Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned last night I was discussing with the hon the Minister the effect of the transfer of the various duties and functions of the Commissioners’ Courts to the magistrates’ courts. More precisely, I was discussing whether the stigma that had become attached to the Commissioners’ Courts because they had had to enforce influx control in the urban areas over so many years would not, in fact, rub off on the magistrates’ courts despite all the positive aspects associated with this legislation and also despite the acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts. This legislation is, then, really the Ministry of Justice’s reply to the Hoexter Commission’s recommendations in which we see the separation of the judicial and administrative functions of the magistrates’ courts being given attention. There is also the question of the creation of the post of administrative manager in certain cases in order to ease the administrative load borne by magistrates and to allow them to function on the highest possible level in respect of the administration of justice.

Of course those are all very positive moves. Since 1984 the hon the Minister has been engaged in transferring the functions and staff of the Commissioners’ Courts from the then Department of Co-operation and Development to his own department. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to give us an indication during his reply as to what extent magistrates now find themselves in the position of having to deal with influx control and pass law matters. For obvious reasons, it would be a great pity if, on the eve of a new era in respect of the magistrates’ courts, they were to start off a little tainted, so to speak.

That is my concern in respect of the transfer of these commissioners’ court functions to the magistrates’ courts prior to the changes which we are aware are to be introduced in respect of influx control and the passlaws. There is no clarity as to whether there is a moratorium on the passlaw situation or to what extent it is being applied. The matter is really in a state of flux. I believe this House would welcome the hon the Minister’s opinions on this matter, even if it is in fact a question of his openly admitting that the Government is soft-pedalling on the issues of influx control and passlaws in the light of the statement that has already been made to the effect that those issues are subject to inquiry with a view to changing the passlaws by July. I think that would be a very useful input by the hon the Minister and certainly we in these benches would be pleased to hear that the magistrates’ courts are not being called upon to exercise their judicial function in respect of those Acts for the reasons I have stated.

As I mentioned yesterday evening, we on this side of the House support this amending legislation and look forward to hearing the hon the Minister’s reply.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay said yesterday that these commissioners’ courts were being abolished because they were a relic of the colonial era. That is not true. These courts were established in 1927 and represent one of the first fine fruits of the first NP Government of Gen Hertzog. Along with other great steps taken by the NP at that time, Gen Hertzog took this important step as well.

It was a concession made for practical purposes. In view of the large numbers of Blacks in South Africa there is naturally a need, as far as the administration of justice in South Africa is concerned, to take cognisance of those people who have a different cultural background and a different national affiliation; those who speak a different language, who have a different thought pattern and therefore a different outlook on the world and life in general. It was in view of this that the NP took this great step at the time. As I have already said, it was a practical concession.

To a certain extent, our judicial system is already a coalescence of English and Roman-Dutch legal concepts, and that conflict has not yet been resolved. Consequently, there can be no question of our trying to incorporate a third channel of justice in our overall judicial system in South Africa.

This conflict between the English and Afrikaans legal concepts—I shall make only a brief reference to it—has, as I have said, not yet been resolved. In 1983 a brilliant young lawyer from the University of the Witwatersrand presented a powerful new plea that the heritage and legacy of people like Chief Justice L C Steyn, be purged from our judicial system. Specifically, and in a special sense, Mr Justice L C Steyn was the representative of what people sometimes called the Stellenbosch school, but which certain people simply referred to as the Afrikaner or Afrikaner-oriented school in our judicial system. This was opposed, and the controversy has not yet abated. The conflict rages forth between the opinions of Chief Justice L C Steyn and the views of Appeal Judge Schreiner who, of course, was an out- and-out liberal.

That is why—just like Gen Hertzog in 1927—we today are unable to accede to the demands and requests of people like Advocate Langa who championed this cause before the Hoexter Commission. We can in no way even consider the incorporation of a third—totally foreign—basic legal approach in our judicial system. The establishment of these courts represented a brilliant concession in the face of the practical realities we have to contend with. It was our earnest wish at that time, just as it is now, to accommodate the Black man to a certain extent—as far as is practicable—in as much as his own background is concerned, for as long as he remains in our society.

How long will that be?

For however long it may be. It does not matter how long it is going to be. It may be another generation.

*It may be another 50 years or even longer; it does not matter in the slightest. The point is simply that we have the refinement—if I may call it that—to be more than willing to recognise—and to go on recognising—the Black man in terms of his own cultural, ethnic and racial context, his thought patterns, and so on.

Furthermore, I took a close look at the report of Mr Justice Hoexter and the summary provided by the Department of Justice. I could not find a comprehensive, clear-cut explanation as to why these courts are now to be abolished. I was looking for a long series of explanations or reasons, but I am afraid that there is only a very short and concise explanation. It is in fact an extract from the hon the Minister of Justice’s summary, but it appears in precisely that form in the report of the Hoexter Commission. Please note what they have to say about why the Black courts are now to be abolished and why this heritage of Gen Hertzog is now to be demolished. Please note the reasons why this very fine product of the sound judgment displayed by the NP at the time and in later years, is now to be destroyed and trodden into the ground. The finding of the commission was as follows:

That is all! However, that is not the Black person in his entirety. Those are the superficial; the easily visible aspects of his existence. Admittedly, the commission is to a certain extent correct in that regard, but no mention is made of the Black man’s inner existence; his culture, his thought patterns, his outlook on life and the world in general and his deeper-seated self.

When a Black man appears in court, he does not represent merely a certain standard of living; a way of life, a family life and the education he has had. It is the whole person who appears in court. It is the whole Black man as a total product of everything that has contributed to his development. In this regard the commission has made a serious fundamental error because they have reduced the Black man to a fragment of what he really is. He is far more than this synopsis which the Hoexter Commission provides here. It is a crime and a serious transgression against the Black people.

Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether any injustice has ever been committed in these courts. Did anyone ever say in any article or dissertation that an injustice was being committed in these courts—against anyone at all?

Very definitely.

Were these courts ineffective?

Yes.

On the whole—I am not talking now about the small deficiencies here and there and possibly in King William’s Town; no one expects perfection from this or any institution—was any injustice committed on a large scale? Were these courts ineffective? Were they too expensive or did they in fact fill a great need of the Black man as far as legal costs were concerned? Our normal magistrates’ courts are already congested. Have these courts not played a very great role, and can they not continue to play a very great role in relieving the burden on the magistrates’ courts? I am merely posing a few questions which were not answered to my satisfaction in the report of the Hoexter Commission.

I should also like to bring it to the attention of hon members in this House that men who have practised in these courts for years, feel very strongly about this. I shall content myself with one example in this regard. A very prominent attorney in the Vaal Triangle…

Who is he?

I am not going to reveal his name here. [Interjections.]

He wrote to me—please note what he says—that on one occasion in the late ’fifties he pleaded a case before a commissioner’s court in the Vaal Triangle. Who was counsel for the other party? It was none other than the celebrated Nelson Mandela! Nelson Mandela appeared in that court and that attorney told me in his letter that at that stage at any rate, he had no objections to the court, its procedures and its application of the law. I do not know what his views are today, but I make bold to say that at that juncture at least he had such a measure of compassion for his people that he had no objection to appearing in such a court. He did not adopt a standpoint against it in principle, and he lodged no objection against the court. That says a lot. I do not share Nelson Mandela’s views but if even he, in his time as a lawyer in Johannesburg, thought fit to protect his people’s interests in these courts, then it speaks volumes for them—precisely because it comes from such an extreme leftist. If I may say so, it also bears silent witness in favour of these courts. [Interjections.]

It is my contention that despite the findings recorded in this report by the commission, these courts were a brilliant success, primarily because they served their purpose. They made no attempt to function as magistrates’ courts or supreme courts; they served the purpose for which they were established.

Secondly, the Black man was given the opportunity there, whilst living in our society, to give expression to his own perceptions of the law. There, to a far greater extent than was the case in our courts, he grasped the spirit and the atmosphere and in these courts—which to a great extent were his own—his perceptions of the law came alive. In that way, his specific legal concepts evolved in a way that was not possible in our courts. There is the whole question of lobola, marriage, hereditary succession and the status of widows. Over a period of 60 years, an institution grew and developed with a nature and character of its own. I also make bold to say that a fine tradition was established which did more—very much more—good than the little bit of harm which certain people now want to impute to this institution.

It is also a feather in the White man’s cap that he should have had this insight into the Black man. It is a feather in the cap of the Afrikaner and of the old NP that they should have been willing to let justice be done to the Black man for as long as he is here.

An hon member of the PFP—I cannot remember his name—said: “Justice must be colour blind”. However, how often is it not the case that racial differences must in fact be discerned to ensure that justice is done? Is it not true to say that one often overlooks justice? Is one not committing an injustice if one fails to take into account that it is a Black man and not a White man standing before you?

I know hon members mean well but the ailment they are suffering from, is that of liberalism; liberalism with its superficiality which always seeks to make things equal and indistinguishable. That is what it strives to do. If only it could reduce all humanity to the same level of similarity and equality. Humanity, man, peoples and races are not the same and are not equal. There is nothing on earth that the liberals can do about that. They will have to live with it. It has been that way for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. It will be that way for all time.

I am not going to pass judgment on the level or merits of the Black man’s civilisation. What I do know, is this: It is his own. Insofar as it is his own and he identifies with it, we in these right-wing benches respect that absolutely. What is more, we would like it to remain that way. We would not like to see it demolished or dismantled. It is my contention that it is the Blacks who are going to suffer when these courts are abolished. It is the Blackman’s concept of law, his life and his existence within our society—no matter how temporary that may be—that is going to suffer great harm. That, too, is the propensity of liberalism, which chooses to ignore deep-seated differences—which tries to skirt round them—thereby not only committing injustice, but also causing pain. It causes a lot of pain. Perhaps it does not mean to do so. Perhaps I ought to spare it this for the time being. Besides, I do not want to go into its motives now.

