role, to make the economy more competitive, and in that way to reduce costs and the burden on the taxpayer.

The objectives and the purpose of privatisation are further spelt out in the White Paper, and I should like to advise hon members once again to read that White Paper. I have done so recently, and I can assure them that there are very interesting and sound statistics in that White Paper.

The hon member referred to methods. I have dealt with that. He also requested a council for privatisation. Perhaps I should briefly respond to that suggestion. The fact is that the Cabinet privatisation committee serves as a clearing house. However, one must remember that various departments bear the responsibility for the activities under their jurisdiction, as do various hon Ministers. My hon colleague here, the hon the Minister of Communications, bears the responsibility for those activities under his jurisdiction. However, we co-operate closely and we co-ordinate activities as far as privatisation is concerned.

The method that we follow is the following. In the Department and the Ministry of Administration and Privatisation we have put together a small team of experts drawn from the private sector. They will form the nucleus for co-ordination activity. They will participate in the teams already appointed by the various enterprises and will tie in with the privatisation experts of my colleague the hon the Minister of Communications, as they will do with the SATS team. In the same way they will be in close liaison and will be part of the team of Iscor and Foskor, etc. Thus we keep a small group of experts in the Ministry in order to co-ordinate these activities in close cooperation with all the Ministers.

I think that the appointment of a council would make the whole process far too cumbersome. We want to be very efficient and we want to draw as much expertise from the private sector as possible. I think we are successful in that regard.

I thank my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget, also for his kind and appreciative words as regards the Commission for Administration. They do sterling work and I support his remarks in that regard.

I just want to comment briefly on his reference to monopolies. That is certainly one of the pitfalls that we must avoid at all costs. Transferring assets from the public sector to the private sector must in no way further contribute to the considerable economic concentration in this country. So we are well aware of this difficulty, and I believe there are many useful methods that can be employed to avoid the problem. However, I can assure the hon member that we are well aware of that problem.

The issue of local authorities was raised by both the hon the Minister and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. As I stated earlier, we shall liaise with them, and I hope that we shall make meaningful progress in terms of deregulation at that level.

I think I have dealt with most of the salient points raised by hon members. In conclusion I should like to thank them for this very constructive debate and for their kinds words of encouragement, and I am looking forward to many useful and constructive debates on these subjects in this House.

Debate concluded.

Debate on Vote No 22—“Home Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for the fact that I can say something at the beginning of this debate.

Last night I made some notes about the debate that had already taken place in the other two Houses and I came to the conclusion that one of the benefits of this tricameral system of government is that I as Minister am given three opportunities to state my case during the Budget debate. For those who have to listen to me there is ample opportunity to prove me wrong.

I must say that they have failed to prove me wrong in the other two Houses, but the hon members of this House now have the opportunity in the final stage to do so.

A complicating factor is of course that the hon members were not present when I spoke in the other Houses and as Hansard is not available yet I assume that what hon members may have to say about my speeches in the other two Houses will stem from what they have heard on the radio, seen on the TV and read about in the Press. In all fairness, hon members must clear their minds of what they think, or what they have been given to understand, I have said. As responsible parliamentarians I am sure that they do not rely on what a colleague is said to have said. One must check before one speaks.

The impression may have been created that I am averse to the principle of freedom of expression and that I am anti-Press. If I go back to the time when I was the Administrator of Natal I can say that I know the Indian community better than most people and I do know that hon members have a particular knack of using freedom of expression. Hon members are people who say what they want to say and are not known to pull their punches. Now the opportunity is mine and I am going to say what I want to say.

I want to say something about the media terrorists to which I referred earlier this week. Who are they, or rather, what are they? They are instruments of conflict and destruction throughout the world, not only in South Africa. They are the people who do not have the guts if hon members will pardon my use of that word—I think it is parliamentary—to be terrorists themselves as it is too dangerous. They hide behind the protection of an editorial office to motivate others to do the dirty work for the sake of their selfish aims, like those people who try to impress the ordinary motorist with their expensive sports cars on public roads but do not have the courage to take up the challenge at Kayalami.

Media terrorists are those who try to use others to achieve the things that they are incapable of achieving themselves. It is an ego trip by dropouts from other fields of endeavour. I must say that such journalists—if one can call them that— are of less importance than they think they are. People of discretion and culture have no problem identifying them, but we owe it to each other to see them for what they are. We must elevate ourselves above such people and such thinking. Otherwise we are distracted from what all decent people are striving for in this country and what this Government is doing its best to bring about: Peace and tranquility where we live; the opportunity to share in what this country has to offer; to use our God-given talents; and—it sounds simple—just to be happy.

Therefore please do not be misguided into thinking that the Government and I are preoccupied with the emergency regulations. They are only part of the job we have to do and have been called upon to do. What do hon members think the situation in South Africa would have been without the emergency regulations? We all want it to terminate as soon as possible.

My appeal to hon members is this: In the face of all that confronts our country, let us be honest and sincere towards each other.

The Press in this country, by and large, is a very important factor in promoting our general welfare. I made that plain in the other Houses this week. I want hon members to divest themselves of the notion that the Government and I are in conflict with the Press as such. It is so that we are at loggerheads with that section of the Press which pleads peace but promotes conflict. However, we do have the highest regard for those sections of the Press who do not try to divide the people of this country but who use the power of their pens to unite us. I am sure hon members will agree with that sentiment.

An aspect of the media in the South African environment which has not been addressed in the Budget debates thus far is the role of the foreign Press. The Government has repeatedly indicated in the past that South Africa’s doors are open to persons with an objective approach to observe and to report what is happening in South Africa. During the past few years South Africa has been the focal point of the world news media. Things are happening in South Africa and where things happen the media will always be present. The media, however, has its own peculiar methods of interpreting events and certain sections of the foreign media capitalise on the South African situation. For this reason it is important that I place on record today the criteria in terms of which the foreign media may operate in South Africa.

The admission of any foreigner to any country is a privilege that can be bestowed upon a foreigner by the host country. It is not a right. If a host country, with all the facts and information at its disposal, is convinced that more negative than positive results will be the outcome of admission or continued sojourn of a foreign media representative or even a bureau, it is not only the host country’s right but also its duty to act in accordance with the best interests of the country.

A second very important principle is that of a foreigner’s responsibility. The foreign political correspondent is usually a nomad with no allegiance, accountability or responsibility towards the host country. As soon as he has completed his tour of duty, he is off to the next battlefield. We all know that there are many communicational and other misdemeanours which do not necessarily find redress in a court of law. The misdemeanours I am referring to are unbalanced reportage, advocacy journalism, material omissions, failure to obtain the other side of the story before going into print or broadcast, failure to rectify incorrect statements and the rendering of comment not based on all the facts or proper understanding of the facts. I am referring briefly to all the transgressions by acting outside the confines of the code of conduct designed for the South African media.

An aspect to be dealt with when considering the admission or extension of a work permit to a foreign correspondent, is the attitude and track record of the relevant foreign news medium. I thought hon members would be interested to know what criteria I use when deciding on these issues. Another important aspect is the track record of the individual concerned as well as the attitude that he displays.

We know only too well that we have various types of reporters today, as in any other profession. We still have the dedicated, objective journalist who sees his assignment as one of observing, informing and commenting in an objective, balanced and informed manner. We also have the emotive moraliser and advocate type of journalist who sees his task as that of promoting his own biased viewpoint to fulfil his own altruistic needs other than reporting and commenting intelligently on the realities. Advocacy journalism is not that new, but it is very much alive in South Africa. Be it original comment or a slanted summary, worse even is the skilled manipulation of communication to purposefully create predetermined effects.

Another pertinent question is whether the foreign representatives subscribe to the principles, the norms and ethics embodied in the South African media’s code of conduct. This code was drawn up by the media for the media. My Government supports the criteria portrayed in the code. If a foreign correspondent does not see his way clear to operating within the confines of the code, we are not likely to reach agreement on his admission or the continuation of his operation in South Africa.

An important consideration is the number of correspondents of a particular news network already active in South Africa. At times the motive for the admission of a foreign correspondent is not clear. This holds especially true when we are convinced that we have already allowed enough representatives who are capable of doing the job adequately.

The same test applies to a continued sojourn in South Africa. If any member of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association or any individual operating in the media field in South Africa does not see his or her way clear to fully subscribing to the media code of conduct, either the code or the individual must be wrong. At times I gain the impression that journalists want to enjoy all the status of the profession but are not prepared to accept the criteria for professionalism.

Professionalism includes inter alia the setting of minimum standards; the presentation of only responsible and competent comment, and the acceptance of discipline when members transgress the established norms and standards of conduct.

Having said this, I want to stress that South Africa does not want to be isolated from the world. On the other hand, if allowing a foreign reporter to operate from this country becomes counterproductive to the real interests of South Africa, we have but one choice and that is to take appropriate action. One-sided statements, the use of half truths and sensational reporting are not acceptable and could result in peaceful negotiations in this country being placed in jeopardy. No responsible government will allow hostile elements to sow unrest through their reporting, and action must therefore be taken against those who do so.

In this particular regard I wish to refer to CBS News. In particular I want to refer to the notorious documentary film, Children of Apartheid, made by CBS News. I have acquainted myself with all the relevant facts pertaining to the entry of those responsible for making this documentary and their actions within the boundaries of South Africa. I have no doubt that the persons responsible for making this documentary have transgressed their conditions of sojourn in South Africa.

The president of CBS News, Mr Howard Stringer, agreed from New York on 18 May— that was a few days ago—that the following Press release be made by me, and I now do so. I quote the release which I issued this morning as follows:

This statement was agreed to by Mr Howard Stringer, the President of CBS News.

Mr Chairman, I must say, after listening to the hon the Minister’s very informative statement, I feel a little embarrassed that I have not prepared myself to speak on that particular aspect. It is not that I deemed it to be of lesser importance. It is important, but a great deal has been said about the alternative media and the Press. In any event, I am grateful to the hon the Minister for having read that statement in this House.

As always, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and lest I forget, I want at the very outset to compliment the hon the Minister, the Director General and his very fine team on presenting a very informative report. Besides that I want to thank them for the very courteous and friendly manner in which representations from hon members of Parliament and members of the community have been attended to. We are very grateful for that.

The extent to which the Department of Home Affairs has grown, considering its varied functions and its personnel based both locally and overseas, leads me to believe that it could quite possibly be one of the largest departments. It is now more like a business conglomerate. Moreover, in view of the fact that the hon the Minister also wears another cap as Minister of Communications the problem of communication within the department has been alleviated.

The department’s policy of the humane application of legislation is very commendable. By this I mean that this department does not rigidly apply legislation as it appears in the literal sense. Their outlook is more than welcome because, as we all know, laws cannot be formulated to satisfy different views and requirements. They are framed in general terms.

The Department of Home Affairs, with its very courteous and considerate team, is assisting in finding answers to the many problems that arise from time to time. The introduction of people of colour to the Immigrant Selection Board has resulted in many families being re-united and many marriages being cemented and solemnized. The consideration of and respect for different cultural dictates is highly appreciated.

It is noteworthy that visa applications submitted for temporary residence permits are considered very, very favourably. For this, too, I wish to express my gratitude towards the department for a very unbiased approach when dealing with visa applications.

Many religious teachers from India are presently in South Africa with work permits. Here, too, the department’s recognition of the spiritual upliftment of our communities is noteworthy. I want to tell the hon the Minister that where religion exists, Communism fails. Nobody here in this House would like to see Communism prosper at the expense of religion. This attitude of allowing spiritual leaders to continue coming to South Africa to satisfy our spiritual needs is appreciated, commendable and lauded.

It also divides the community.

I do not believe that is true, Sir. That is a matter of opinion. Statistics contained in the department’s annual report confirm my submission.

A question I would like to ask of the hon the Minister is the following: How would he explain the issue of ID-documents and passports to persons who are in South Africa illegally? My concern is that illegal documents could possibly be issued to persons hostile to the Republic, and whose interest in obtaining a passport is simply to bring harm to South Africa. Has the department identified any of the so-called agents who, it is obvious, must have inside contacts to obtain passports and identity-documents illegally?