Liberalism, however, does not have the insight—in its entire outlook on matters it does not have the insight—that resides in people with a strong national spirit and who can therefore understand that another man in the same situation and under the same circumstances could have the same feelings about his own affairs as they have about theirs. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I want to make an appeal to him because I know he understands—at least partly. I hope he will understand the point of my plea this afternoon. That is why I wish to make an appeal to him. Although it very seldom happens, I should nevertheless like to request the hon the Minister to withdraw this legislation and to reconsider it for the sake of the White man, and for the sake of the Afrikaner in particular. Most of all he should do so for the sake of the Nationalist’s good name amongst the Blacks and for the sake of the Black peoples themselves.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has raised quite a number of arguments and I just want to refer to a few of them. Firstly he said that the phenomenon of Commissioners’ Courts was a product of 1927. In Natal, however, they date from the previous century. In 1927 they were merely established nationwide in accordance in terms of the particular legislation. So they are not simply the product of the Hertzog Government and its ideas. Although their origins therefore cannot be dated back to the Hertzog Government, it cannot be denied that Genl Hertzog created the courts and that he did a fine piece of work in regard to indigenous law and the rulings that had to be given in accordance with it.

The hon member went on, however, and referred to the existing conflict between English Law and Roman Dutch Law that is still raging. It seems to me as if the hon member has been involved in politics for too long. He has been out of practice for too long. There is no longer a conflict between English and Roman Dutch legal principles in our legal system.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has read the series of articles—I do not have their titles or the names of the writers here with me [Interjections]—that appeared in the South African Law Journal from approximately 1983? They appeared in other journals as well and in them the problems that existed between Chief Justice L C Steyn and Appeal Justice Schreiner are seriously debated in these articles. Does the hon member know that this debate is not nearly over yet? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, yes, I know of these articles. The hon member is referring to a debate that dates from round about the fifties. The debate was between Schreiner and Steyn and more specifically concerned their attitudes to the implementation of English law vis-à-vis Roman Dutch Law.

What the hon member has lost sight of completely, however, is that there are certain areas in our legal system that are most definitely not orientated towards the Roman Dutch Legal System. This, for example, applies to insurance law, bills of exchange legislation and commercial law which originate from the English legal system. These are fine legal principles which were established here and which we have accepted. There is a kind of reconcilement and a process of acculturation between the two legal systems. The finest aspects of both have been incorporated into our legal system. I think this is something we can be proud of. It is certainly no longer regarded as a conflict between two legal systems, neither legal-academically nor in practice. It is cut and dried.

You have not read those articles, Wynand.

I said I knew of them.

You did not understand them, Louis.

I think my colleague sitting here behind me, is correct. The hon member probably did not understand them. [Interjections.]

The hon member is looking for the reasons on which the finding that the special courts for Blacks have to be abolished is based. The hon member raises the astounding argument that the court should look at Blacks “as a whole”. He says the Black man appears before the court as a whole person and cannot be fragmented. After all the Black man, was not in his existence as a whole person, in every facet affecting him, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners’ Courts. This was the case in certain criminal law matters stemming from legislation of the Department of Co-operation and Development. Yes certainly, this was indeed the case. It was also applicable to certain civil matters such as disputes arising from indigenous law and customs.

Today Blacks still have to appear in the magistrate’s court where the Commissioners’ Court never had jurisdiction. In other cases Blacks have to appear in the Supreme Court where the Commissioners’ Court has never yet had jurisdiction. The Black man surely cannot appear before one court as a “whole” person. This has never happened; on the contrary, they were actually fragmented in the sense that they had to appear before different courts, as we also have to depending on what we are dealing with. This argument is therefore specious.

The hon member asks whether Commissioners’ Courts were ever guilty of the miscarriage of justice. The hon member went on to say that here he was not meaning the occasional instance. He is therefore saying that there was a miscarriage of justice. I do not want to express an opinion on the courts’ departure point on the miscarriage of justice, but if we return to the Blacks themselves and look at the criminal law jurisdiction of Commissioners’ Courts in particular, we find that Blacks were under the impression that in their case there was a miscarriage of justice. This was in regard to a tremendous amount of discriminating legislation, which the Blacks accepted as such, and in connection with which the Government has also made all its intentions known. This includes the repeal of influx control measures.

The hon member refers to the case of an apparently old colleague of his—he is probably a party associate—who appeared against Mr Nelson Mandela. Whether Mr Mandela agreed with it or not, and whether he accepted it or not, as an attorney he did not have a choice. If he wanted to act in the interest of his client, he definitely had to appear there. The hon member comes from the legal profession, and he knows the legal profession’s point of departure is in fact…

He has forgotten it long ago.

Yes, perhaps he has forgotten already.

None the less, the point of departure of the legal profession is to make their services and assistance available. An attorney defends his client, helps him or represents him where his client requires his services. The hon member has no argument, has he; it does not hold water.

It is in any case very interesting that the hon member apparently interprets Mr Mandela’s appearance in that court as indicating approval of the system, and allowing him to bear testimony to his argument. [Interjections.] I should very much like to see whether he will do the same in other cases as well. [Interjections.]

At the end of his speech the hon member made a specific statement, but I do not think he knew what he was saying. As I recall, he more or less said that the Commissioners’ Courts belong to Blacks in so far as they are their own—we must give it to them—and in so far as they arrogate it to themselves. These are the two concepts the hon member raised: We should give Blacks what belongs to them, and we should give it to them in as much as they arrogate it for themselves.

This hon member, apart from taking recourse to Mr Mandela to bear testimony to his argument, has not quoted a single Black who has lodged a plea for the retention of the Commissioners’ Courts. If one of the norms that has to be laid down is that one has to give Blacks what they claim for themselves, the hon member should at least come up with the evidence that Blacks generally arrogate the Commissioners’ Courts to themselves. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen also made a very interesting speech yesterday. He came up with the wonderful argument—it in fact raises many aspects of the philosophy of that party—that one should not establish a separation between the judicial authority and the administration of justice. This is not desirable he says, because the judicial officer requires experience of administration. He also says that if the person involved in administration does not have judicial authority, he loses all his authority. This results in loss of authority.

This is the evidence …

I know, Sir. It is evidence that was submitted there.

It is the NP’s policy.

No, sir. We are busy with this debate precisely because we are changing this matter. This is where the debate has its origin.

The hon member quoted that view and then based his argument on it. However, what would it mean if his argument were carried through consistently? He says, on grounds of evidence which he quotes, that the Blacks only recognise a single figure of authority. He none the less also has a positive argument, because he makes it his own. Hon members must remember that this evidence apparently is not accepted, otherwise the Hoexter Commission would not have come up with the report it did. The hon member none the less takes credit for it, that is to say he puts it forward as his argument. The person who is the judicial officer must also have experience of administration and the person who is the administrator, should also have the authority of the judicial officer.

This is basically what it amounts to. Now I ask him: If this is a principle which he accepts, is it a principle that he would like to apply to us as well? Does he want the Cabinet to be the administrator of justice as well?

Please, no!

Does he want the courts to be the executive authority? Does he still believe in the separation of powers or not? He after all comes up with an argument in which the judicature and executive authority are integrated. Is this the point of departure of those hon members or not? [Interjections.]

The hon member quotes a whole number of witnesses from the report. He refers, amongst others, to the Black “regsgeleerde” whom he then dismissively calls a “linksgeleerde”. He calls his colleague, the hon member for Barberton, to witness.

No, when he spoke of a “regsgeleerde”, he was speaking of you. [Interjections.]

I am really pleased that the hon member refers to me as a “geleerde”. This is more than I normally get from him. [Interjections.]

The hon member refers to this witness as a renegade, simply because he states in evidence that the employment and utilisation of indigenous law is disappearing. Now according to the hon member Mr Theunissen, this man is a renegade. Let us look at the circumstances in which Blacks find themselves. Let us look at the relationships in which they are involved in each and every day. Look at the process of urbanisation, the contracts and agreements he has to enter into, according to the legal system, when he enters into a service contract.

Indigenous law cannot be applied there, because these people find themselves in a situation where indigenous law probably controls the minimum, if any part of their lives. Should one force an indigenous legal system on to these people? Is this really what the hon member aims to do? Then to refer to a witness, who simply gives evidence, as a renegade or a leftist is unacceptable. The hon member says that Black people who do not agree with one, are communists. This is more or less the message he is conveying here.

But the Whites who disagree with you, are fascists!

No, on the contrary, I have never regarded the hon member as a fascist. I do not think he is that intelligent! [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen calls upon Prof Willemse, and he even quotes him in full. On the basis of that evidence, he argues that these courts should continue to exist. Amongst other things, he quotes where Prof Willemse said that the will of the people who are controlled by the law, should be recognised. In other words, if it is their will to integrate with the courts that have no choice but to carry out jurisdiction over them in regard to the relationships in which they find themselves on a daily basis, the hon member ignores it. He only looks at one aspect of a situation. What Prof Willemse does in fact say is if there is a will to have access to the utilisation of indigenous law where the relationship that has to be settled has its origin in the indigenous legal practice or agreement, there naturally has to be access to that legal system.

That access is there and it is retained in the legislation. The hon member in fact referred to section 11 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 and section 54A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. What is happening here is that precise application is given to the evidence that he quoted in his argument against this legislation. He also refers to Allot and, interestingly enough, he even quotes him as saying: “The consensus of the people must be behind it”. In other words, the people who are affected by this, must support the system. I want to give the hon member the assurance that Blacks do indeed support this development. I have not yet come across any who are unhappy about it.

How many have you come across?

I think I converse with more Black people than that hon member finds time to chat to his wife. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen also referred to the Department of Co-operation and Development and quoted the Department. He said this department has as its aim the protection and preservation of Black culture. Then he applies this argument to the Commissioners’ Courts. Let us again look at what the functions of the Commissioners’ Courts were. Apart from the application of indigenous law with its restricted civil powers, it focussed mainly on criminal jurisdiction which of course included the application of influx control and pass laws, to the extent that at one stage virtually every one and a half minutes, 24 hours per day, right throughout the year, someone was tried in terms of influx control measures.

Are you in favour of influx control?

Of course I am opposed to it, but that is not what this debate is about.

This debate concerns the Commissioners’ Courts.

These courts are precisely what we are talking about. I am opposed to influx control.

You have a political philosophy that you deal with.

Of course I have a political philosophy as far as that is concerned.

We agree with it.

I am very pleased. He would also admit that these courts had to apply the forerunner to this political philosophy.

That is the point. You abolish apartheid and then you abolish these things.

We are abolishing influx control and we are going to abolish apartheid, and that is why we have to take this step too. [Interjections.] If the hon member would just give me a minute, I shall complete this argument. His party made a great fuss about how wonderful the Commissioners’ Courts are.