Over the last two decades or so there have been certain people who have entered the country and are, for all intents and purposes, residents of the country, although they are not naturalised South Africans. Many of these people are active participants in the economic life of our country. They have families and are not a burden upon anybody, least of all to the State. We believe—I do most certainly—that this de facto situation should be regularised. During November 1986 a statement was issued by the director-general, calling upon such people to come forward. Perhaps the hon the Minister can tell us what kind of reaction the department had to this call and if it would be possible for him to repeat this call once more by issuing a public statement. Such people are in our country as a result of circumstances beyond their control and I want to urge the department to consider applications from such people for permanent residence sympathetically.

Another issue which was raised last year by my colleague, the hon member for Actonville, is the question relating to Muslims or the callers to prayer. I think it was during November or December of last year that a meeting at the department’s office in Pretoria was convened to consider this very aspect. It was agreed then that the Jame-Utul-Ulema would act as an agent to coordinate all applications for this particular employment. Will the hon the Minister tell us whether this has proved successful?

We are aware that our authorities are very particular—and quite rightly so—as to who is permitted into the country, especially in view of the occurrence of AIDS in various countries of Africa. Most of these Muslims come from Malawi, and as was stated in Pretoria, it is historically so that the very Muslim of Islam was a Black Abysinian. It is also historically true that the Black Muslims—if I can call them so with no derogatory intentions—are the ones who are performing the duties of calling the faithful to prayer.

I appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to consider applications from Muslims or on behalf of Muslims very sympathetically. I also appeal to all Muslim institutions requiring the services of Muslims, to follow procedures laid down by the department by getting applications for work permits submitted before the Muslims arrive in this country. In this way many problems confronting both the authorities and Muslim congregations will be eradicated.

I see that my time is almost up and in terms of the new Rules governing debates I will not be permitted to proceed beyond ten minutes. I will therefore come back later to utilise the time which my party has at its disposal.

Mr Chairman, I agree partly with the hon member Mr Seedat, but I would not like to enter into a debate in this House. I am quite satisfied that the Department of Home Affairs is doing a thorough job in Durban.

However, I raised a point about revenue stamps at a previous occasion. The Director General did tell me that revenue stamps are available at the Department of Home Affairs, but they are not available at Stanger Street. It makes it very awkward for a person who applies for a duplicate ID. He has to stand in a queue, go to the post office and then has to come back again. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to have revenue stamps available at the offices in Stanger Street.

I wish to raise one more point, and that has to do with the renewal of passports. If one wants to renew one’s passport, one has to go through the same procedure one has to go through when one applies for a new one. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to simplify the renewal of passports.

Mr Chairman, when it comes to the Department of Home Affairs, I feel very much at home, particularly in view of the reception we get from the hon the Minister and his band of energetic men in his department, whether it is in the committee meetings or in their offices. Our problems and requests are handled with the utmost dignity. I wish to join the hon member Mr Seedat in expressing my kind thoughts to the Ministry and its officials.

Much has been said in this glorious report. It is indeed worthy of reading, but there are a few aspects in this report that worry me a little. On page 32, under the heading Occupational classification of immigrants and emigrants for the period 1 July 1986 to 31 December 1987, it says that 3 070 people have left the country, while 1 579 people entered the country. The loss to South Africa was 1 491. Similarly, under the heading, Managerial and administrative, one reads that 785 people left the country, while 617 came into the country. That leaves us with a deficit of 168. There are other aspects, but I do not want to go into too much detail.

What worries me is that this category of people achieved their academic success at State subsidised institutions in this country, such as universities and technicons. These subsidies, of course, comprise the tax payers’ contribution. My second concern is this: Why are they leaving the country? Is it the political situation in this country that is to blame, or is it that they are leaving for greener pastures in other countries?

If it is political instability, then I feel we should take stock of the situation and remedy it. As has been said, any political instability in any country is the downfall of the economic strength of that country. Therefore, these people who go out should be properly screened before they leave with regard to the reasons why they are leaving and stock should accordingly be taken of the remedies in this direction.

The hon the Minister made a statement this morning about the Press and the Media Council, and about CBS News in particular. I want to touch very briefly on this aspect. It must be accepted, as the hon the Minister also said, that the media serve an important function in any country because it is the media that relay to the public the information that is readily available every morning, evening or at midday. Therefore, any anomalies in their reporting on the state of affairs in the country should be taken stock of.

What does worry me, however, is the question as to whether we should continue to place further curbs on the media. There are enough avenues at this moment in time for recourse should there be some misdemeanours in so far as media reporting is concerned. Therefore, if it is the intention of the hon the Minister to introduce further legislation in order to curb such misdemeanours, I think he should have second thoughts about this because we have to take into account the fact that by discussing the problem in conjunction with the Media Council or the people responsible for the media, these anomalies can be ironed out very amicably. In that respect I think the hon the Minister has handled this matter very wisely with the CBS and I see that the responsible person at CBS has acceded to the statement made by the hon the Minister.

I was rather disturbed by this morning’s news when I heard that the hon the Minister might legislate for further curtailment of the news media. I am a little worried about that.

On the same note, I see that in relation to all the other aspects of visas that were either accepted or rejected, the media representatives ranked the highest. I wonder whether the department, in its discretion, found that quite a number of these media representatives were undesirable with regard to either leaving or entering the country. Here again I am concerned because the international community is mindful of things of this nature. Whilst we would like to protect our country and whilst we would like to ensure that the media conform to the norms and the policies of the Government, at the same time we must not leave ourselves open to criticism from other countries. I am concerned about this. Unfortunately, no mention is made here of why they were refused. It is not stated whether the application forms were not filled in properly or whether they were found to be unsuitable, and this does worry me a little.

Finally, in so far as the Electoral Act is concerned, I know that there is a special standing committee on this. I am concerned about many aspects of this Electoral Act, particularly special votes. The long periods allowed for special votes is a matter of concern. This leads to a lot of abuse. At the same time another aspect with regard to special votes is that, as far as affidavit votes are concerned, one has to identify a voter if he does not have his ID document. That is a matter of serious concern. It leaves a lot of room for criticism and I think that this is a matter that we have to look at very seriously. It has been mentioned that as a result of this people who are in another country have voted in a particular election. This leaves much room for criticism and I think that we should have a good look at this problem.

At the same time, post box addresses are given during elections. This is also another aspect I think we should look at. When one goes into the matter very deeply one finds the post boxes mostly do not exist. These are aspects for the committee and I think we should look into them very seriously before it gets out of hand.

With these words I have no difficulty in supporting this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I cannot but agree with the hon member for Bayview when he says that the special vote system as it exists at the present time is open to abuse and has been severely abused in many of the elections and by-elections that we have had in the Indian community. Therefore I should like to support him when he says that the hon the Minister and his department ought to look at that very closely.

Other speakers before me have expressed their appreciation to members of the department for the assistance and their co-operation that they have had from the department of the hon the Minister and I, on behalf of the PFP in this House, should like to associate myself with those sentiments. We have always found them very co-operative and their assistance very forthcoming. In fact, I particularly want to express my appreciation for the fact that that department was able to register a political party very quickly here today. It is that particular party that has caused such a lot of havoc in this House.

Although I do not agree with the political philosophy of the hon the Minister who is here with us this morning, I must say that I have always found him to be a gentleman and I have always found that he is accessible to us. I must also record that he is amenable to reason and for this I should like to express our appreciation.

There are one or two issues that I should like to raise this morning and the first one concerns the uncertainty about this film called Cry Freedom, a film that we have heard so much about. As hon members know, there has been a lot of confusion. It was thought that the film would be banned, but to the credit of the department of the Directorate of Publications the film was passed uncut. Then of course there was confusion about whether that film would be shown for various reasons given by the distributors in this country. There was talk at the time that there was a possibility that because of certain objections raised in some quarters the film would be reviewed and that perhaps censorship would be imposed on the film.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any truth in the thought that the film Cry Freedom will be recensored in the near future.

Whilst I must agree with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister I must also tell him that as a matter of principle we in the PFP believe in the freedom of the Press and we believe that that freedom is indivisible. I would therefore like to refer to the curbs and to the pernicious regulations that have been placed on Press freedom by the hon the Minister. As I have indicated, we in the PFP and certainly my hon benchmate and myself, are definitely against any form of a restriction on Press freedom. If I understood the hon the Minister correctly, I believe that he has justified these curbs on the basis that they serve to knobble revolutionary propaganda in what he calls “the alternative Press”.

I do not believe that there is such a thing as an alternative Press. I believe there is simply a Press and that includes a rich variety of newspapers and periodicals which reflect a full range of opinion in our sadly fragmented society. We know there are big national newspapers that strive to report the full spectrum of news and views in this country. We are also aware that there are smaller publications who make no pretence at balance and who concentrate on the concerns of the readership whom they serve.

In this regard one can look back in our history and say that Die Transvaler at the time when Dr Verwoerd was its editor, could well also have been called “an alternative Press” because it served a particular point of view and a particular community that was hungry for that kind of news.

As I have indicated, we believe that Press freedom is indivisible and we believe that if one touches one section of the Press one touches all of it. My hon benchmate and I believe that this is exactly what the curbs and the regulations are doing. It is to this that we object.

The hon the Minister has indicated that these curbs are aimed chiefly at keeping the alternative Press in what he calls “the straight and narrow path”. We have no problem with that but the curbs affect all of the Press. They appear to represent an intermediate stage of suppression between complete freedom and total censorship. To that extent they provide for warnings, for debates between editors and the authorities and recourse to the courts. They are certainly less onerous than the emergency regulations.

Where action is dependent entirely on the subjective judgment of one individual—in this instance it would be the hon the Minister—then, with respect, we say that they are worse than the emergency regulations. We believe that where they will fail the hon the Minister and the Government most is the fact that they will fail to achieve the objective that has been set. We say that they will fail to achieve the objective because we believe that where information is suppressed it goes underground. The oath of silence and a secret network then become the means of disseminating this information. We believe that is counterproductive to both the department and the community.

There are laws that prohibit the promotion of revolutionary violence. We want to know why the Government or the hon the Minister does not use them. They should place greater trust in the public’s ability to judge good information from the bad in the free market of opinion.

I would like to take this opportunity of referring to the closing-down recently of two newspapers by the hon the Minister. I want to make the point that I do not hold any brief for either of these newspapers. The point I should like to make is this: Why were these newspapers closed down? Were they really a threat to public order? In fact, if they were a threat to public order I should like to ask the hon the Minister why the editor or editors were not charged with transgressing any of the multitude of laws and restrictions which we have in force not only by way of the emergency regulations but also by way of laws that we have on the Statute Book. I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the absence of any such explanation from the hon the Minister could be seen as an authoritarian repression of fundamental liberties such as the liberty of self-expression and access to our courts.

Hands off the Press!

The hon member for Central Lenasia says “Hands off the Press”, and I support him in that.

However, the point I was making is that in a sense these curbs are self-defeating since they deny readers access to the news and the views of the newspapers. Moreover it denies the Government, too, access to those views.

I believe it is important in these troubled times for a government to know exactly what the mass of a community is thinking. I think that is important, and it is for that reason that I say that this is self-defeating.

One could also say that it is folly to silence messengers like newspapers, even though the news that they bring could well be discomforting. This is so because in the final analysis, what the Minister is really trying to achieve is in effect a nibbling away at the freedom for which we as a democratic nation stand, and which is in fact enshrined in the Constitution. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is pleasing to participate in this debate, especially since most of us in this House are Natalians, and we have with us the hon the Minister of Home Affairs who is also a Natalian. Apart from that, having heard all the comments made in this debate so far I also wish to add my own comments with regard to this department, its co-operation and its consideration with regard to various facets of its responsibility.

The hon the Minister made a statement here this morning which was a very well-worded statement in regard to a country where there is debate. South Africa has its goals open, and naturally, on the other hand, it is not the intention of South Africa to be isolated.

There has also been a great deal of emphasis on the Press media by various speakers. I do agree with the various sentiments expressed here, but at the same time we have a responsibility towards the country, and that responsibility, as you are aware, Mr Chairman, concerns the fact that South Africa has unfortunately had certain images of it projected in certain parts of the world which have not been to the credit of South Africa; so much so that the good side of South Africa, the honest intentions of this Government and the people of South Africa who are well-intentioned as regards finding a new direction for South Africa have not been projected as they should have been. In that regard I am sure that whatever decision this hon Minister and his able department have taken, was taken entirely in the interests of South Africa.

I have also been responsible for making appeals to this department for various religious leaders to come into this country, as the hon member Mr Seedat mentioned earlier on. This department has been extremely co-operative, and in this regard the hon member Mr Seedat laid strong emphasis on the basis of religion. After all, if our religious basis is not sound, one cannot expect anything else to be sound and this department has played an important role in considering genuine applications.

On the practical front, when one looks at page 17 of this report, one finds that the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act, 1985, provides that marriages that were solemnised contrary to the provisions of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, may, on application by the parties, be declared valid. A total of 101 marriages were declared valid in terms of the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act. In all 181 697 marriages were solemnised. Of these 413 were between White and Non-white persons. From the time of the repeal of this Act until this day we must give this administration tremendous credit for setting the machinery in motion.

On the other hand, a bold decision has been taken in regard to the standardisation of the identity documentation. Here again, on page 18 we find the following:

This is indeed once again an indication of the efficiency of this department.

With regard to Indian affairs, with the coming into being of the new constitutional dispensation the function of the Indian component, such as the issuing of passports, birth certificates, changes of name, the insertion of surnames etcetera, was taken over by the Department of Home Affairs. Upon this takeover the 26 Indian staff who were performing these duties and who were under the control of the Administration: House of Delegates were transferred en bloc to the Department of Home Affairs. This only affected the Indian staff in the Esplanade Government offices whilst the other offices under the control of the House of Delegates, namely the offices in Phoenix, Verulam, Pietermaritzburg, Chatsworth and now Stanger, are still performing the duties of civic affairs on an agency basis. These offices never used to process passports or issue any other documents.

With the settling of the Indian community in various areas and in view of the need that exists in the various growing areas, of which the hon the Minister himself is fully aware, when one looks at the northern region of Natal and at its potential growth, consideration must be given to these agencies which will facilitate the requirements of the people.

The Repeal Law, 25 of 1891, did not make provision for a surname for Indians, especially in Natal. The Indian component in the Esplanade Government office submitted a recommendation on an agency basis to the Department of Home Affairs. Although these offices perform the work for the Department of Home Affairs, this does not infringe on the general affairs aspect of the new constitutional dispensation. The 26 staff I have mentioned, who were transferred to the Department of Home Affairs, will eventually be transferred back to the House of Delegates.

However, according to the Constitution Act the issue of passports is a general affairs matter. Upon the advent of computerisation of the particulars of individuals, which are maintained in the Population Register, any query raised by individuals who have a 13-digit identity number could easily be finalised at the computer terminals which are situated at the Home Affairs Offices. The issuing of birth, marriage and death certificates has also been facilitated with the advent of the computer terminals.

It has been traditional for many years, dating back to the immigration days, that all matters concerning Indians be handled by the Indian officers who are more knowledgable in this regard. With regard to immigration it is suggested that as far as Indians are concerned, matters should be referred to the Durban office for recommendation. They are in a better position to make sound, valid recommendations, as they have files dating back to 1819, which were created for all Indians who arrived in the early days. Even applications for naturalisation as South African citizens could be made at the Durban office as they could refer to the files for information.

With these words I once again want to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, his director-general and the entire administration for the manner in which they have been able to render service to South Africa and to protect the image of South Africa. We take cognizance of the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of this hon Minister and his administration, and I am sure, with the co-operation of this House, we will perhaps discuss a different project in the next debate.

Mr Chairman, if this continues too much, I feel a little sorry for the hon the Minister because his staff will obviously demand an increase in salaries. After all, their income is paid to the staff. A gentleman called Van Zyl may be looking for a bigger hat, and a former Canadian prime minister likewise.

I also want to join in the plaudits given to the hon the Minister’s staff, throughout South Africa, not just in Durban. Everyone who has had experience of dealing with that department, even if they have not necessarily always had full satisfaction, have always received courtesy, consideration and expedition, which is very important.

We generally warm to the hon the Minister, because his nature is such that it produces that response. Also, we are a little parochial. We Natal-people tend to warm towards one another. That is why I am certain that the latest round of Press curbs do not emanate from the hon the Minister himself. Obviously, as the responsible Minister, he is carrying out a Cabinet decision. I want to say to him that if indeed there are newspapers which are fuelling the fires of revolution, those newspapers are guilty of inciting treason and according to the common law, those responsible for those newspapers could be prosecuted. In any event, we have a large array of other Statutes which could be used.

The hon the Minister does not look like a Hitler. Hitler banned newspapers. He does not look like a Stalin. Stalin banned newspapers. What happened to Hitler? What is happening in Russia at the moment? We now have glasnost. The severe censorship of newspapers which existed previously no longer exist, because of the exposés made by various people. Presently, despite glasnost, the BBC and the WOA have to beam special broadcasts to behind the Silk Curtain and the Iron Curtain, because of cencorship. Péron banned La Pensa, the wonderful, first-class, famous liberal newspaper of Rio de Janeiro. What happened to Péron?

If we remove apartheid and the stench caused by it from this country, there will be no need to ban these newspapers. Let us therefore get rid of the disease rather than dealing with the symptoms.

I want to deal very briefly with what the hon members for Springfield and Bayview averted to, namely the abuse of the regulation regarding the identification of voters and the gross abuse of postal and special votes.

A prosecution is pending in respect of such irregular conduct in the Tongaat elections where serious crimes or perjury, fraud, forgery and uttering were committed. Over and above that, it does the image of reform a great deal of harm if there is—as there has been in Tongaat—something like 800 votes cast on the basis of identification. Does anyone believe that 800 people did not have their ID books with them?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No sir, I do not have time. Is it credible that 800 people did not have an identification document of some kind that could be produced to the electoral officer? It not only stretches the imagination to breaking limit, it also reduces the elections to a farce. If such elections become a farce, it undermines the whole process of reform.

The regulations are there, and I appeal to the hon the Minister and his entire department to make absolutely certain that those regulations are applied rigidly, so that there is no possibility of anyone to indulge in abuse. We know—and this will come up in the criminal prosecution—that a man was in Port Elizabeth on a certain date. He never left Port Elizabeth on that date, but he is alleged to have voted in Tongaat. Somebody signed his name and somebody else, a third party, “identified” him. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of conveying our appreciation to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, as well as the Director General and all the officials of the department, for their excellent co-operation with hon members of this House and members of the Indian community.

Ever since the first batch of Indians arrived in this country, there has been a very close attachment with the immigration authorities. At that time we had an official that was called the protector of Indian immigrants. For a considerable period of time members of our older generation were used to the original office we had next to the Durban harbour. Nevertheless, with the passage of time, things changed and improved.

At that time, one had certain White officials in this particular department who actually registered the names of people phonetically. They wrote down the names according to their pronunciation. That is why some people have inherited names that are a mixture between the Indian and Western pronunciation.

However, I want to deal with one specific aspect of the hon the Minister’s function, and that has to do with the media. I personally believe that if newspapers just follow the code of ethics which they themselves have formulated, there cannot be any problems. I personally believe that the job of a newspaper is to report facts and to keep the public informed. If they confine themselves within these principles which they themselves formulated, there should not be any problems. We are much criticised by countries, but if one has to compare what is allowed to be published in the South Africa media and what is not allowed to be published in countries just north of our borders, one would find the type of criticism which even Mr Robert Mugabe would not allow in his country, published in the Sunday Tribune. In certain countries, if one criticises the Government, there is no question of a trial. One’s body would be found floating in a river.

I want to send to my colleague certain newspapers published in India. There are cases where the Indian government actually locks the doors of a newspaper without any explanations when the only crime the newspaper has committed was to be critical of the government.

Let us also examine what has happened in the USA recently. A giant media magnate owns newspapers and television networks and I believe that one of the Kennedys was at the receiving end of this media. In a financial Bill he put in an amendment that actually dealt a severe blow to this newspaper as a newspaper and a television network cannot be owned in the same district. There is a hue and a cry in the USA as far as this is concerned. I therefore think one should really compare what prevails in certain countries that are very much critical of South Africa.

Another important responsibility of the Department of Home Affairs as has been quite correctly mentioned by certain hon members this morning is the question of dealing with matters related to the elections. One of the image problems that we had in the general elections in 1984 and also in the by-elections was a question of the percentage poll. In 1984 as a result of effecting preparations hurriedly Parliament passed legislation incorporating the old outdated and obsolete SAIC voters’ roll. Our present House of Delegates parliamentary voters’ roll is in fact the old SAIC voters’ roll.

Of course there has to be many education programmes. We have done our best through the schools. I think we need a massive programme to ensure that when we go for the next election— some people believe it should be this year—that we go to these elections with an updated roll.

Of course, one of the excellent arrangements we have which the hon the Minister for Local Government and Agriculture referred to is the question of our administration performing certain tasks on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, such as the question of dealing with birth registration certificates, death certificates as well as passport matters on an agency basis. This was an arrangement that was made prior to the establishment of the tricameral Parliament and it is an excellent arrangement. We should continue with this arrangement, we should expand on it and we should try to extend services in areas where we are resettling communities or establishing new townships.

I want to say that with our administration we are affording a very high priority to ensuring that we extend services to the people rather than forcing people to travel distances. I am sure that with the opening of regional and local offices of the Department of Home Affairs this is also the policy of the administrations of the Department of Home Affairs.

I want to say again that we enjoy an excellent relationship with the Department. I think the community also speaks very well of the excellent response that they get from the officials of the Department of Home Affairs. This augurs very well for our community.

I want to thank the hon the Minister and the Director-General and his officials once again for the co-operation we receive at all times.

Mr Chairman, we claim to be a democracy and we should therefore follow the principles of a democracy. Freedom of speech and assembly etc are cornerstones of our heritage.

These democratic rights enshrined in our common law and in our Roman Dutch law system which developed in Holland in the 17th century became the hallmark for democracy in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

We should therefore be extremely proud of this heritage of ours. Unfortunately, unlike the USA, our Roman Dutch law principles are not set out in a formal constitution. However, that does not mean that we should not try our level best to adopt all statutory laws on the basis of Roman Dutch law.

The banning of newspapers, as was so amply proved by the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills, and the banning of the 17 organisations and the new proposed restrictions on the trades union movement all contradict our democratic ideals.

We have more than sufficient laws to deal with any individual or organisation or newspaper that contravenes our laws. Our Army which is so powerful can check any so-called revolutionary onslaught in this country. While not being over optimistic I want to say it seems that with the latest development in Southern Africa the tensions here will soon be reduced to a considerable extent.

Therefore if we were to withdraw the Bill restricting the trade union movement and if we were to release Mandela and other political prisoners we would be making a contribution to peace in Southern Africa and we would probably put a brake on further plans for sanctions and disinvestment against our country.

Our friends in Western Europe, in the USA, in Japan and elsewhere will have additional weapons to oppose adventurist measures against us. We are an African state—part of Africa—and the many African states that are showing sympathy and understanding of the progress taking place in South Africa will be encouraged to stand up for us in the OAU.

Finally I wish to point out the anomaly in the laws affecting the immigration of the Indian population to this country. White immigration is encouraged but Indian immigrants are prohibited with very few exceptions. We should at least extend the privilege of allowing Indian brides to immigrate to South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, furthermore if one turns to page 15 of the report of the Department of Home Affairs tabled here one will see that in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 4.4 it states that the deaths of a number of persons have not yet been reported and that a number of persons have emigrated without the knowledge of the department. This intrigues me. It only takes up two and a quarter lines at the foot of page 15 of the report. These people who have died, and unless they are cremated, where do they get the figures … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me at the outset to express my own condolences as well as those of the management of my department to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and his wife for the great loss that they suffered. We feel with them.

It is always a pleasure to be in this House. I also have the warm feeling to which the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred and I always take great interest in whatever happens in this House. Most of the time it is very pleasing but sometimes I feel very sad. I definitely have the interests of hon members at heart.