Let us take a look at the scope of their activities. We must first of all establish what part of it is devoted to the application of the indigenous law and what part to the application of legislation that has its origin in Parliament, and what part is devoted to regulations, which have nothing to do with an indigenous law, but as a matter of fact is devoted to a system that was really developed for them, separate from our own legal system in the wider sense. Would the hon members on the opposite side rather give the impression that this very legislation should become indigenous law for Blacks? Should influx control measures become part of their indigenous law? Should they be proud of these measures that are being applied to them at this pace, as if it were part of their indigenous system? No, Sir. The hon member should be more balanced in their outlook.

The point of departure is that those hon members function under a guise of having a positive attitude in regard to the recognition of the cultural rights of everyone. I, and hopefully all hon members, also support this. The hon members on the other side, however, want to take things a little further. Not only do they want to recognise those rights that the Blacks want to claim for themselves, but they really want to force a whole lot of other obligations or disadvantages on them as well, with which the Blacks do not want to associate themselves. It is one thing to say: “I am not culturally imperialistic; I want the other chap to practise his own culture”. It is something else, however, to say afterwards: “You may give expression to your own culture, but then you must also accept all the other cultures that I want to force onto you”. Such a person is not culturally imperialistic; he is domineering and politico-imperialistic according to the decisions that he wants to enforce on other people.

When are you going to start with lobola? [Interjections.]

I just want to mention one point. The hon member Mr Theunissen has referred to the danger that there is not enough expertise on the application of indigenous law. This is indeed a risk. It is important that we place emphasis on the fact that people with adequate expertise will be available where the need arises for its application. We can also look particularly at the appointment of Black administration of justice officials to apply indigenous law specifically. I think that hon members would agree with that. I would appeal to the hon the Minister that he calls upon chief magistrates in particular to see to it that such people are available and that the activity and planning within the department is such that people who are in a position to apply indigenous law, are in fact available. In accordance with the present legislation the courts may acknowledge indigenous law off their own bat. They really ought to do so when they try a case based on indigenous law. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it goes a little further. The law itself has to be proved for the purpose of passing judgement. If a need should arise, due to cultural reasons, for a wider application of indigenous law, we shall also take a look at this as it pertains to the Supreme Court.

As a whole I regard the Bill as very positive legislation that will take the burden off many shoulders. It will in any case make the people who are affected by it much happier.

Mr Chairman, this discussion has certainly turned into a very interesting debate. I would immediately like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the hon member for Sand-ton, who introduced the debate on behalf of this side of the House. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon members for Randburg and East London City. I want to express my appreciation for the well-balanced and objectives analysis both hon members made of the situation in our country. I was impressed by the whole approach of the hon member for East London City in his speech yesterday.

I should like to comment before I return to the Bill under discussion. Perhaps I should start with the private discussion conducted yesterday by the hon members for Mossel Bay, Sandton and Groote Schuur on the whole question of the court system, the administration of justice, legislation and so forth. The hon member for Mossel Bay would probably concede that although we should very much like to separate the legal sphere from legislation instituted by Parliament, as we ought to …

One cannot separate it from the legislation; one must separate it from the political evaluation of that legislation. That is what I spoke about.

In practice however, I come up against the problem that Blacks were not and are not members of this Parliament and therefore could not themselves make legislation that was applicable to them.

Now you are getting to the political evaluation of legislation.

No, these are after all the sober facts.

That is what you call a reality?

I do not want to argue with the hon member for Mossel Bay, but I want to state clearly that Blacks did not play a part in the formulation of this legislation. Now however, we are creating a legal dispensation by way of the courts that have to implement this legislation, which the Blacks do not accept and do not want. Let me ask the hon member for Mossel Bay a good question: Can one blame the Blacks if they, when in that judicial dispensation they are subject to legislation which they do not accept as their own, they start doubting the entire administration of justice and the legal dispensation and ask if it really is justice that is being done?

Instead of correcting their mistakes, you are prompting them!

No, the hon member for Mossel Bay will not take it amiss if I were to tell him that if, during all those years he had objected to that legislation, which he knows is unacceptable to Blacks, he could put that question to me. He did not, however. [Interjections.]

Let me leave it at that because I should like to return to the debate that was introduced by the hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Sasolburg. Let me immediately say I do not think there are many hon members in this House who would doubt the regard I have for Blacks and Black law.

Just your goodwill towards Whites.

We are not talking about the Whites and I shall therefore reply to the hon member at a later stage.

It astounds me when hon members speak in very praiseworthy terms of Commissioners’ Courts and state that this legislation rejects and undermines that fine tradition. I want to ask those hon members why they never once protested in all those years when Commissioners’ Courts were obliged to make it applicable to the Blacks the very legislation which they did not want. Why did they not then say that for the sake of the image of the Commissioners’ Courts it should not happen? But they remained silent, as is still the case now because they do not really want to accept the unfairness of that system. They cannot say on the one hand: “Look how wonderful the Commissioners’ Courts are”, and at the same time remain blind to the fact that those same Commissioners’ Courts have landed in a situation that has destroyed any credibility they had amongst Blacks. This is the point made by the hon member for Randburg. They surely cannot say both of these things. I also want to express my appreciation of the Commissioners’ Courts, but not of Commissioners’ Courts that acted in that capacity.

I had the same problem regarding the whole issue of the recognition of, and respect for Black law. It should most certainly be respected, but in our present situation it could not even cover all the facets of the lives of Blacks.

Surely law is something that can grow.

Black law cannot cover all the facets. Let me mention a simple example. Does the hon member Mr Theunissen want to tell me—we have christianised Blacks, and CP members are the first to say this is a good thing—that Blacks can be forbidden, in terms of the common law of the country or the process involving the church and christianization, from concluding a marriage in accordance with Christian western precepts and not those applying to Blacks. [Interjections.] I am merely outlining the problem. It is after all nonsensical to say that the fives of Blacks should be entirely governed by their own indigenous law. It is nonsensical! [Interjections.] There are numerous examples of this kind that we could refer to where Black law, excellent as it may have been for those people in their circumstances, can no longer today be accepted as a satisfactory legal system in many regards. They do not want it! There are still Blacks who for the greater part of their fives will certainly live in the framework of their own legal system, but let us please not fail to appreciate the fact that there are millions of Blacks who are gradually moving away from this traditional legal system. [Interjections.]

It has been said that these Commissioners’ Courts should be the only structure of authority. The hon member for Randburg touched on this. Let me immediately say that in the Cape these people were originally magistrates. They were not members of a separate department that dealt with Black affairs. Until recently, even after 1927, the commissioners in the Transkei and the Ciskei were referred to as magistrates and not as commissioners—in spite of the official designation. Amongst the Blacks they were known as the “umantyi”, the magistrates. I myself was privileged, although only for a short period of two years, to work in a magistrate’s court in the Transkei. Let me just say that the assertion that it was a separate institution from the outset and was accepted as such by the Blacks, is incorrect. This causes the whole argument put forward in this regard to fall through.

In this set-up that existed in the Ciskei and the Transkei, the magistrates or officials were certainly not merely officials of the judiciary. The were the fink between the Blacks and the Government. They were there to solve problems and in many respects they enjoyed the trust of the Blacks. I honour them for this and shall return to it just now.

With urbanisation of Blacks, and due to the role of the commissioners in the urban complexes, the whole situation has changed. In the urban complexes those commissioners were no longer the only figures of authority. Just think of the complexity of rules, measures and legislation that applied to Blacks in the urban areas. Think of all the people they had to turn to in regard to unemployment insurance, job opportunities and whatever else. The role played by the commissioners under the old dispensation, and which hon members held up here as an example, has in the light of reality of the situation totally fallen away in the urban area.

I must honestly say that the hon member Mr Theunissen really surprised me a little. It was clear to me that he did not grasp the full implications of the new section 54 that substitutes the old section 11(1). Section 54 of the Magistrate’s Courts Act, which substitutes section 11(1) of the old Act, still contains the implication that discretion is granted to the courts. Even during the period mentioned by the hon member, when the Act of 1927 was applicable, the Act did not contain a provision that the courts had to implement Black Law under all circumstances. The court was granted discretion, but it was a judicial discretion. The court could not apply one or the other system arbitrarily. On ground of that judicial discretion the court was not empowered to apply Black law when the matter at issue between Blacks concerned an aspect other than Black law. From the outset that principle was upheld and it surprises me that the hon member Mr Theunissen was not aware of it. The situation was never such that a Commissioner’s Court…

You are silly; I brought that up in regard to a completely different aspect of my argument. You did not listen to it.

Sorry. The general tone of the hon member’s speech was, however, that one could see how wonderfully Black law functioned. He clearly implied that we were doing the Blacks an injustice by moving away from it. I now want to tell him that there was a movement away from this right at the start, even under the old Transvaal legislation of 1885. When recognition was given to Bantu law, it was still subject to Black law only being applicable to the extent to which that law did not clash with the principles of a civilised society, as recognised throughout the whole world. It is the same caveat that existed in section 11(1) of the Act of 1927 and that is now contained in section 54 of the new Act. Even in those circumstances Black law did not receive unlimited recognition. Even in the Transkei the recognition of Black law was subject to certain provisions, certain limitations, namely that it should not conflict with the principles of natural justice as it is known at present, or as in the case of the old Transvaal, that it should no conflict with the principles of civilisation.

That is why our courts could never give recognition to witchcraft, for example. Do hon members want to tell me that the recognition of Black law means that our courts should also give recognition to witchcraft?

Oh, this is just nonsense.

The hon member also just has to take what he can get. His whole argument really baffled me.

The cold fact is that Black law has its place. We must ensure that that remains the case. If we really have respect for it, we will admit it, but we shall not force it down the throats of people who in many respects have moved beyond it already.

Let me also express my appreciation in this regard for the work that was done by these commissioners to whom I referred, who applied Black law in the Transkei, Ciskei and other parts of our country. They did us a great service. If it were not for those Commissioners’ Courts and for the Appeal Courts, which later became so renowned, we would never have had this systematised Black law on record as is the case today. In this respect they made an exceptional contribution. I once again want to say that they were people who operated in the milieu in which that Black culture found its fullest expression, not as in the case of the urban areas where the Commissioners’ Court also carried out various other functions. I should like to express my appreciation for that work. They made a contribution that cannot go unrecognised and for which I think we should be extremely grateful.

It is not those officials’ fault that later on they were involved in the application of legislation against Blacks that fell far beyond the application of Black law as such. In that regard let me say, with reference to the appeal, made amongst others by the hon member for Randburg, that it must be seen to that care is taken in the application of section 54 by our magistrate’s courts, that mistakes are not made by those magistrate’s courts due to inexpertise regarding Black law.

In South Africa Black law is only applicable within civil law. If we look at the law reports of the Appeal Courts of the Commissioners’ Court and we check to see how many of those cases during the past years came from a metropolitan place such as Cape Town or Johannesburg, we see that they are minimal. The vast majority of civil cases involving Black law continued to come from that milieu in which Blacks could only give expression to their own culture. This only reflects the reality of the situation. The sober fact is that even in metropolitan areas there are, as there have been, and will be, cases where the courts are called upon to give judgment on aspects of Black law.

That is why I want to associate myself with the appeal that was made that we should do everything within our capabilities to ensure that our magistrates will pay adequate attention to Black law and that a study of Black law should really form part of that training programme. One of the disadvantages in the past stemmed from our differentiation between the Commissioners’ Courts who had to apply Black law on the one hand, and the magistrate’s courts on the other hand that were really closed to Blacks in terms of Black law. There was also the could fact that the magistrates of the Department of Justice did not really need to keep themselves informed of Black law.

I am aware of it that in the departmental training choices are in fact given in regard to this. However, I just want to point out that it is essential, I think, that our magistrates should be put in a position to become acquainted with Black law as well.

And so in this regard I also want to express my appreciation for the work of the Law Commission. As you know, Mr Chairman, the Commission for Justice recently published a working paper on the customary ties that fall within the province of Black law. I appreciate the fact that the Law Commission is paying so much attention to that matter, and I also appreciate the opportunity that was given to people to comment on it, as well as the opportunity given to people by the Law Commission to also inform parliamentarians on the progress in this regard. We are also aware of the fact that the Commission for Justice is in the process of examining the question of the rights of Black women. I once again just want to call upon the Commission of Justice to try to obtain complete clarity on this matter as soon as possible.

Allow me, Mr Chairman, to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister in regard to the question of section 54 as well. The hon the Minister will remember that on an occasion in the “Other Place” when we were still discussing the Hoexter Report, as well as the replacement of commissioners’ Courts by magistrates courts, the hon the Minister was called upon, when the legislation was submitted, to make provision that our courts would pay just attention to Black law. It was essential, otherwise we would have found ourselves in the impossible situation, every time Blacks appear before the courts in a case involving Black law, evidence would once again have to be brought before that court of what precepts of Black law are applicable. The provision in the new section 54, that the courts take judicial notice of Black law is therefore an important development, and I consequently want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister for inserting this provision in the legislation, because it now means that the particular court can on its own initiative take note of the provisions of Black law.

With this short address I generally want to state that I feel very happy about the Bill under discussion. I am happy that the Commissioners’ Courts, in light of the status they have developed, and of the esteem they have developed or lost, are being replaced by magistrates courts. I am grateful that in the new section 54 there is a repetition of section 11(1) and section 11(2) of the Act of 1927. More particularly, I am also grateful that it is written into the new section 54 that the courts may take judicial notice of Black law.

Mr Chairman, in the minute or two at my disposal I wish to say this was truly an interesting debate on a Bill revolving round the question of the abolition or retention of Black courts. It also reminded me of a debate a few years ago in the Other Place—as the hon member Prof Olivier also indicated—when we debated this matter. I recall that the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Pretoria West and I participated in the debate on that occasion.

At the time, however, it did not involve the replacement of Black Commissioners’ Courts or their abolition and the transfer of their functions to magistrates’ courts. At the time the subject of the debate—as the hon the Minister announced—was the transfer of Black Commissioners’ Courts and their legislative functions from the then Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Justice. Nevertheless as early as in that debate we voiced our concern and warned that we should be heedful of what precise consequences the transfer of Black Commissioners’ Courts from one department to another would have on further development of Black law in South Africa.

That was the Government’s first instalment, however; we have become accustomed to the Government’s executing its reform policy in instalments—it is done step by step. The first step was to transfer those courts to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. The argument was then raised, perhaps quite justifiably, that the entire administration of justice would then fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. The Minister now goes further, however: He abolishes Black Commissioners’ Courts as well as the adjudication in civil cases between Black people where Black law ought to apply exclusively. His further act is still more important; the Black Appeal Court is abolished. I wish to contend that this measure has sounded the death knell of the development of Black law in South Africa.

What is the factual situation? I am aware of the provisions of sections 11 and 54 of the Black Administration Act to which members referred. The hon member Prof Olivier said we should now train our magistrates to be able to try cases in terms of Black law as well. It is difficult, with every respect to our magistrates, to obtain sufficient trained magistrates capable of trying law in accordance with Roman Dutch law. I am not making an irresponsible utterance in this. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member for Mossel Bay does not differ with me. To expect these people to become experts in Black law is asking too much and an impossible task. I also think it impossible to expect the present Appeal Court and Appeal judges to be specialists in the sphere of Black law. Members of the present Black Appeal Court are specialists—experts in Black customary law.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately my time is too limited.

The hon member for Randburg appealed for consideration of the appointment of Black administrators to execute only Black customary law as magistrates in order to permit Black customary law to come into its own now. Is that possible?

Mr Chairman, in consequence of arrangements that the House now accord precedence to the hon member for Durban Point’s motion, I now move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) accepts the need for compulsory military service at this stage;
2. (2) urges the maximum immediate employment of volunteers from all population groups;
3. (3) accepts the deployment of military forces in the restoration of internal order in a supporting role to the police, provided that they operate within their own formations and under their own officers and non-commissioned officers; and
4. (4) calls for the immediate recruitment and training of township law enforcement units operating under the direction of the local authority.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that the wording is very specific and unambiguous. I hope that we will debate the motion in this House as it is printed on the Order Paper. It deals with the present security situation and the role of the SA Defence Force in that situation. It does not deal with the political causes of unrest and with political solutions to unrest but simply with the factual situation as it exists in South Africa today. It is a fact that there are terrorist incursions across our borders, that there is internal subversion, that there is sabotage and that there is violence in South Africa. These are facts and it is round these facts that the motion turns. I assume that this House will unanimously accept those facts as being facts and that I do not need to argue them. They are there for all to see and I take it as read that that is common cause.

I also take it as read that this House unanimously accepts the recording of our unqualified commitment to the defence of South Africa, to our territorial integrity and to the defence of the life and property of all our people.

Those I do not believe I have to debate. They are facts and they are the often recorded views of this House. All parties in this House have in the past committed themselves unqualifiedly to the defence of our country, its integrity and the security of the lives and property of our peoples. I therefore do not intend to debate that. If there is anyone who differs we will have to hear on what grounds they differ.

I want to deal however with the part of the motion which consists of four legs. Three legs deal with the role of the SA Defence Force in this situation and one deals with the issue of the maintenance of order in townships once it has been re-established. I will deal with the various legs of the motion separately.

The first one states in clear terms:

This is very specific and clearly shows that I am asking this House to accept that it is necessary in our present state of security to have compulsory military training and service, that this is needed in the present situation and that we accept it.

Is it for Whites only?

I will deal with the other races when I come to the next leg of the motion.

I am dealing with the situation as it exists now, and that situation is that there is compulsory military service for Whites. I say that we as a House accept the need for this in the present situation and that any other attitude would be quite irresponsible. To deny the need for conscription and to denigrate it would not only be irresponsible but would be close to being treasonable in the state in which we find ourselves.

I refer to documents like this ECC pamphlet. It was dished out by the thousands in the streets of Cape Town on Saturday. The heading is “Working for a just peace.” It says quite clearly:

My party and I believe that the question of serving one’s country when it is in danger is not a matter of choice. I believe it is wrong to expect some of our citizens to risk their lives or give their service to defend South Africa while others say: “No, I do not intend to protect my country. I am not going to endanger may life. I am prepared to do a nice cushy 8 am to 5 pm job or perhaps work in a hospital because I do not believe in the army.” I can accept such an objection where it exists for religious reasons but where it is for political reasons my party and I do not accept them. Moreover, I believe that every South African who falls within an age group that makes him eligible for military service and who is able to perform service, should actually do so.

That, then, brings me to the other race groups. I believe this is a decision that has to be taken by each group through its elected representatives in this Parliament. Each group has to decide how it will serve. Until then, the second leg of my motion will deal with their situation.

Concerning this question of compulsory military service, I acknowledge that there are complaints—we all hear them! There are those men who complain that they waste their time, that they sit around doing nothing, that they get frustrated and bored, and so on. It is indeed true that there are times when troops sit around with nothing to do. That is nothing new, however. There have been times like that during every war. That was often the case during the war in which my generation served.

Did you support conscription during that war?

I would have liked to. I would not, however, have liked to have had behind me with a gun the people who were supporting the enemy against whom we were fighting. [Interjections.] I feel the same way now. I would not like to have somebody who supports the terrorist cause standing behind me with a rifle, but I would have liked all South Africans to have thought as I did during that war. I would have liked them to have participated. However, because there were people who supported or were sympathetic towards the cause of the enemy in South Africa, one could not conscript everyone into that army. [Interjections.]

Why are you doing it now?

We are doing it now because, I believe, anyone who supports the cause of the terrorist against South Africa and its people and whose sympathy lies with the ANC and with Swapo does not deserve to be a South African. If these people act in a way that is contrary to the interests of South Africa, I would like to see them court-martialed, convicted and treated as they deserve to be treated. [Interjections.] I want to make my speech, Sir. I am not prepared to allow the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, who never makes a speech in this House but who perpetually interjects when others are trying to make their speeches, to lead me astray.

I say there has always been boredom in times of war. The Defence Force never used to send its troops home then, even when the troops sat around idly for weeks or even months. In one case we sat for months in the winter line, snowed up. However, the troops were not pulled out because there was no day-to-day fighting. The troops remained there as a deterrent against an enemy attack; and the enemy did not attack because the troops were there. However, there were long months when there was nothing to do and when the men had to be kept occupied. That still happens today. In fact, in our sort of war there are occasions when even more than during a real war there is no activity. What I do question is whether we take enough trouble to keep our forces occupied when those times do arise. I ask, therefore, whether it is not possible to ensure that the troops spend that time in a more interesting or productive way.