The hon member Mr Seedat commenced the debate. May I say that he is actively in touch with my department throughout the year and this is very much appreciated. He assists us in conveying our views and he discusses various aspects with us throughout the year. I want to say to him that this is highly appreciated. I want to remind hon members that my door and that of the Director-General are always open for discussions on any particular issue. Hon members must please make use of that.

The hon member Mr Seedat referred to identity documents and passports obtained by people who are in the country illegally. All possible precautions are taken when these documents are issued. It is a very difficult and complicated procedure, however, and sometimes mistakes are made. In the course of time we have formulated certain procedures which do eliminate mistakes to a very large extent. I am happy to be able to say that we are really operating as an efficient organisation. We are really operating as well as any private enterprise claims to operate.

The hon member also referred to the call that I made last year to people who are illegally in South Africa to come forward in order to commence a procedure whereby they can legally obtain permanent residence or something similar in South Africa. The response was not very good but we are continuing our efforts in this regard.

I want to tell the hon member Mr Seedat that we receive very good co-operation from the Jame-Utul-Ulema, the Muslim body. It helps us with our investigations into the need of the community for priests and teachers and there is an excellent working relationship between us. I have made a note of the hon member’s requests in other respects and I will reply to him in writing in due course.

I now come to the hon member for Brickfield. We will consider having a separate form when applying for the renewal of a passport. I want to thank the hon member for his constructive suggestion. Such a form could possibly contain less information than the form required for a first application. We will certainly follow up the hon member’s suggestion.

The hon member also referred to revenue stamps. I received a note from the Director-General stating that revenue stamps to be used as payment for passports are now readily available at all our offices. I want to thank the hon member for his constructive suggestions.

The hon member for Bayview expressed his appreciation for the work done by the department.

Here again I want to stress that this department is a service department; it is our ordinary duty to serve and to serve efficiently and in a friendly manner, and to do so at all times. I remind hon members that they, too, form part and parcel of Government and of this department, and hon members can give us some very constructive advice in the course of the year, and not only during the time when this particular vote is being debated. I invite hon members please to assist in this regard.

The hon member for Bayview referred to the emigration loss that we have experienced. I am glad to say that it would seem that we have reached the turning point again. There are more people coming in than leaving. Thus happier times are no doubt ahead.

Order! I think there are far too many private discussions taking place. Hon members must please listen to the hon the Minister’s reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The people who were leaving are coming back; the same people. Many of them are coming back. Thus the grass is not always as green as it appears to be! It is of course a tremendous loss when one loses particularly university or technikon-educated people, and that is a fact. There are of course a number of reasons as to why they leave. Political unrest or instability is one reason which applies when people worry about the political future of a country. That is why it is so important that we as members of Parliament devote all our efforts not to try and score points but to seek and work to find solutions for our future. This is a tremendous responsibility which has been placed on each and every member of Parliament, namely to endeavour to work towards a stable political future and to set the one argument against the other. Other reasons for people leaving are of course economic ones. We have had difficult times in South Africa, but my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance can inform hon members in detail as to how we, the Government, see the future. It would appear that we do have reason to be confident about our economic position as far as the future is concerned.

The hon member for Bayview also referred to the media, as did the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I do thank hon members for their reasoned approach to this issue. Although we are not in agreement on certain aspects, I thank them sincerely for their very calm and reasoned argument in this regard. I wish to assure these hon members and all hon members that in applying the powers which I have in this regard, I do so with sympathy and I do so with as light a hand as I need and with the utmost responsibility.

I want to make one point clear. The media emergency regulations relate to specific aspects which were enumerated—there are not many of them—in the Gazette when these regulations were announced last year. They relate in fact to propaganda. They relate to particular instances where revolution and violence is propagated. That is prohibited.

There are specific instances which are prohibited and newspapers and the media are prohibited from propagating those points which are enumerated in the Government Gazette. It is therefore quite clear what it relates to and no other law had previously provided for that. The other laws that we had related to other issues but they did not relate to propaganda. That is why we are applying this.

It is true that if, for instance, a particular newspaper propagates sedition, it can be taken to court. That is quite true. However, as hon members know—there are many lawyers here—it would take at least a year before a case was brought to court and a decision was taken. In accepting these emergency regulations the Government accepted the fact that a revolution is being experienced in South Africa at the present time. We know what is happening. We have experienced it as well, and we want to take speedy action in order to ensure security in this country. These emergency regulations will be removed as soon as we are satisfied that this revolution is totally under control. The main reason why they are in force, is to ensure a stable and orderly society so that we can get on with our job of finding a dispensation in which everyone can participate in Government and can share the benefits on an equal basis in South Africa. That is the main reason for these emergency regulations. It is not because we want to place curbs on particular newspapers but because we want to have peace and order whilst we get on with the job of finding solutions for our country.

I want to emphasise another point. These regulations are applicable to all newspapers and not only to the so-called alternative press. However, hon members must have noticed that I have not yet had reason to speak to any of the members of the established conventional press. Why not? Because they have not transgressed those regulations. However, I am monitoring them as much as I am monitoring the alternative press. The conventional press, however, has a completely different approach. There is not enough time for me to explain everything but I invite hon members to read the Hansard transcripts of my addresses in the other Houses where I did deal with this in some detail.

The fact is that the Government and I respect freedom of the press as much as anyone else. However, freedom is not an absolute concept. There must be restrictions in order to safeguard not only the individual, but also the community at large.

I have noted the appeals made by the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills and I assure the hon members that I shall execute my difficult task in this regard with the greatest degree of responsibility.

The hon member for Springfield asked me about Cry Freedom. All I can tell him is that a committee of the Directorate of Publications viewed it and approved of it. I subsequently viewed it, and that is where the matter stands. I have not taken any decision either way. The fact is that what can now be done is that I can refer it to the Publications Appeal Board. I have not done so yet. There are of course other applicable laws, which are being attended to by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, and others—I am not sure who else is involved. However, as far as I am concerned, no decision has been taken by me. There has been no need for me to take a decision. Perhaps the hon member could also address a question like this to the hon the Minister of Justice.

As regards the point raised by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, I also wish to indicate that the department receives excellent co-operation and advice from the hon the Minister throughout the year. This assists us in performing our duties and in finding out what people miss in our department. We then try to set matters straight.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills—he is not here now—referred, inter alia, to Glasnost in Russia. I am quite sure that a person like the hon member for Reservoir Hills, with a sharp brain such as his, has not been bluffed by the Russian Glasnost into thinking that they have changed their colours. They are only marketing their communism under a better label. This has been done before, but I am sure he realises that.

I now want to refer to the refusal of visas, a point raised by the hon member for Bayview. If I refuse visas, it is after I have carefully considered what is in the interests of the country. In this regard I want hon members to know that the Government is very much aware that we must not isolate ourselves in South Africa. My approach to the refusal of visas is not one based on closing our doors. I want to open the doors as much as possible. This also goes for the refusing of passports. I want our people to be exposed to the outside world as much as possible. However, I only refuse them after very careful consideration of all facts. I am always prepared to reconsider. If any hon member has a particular case in mind, he must come and tell me whether he disagrees with my views, and I shall disclose what I have, since hon members are part and parcel of Government, whether they like it or not. I respect that, and I shall therefore disclose as much as I possibly can disclose to hon members. Thus, in applying this, I try to act as responsibly as possible.

Much has been said about special votes, postal votes and other matters relating to the Electoral Act. With regard to this matter, as hon members know, I appointed a joint select committee, and hon members present here serve on that particular committee. I hope that that committee will make a report to me soon. I expect a report from them early in the second half of this year, since I wish to prepare legislation to improve on the Act as it stands at present. All these points that have been raised here will be put at the disposal of that committee to enable it to make recommendations to me. I will then report to the Cabinet, and we shall then come up with a new Act. Much of what has been said here has already been dealt with by that committee; I would prefer not to reply in detail, therefore, to hon members in this regard. Nevertheless I thank them for their contributions in this regard.

I want to refer to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I think the only point I want to make in this regard is that I and my department have had an excellent working relationship with the Ministers’ Council. It has made it so easy for us to take reform actions as we go along. It has also assisted us in our operations, and I think the Ministers’ Council can still, in the time to come, play a much bigger role in the workings of this department and other departments, for that matter. I am happy to say that the basis of our working relationship is a sound one.

The hon member for Camperdown referred to democracy. It is quite true that democracy is what we stand for. If we look at Africa as a whole, I do not think that there is one single country which has a true, classical democracy. South Africa is on its way to a democracy. We do not have one yet. The hon member said we should follow the principles of a democracy. That is true. That is an ideal we should always follow, but we dare not allow things to happen in South Africa which will destroy the whole basis of democracy.

The onslaught that we are experiencing at present has as its stated object the total overthrow of Government in mind, and not only that, but also the total overthrow of the system—the economic system and the democratic system. That is why we have to act very firmly to ensure that this attempt does not succeed. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

I would like to remind hon members that there is no prohibition on immigrants of Indian origin to South Africa. We have removed that with the help of hon members. That is the one of the good things we did two years ago. The hon member need therefore not be concerned about that.

I thank hon members for their participation in this debate. I have followed instructions by completing my speech two minutes before a quarter to one.

Business suspended at 12h43 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr Chairman, yesterday during my speech in the motion proposed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I made reference to a certain gold card. I believe it has been misconstrued and that somebody indicated to the hon member for Red Hill that I was referring to him. I had personally gone to the hon member for Red Hill and I have indicated to him that I was not referring to him. The card I referred to was a credit card issued by a commercial or financial institution. I want to place this on record for the benefit of all hon members that I was not referring to the hon member for Red Hill and if it has offended him, I apologize.

Mr Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was referring to the reasons why the legislators in 1983 drafted sections 21 and 24 in a particular fashion. I very briefly want to re-emphasize this and that is that only at the time when an appointment is made for a Minister for own affairs, the State President in his opinion must be satisfied that he has the support of the majority and also in respect of the appointment of the Chairman and all members of the Ministers’ Council. When the legislators passed this Constitution in 1983, they may have taken into consideration that either a Minister or the Chairman could possibly lose the majority permanently or temporarily. One can not separate the Chairman from his Cabinet.

[Inaudible.]

I got legal opinion on that. As a legal man, the hon member for Reservoir Hills will respect the opinions of his colleagues.

As a legal man I have come across some bum legal opinion.

Sir, if I give the names of the persons who gave me this opinion, I am sure the hon member for Reservoir Hills will not suffer from foot and mouth disease.

I want to refer to section 88 of the Constitution where reference is made to constitutional and parliamentary conventions.

If this resolution is adopted an allowance is made constitutionally for either a Minister or the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to continue in office. Of course, in terms of section 19 a Minister is appointed at the pleasure of the hon the State President, but there are very good reasons why section 21 and section 24 was drafted in that fashion. Unless this Government is defeated the hon the State President is bound to act in terms of section 39 of the Constitution.

I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills will respect some Constitutional experts in this country, particularly a person of the calibre of Prof G Carpenter.

The convention is if a Prime Minister doesn’t have the support of his House he resigns. [Interjections.]

Conviction!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks of conviction. If there was conviction in this House there would be no need for this draft resolution. I said so yesterday. If there was conviction in this House the hon Leader of the Official Opposition could produce his majority and I would walk with him to the hon the State President and I would hand him my resignation.

This is what prof Carpenter, the internationally famous expert on constitutional law states:

These are the words on conventions by one of South Africa’s most respected and internationally respected constitutional lawyers.

I made my point yesterday. I do not want to give legal interpretation of this notice of motion and the amendment and its implications. I rather want to say that we had this debate, free of much vituperations, and I did not exercise acts of vituperation yesterday, but I felt that I could reserve the right to put my side of the story.

Mr Chairman, my colleague and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made out what I believe to be a case for himself by depicting himself as a saint and those of us in the Ministers’ Council who are now members of the People’s Party of South Africa as being the villains.

I did not say that.

I did not attribute that to him. I said I see the situation as such.

I simply take the words of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself when he said that there should be no recriminations and that we should speak in this House in a dignified and an honourable manner.

In the process the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made references in this House and outside in the Press to hon Ministers on this side of the House. He said that he did not want to sacrifice hon members if he made a deal with Solidarity. All this was unnecessary in this debate because the moment that any hon member uses such language he is imbued with that idea. I therefore believe that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have restrained himself both yesterday and in the few minutes that he spoke today.