We could apply the same principle to our tanks. We have not used those tanks once in anger; but we must have them as a deterrent in case a conventional war does break out; and so we must have men to operate them.

We have Mirages which we seldom use, and we have the pilots to fly them. However, the pilots are not flying operationally every day. In the same way, we must have our other forces on hand as a deterrent.

At this stage, however, I would emphasise that three things could change this—and I hope they will. The one thing is that a settlement in South West Africa would bring new borders for us to defend. I would warn, however, that a settlement in South West Africa would not signal an immediate end to the need for troops. There would still be a need for vigilance.

The second would be for our neighbours to stop harbouring terrorists, as agreed with Mozambique at Nkomati and as Lesotho and Botswana are doing. Mozambique, too, is doing so to a certain extent, although there is still a degree of terrorist infiltration. However, if all our neighbours were to bar entry to terrorists, then that too would affect the need for troops.

The third factor, of course, and the one that would make the greatest contribution, would be for socio-economic changes and political reform in South Africa to create an atmosphere of peace and so restore stability.

None of those factors, however, is part of my motion. My motion deals with the situation today. I did not want this to become a political debate but apparently our friends over there want to turn it into one. If they want a political debate, then I am prepared to have one. However, I excluded the political aspect by saying: “Conscription at this stage.” That, of course, becomes part of the next leg and here I will answer the question of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

The second leg calls for the immediate maximum employment of volunteers from all population groups. I have advocated this for years—since way back in the sixties and seventies—when we called for a brigade strength mobile strike force. I an my predecessors in the United Party pleaded for this. At this stage, however, that force will have to comprise volunteers from all population groups, sharing common citizenship and a common loyalty to South Africa. That answers the other aspect of the question raised by the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. The volunteers must be people with a common loyalty and dedication to South Africa, people who share the same belief in South Africa’s future.

I therefore welcome the extension of the Cape Corps. I welcome particularly the creation of a Citizen Force unit for the Cape Corps. I think these are steps in the right direction. That will not end the need for national service, however. This is because the Citizen Force and its regiments in South Africa will always remain the backbone of South Africa’s defence effort in any conventional war or crisis. Consequently, there will always have to be Citizen Force units. They draw their men not only from volunteers but also from national servicemen with non-continuous service commitments. One will never be able or want to replace the Citizen Force units. They will always have to be there. One cannot man them entirely with volunteers, and so national service will remain necessary. What is possible is that the obligations in terms of time demanded, may be reduced.

At this stage, then, I would firstly support compulsory national service, together with an accelerated use of Permanent Force volunteers from all race groups. I have spoken in this House of what a difference a Zulu regiment, properly officered and led, could make to the protection of the borders of Zululand with Mozambique. They would be dealing with territory they know and with people they know. This is the ideal towards which we should strive. Those two legs, I believe, are clear and should draw no opposition.

The third leg is the deployment of military forces in the restoration of internal order. I want to make it quite clear that all parties in this House accepted section 3(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Defence Act. The section refers to liability for training and service and provides that the SA Defence Force may at any time be employed on service in the prevention and suppression of terrorism, and on service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic, among other forms of service. These provisions were accepted by all parties in this House. It became part of the law with the unanimous backing of all parties in this House. I know of no attempt being made to remove those subparagraphs from the Defence Act. They are part of the law, and I hope that they are still accepted by all in this House.

Even the amendment brought about in 1984 providing for certain prescribed police duties the Defence Force should be able to perform was accepted by all parties in this House. That was less than two years ago. It has happened throughout history that troops have been deployed in crisis situations. Genl Smuts used them at Bulhoek and at Witzieshoek during the strike of 1922, and they have been used in other situations of unrest since then. I was in this House when the Citizen Force units were deployed here in the Cape and when they camped at the Goodwood Showgrounds. I went out and spent evenings with them there while they were containing areas of trouble and cordoning off such areas. It is the traditional role of the Defence Force in specific circumstances to man road blocks, on condition that they man the road blocks and cordon off an area, but that the police do the searching and the arresting of the criminals they find there. I believe that all of us in this House should still support and record our support for that procedure as a supporting role to that of the SA Police Force.

In my motion I emphasise one point where I see a problem, namely that members of the Defence Force should operate in their own formations and under their own command. The Citizen Force units at the time were more mature units than the national servicemen are. They were experienced and their officers had had experience of the last World War. The Navy was used in the same capacity. They acted strictly within the role I have outlined. However, I am afraid that today our troops are being used in practice in a less clearly defined role. They are being seen as doing the normal tasks associated with police work. They have even become involved in making arrests. Individual members have left their units and gone among the crowds with a single policeman thus becoming involved in a situation in which I do not believe they should be involved. In the first place they are not trained for it. They are trained as soldiers. The unit cohesion is broken because they are out on patrol in small sections. Because they are away from their unit, their morale suffers and their presence becomes politicised.

Another aspect of this is that the difference in the roles of the police and the Defence Force, in their operational roles is perceived to overlap and is becoming blurred. The South African Police Force are the protectors of law-abiding people. Their task is to protect the public, to arrest the wrongdoer, to maintain law and order and to deal with crime. It is their role to be respected as friends of the public. If the role of the soldier is to be effective, in the last resort he must be feared by wrongdoers. When he becomes involved in a role for which he is not trained—a police role—he loses that image. “Ungadlali namasodja—ngiyabasaba”. This means: “Don’t mess about with the soldiers—I am scared of them.” The people must be afraid of provoking military forces into action. When they do move in operationally, it must be for real. They should use sharp ammunition, as well as bayonets if necessary. If they are acting operationally, they must perform as soldiers. They should move in under the strictly disciplined command of their officers, not in a peace-keeping capacity but as soldiers. The earliest stage at which they should be used is to man cordons and roadblocks. When the crunch comes, however, they have a different role from that of the police, and I believe it is important to keep these two roles completely separate.

I shall now deal with the fourth leg of the motion. There is no purpose in restoring order in a township if one pulls out one’s police and military forces, leaving radicals free to reactivate malleable youths and rekindle unrest and violence. When order has been restored, a force has to be retained to maintain that order. That is why I am so pleased that the Government has accepted in principle what we have pleaded for. I call them law enforcement units; the Government calls them municipal police. I welcome the fact that these bodies have been accepted in principle and that some are already being trained. We and the Government have been unfair to the Black community leaders in South Africa. We have expected them to exercise authority without being given any back-up. If properly controlled, trained and disciplined municipal police—I prefer to call them law enforcement units—are put under the control of local councils which comprise elected local leaders they should maintain a highly visible presence in the streets. They know the people and they will be able to keep order. It is their job to maintain order, not to restore it.

My motion emphasises the urgency of enrolling such forces. I believe we should make these municipal police a priority. All our efforts to control and contain unrest will fail unless there are municipal policemen on the ground patrolling where they can be seen, in threes or fours, armed but under control and subject to the law. They are not vigilantes but are there to keep order when it has been restored.

Those, then, are the four legs of the motion which I will now summarise, if I may. The introduction records the factual situation. It records the commitment of this House to the defence of our territorial integrity and sovereignty as a country. It records our unqualified commitment to the protection of the life and property of all our peoples. It deals with three aspects of the deployment of troops. Finally, in the last leg of the motion, it deals with what one needs after the troops and the police have done their job.

Let us have no illusions. We are not going to settle all the trouble by meeting a few demands from a few radical “leaders”. That is not going to stop it. I have here—and I have quoted from it before—The ANC Struggle Update. It is a publication of the ANC and “Umkhonto we Sizwe” of last December. I do not have time to quote at length, but it says—this was after a visit by South African businessmen:

It quotes their recent congress from which “a clear mandate” has been given:

1. (1) To intensify the armed struggle:
2. (2) to strengthen the ANC SA underground structures; and
3. (3) to further mobilise the people into decisive action, and to strengthen the legal mass democratic movement.

It also specifically quotes Mikhail Gorbachev who spoke in Moscow to a rally of young people from 150 countries. There he said:

This is what we are dealing with—let us have no illusions about it.

I hope this House will support this motion today so that we can say to the people of South Africa that all of us in this Assembly are committed and dedicated, not only to restoring order but also to taking the steps necessary to achieve it and, having restored law and order, to maintaining it.

Mr Chairman, today the hon member for Durban Point indicated in an exceptionally calm and responsible manner that current compulsory military service was an absolute necessity and that it should be extended by the use of volunteers from all population groups. He also requested that, when members of the SA Defence Force supported the Police, they should be under the command of their own officers and non-commissioned officers. The hon member also appealed for the recruitment and training of township law enforcement units to act on instructions of the local authority.

I think if someone were merely to scan this motion, he could easily say these requests had already been fulfilled as military service is necessary and compulsory; volunteers from other population groups are already being used as evidenced by the recently established second Cape Corps Infantry Battalion; the ranks are commanded by their own officers and non-commissioned officers and civilian security services already exist in White towns—perhaps not all in full swing but the matter is receiving attention. One cannot state this with absolute certainty, but even in non-White towns some degree of attention is being paid to a similar security service. The hon member has now provided us with the opportunity of conducting a good debate on the four points he raised. As I know the hon member—and I think we all know him—there are few people in this House who can hold a candle to him as regards his experience and knowledge of military matters, which is why we should definitely note what he had to say here today. Nevertheless I should prefer to see the core of his speech in its introduction because in that—in his reference to threats—he had a very serious message to those listening. We should all take note of it. His emphasis was not only on terrorists and saboteurs; it dealt with a planned, full-scale military action against the RSA and we should take note whether they are idle threats or not.

I should like to refer to a publication which appeared quite recently. It is called The Soviet Push in Southern Africa. It appeared this year and I quote from it as follows:

The reasons are …

You should listen to this … [Interjections.]

I was referring to three reasons mentioned. In the first place it naturally revolves round the minerals of our country and their strategic importance and necessity to the development and growth of the industrial and military strength of the Western World. The second reason is that it can provide control over countries bordering the Indian as well as the Atlantic Oceans to give them control over shipping routes which transport these minerals among other commodities. Thirdly—this is informative and very important—it involves the storm of resistance to apartheid. They say it has escalated to such an extent that this reversal, as well as the tempo at which it has taken place, has made planners in the Soviet Union realise that it may be a possible sign for action.

The degree to which the word “apartheid” is being kept alive—even in an artificial manner—by the Official Opposition is marked.

Do you dislike the word?

Analysts giving their opinions in this work also think the Soviet Union is preparing itself for an attack on South West Africa. They think that the “pariah” status of South Africa—as they call it—will prevent the USA and certain NATO countries from coming to the aid of South Africa.

I wish to continue by referring to this onslaught as it is very important. I shall quote from the above publication again:

In the light of the extent and nature of these threats of which we are already aware in consequence of deeds of terrorism and sabotage by Swapo and the ANC experienced daily, it would therefore be extremely foolish and irresponsible to think of reducing our Defence Force. In this respect I also include listening to the ratings of the ECC; I think both of these originated in the liberal wing of the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Durban Point referred to one pamphlet which is distributed and deals with the so-called “peace pacts”. It is a disgrace that this is permitted. This pamphlet is distributed in a type of chain reaction: Someone receives ten and passes on the same number to somebody else. That chain letter is sent to members of the Defence Force with the instruction: “Why are you serving in the Defence Force? You are fighting a losing battle. Why not resign? Make it uncomfortable for the Defence Force by joining the ANC and Swapo instead.” These are letters distributed by some members of the PFP and their Marxist fellow travellers.

That is not true.

Do not talk rubbish!

I shall conclude with a short letter as my time is limited. It appeared in the Sunday Times:

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

Order! is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, my time is too limited. I quote further:

The PFP is therefore challenged today to tell us exactly what its attitude is as regards the defence of this country.

Time has caught up with me but I wish to close by thanking the hon member for Durban Point—personally but also his party—for proposing this motion. He may be assured of our support. We wish to congratulate him on it.

Order! Before the hon member resumes his seat, he must withdraw the word “idiots”—the word he used regarding the Official Opposition.

What do I have to withdraw, Mr Chairman?

The hon member must withdraw the word “idiots”.

Mr Chairman, it was a quotation.

Order! It makes no difference; the hon member must withdraw it. I do not wish to repeat this. The hon member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, may I please address you in this regard? The hon member’s quote is a well-known quote from Lenin which was used to describe the liberals of 1917.

If the hon member is happy with being typified as an idiot…

Mr Chairman, with due respect, I appreciate your concern, but it is a fact of history. It is a well-known quote and we take no offence at it.

That might be so, but it is still unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall reply to the hon member Mr Vermeulen’s accusations against us.

†I should like to start by referring to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Durban Point. I want to say to that hon member that contrary to his stance today I really do not believe that we can deal with defence matters in South Africa without also dealing at least to some extent with the root causes of the unrest in this country.

It is a sad fact that very often terrorism across our borders has a link with urban violence and insurrection. While I do not condone in any way violence with a view to overthrowing the government of the day, I do believe it would be irresponsible to ignore the root causes of the violent protest. For the purpose of this debate the hon member for Durban Point has chosen to ignore them, but I do not believe that I can do so.

*The hon member for Durban Point's motion is to be welcomed as it provides us with an opportunity of discussing defence policy as well as scrutinising the restructuring of the Defence Force. It also offers us the opportunity of reviewing the debate currently taking place among the business community, among White youth and among Black South Africans. I believe dialogue taking place outside Parliament can no longer be ignored, especially as our country is so divided and also as the participants could perhaps contribute to the effort in restoring domestic peace. In consequence I believe we should take note of the extraparliamentary debate. To our surprise its tone is often far more moderate than one would expect.

What is the subject of current discussions? What are they talking about? National service is being discussed; the role of the Defence Force in areas of unrest is debated; the lack of parliamentary control over the Defence Force is a subject. This is very important, Mr Chairman. They discuss the matter of the lawful or unlawful use of violence by the State as well as by others. These are questions being discussed. In the light of this, therefore, I wish to move the following amendment:

1. (1) the extent to which Parliament has been bypassed as the body which should control the actions of the South African Defence Force;
2. (2) the increasingly controversial nature of the involvement of the Defence Force in internal operations in support of the South African Police; and
3. (3) the unsatisfactory nature of compulsory military service as a means of recruiting manpower for the Defence Force, calls on the Government—
   1. (a) to proceed immediately with the recruitment of a non-racial professional defence force as the most effective means of guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic;
   2. (b) to release non-confidential elements of the Report of the Geldenhuys Committee; and
   3. (c) to appoint a standing committee of Parliament to review all operations of the Defence Force.”.

I believe the matter of violence as a mechanism for maintaining the status quo on the one hand or overthrowing it on the other is of cardinal importance now. Arising from the large-scale unrest, the state of emergency and the use of the Defence Force in areas of unrest, the legality or illegality of violence has become very relevant to those involved with the Defence Force. We in this House will also have to obtain clarity in our own philosophy in this regard.

It is accepted traditionally that the State has the monopoly in the use of violence because the individual supposedly abrogates his right to violence in exchange for the security, the protection and the material welfare guaranteed him by the State. To my mind this voluntary subjugation of the individual to the State implies that the State will act justly toward the individual—and consequently also as regards the community—and that the individual will participate in the execution of authority. The lawful use of force or violence in maintaining the status quo therefore demands the existence of a democracy or, failing this, a clear movement in the direction of an increasingly democratic dispensation with the State receiving the support of the overwhelming majority.

This, to me, appears to be the difficulty. On the one hand it is argued that, as the State is not elected democratically and acts repressively by means of its policy, the right now exists in South Africa to overthrow the State violently. It is argued that the State lacks legitimacy and that argument is further reinforced as it said that apartheid or forced segregation has brought about the relocation of people and resulted in the fragmentation of families. In these circumstances extreme views have it that violence is not only lawful but also morally justifiable and acceptable.

†However accurate or otherwise these arguments may be, it is true that in the very recent past there has been a considerable incidence of violence in Black and Brown areas. The reason behind this, it would appear to me, is to illustrate to the politically uncommitted the price that has to be paid for non-commitment. This derives from the belief that the liberation struggle demands that it should be all-embracing and that individual choice should not be tolerated. That is how I perceive what is happening in the Black and Brown townships.

The government’s response to this has in effect worsened the situation because it has simply met force with force and, in so doing, has contributed to a culture of violence in this country. There is also evidence that a badly led security force under poor management and hopelessly misdirected Cabinet leadership has employed force far in excess or what has been strictly required. This last comment I direct not at the SADF but at the State and its use of the SA Police to contain what it perceived as a violent situation.

However, most important, the Government have omitted to address themselves to the root causes of the frustrations which have been expressed in political violence, believing—the Government that is—that to give in to the demands of the communities would be to display a weakness.

Now the question arises—and I direct this to the hon the Minister: How should the Government and Parliament have reacted to these issues? I think this is what the debate should be about. We in the PFP have no doubt as to what the reaction should have been.

We believe that conditions must be created in those areas in South Africa which are affected by the unrest which will restore peace and stability to those areas. It is important to appreciate that it is not a simple matter but that a multifaceted strategy will have to be employed to realise this goal. It is not simple. This will have to involve political and constitutional adaptations and social upliftment in addition to the mere restoration of law and order. Law and order certainly is a requirement but there is much that needs to be done in addition to that. In restoring law and order the security forces should use the minimum amount of force that is required to do so. I do not know if anybody in this House including the hon the Minister would disagree with me on that point.

It is our view that political change should come about only by peaceful means. This implies among other things that persons who are seeking to destroy the State by violent means are in a state of insurrection and should be dealt with accordingly. There should be no bones about that. At the same time, if political violence is not opposed, a cult of violence will develop which will make the eventual resolution of our political problems much more difficult. Furthermore the PFP—let me make this quite clear—deplores in the strongest possible terms violence from whichever quarter it comes, whether it is from the townships, from vigilante groups or from the State overreacting to a situation.

In spite of what others may say, we say that there are still avenues open to people to effect peaceful change, however complicated, frustrating, inadequate or slow they may be. We believe that the incremental effect of the hesitant steps towards the liberalisation of the South African society is greater than the actual steps themselves.

We as a party—and I believe Parliament should say it as well—cannot therefore agree with the statement made that gradualist reform is no longer possible in South Africa. This party—and I believe Parliament should as well—also agrees by implication that violence as the only form to bring about change is unacceptable.

*It is against this background of the lawful use of violence that I propose my amendment in this House today. I believe the composition of the Defence Force, its application and the inputs Parliament can make on its control, can determine whether the Defence Force will contribute to peaceful change in South Africa or the reverse. Let me add immediately that I believe, if it is controlled correctly by Parliament, the Defence Force can make such a contribution.

I contend that Parliament at present has almost no influence or control over the activities of the Defence Force. I request from the hon the Minister—as I have done frequently in the past—the appointment of a permanent joint select committee so that … [Interjections.]

Just listen to the end.

… so that the committee may make a real contribution to the Government’s policy on defence.

You are floundering!

Hon members will agree with me that this has seldom, if ever, happened.

Listen to the hon member for Umhlanga because he is telling the truth.

I cannot hear if the member mumbles in between. If he wishes to put a question, he should do so.

I say you are talking nonsense! Can you hear me now?

Don’t be so darn rude. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am aware that such a committee could not fulfil the role of managing the Defence Force from day to day on a continuous basis; that is not the function of Parliament.

Nevertheless such a committee could study all operations in depth after their occurrence. The committee would then be in a position to express an opinion whether the operation was to the benefit of the community as a whole or not. As matters stand, we are really not in a position to do this.

The next point I wish to raise is the matter of the Geldenhuys Committee. The hon the Minister knows the Official Opposition and many other people gave evidence to that committee. In the light of replies to questions put in this House, I assume the basis of the findings of that committee is also the basis of the policy applied by this Government. We in this House and also hon members of the other Houses are expected to contribute seriously as regards the policy, the management and the structure of the Defence Force. Now I ask: How is this possible if the necessary information is not made available to us? I accept certain information is sensitive and in consequence possibly cannot be made available; neither am I requesting this. In my opinion, however, we should be furnished with information regarding the basis of the policy.