If a Prime Minister or a State President is dissatisfied with the performance of his Ministers it should be pointed out to the specific colleague that he is not performing his duties as is expected of him. This is what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have done. Because he did not do it, it shows that he did not really mean what he said.

As far as credibility inside and outside this House is concerned, I will never claim that I am a leader of the Indian community because I have not put myself to the test of popular vote in the Indian community. Nobody here can claim that he is a leader of the Indian community. I therefore believe that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have shown some restraint when he or perhaps an hon member in the House said that he was a leader and that he could not be replaced.

Are we so lacking in integrity and ability that we feel we cannot do without one man in this House? What happens if one’s leader drops dead? Do we not have somebody in our institution who can take his place? These are indeed hollow arguments to put forward and they reflect on the integrity of hon members in this House.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that he does not believe in the backstabbing of his hon Ministers. However, I want him to read what he had to say in the Sunday Times Extra where he made definite allegations against hon Ministers. He said himself that he believed that he was protecting us because he did not want the people outside to call us charlies. We will never show ourselves to be charlies to the community outside because each of us stands on our own two feet with our personal record of services rendered to our community.

Therefore I believe that in fairness to us the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should not have uttered those words, but should have made out a case as to why he should not have been asked to resign forthwith.

These things are attributed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I want to say that every person on earth works in accordance with his capability and his ability. If I work for 24 hours or 18 hours, that is my ability and I am overworked. However, if I work between the hours of eight and four and spent just two hours in my office and the rest walking on the third floor, that is an exercise in good relations. [Interjections.] Do not ever be envious of an hon Minister who endears himself to hon members of Parliament.

Therefore, what I say in response to the hon member Mr Nowbath is that he is here on the sufferance of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself, since he is a nominated member. [Interjections.] I want to say this, and if hon members will stop interjecting and saying things, I shall also stop reacting.

A very serious allegation has been made in this House. It is a very serious allegation and it comes from no less a person than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is that there is a plan A, B and C. Again, this is the contribution of a man who is drowned in that kind of thinking. How can he insinuate by way of innuendos in this House that hon members of this House will resort to making plans to get one set of people into power and then work towards getting them out? This really breaks my heart. Having given the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council my sincerity in all that he did, and then to be told here that we are party to plan A, B, and C—how can this be?

I want to say this with the utmost respect to my colleague—whom I still respect—because I believe in the freedom of speech. However, I do not believe in denigration. No hon member should denigrate another hon member in this House.

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has anything in his safe relating to any hon Minister on the Council, or in relation to any hon member of this House, he must produce that in this House or outside this House. Therefore we do not know whom he is referring to. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has sown the seeds of suspicion in this House as to who this person is. I want to say, as a member of the Ministers’ Council, that people have come to me with offers, but I do not take those offers seriously. If there were offers, I direct them to the proper channels. Therefore this does not mean that if my colleagues have received any representations, we are in cahoots to an extent with the offerer. This is not the case. I have made this appeal before: Do not make these insinuations. They play on the sentiments and emotions of people. They hurt people with a clear conscience and conviction.

I also wish to say that when one gets a last-minute call at five in the evening when one is leaving for home, in the following terms: “Be with me at certain places tomorrow morning”, then surely during the course of the week a Minister would have made arrangements for that weekend. It is surely not a matter of life and death that a man should be wanted the next morning to accompany the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Therefore these are not excuses to be put forward here. They should have been resolved very easily in the Ministers’ Council, where it mattered most.

I want to say that in American jargon, it is a matter of rebuttal. I am allowed to rebut my own hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council; and I say this with respect.

That is your right.

Thank you. Therefore, Mr Chairman, when one has to motivate a case for oneself, one should speak of what one has done, of what work has been done. It should not be a figment of a man’s imagination which, in his desire and his anxiety to prove himself right, leads him to resort to untruths. This is what the hon members of this House should subscribe to as a conviction and as a principle, namely to avoid these kinds of words which really do harm rather than good.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon the Minister of the Budget has referred to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as indulging in untruths, I submit that that is unparliamentary.

Order! Did the hon the Minister of the Budget say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indulges in untruths?

Mr Chairman, I did not say the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indulged in untruths. I made reference to what a person would do as a result of a figment of his imagination, and Hansard will bear me out. I did not refer to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

[Inaudible.]

I did not say you; you did. I referred to what a man would do, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Chief Whip on the other side of the House should pay more attention to what I have to say. [Interjections.]

I want to refer very briefly to the coalition agreement between Solidarity and the NPP. I sided with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when that agreement was broken because I stood by an agreement that was entered into between the NPP and Solidarity. I left Solidarity to join the Ministers’ Council because I was honour bound to be with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

But who opposed you?

Whatever the case, time heals all wounds. There may be a bit of a scar left, but the scar does not do any harm. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat that I find it absolutely essential for me to rebut some of the things that have been said by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

You are not on trial.

I am not on trial but there are certain allegations which I need to clear up. I want to conclude by saying that in public life one has to portray honour, sincerity, dignity and integrity, and God blesses each individual with these qualities. Therefore, in view of the fact that this motion calls for the immediate resignation of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, he needs to consider this very, very seriously. [Interjections.]

Moreover, I also know what the implications of this will be. We have studied what the constitutional requirements are, or what follows in terms of the Constitution if such a motion is passed. We also realise that the hon the State President will do what he, in his opinion, thinks is best. Therefore, we need not have any fear as to what will happen to us collectively. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I must compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget for maintaining such a high standard in this debate and for the dignity with which he conducted himself. I am disappointed in my hon colleagues who have decided to defect, especially those Ministers of State who are actually officebearers of Parliament.

It is a new party, not a defection.

Well, you have defected from the NPP. [Interjections.] I am disappointed that they chose this course of action. I do not know what they want to achieve. The crossing of the floor by hon members of this House is the order of the day rather than the exception. An hon member should only cross the floor or defect from a party in a very serious situation and not just as a trivial thing that is done on a daily basis.

The hon Minister of the Budget implied that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council protected them. I want to confirm unequivocally that he did protect them on many occasions. The article he referred to which appeared in the Sunday Times Extra refers to the situation after the group broke away, not before that. Those kind of articles did not appear when he was still a member of the NPP. I want to state here that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went out of his way, especially to protect the hon the Minister of the Budget, particularly after the coalition collapsed.

You rang me at 12h30 at night to join the NPP.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I was one of the first people to telephone the hon the Minister, because I respected him and I still do. However, I am disappointed that he did not reciprocate. His own colleagues who sit with him are the ones who wanted him removed as a Minister …

Order! I would like to request the hon member for Moorcross to refer to hon members either as hon members or hon Ministers and not “he” and “him”.

Yes, Mr Chairman. I want to reiterate that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was protecting the hon the Minister of the Budget at all times. Strong demands were made to us to have the hon the Minister removed, but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council placed his party at stake to defend the hon the Minister. In the light of this I am disappointed with his actions. However, I am confident that the situation will change shortly and that he will be back with us on this side of the House.

Hon members must realise that this alliance is one of convenience and anything based on convenience does not last, especially so with this alliance.

It will be a 60-day wonder.

They have plans for the various phases of the implementation of this. My prediction is that the alliance will collapse in a few weeks time. Yes, they did have one meeting with a certain group of people at night and another meeting with another group of people during the day. All kinds of positions have been promised to various people. The problems will come when certain aspirants are disappointed in respect of positions.

I want to state here unequivocally that hon members on this side of the House have full confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and all the members of the Ministers’ Council. I therefore move as a further amendment:

What about the hon member Mr Nowbath’s motion?

It is yet another gimmick.

Order! In terms of Rule 128(c), the amendment is allowed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Cavendish stated that this is another gimmick. I take umbrage to the remark. This matter should be treated with all the seriousness which it deserves. I do not think a flippant remark like that is necessary.

Order! For the sake of good order, will the hon member for Cavendish kindly withdraw that remark?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that a further amendment has been submitted which serves essentially the same purpose as my amendment, I should like to have that amendment withdrawn. I take it that the House will give me leave to do that.

Mr Chairman, I raise an objection to that.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown has raised an objection. As there is an objection to the request of the hon member Mr Nowbath, his request can unfortunately not be acceded to.

The hon member is making a mockery of Parliament!

Mr Chairman, I want to start with the amendment that was proposed by the hon member for Moorcross. It seems that we have suddenly regained full confidence after the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned how poorly his Ministers have acted. He did not mention my name, but he did indicate some of the shortfalls of the Ministers. I am pleased to note that there has been a rethink. I believe that there has been a meeting until a quarter to two this morning to try and work out a plan to reconcile the situation.

However, the very fact that four Ministers have resigned from the NPP, indicates that there must be a lack of confidence somewhere along the line. I believe that as responsible Ministers we have not made any hasty decisions. We have considered our actions very carefully, and I believe that hon members have made every effort to work in the best interest of the community and country at large. However, we reached a stage where 11 hon members of the NPP became so frustrated that it resulted in a new party coming into being.

Hon members have tried from every angle to see how they could work together, but it is a hard fact that they have now formed a new political party. What annoys hon members—and Ministers, in particular—is that Ministers are discussed at every party branch meeting. When responsible Ministers’ positions are discussed and they are called lame ducks by colleagues, it makes for a very frustrating situation.

I am aware of the fact that this sort of thing has taken place at more than one meeting. When one is dealing with ordinary people, some of whom are opportunists and hang around purely for positions they seek, it is most unbecoming that Ministers are discussed in such a manner.

There is another issue that concerns me deeply. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has denied that he said anything about dangling carrots. When one finds that carrots are being dangled—and I believe there are six news reporters who can substantiate that these were the exact words used by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—it gives one food for thought. It is a fact that carrots were dangled to many people.

The 11 hon members who have formed the new political party, have stood solid in order to try and create a new image for the House of Delegates. I believe that we are responsible people. We are people who have fought elections. We have constituencies that we have to look after. The type of allegations that have been made with regard to bribery, corruption and what not, has not enhanced the image of this House.

I think we have taken a very bold stand and I would like to say, as a Minister in this House, that I was quite prepared to put my head on a block and say, come what may, irrespective of what happens I will hopefully be able to play some role in trying to maintain the image of this particular House. Having served as the Chairman of the first House for the past two and a half years, I had great joy in working with hon members and I think we have built up a happy relationship with all hon members. When these type of things come to light it makes one very frustrated. When I had fought my election some time back in 1984 like all of us did, while I stood as member of the NPP, political parties did not mean anything at all at that time. Each and everyone us won our elections on our track records. The threat of an election is something that does not worry me one bit. I am quite prepared to say that because of our track records, we can win the election. I think, however, that we must take into consideration the fact that the hon the State President, irrespective of anything that has been said, cannot afford to have an election. I am not afraid an election, but the hon the State President cannot afford to have an election of this nature where we have to have an election in 1989. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have made it very clear that they will not bow until the Group Areas Act is repealed. As far as that is concerned, we are now told about the 60-day wonder by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. My colleague, the hon member for Moorcross had indicated and predicted that the alliance will collapse, but I think we are reasonable minded people serving here and I think the ultimate aim is to regain an image for the House of Delegates.

Numerous newspapers have indicated the question of elections and so forth. I think one should not be afraid or scared of elections, because if the notice of motion by the hon member Mr Nowbath is approved, or adopted by this House, an election will have to be called. I think the hon member Mr Nowbath in his own wisdom has taken 24 hours to realise what a blunder he made. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Nowbath has never fought an election so he probably does not realise that he will not win another election. The hon member for Moorcross has moved a further amendment that he has full confidence in the Ministers’ Council which I sincerely appreciate because as a team we work extremely well together. In this regard I think I should make my position perfectly clear and that is that I do no represent a political party in my Ministry. I think hon members on all sides of the House can vouch for that. My Ministry deals mostly with bread-and-butter issues and I have treated each and every member, whatever the request, as members of Parliament. I will continue to do so as long as I am in office.