Mr Chairman, I hope that the Whips have made arrangements so that this motion can be put to the vote today. If we agree to the amendment of the hon member for Wynberg, we are expressing a motion of no confidence in our Defence Force. [Interjections.] Then it is a definite motion of no confidence in the entire task and set up of our Defence Force. [Interjections.] Consequently I hope that the Chief Whip has made suitable arrangements. I shall return to the hon member for Wynberg in a moment.

First I want to emphasise that there are also chaplains in the ranks of the soldiers in Defence Force uniform. Soldiers are not only men who carry rifles; there are also people performing other duties who wear the Defence Force uniform. To us that Defence Force uniform is a symbol in the forefront of the struggle between order and chaos, between development and destruction and between the free democracy we are enjoying at present and the enslavement of Marxism. In the forefront of the struggle that uniform is the symbol of the protector of Western values and norms.

It is that same man in uniform who helped to alleviate the states of emergency after the floods in Swaziland and kwaZulu caused by cyclone Domoina. It is that same soldier who transports drinking water for Coloureds, Blacks and Whites in distress in the drought-stricken areas. It is that same soldier who is now helping to combat the locust plague. It is that same soldier who in the field of social welfare is also engaged in upliftment work over a wider area than merely the battle front.

That is not the soldier’s task. That is not his job.

That is his task. That is all part of his task because the soldier has a wide-ranging task. The hon member will still learn. He has only joined us recently in this House.

It is not the soldier’s duty to do social welfare work.

The soldier has a wide-ranging task to win the confidence of the people with whom he is working, ie the civilian population, so that they will not harbour terrorists in their areas. I am glad that the hon member is entering this discussion; I shall get back in a moment to the climate they create.

The question arises: Where must the South African soldier be used? In this connection we want to express our appreciation for the standpoint of the hon member for Durban Point. We can reply to the question at once by asking: “Where is the enemy of the RSA?” That is where our soldier must be used. Perhaps we can disagree on the capacity in which he must be used. [Interjections.] But if the enemy of the RSA is inside the country, we must use the soldier in that capacity inside the country and not only on the country’s borders.

When we come to that set-up, we must evaluate the task of the Defence Force as an instrument of the State. Over against that we must also evaluate the onslaught against the Republic. The soldier is not the only one who must fight against the onslaught. The State, which is represented by the members of the Government in this House and the members of the other two Houses, has an equally important task to do its job in the political, social and welfare spheres. The sooner we get going and get those things done the easier we make the task of our soldiers. That is only logical.

There is also the matter of the large-scale psychological onslaught on our people, which is a delicate and very important aspect. Our people are being softened up into an attitude of weak surrender. [Interjections.] Consequently we are asking for concerted action against the total onslaught. The South African Defence Force will take care of the military aspect, even if in newspaper articles the hon member for Wynberg criticises the fact that we are expanding our arsenal of weapons. He agreed with a military expert when he said in the Sunday Tribune:

He said this as if we should simply sit back and relax while the enemy builds up its arsenal of weapons.

He is a political coward!

We are not that naive. The Government, with its instruments, is engaged in its task. The State and the businessmen are working in the economic sphere. But in another sphere we have a specific task. It is important to note that we must not participate in creating a climate which creates a fertile breeding-ground for our enemy. We must guard against creating that climate.

Now I want to ask the hon member for Wynberg a question. His leader—ie the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—said the following about the deployment of the central territorial forces on 12 March of this year in an interview with the Cape Times:

[Interjections.] Consequently it is precisely what we are striving for, namely decentralised units by means of which we arrange protection in another way—which links up with the motion of the hon member for Durban Point—which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition considers sinister behaviour on the part of the Defence Force. This is a generally known practice which is applied with great success in many of our areas. It works.

We are not building up the image of our Defence Force in this way. We are not building up the image of our Defence Force if the youth group of the Official Opposition identifies itself with the “end conscription campaign”. You are part of the creation of a climate which is establishing a breeding ground for those people, particularly when the following appears, amongst others, in the pamphlet of the “End conscription campaign”:

We are not building up the morale of our people and of our Defence Force—which is participating for our security—if our youth groups take up the call of the UDF.

Then I appreciate a Cape Times columnist like Mr Willem Steenkamp who expressly and unequivocally rejected the standpoint adapted by a UDF leader, Allan Boesak, and wrote as follows:

In reply to this Mr Steenkamp said the following:

He stated his case unequivocally. The members of the youth group of that party, who sanctimoniously moved an amendment of no confidence in our Defence Force, associate themselves with the UDF. At the UDF’s funerals of the ANC Terrorists shot here, the red flag with the hammer and sickle was draped behind the speakers. Is that a symbol of peace in our country? [Interjections.]

I shall content myself with a final thought: We must follow the example of our people. Next to Acacia Park there is a small military unit, and when one drives through that gate, one sees on the signpost indicating the direction, the inscription “Ons is wenners”. Sector 70 in South West Africa uses a short moving extract from a speech by the State President which I want to hold up to hon members as an example, because it gives those people courage. The quotation reads as follows:

This is an extract from a speech by the State President. The hon member for Jeppe will, after all, admit that these are fine words. [Interjections.] Sector 70 has adopted that concept.

We must guard against not creating a climate in which our enemies can flourish. We would like our soldiers in uniform as well as our police in uniform to be accepted by our communities. Then it is this House’s duty to do its job in the other spheres.

Mr Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon member for Standerton when he said that we should not allow the morale of our people to crumble and that we should not make our people despondent. I agree with him entirely. I want to point out to him that the NP once held a seminar at which Dr Willem de Klerk wrote in a booklet that the NP members should go out and make the people despondent. [Interjections.]

The PFP’s amendment and contribution merely confirms the deep ideological differences between them and us. I hope that the PFP will permit me to pass the following remark. From their speeches and the many questions which they sometimes place on the Order Paper, we gain the impression that their sympathies lie with the radicals rather than with the security forces. We reject their amendment.

The hon member for Durban Point’s motion consists of an introduction and four paragraphs. We have no fault to find with the introduction, but we shall move amendments to the four points.

The effect of the CP’s proposed amendment to sub-paragraph (1) is that compulsory military service must also be extended to Indians and Coloureds in a group context. The CP’s fundamental standpoint is well-known, namely that each people must have its own defence force. We reject an integrated defence force such as the Government now has.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is true that today a Black man can basically hold any officer’s rank in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, he is staring at me helplessly. [Interjections.] It is a fact that according to the policy of the hon powerless (magtelose) Minister any Black soldier may attain any rank, and may consequently also become the head of the SA Defence Force. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether that is true.

If he is qualified.

If he is qualified, can he then become the head of the Defence Force?

I did not say that, but he can become an officer.

Can he become the head of the Defence Force?

He can become an officer.

Can he become the head of the Defence Force? [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, can you see why we call him Powerless (Magteloos) Malan?

A further consequence of our amendment is that the CP is emphasising the Government’s glaring injustice towards the White national servicemen. The Government only compels White boys to undergo military training and not Coloureds or Indians. They get away scot-free. It is alleged that they undergo voluntary military training, but even if that is praiseworthy, it is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that White boys do not have a choice; they must undergo compulsory military training, whereas Indians and Coloureds have a choice.

I find it very amusing that the Government considers this matter to be sensitive. This makes me think of doctors who when they do not know precisely what is wrong with the patient, say that he has a virus. When the Government does not know what to do about a matter—which is usually the case—then they say that it is sensitive.

As far as paragraph (2) of the amendment is concerned, the CP is pointing out that it receives complaints from national servicemen that their services are not always used productively and economically. We hope that these complaints are the exception and not the rule.

Mr Chairman, if it is the hon member’s standpoint that a defence force defends its particular country, may I ask him what country he wants the Coloured and Indian national servicemen to defend?

The hon member need only look at my Hansard. He wants to involve me in a long argument and I only have ten minutes. I shall inform him on another occasion.

Consequently we feel that it is better for the existing troops to be used more economically and efficiently rather than to incur expenses by recruiting extra voluntary labour forces, as the hon member for Durban Point proposed.

We accept the proposal in paragraph (3) and confirm the CP’s support for the use of the Defence Force to assist the police in security tasks. But we want to make it possible for commanding officers to use their discretion in deserving cases. In our amendment we say that they must, where possible, be in separate units and under separate commands.

Paragraph (4) proposes the creation of what I call auxiliary troops at the third tier of government to assist the security forces to maintain order. In principle we agree with this, but our amendment contains two differences in emphasis. Firstly we are not now expressing an opinion on the command and control structures of those auxiliary troops. Secondly we are emphasising the fact that each population group must have its own auxiliary troops to ensure the security of its own group—White auxiliary troops to protect Whites, Indians for Indians, Coloureds for Coloureds and Blacks for Blacks. [Interjections.]

Our motivation for auxiliary troops is very simple. The Government has now lost control of South Africa’s affairs to such an extent, and the security situation in the country has deteriorated so dramatically that the Government simply cannot assure the security of this country’s inhabitants any longer. That is why we support the introduction of auxiliary troops to protect the lives and possessions of innocent people. [Interjections.]

Thousands of innocent South Africans of all races and peoples are living in fear today. More and more people are saying frankly that they are afraid to go and do their shopping. They are afraid of bombs and landmines. Innocent Black people are afraid that they are going to be burnt alive in public. If one merely looks at newspaper reports of the past few days, one realises that the security position is critical, and also that the Government is certainly not equal to the security task. Now more than ever before it is essential for the Government to be driven out of office.

It would appear that the situation in the Black residential areas has already reached the stage where it has begun to be uncontrollable. Black structures have been destroyed and the ANC and UDF have created their own structures. I am reading from The Sunday Star of 16 March 1986. Under the headline “Law of the streets” we read:

I do not want to read out the alarming statistics on how many mayors have resigned and how many people have been killed and burned. This proves that the Government has lost control of matters.

It would appear that the ANC is getting stronger and more militant by the day and the Government’s authority is being defied with very great success. A headline in the Sunday Times of the day before yesterday reads as follows: “ANC flags flutter as 10 000 defy Cape funeral curb.” What does one see? One sees the ANC’s flag and one sees the communist flag on TV and everywhere. Allan Boesak preaches under it.

The ANC is creating the impression that they are winning the battle inside the country, and the danger is becoming greater by the day. There are innumerable other examples of escalating violence. What I find difficult to understand, is that the State President piously pretends that the security position has improved to such an extent that he could lift the state of emergency. We want to warn the residents of South Africa not to believe the false impression that the security position is improving.