I also want to refer to the question of disability grants. Nobody has any right to say anything about the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as far as the cancellation of disability grants are concerned. I do realize, of course, that allegations were made, but I take full responsibility for this aspect. The question of disability grants is decided and determined by a panel of professional people. I do not believe there should be any political interference. I will certainly not interfere by a political decision, but rather by a professional decision. Unfortunately a lot has already been said about it and I have taken heed of this. I have taken the necessary steps to try and obviate such repetition. In fairness to my colleagues, including the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I must say that we have worked harmoniously. Each and everyone of us are doing our job with dedication and enthusiasm.

Some of us can complete our work in four hours. The others take eight hours, but I want to say all of us leave our offices with a clean desk. We are ready for the next day. Like a Scout we are always prepared and ready for any eventuality.

With regard to the question the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned concerning a seven day working week I want to say it is quite true. As a colleague I want to say that he is spending far too much time on his work and he certainly is neglecting his family. It is a fact. I believe as someone who is a hard-working Minister that he should deal with his time in the way all of us do. We are all human beings and we are only capable of working so much. However, one will find that Ministers are on call 24 hours a day seven days a week and I think within reason all of us are duty bound to do our work.

With these words I want to say that I have full confidence in my hon colleagues and I am pleased that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Chief Whip have confirmed that they have full confidence in the Ministers’ Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to raise a question with the hon member’s of the Ministers’ Council. Whilst we note the motions that have been submitted here and whilst I am not going to dispute the conscientious objections that they are raising now as it is their right to do so, I nevertheless want to ask why use this forum now? Why did they not raise all of this during the last four years in the Ministers’ Council? How is it that they were able to keep quiet in the Ministers’ Council? Why are they now coming along here and saying that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was an autocratic dictator and that the point of no return is now reached? They now form a new party and then to use the floor of this House to make allegations against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers Council. I am sure they had enough muscle to do what they wanted to do inside the Ministers’ Council.

Every year, if one looks at Hansard, they praised the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Each and everyone of them praised him. I was reading in my office the submissions put forward by the hon member for Camperdown earlier this year in the no-confidence debate where he quoted “certain Ministers” verbatim during the motion of no confidence in 1986 when some members crossed the floor and opposed members of the NPP. Then in 1987 the same members opposed Solidarity.

Now we find ourselves in this difficult situation which they call “changing circumstances” and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council calls “fluctuating circumstances” in a certain debate. I do not know what is happening. It seems as if every month there are changes and fluctuations and today hon Ministers are using the floor of Parliament to air their grievances. I now ask them why did they not air their grievances when they had the muscle? Why did they not have the courage of their convictions to take the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to task. Were they afraid they would be fired or that something would happen to them?

What happened to them to cause them to cross the floor? What happened to them that they had to join a new party?

I want to refer to the words of the responsible hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs who is also the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates. I quote from Hansard, 20 May 1987, col 77:

At the time the hon the Deputy Minister was just an ordinary member. In the next column he says in an answer to an interjection:

He goes on to say that he does not fall for carrots. However, when he was appointed Deputy Minister he went back to the NPP and now he is back on the other side again. Are these “fluctuating circumstances”?

How do we vote today? How do we know who to support? How do we know that that alliance will not break up next week? [Interjections.] That hon member must please keep quiet. I did not make interjections when he spoke. I am only asking a question. The hon member can only ask questions through the Chair. Does the hon member understand that?

Order! The hon member for Rylands did not interject when any other hon member spoke. Hon members must please give him a hearing.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are asked here to decide on a very important matter. I want to point out that it is of no use to tell us of “fluctuating circumstances.” Even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is guilty of using that term. One has to be consistent where these things are concerned.

What worries me, is that it is the same people who shower praise upon him every year. The hon member for Reservoir Hills attacked the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I hold no brief for the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Hon members used to laugh at the hon member for Reservoir Hills and make interjections when he spoke.

As the draft resolution is worded, it is possible that the hon the State President may appoint as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whoever enjoys the support of the majority of this House. It is also possible that he may be appointed as an hon member of the Cabinet. I now want to put a question to hon members and specifically to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

They have been saying that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a stooge because he defends Cabinet policy and the emergency regulations and he is also a junior partner in the National Party. Will the next chairman become the junior partner? Will he support the emergency regulations? Will he support the regional services councils?

Order! Did the hon member for Rylands use words to the effect that some hon members said that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a stooge?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I said that they called him that. I do not call him that. They called him that in previous debates.

Order! I think that the hon member for Rylands must withdraw the word “stooge”.

With respect, Sir, I abide by your request, and I withdraw the word.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The dilemma is this. The Official Opposition has its standpoint, guided by its official policy as determined by its congress. According to the courage of their convictions they have strongly objected and that is their right. Now, however, how are they going to continue if they sit on this side of the line? They will be seen to be defending Government policy. [Interjections.] They will be seen defending that which they oppose. Then we will again be caught in a Catch-22 situation because this side of the House will become the opposition and one will see a tug-of-war taking place once again. Therefore I will again be listening when this is said: “Circumstances have now changed …

Fluctuating circumstances.

…and therefore it is a matter of fluctuating circumstances. We, being now the ruling party, have to defend the National Party. We have now become the junior partners of the Nationalist Party”.

I therefore firmly submit that the time has come for the hon the State President to dissolve this House and that we should hold an election, and let the community decide who should represent the people.

Rylands Estate.

That is the choice of Rylands. You are one of those that submitted earlier that we should go for elections—now have the courage of your convictions to stand by that resolution. You are not going to push me around in this House.

Order!

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I ask with respect whether the hon member for Rylands is allowed to refer to other hon members as “you”? I heard him refer to the hon member for Stanger as “you”.

Order! I would like to remind hon members that in the heat of this debate hon members may tend to use certain words that they should not. I should like to appeal to hon members to refer to other hon members as “hon members”. The hon member may proceed.

My only advice to the hon members who interject is that I have the right to submit what I want to submit, and there is no point in turning around and saying “Rylands Estate”. I could turn around and say that the Stanger constituency can decide whether they want to re-elect the hon member who represents them now. What I am submitting is this: That this House, because of changing, fluctuating circumstances that are occurring month by month—and now it is going to be week by week—should go to the electorate to enable the electorate to make up its mind as to what to do with this House and elect representatives who will serve the best interests of the country and address national issues.

Mr Chairman, it is the most painful task for me this afternoon to have to say certain things, under constraint. However, I do so because of the lesson that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned yesterday as regards the lessons taught to humanity on the fields of Kurukshetra, where Krishna advises Arjuna to take up the cudgels and fight against his own people to put right things that were wrong, and to uphold righteousness and dharma. It is therefore in that vein that I rise to speak this afternoon.

First of all I want to clear up this matter raised by the hon member for Rylands who said that for four years he was there and why did we not have enough muscle to stand up and clarify this position. I want to tell him in absolutely clear terms that in the Ministers’ Council there is a word that is mutilated, and that word is “discipline”.

If one goes beyond a certain stage in discussions, one is disciplined. One can go no further than that. Even if one is discussing the matter properly, the standing phrase is: “Let me tell you”, and then one is guillotined. [Interjections.]

I want to say this afternoon that I was the first one, together with my colleague on the other side of the House, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, to approach the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when we heard rumblings, in order to discuss the matter with him.

He shared the pain.

Yes, we shared the pain, but we were told: “No, no, there is nothing in it”. The impression I gained was that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a know-all and that therefore he did not want any advice from anyone else. [Interjections.] I was terribly sorry when I was called in at another meeting at which the hon member for Isipingo was present and he said point blank to the chairman: “We are looking for nobody else’s head but yours”. It pained me very much. [Interjections.] However, I am giving hon members the facts.

Discipline is one thing; discussions are another. When one is discussing matters, one must be given the freedom of discussion at all times, and there was no freedom insofar as that was concerned.

In my last job I was the principal of a secondary school with 54 people on my staff. These were people from all religious denominations and there was not so much as a rumble from them during the four years in which I exercised control as head of that department. It is a great pity that a person controlling a few, should have so much dissension.

I want to say that I am dedicated to the cause of education but I am not free to carry out all those things that I want to do for the pupils of my community, for the education of our people and the administration …

May I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, thank you. I only have a few minutes. [Interjections]

But when you crucified us in the Committee of Education Ministers, I backed you. Admit that.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has backed me. He has also embarrassed me on many occasions. [Interjections.] I was terribly embarrassed during the elections in Tongaat. The hon member for Tongaat will know that I was a Minister of Education and someone else was telling them that teachers could take leave. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if I had simple things to do, I could have done them. I could have maintained the image of the Ministry as well as that of the department as a whole. However, certain people find it convenient to exceed the bounds of propriety, and if we objected we were shown the door. That was painful enough. [Interjections.]

I also gained the impression that because I was doing my duty well and because I knew education inside out, having been a teacher in the primary school and in the secondary school, a lecturer at the training college, and a principal of both primary and secondary schools, I was beginning to steal the thunder. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon the Minister but the time allowed to his party in this debate has expired.

Mr Chairman, I do not have a written speech. [Interjections.] I do not have a written speech and therefore my time is unlimited but I shall speak off the cuff. [Interjections.]

I am going to speak from the heart here today. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I did not interrupt anyone. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to permit the hon member for Brickfield to proceed with his speech without interruptions.

Thank you, Sir. I do not want to discuss the hon Ministers or why they have left and are sitting on that side. They know for themselves. However, I regret that their complaints and grievances were never discussed at the caucus. [Interjections.] They were never discussed. If one’s finger is cut, one does not cut one’s arm or head. One treats the wound.

An important question is: Why did this come about? How did this jumping over from here to there and from there to here come about? On what grounds did it take place?

Dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction! I will say—and I speak under oath—what the hon member for Isipingo told me. I will say it to his face. He said: “Mr Khan, Uncle Cha-cha, how long do you want a Hindu to lead? Please sit with us. How long do you want a Hindu to lead you?” [Interjections.] I am speaking under oath.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member …

Order! Does the hon member have a point of order or a question?

He is on record for telling lies in court.

Order! Did the hon member for Isipingo say that the hon member for Brickfield is telling lies?

No Mr Chairman. He is on record in court. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Isipingo repeat himself?

The hon member for Brickfield is on record in a courtcase where the magistrate found him guilty of lying. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Isipingo must withdraw it, because he does not have those facts here to substantiate it.

I withdraw it.

Order! Did the hon member for Isipingo withdraw it?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member for Brickfield may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I speak here …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Brickfield take a question?

I am taking no questions, Mr Chairman. Hon members can write to me and I will reply. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, is it true that the hon member for Brickfield had hon members locked up as a result of … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brickfield must proceed.

Mr Chairman, the truth hurts. The hon member for Isipingo asked me: “Cha-cha, if you die, who will carry you?” [Interjections.] Hon members must please listen to me.

We do not want to listen to rubbish.

You do not want to listen to rubbish? You speak that too.

Order! I would like to remind the hon member for Stanger that the Chair will decide whether it is rubbish or not. I would like to appeal to hon members for their co-operation. The hon member for Brickfield gave all other hon members a hearing. He is now entitled to a hearing as well.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Brickfield said: “I will have you locked up.” I would like to ask the Chair that he withdraws it.

Order! To whom did the hon member for Brickfield refer?

Mr Chairman, he said that to the hon member for Isipingo. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Brickfield say to the hon member for Isipingo that he would have him locked up?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I did say that. I am prepared to withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Brickfield must please withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Apologise!

Mr Chairman, what did the hon member for Isipingo tell me? He said, “I am going to pilgrimage, but before I hit that Shatahn, before I hit those three devils there, I will hit this devil”. He said he wanted to get the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council out of this place. Why are hon members here?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Order! I want to tell hon members that the hon member for Brickfield has made it quite clear that he will not be taking any questions.

Mr Chairman, to get rid of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has nothing to do with religious grounds. What did the hon member for Isipingo tell me when I asked him who his leader was? He said: “Chamcha, J N Reddy.”

Order! I once more want to request hon members to refer to hon members as hon members. Dr Reddy cannot be referred to as J N Reddy. He is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, I only quoted what the hon member for Isipingo had said to me.

Order! The hon member must refer to hon members of the House as hon members.

He said that his leader was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, he said that it was only a temporary measure, because the hon the Minister of the Budget would be the leader.

That is a lie!

Is the hon the Minister calling me a liar?

Order! The hon the Minister of the Budget shouted that it is a lie. Will he please withdraw that?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it, but the hon member for Brickfield is a liar! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of the Budget must withdraw the word “liar” unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, I respect your wishes. I withdraw the words that I used when I said that the hon member for Brickfield is a liar.

I am now coming to the hon the Minister. Sir, one can speak lies if one wants to, but one has to face one’s Creator one day. What did the hon member for Isipingo tell me?

Order! The hon member for Brickfield has said that one can tell lies today, but that one has to face one’s Creator one day. Has any hon member here spoken a lie in the opinion of the hon member?

No, Sir.

Order! Will the hon member kindly withdraw those words?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. When one speaks the truth, it hurts. I want the hon member for Isipingo to deny what I have said here. I want him to deny that it is not the truth. I do not benefit from telling lies against the hon member.

Why did you have to go to court then?

I went to court, and the hon the Minister knows why I went to court. [Interjections.]

Because you told a lie!

Order! I appeal to hon members to refrain from calling other hon members liars. The hon the Minister of the Budget has again used the word liar. Will he kindly withdraw that?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that.

Order! Will hon members please refrain from making similar remarks?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Isipingo has denied that he has said anything of this sort. I said to him I am not a chamcha. I am a breyani spoon, a long one. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the last two speakers. [Interjections.] If those hon members will permit me to, I should like first to react to the hon member for Rylands and then the hon member for Brickfield.

The hon member for Rylands made great play of a very simple phrase, namely, changing circumstances and fluctuating situations. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, people living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Order! I request the hon member for Isipingo kindly to contain himself. The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

I repeat, Sir, that people living in glass houses should not throw stones. The hon member for Rylands won his election on a Solidarity ticket. After he had been elected to the Chair, he went independent and then, in order to save his position as Chairman, he joined the NPP. And who used the election to proclaim the great philosophy of unity and loyalty? Mr Chairman, I consider everything that that hon member had to say in this House today as being cosmetic. It was done to save his face.

I want to come now to the hon member for Brickfield. It is very difficult for me to do so, but I am constrained to say now what I must say. When a person is found guilty of fraud in a court of law in this country, how does that person or anybody else at all expect us to believe all the nonsense he has spoken in this House today? [Interjections.] It is on record in the court in Natal that this particular person was found guilty of fraud. [Interjections.] If I am found guilty of fraud I will leave this House. I will not take my seat in this House.

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

No, Sir, I will not take any questions now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on section 39 (3) of the Constitution. I refer here particularly to paragraph (b) which affects this House. Great play has been made of a particular phrase in this debate up till now to which I vainly tried to close my ears. However, all we have heard has been “election, election, election”. [Interjections.] Section 39 (3) (b) states quite clearly—

1. (i) such House passes a motion of non-confidence in the Ministers’ Council in question;

I want to point out, Sir, that in this case it is not the Ministers’ Council that is being castigated; it is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself, an individual. Section 39 (3) (b) goes on to state that the hon the State President shall so dissolve any House or reconstitute the Ministers’ Council in question if such House rejects any Bill which is a money Bill.

If any person tries to tell this House or anybody at all that the hon the State President will construe a motion of no-confidence in an individual as a motion covered by the relevant section of the Constitution to which I have just referred, then he will be insulting the integrity and the intelligence of the hon the State President.

Nobody said that.

It was said by implication. It infers that the hon the State President is unable to use his judgement. If one member of any team of six is particularly singled out and penalised for foul play, the entire team is not disbanded. In my soccer-playing days, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a referee. [Interjections.] During the period in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a referee, when he had to discipline a player for, let us say, kicking another player, did he then suspend the entire team? Would he have done that all on account of one player? [Interjections.] This motion before the House moved by the Official Opposition and subsequently amended by the hon the Deputy Minister singles out the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as the guilty party. It does not cast any aspersions on him; it merely states that he has lost the support of the majority in this House. Because he does not command that majority any longer, they say that the conventions demand that he resign.

They were harping so much on what convention demands, but if I were the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I would have nobly resigned my position and accepted the inevitable. [Interjections.]

Convention is that one ought to enjoy the support of the majority in this House. This has been proved beyond doubt to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He had from the 5 May to 19 May—he was deliberately allowed that leeway—to test the validity of this new conciliation party.

A convenience party.

No, it is an alliance party.

What party do you belong to?

To my grandmother’s party!

That proves that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has failed to convince those members who left his party and formed another party to come back. That is ample proof that all that bluff and loose talk that this alliance will never last is just to keep those people. When one plays the game of goats things go haywire.

Mr Chairman, I enter this debate with much reluctance and with much pain. I want to reiterate what the hon the Minister of Health Service and Welfare said in his address.

He said that every candidate that is seated in this House, except for those who have been nominated directly or indirectly, were elected not on a party ticket but by the contribution made by each individual over the years under trying circumstances to uplift the suffering communities in the different areas of South Africa. However, what do we see today?

We took the oath when we were elected as members of Parliament. One talks about honesty and corruption and this and that but I want to say that in the Bible it says that in a village all the villagers found a certain person to be committing adultery. They took her to an open piece of ground and they gathered around her with stones to kill her. Then Christ appeared and said, “If any of you have not sinned, cast the first stone”. There were sinners on this world 2 000 years ago, because no one cast a stone.

I therefore want to tell the hon member for Camperdown that it is high time he took account of himself and what he does. It is no good throwing stones from a glass house because he himself left Solidarity on whose ticket he fought election. [Interjections.] I shall not take any questions; I did not disturb anyone when they were speaking. Then he joined another party and Solidarity expelled them. He therefore cannot join Solidarity again because the Congress adopted a resolution.

You are talking a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to remind the hon member for Camperdown that the hon member for Mariannhill did not interrupt the hon member when he was speaking.

Yes, Sir, but he is talking rubbish!

Order! The hon member for Mariannhill may continue.

I feel members who make statements must honour them.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I heard the hon member for Camperdown saying that the hon member for Mariannhill is talking rubbish. Is it not unparliamentary?

Order! The hon member for Mariannhill may continue.

People are judged by the company they keep and by the words that they use. [Interjections.]

The Government of this country made tremendous sacrifices so that we can come to Parliament as a part of the reform process in South Africa. I believe we should go home and reform ourselves. We have no trust or room for reconciliation or reasonable arguments amongst ourselves. If we cannot mend our differences and put our own homes in order, how can we ask the White man to trust us? I want to be honest and blunt.

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

No questions, Mr Chairman.

I believe that if one wants to cross the floor and join another party, the honourable thing to do is to resign from Parliament and to go back to one’s electorate to tell them what one intends to do. One must then ask them whether they agree or not. Nobody here will do that.

I want to say that I will stick with this party. We all have our little faults—make no mistake about that. I also want to refer to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said recently at a sad occasion. He said that one should involve oneself in activities and take steps to put things right. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council always says that lightening striks the tallest. One must not duck to avoid it. If one wants to fight a fire, one must go right up to it. One must not run away when the fire gets too hot.

I believe that what is happening at the moment will repeat itself. My fear is that we come here to find out what we are, what we should be and what we should not be. I agree with what the hon Chief Whip of this House said in his amendment. I certainly have the fullest confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Ministers, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and everyone in this House. [Interjections.] I will be the first one to forgive hon members if they have made a mistake while doing their work—everybody can make mistakes.

It is said that one must not start a fight with the fishes in the sea because one will never win. I believe that what is happening is becoming a habit amongst responsible people. I want to ask all hon members to get together and to sort out our differences once and for all. We must get together and do the work for which we are here. South Africa is going through a very difficult stage.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a reasonable question?

No, I do not want to hear anything. People have been given the opportunity in this House to fill responsible positions and to address themselves to issues of national importance but instead we are dealing with the same parochial issues over and over again. We are concerned about people who do not call us or do not even greet us while South Africa is going through great difficulties every day. How many hours a day does the hon the State President spend in doing his duty towards the country? I want to make an appeal to hon members not to acquire responsible positions and then to misuse it. I am not saying that that has happened but I appeal to hon members for the sake of our country and our people.

I want to make this appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am not a stranger; it is not that I do not know him. We worked together for very many years and we have a very good track record. I want to see who is going to come and blot that out. I also wish to say that a combination in this House of men who are capable, is being written off, because we are looking in a different direction instead of looking at the directions that we should be looking in. We have directed ourselves towards the wrong cause. If anything is not going to be done in good time we shall all be driven to the point at which we find we will become useless. The credibility we had in 1983 or 1984 among the people that returned us here will be at risk; they, too, will be sitting and wondering where we are and what we are doing. While this debate is going on, senior hon members of this House—senior not only in terms of protocol or parliamentary procedures, but in terms of age, qualifications and other things—are just having a laugh at one another; when one says something it is a big joke.

And they wash their dirty linen.

Is that really the purpose for which we are here, or are we here to address ourselves to the problems? And then we want to know why reform is not going on. We should go to a reform school ourselves first and reform ourselves and then ask everyone else to bring about reform!

I also wish to say that we have full confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the Ministers and every hon member of this House. We believe that they are respectable members and I have full confidence in them. [Interjections.] If there are certain shortfalls I should be the first one to say that we must assist that man to get out of that problem so that we can proceed further. It is no use blaming the engine driver and saying that one knows the engine driver is no good when one is sitting in the same train, because if that train gets derailed, one will get hurt oneself.

Let us, therefore, put our heads together and come to some kind of an understanding so that we can build some kind of—shall I say—stability in this House so that we can all do our work.

There are men who can do a little bit more and men who can do a little bit less, there are men who can do a lot more and there are people who can make mistakes. There are people who can lead us, and let us look to them and continue with the work that we have come here for.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening to some very emotive speeches. Some people have been trying to justify their own actions and trying to cast aspersions on other people.

I do not wish to respond to the comments of the hon member for Rylands Estate. I think that if he searches his own mind and his own conscience and looks at his own correspondence file containing the correspondence exchanged between the party and himself he will know exactly what these fluctuating circumstances are all about. I do not wish to reduce the level of the debate any further than has already been done by the hon member for Brickfield.

Thank you.

I now wish to deal with some of the issues here. I want to support the hon member for Reservoir Hills insofar as his approach to and concept of elections is concerned. I want hon members in this House to know, and I want the public at large to know, that we on this side of the House have no problem with elections.

[Inaudible.]

If we want leaders of credibility and we believe in the concept and principle of democracy, we must not be afraid of elections. Only those who have no contact with the constituencies will be afraid of elections.

I want to say quite categorically that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in this particular House the elections must not be used as a bogey for the further dangling of carrots and for further negotiations to maintain a majority in this House to control the destiny of our people.

This side of the House will support an election without any hesitation or any problem.

Then support me on my amendment!

If that hon member had supported me when I wanted a commission of enquiry in order to achieve a clean image for this House, then I would have supported his call for an election.

Do not run away with ifs and buts.

Mr Chairman, all that hon member can do is interject; he has never faced an election and he knows nothing about elections.

I do not have to, nor do I need to.

We want to state quite categorically and we wish to place it on record that as soon as a commission of enquiry has been established and as soon as all the allegations levelled in this House relating to corruption in respect of land deals and education have been cleared—and intimidation of teachers for the purpose of obtaining votes—if all those practices are stopped and cleared, we will go for the election the following morning. It is as simple as that.

For the first time I have heard the hon the Minister of Education and Culture make an admission here, and I hope that the Press is listening to this, or that they heard the hon the Minister when he said that teachers were doing things in his own department and someone else was authorising it. He had no control over that situation. He made that admission with regard to the Tongaat elections. Is that not indicative of the type of malpractices that have occurred? What more evidence does anyone require? Furthermore …

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

No, I am not taking any questions, thank you very much. I want to continue by saying that I can understand the situation and the circumstances in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council finds himself. He is fighting for his survival.

No, no. We shall see who fights for survival.

I understand that. Whether or not he denies it, that is my opinion. [Interjections.] However, when, in that situation, he comes here and attacks those hon Ministers whom he himself appointed, or whom he recommended to the hon the State President for appointment …

Order! The hon member is one of the experienced hon members in the House. The hon member must please refer to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as such.

I accept that correction, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in reference to his own hon members, has said certain things in the media. This aspect has been canvassed by other speakers. I do not want to go into the details but to my mind, the point which stands out loud and clear is the fact that now, when he finds himself in this situation, it is necessary for him to denigrate his hon colleagues. If they were incompetent, then he himself was incompetent in appointing them in the first instance.

I also want to say that the motions that have been proposed by hon members on the other side of the House make a laughing stock of their approach. It is laughable. It is like clinging to the last straws, hope against hope. I believe that they do not know what they are doing. They are unable to understand what is going on and consequently they moved two motions which were directly the opposite of one another. Where is the problem? Where do the inconsistencies lie? Is it on this side of the House or on that side of the House? [Interjections.] When one reads those two motions, one finds that they are totally inconsistent, totally incompatible.

That is why we attempted to withdraw one.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been saying in the newspapers that he will have his majority by such and such a date. As a politician I am sure that he was hoping to obtain his majority. He says he is a heavy-weight. He will try. He is a good political boxer. He will try. However, I treat with contempt his statement yesterday to the effect that he could have obtained his majority the day before.

I could have done it.

I do not believe that. To the last man, the hon members sitting here have indicated the opposite, both in the caucus and in this House, and despite all the persuasion and all the invitations to join the other side, they have been resolute in their stand.

Your troubles have commenced today!

Furthermore, it was suggested that if we had a vote of no-confidence in terms of section 39 of the Constitution, and its subsections, there would be a dissolution of the House. Why? Why keep making an issue of the dissolution of the House? It was said …

What are you saying—desolation? What you are saying will lead it to desolation. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is becoming quite articulate and is quite correct in his pronunciation. He is making some progress, and I acknowledge that progress. [Interjections.]

As far as I am concerned, this threat about elections must come to an end. I believe that the law advisers and the hon the State President have other provisions in the Constitution to which they could make reference. Moreover, the example given here by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not valid because if it followed automatically that the Ministers’ Council as a whole dissolved as a result of the resignation of, or the passing of a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, then the Constitution would have been worded differently.

There would have been no need for two sections, section 21 and section 24. Section 21 isolates the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from hon the Ministers. That is clear. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is absolutely clear.

Also, whilst I am on my feet, from what little I understand, I want to bring it to the attention of the hon member Mr Nowbath and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that they must look at section 19 and the exclusions contained therein, which make it very clear as to who makes appointments. It is not the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who appoints the Ministers of this House, but the hon the State President. It is at his pleasure that appointments are made and that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is sitting where he is sitting. This is the correct situation.

I can understand that my colleague on the other side, the hon member for Moorcross, was disappointed. I think he was quite truthful in saying that he was disappointed. I can understand his disappointment. He was disappointed at losing such able hon Ministers from his party. I want to acknowledge his disappointment. This again proves that those hon Ministers who left his party are in fact worth their salt.

One can go on and on in this debate. I now want to make reference to the hon member for Brickfield, whom I do not see in the House. Oh, he is there. I think he was to an extent exposed by way of interjections. However, I want to state quite categorically that, while the newspapers have been playing this up, I would like the media to analyse the religious backgrounds of those people who left the other side and of hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council. This is being used as a ploy to try and divide the community along sectional lines. Sitting on this side of the House are not only Muslims. I think one must treat that allegation with the disgust and contempt it deserves. [Interjections.]

To accuse the hon member for Isipingo of indulging in that type of practice is absolute nonsense. I know the hon member for Isipingo, who claims that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been his friend for the last 25 years and declares his affinity to him. It has nothing to do with religion. I think it is the height of timidity for the hon member for Brickfield to cast such aspersions on the hon member for Isipingo. I think he should re-examine the statements he made and consider very carefully what he utters in this House.

I also found that hon members on the other side, instead of defending the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, were in fact in a sense passing a vote of no confidence in their own leader. What did I hear in those replies? Instead of defending the role of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council …

I do not need anybody to defend me. I will take you all at one time.

Well, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tried and he failed.

What did hon members from the other side do? They engaged in attacking personalities, as if the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon member for Isipingo were on trial. However, they were not on trial. I think those hon members should have been defending their own leader. I believe they themselves, by their own utterances, indirectly passed a vote of no confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, I believe it was the hon member for Brickfield who cast some aspersions on the hon member for Isipingo in regard to some sectional feeling. I would like to place on record that in all my associations with the hon member for Isipingo, I have never found him to be a sectionist. Whoever wishes to describe him as such, obviously does not understand the meaning of the word “truth”.

This has been a long and a very tedious debate. I believe that it has brought very little credit to this House. In fact, I think this has brought us great embarrassment in the Indian, as well as the larger South African community. The only reason that I have risen to speak this afternoon, is merely to restate the position of the PFP in this tussle for power.

However, before I do so, I think it was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who spoke about conventions. I would again like to remind him that the basic convention of any parliamentary tradition, is that when the leader loses the majority that he enjoys, he automatically does the correct moral thing by resigning.

Since when has this House followed any conventions?

Of course, I will be the first person in this House to admit that this House has never followed any conventions. We have had ample evidence of this when hon members crossed from this side of the House to the other side, without any principle reason or motivation for such a move. In this House we have had what I would call the comic performance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he, in his capacity as the hon the Minister of the Budget, presented a Budget and then voted against it in his capacity as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Of course we have not followed conventions in this House. However, there comes a time when one should start applying those conventions.

I spoke about the PFP’s consistency. I would merely like to remind hon members in this House that the PFP has consistently supported each and every motion of no confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as the Ministers’ Council. There are basically three reasons why we have supported a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The first reason is that we believe that he has failed the Indian community. He promised them that he would come here to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid.

There were too many nuts in the party!

We have not seen any evidence of this. On the contrary, we have found that he has gotten into the backpocket of the hon the State President.

Secondly, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has consistently refused the resolutions in this House for the institution of a commission of inquiry into education, as well as allegations of corruption in the allocation of land and trading sites. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not have anything to hide—and I am not saying that he has—he should have done the honourable thing and asked the hon the State President to appoint such a commission of inquiry. If he had done that, perhaps this debate that we have had this afternoon would not have been necessary.

Thirdly, we have had leering examples of the authoritarian style of leadership that has been presented by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We have had debates in this House where the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has called his hon Ministers simpletons.

He is a Simple Simon!

However, I would like to ask the alliance whether they, in fact, are now going to support the NP. Are they going to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid? If they gain power, are they going to institute commissions of inquiry into the two areas that we have been calling out for? Are they going to adopt an authoritarian or dictatorship kind of attitude in this House?

We have been told in this debate that this is being done in the interests of the community. These are very noble words, Sir. We have heard this phrase being bandied about quite often; similarly phrases were also bandied about when the coalition between Solidarity and the NPP took place. However, I have not seen the division of the spoils. I believe that a document has been prepared in which portfolios have been allocated. I would merely like to suggest to members of the alliance that instead of seeking of positions they should rather allocate positions on merit. I believe that there are some people who are more capable than others in running certain portfolios, and I believe that this fact should be taken in account when the allocation of a particular portfolio is made.

This, then, brings us to the PFP and our stand on this issue. As I have indicated in previous debates, it has only been the hon member for Reservoir Hills, the hon member for Isipingo and myself who have consistently stated that we have never asked for and will never ask for any position in this House under the present regime. [Interjections.] I want to apologise to the hon member for Camperdown. I have not been associated with him for the past couple of weeks and so he has not indicated to me as yet whether he wishes to hold a position in this new situation. [Interjections.] If the hon member, however, says that he does not seek any position of this nature, I accept that and I thank him for it.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I should like to make one plea to this hon House, and that plea is to try to restore the tattered image of this House in the eyes of the community we purport to serve. Exhibitions of the nature we have had here during the course of this debate do not, I believe, do us any credit, and I also believe that recriminations of the nature that we have had this afternoon as well as yesterday, must stop. I am certainly prepared to argue with anybody in this House on a matter of political principle, but I certainly think that all of us must stop the kind of recriminations that were made yesterday and again today.

Mr Chairman, I think that what is important for us to recount is the fact that all the complaints that have been made, the serialised reports week by week in the newspapers for almost two years, have all contributed to the kind of image that this House has created for itself— not only in the Indian community, but also in the minds of other people who also read these reports. That is why for some time now hon members on the opposition benches have made an appeal for some kind of inquiry in order to clear the air. If accusations are levelled at this House and nothing is done, such accusations continue to build up. Because of this, the situation has developed to a stage where the calls of hon members on the opposition benches have been supplemented by calls from hon members on the Government side.

What precipitated the crisis leading to the developments we now see in this House? It was the question of the commission of inquiry. It is because of that issue that we have the present situation. I say that far too much time has been spent in this House arguing back and forth and casting slurs on one another on this issue. I have never pointed an accusing finger at anybody in this House. However, when one participates in politics one must expect accusations. Then the honourable thing to do is to submit to an inquiry and then, if one is cleared, one can walk tall. Nobody should deny himself that opportunity and that has been the request that has been made in this House.

I also want to clear up a point of some confusion. Solidarity was not out for positions. Solidarity has merely lent a hand to help restore credibility to this House. Secondly, as far as our opposition to apartheid is concerned, our party policy and philosophy speaks for itself. If a party numbers sufficient members in this House, depending on those numbers it is either the party in opposition or the party in power. Therefore on either side there are responsibilities that one has to accept and whatever happens we must discharge those responsibilities with honour and dignity.

At least I can say this: If a change comes about in this House one will not have the headlines in the newspapers about this or that deal because I will not be associated with any administration or a House where such things happen. I have been trained at Smithfield where honour and dignity was taught to me, and I shall never taint my name. I shall see to that.

If I happen to be the Leader of this House and the people working for me do not adhere to those principles they will have to go. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

All I am saying is that we will differ with the PFP on certain matters and we will agree with them on many matters. However, let us conduct ourselves with dignity and decorum and let us agree to disagree. Let us take away the ingredient that has contributed to the cross-firing that has taken place on these benches because there have been accusations which in turn have led to acrimony and the exchange of heated words. I think that at least we can reduce to a minimum in this House.

I do not know what is going to happen but I am prepared for anything. I should like to see an election taking place two weeks from now, but I should like the hon the State President to hold this inquiry, and if there is nothing to fear, exonerate those people who have been accused. It is only fair that that should be done. If something is wrong let it be made known to the people so that when we go to them we can say this crisis resulted in an inquiry and the inquiry has revealed that nobody made any mistakes—they were all angels—or certain persons made certain mistakes. Let the community at large know because the election question arises from a crisis. Let us respond to this crisis by holding a commission of inquiry. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is then cleared I wish him good luck and may he walk tall.

I am not on trial.

All I am asking, is why are we afraid to hold a commission of inquiry?

There is a lust for power and this is being used as a smoke-screen.

Unfortunately everybody who comes into politics will at some time or the other look for power. I think politics is all about power. We want to be sadhu’s, but that won’t happen.

However, let us pray that when this exercise is over that we will abide by whatever decision the hon the State President takes. The hon the State President, however, must not fail the community because it wants an answer to all the nonsense and rubbish that has been serialised in our newspapers for almost two years.

Debate concluded.

Amendment moved by Mr R S Nowbath put.

The House divided:

AYES—15: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Cader, D; Collakoppen, S; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Nadasen, P C; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Pillay, C; Rampersadh, H.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Shah, M S.

NOES—26: Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Naicker, S V; Pachai, S; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rajbansi, A; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr M Y Baig put.

The House divided:

AYES—16: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Collakoppen, S; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Nadasen, P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Pillay, C; Rajbansi, A; Rampersadh, H.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Shah, M S.

NOES—25: Bhana, R; Cader, D; Chetty, K; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pachai, S; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, PT; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture put.

The House divided:

AYES—24: Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pachai, S; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

NOES—17: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Cader, D; Collakoppen, S; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Nadasen, P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Pillay, C; Rajbansi, A; Rampersadh, H.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Shah, M S.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to, viz: That in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr A Rajbansi, MP for Arena Park, no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members in the House of Delegates, the House calls upon him to resign forthwith.