Shame on you!

On the contrary, the position is still deteriorating. After all these are the facts! An hon member is saying: “Shame on you”, but he is uninformed. I am informed and I say that this country is on the point of going up in flames, but that hon member says I should be ashamed of myself. I am not ashamed of myself when I speak the truth. [Interjections.] I think that the hon member should be ashamed of himself because he is uninformed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Johannesburg West say that the hon member for Jeppe is paving the way for South Africa to go up in flames?

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, I said that if the hon member carried on like this, he was paving the way for that to happen.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

I just want to say that I am discussing the facts in this country, and I challenge those hon members to prove that any one of the things I have said was not the truth. [Interjections.]

What is true is that Inkatha and other Black movements are hard at work everywhere; I have evidence of that here. People are buying weapons. They are rushing around everywhere. In an editorial Die Vaderland reported that they undertook surveys and found that there was a fear among the people that they would have to defend their own lives.

The reason for the security situation in South Africa getting out of hand, lies with the Government. Who is governing? Is the PFP or the CP governing? No, it is the NP which is governing, and it is their political measures which have resulted in our country becoming ungovernable.

That is why I say that we support this amendment because it is necessary for there to be auxiliary troops in a group context to help to defend us. But it is even more essential for us to get a new Government in this country which can restore order.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon member for Jeppe that he did not move his amendment.

Mr Chairman, they wasted my time so—I have it here in my hand, but my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I thought the hon member for Jeppe would surprise us today and for the first time in his life speak in a responsible way on matters of importance to South Africa. He did not do so and just ranted and raved as usual. I shall revert to the hon member’s arguments later and deal with them then.

†First of all, I should like to thank the hon member for Durban Point for the motion before us today. We want to pledge our support for the various points set out in the motion. In all the time it has been my privilege to be a member of this House. I have never had the slightest reason to doubt the sincerity of the hon member for Durban Point or the Hon members of this party when dealing with matters relating to the SA Defence Force or the security of our country. In this respect the hon member and his party have set a commendable example as to the manner in which security matters and the SA Defence Force can be raised above the level of the everyday party political arguments and strife.

*In his introduction this afternoon the hon member for Durban Point stated in what spirit he wished to discuss this motion. I agreed with the hon member and hoped it would be the case and that we would discuss the motion with the responsibility it deserved but members of Opposition parties in this House did not fulfil this. It would certainly have been a very happy day if we could have agreed on this motion as proposed by the hon member for Durban Point. In the times in which we live it is important to South Africa that we do so.

I wish to return to certain points made here by the hon member for Jeppe. The hon member made a very important point which he did not table after all in the sense that he said they were in favour that auxiliary troops be raised to assist the Defence Force, to take its place or to bring about calm and peace in this country. It is a pity the hon leader of the CP is absent today as I consider it a suitable point to direct a very serious warning to those hon members and to the leader of the party in particular. Nowadays they are courting the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging and Terre’Blanche of the AWB.

Rather them than you!

It is very clear that CP members have accepted the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging as die military wing of their party. [Interjections.] This is their plea—auxiliary troops!

There are responsible people who attended Terre’Blanche’s tearjerking meetings which he holds throughout the country. [Interjections.] They returned from these and told me Terre’Blanche was carrying out an act which was none other than inciting White revolution in this country. If one analyses the words of Mr Terre’ Blanche, it is very easy to reach that conclusion.

Why don’t you arrest him then? [Interjections.]

Sir, I now ask the hon member for Rissik whether he supports a White revolution in this country. Are they fomenting a White revolution in this country?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

He says no … [Interjections.]

He did not say no. [Interjections.] I wish to utter a warning. The hon the Minister of Defence recently said that radicalism to the left or the right was equally objectionable. [Interjections.] The Government will do its duty to reject radicalism of either extreme with might and main. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed but other hon members should exercise a little more self-control.

Sir, the hon member for Jeppe said the Government had lost control over affairs.

Hear, hear!

He said the Government was growing weaker and the ANC stronger. [Interjections.] That is not in the spirit of the motion the hon member proposed here.

I wonder whether hon members of the CP and the PFP and in particular the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North have ever taken time to reflect on the influence words uttered by them here at the highest level and messages emanating from here have on people out there. The hon member for Wynberg stood up sanctimoniously and said an extraparliamentary debate was taking place. I now ask who are the instigators of that extraparliamentary debate? Are the hon members of the PFP and the hon member for Jeppe not involved in the instigation of that extraparliamentary debate? Are they not participating in the old acknowledged communist doctrine of divide and rule? I think the hon member for Johannesburg West remarked with justification in this respect that it was the case; they are in truth involved with this. [Interjections.]

Utterances made here contribute greatly to the perception created among the people that the ANC is growing stronger in this country and that we are losing control. This Government has not lost control! [Interjections.] The Government will fulfil its duty. The hon member for Durban Point put it very clearly that this House should commit itself to the defence of South Africa’s sovereignty, its territorial integrity and the security of life and property of all its peoples—not only of the Whites. In getting to national service—a further argument raised by the hon member for Jeppe—we say everyone has the opportunity to participate.

The White has no choice.

At this stage the White has no choice. [Interjections.] That is true but there are sufficient people who do this work voluntarily—as the hon member admitted himself. [Interjections.]

Then abolish it for the White!

Under these circumstances we shall not abolish it for the White. It is also incumbent upon the other two Houses of this Parliament to decide in their own good time whether they wish to participate in the system of national service. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, my time has almost expired; I cannot reply to a question.

I wish to predict that Coloureds and Asians in this country will come to participate in national service as long as we offer them adequate time for this so that they can arrive at it too. That will astonish the hon member. In fact, they will exhibit greater responsibility as regards national security than the hon member for Jeppe could ever dream of.

Mr Chairman, today the hon member for Durban Point moved this motion on behalf of his party because he considered it necessary for military service to be extended as a result of the deterioration in the security position. But he did not ask or answer the most important question. Why has this war been raging for 17 years now? Why is South Africa virtually in a permanent state of war? It is because from the outset this Government did not follow the basic prescriptions of great military philosophers like Carl von Clausewitz, namely that if one goes to war, one fights to win.

From the outset this Government adopted the policy that the war was only 20% military, and 80% non-military. From the outset and during all the years in which they have plunged us into this war, the Government has adopted that attitude because they believe that “we must win their hearts and minds”. We must not go and destroy their defence force; we must not annihilate their bases—“we must win their hearts and minds”—and over the years defence force troops in uniform have been used on an alarming scale to provide welfare services. Soldiers have been used for teaching purposes in the homelands. Other social services have been provided. Babies have been delivered, etc. Surely this is not a soldier’s work.

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

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

No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

This policy of 80% non-military warfare, and only 20% military warfare has failed utterly. After 17 years, that policy is in tatters. The situation has worsened and the war situation is now spilling over into South Africa. I need not elaborate on this; the hon member for Jeppe did so excellently. But now the hon member for Durban Point is asking for more troops to drag out the war further. Here is the policy. On 25 September 1979, during the Cape congress of the NP, the former Prime Minister and Minister of Defence—now the State President of South Africa—said:

They are not fighting to win the war; the are fighting to buy time. I agree with the hon member for Yeoville who said in this House on 30 April that soldiers would not win this war; the war was going to be won or lost by the politicians. Imagine that! The hon member merely put it in slightly different words but, like the State President, he said that the war would not be won militarily. The soldiers must just buy time to give the politicians the opportunity to make changes.

This is the problem and the reason why we are in this crisis today. Genl Magnus Malan, former head of the Defence Force, complained about this. There he sits today, but at that stage, in another capacity, he complained. On 28 September 1976, during a Broederbond congress, he spoke about the defective way in which the war was being waged on the South African side. He mentioned that while South Africa’s forces were on the Caprivi border and were ready to attack the terrorists, the Government was giving economic aid to Zambia. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg is already speaking very loudly. I do not think he can speak any louder. Consequently hon members must please give him a chance to proceed with his speech.

Even more bluntly than the former genl Magnus Malan, Major-General Charles Lloyd said to Die Transvaler on 20 Februarie 1981:

It is this Government which is holding the Defence Force back! [Interjections.] It is this Government which is not applying the basic military principles of Carl von Clausewitz and is not affording the Defence Force the opportunity to win the war. [Interjections.] Consequently the military forces are being frustrated by the political leadership of the National Party! P W Botha does not want to destroy Swapo because by dragging out the war he wants to buy time to put Swapo in power by means of Resolution 435! [Interjections.] This is the way in which things are done! This is precisely what is going on! [Interjections.] That is why I say, Mr Chairman, that it is interesting that even the outside world is beginning to realise what a crisis South Africa finds itself in as a result of this Government’s policy. [Interjections.]

Towards the end of last year the Norwegian military expert, Prof Borgin, said in a Norwegian magazine, which was even quoted in various American magazines, that there was nothing wrong with the will of the White people of South Africa to survive. He also said that there was nothing wrong with the ability of the Defence Force. He praised the Defence Force! He said it was an excellent Defence Force! We agree with that. There is nothing wrong with our Defence Force’s ability to defeat our enemies in Southern Africa overwhelmingly. But the fault lies in the will of the Government! The fault lies in the will of the Government, which does not want to apply sound military principles in a war which we have been waging for 17 years now!

You are stark, raving mad!

We may possibly be kept in this state for a further 17 years by this Government, unless another government comes into power which will afford our Defence Force the opportunity to win this war in Southern Africa brilliantly—which it is in fact capable of doing!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Umfolozi entitled to allege that the hon member for Sasolburg is stark, raving mad?

Did the hon member for Umfolozi make that allegation?

Mr Chairman, I think that many people heard me say so. I did say so. [Interjections.]

The hon member must withdraw it. I also think it would be appropriate for him to apologise. It is after all a gross insult.

Mr Chairman, I apologise.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Vermeulen agreed audibly with what the hon member for Umfolozi said. He should also withdraw it and apologise. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member Mr Vermeulen also say that the hon member for Sasolburg was stark, raving mad?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I did. I also withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Vermeulen must also apologise.

Mr Chairman, I apologise.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, I do not think that a nod of the head amounts to an apology.

The hon member Mr Vermeulen did apologise audibly. I now call upon the hon member for Walvis Bay to speak.

Mr Chairman, all I can say is that I was really shocked by what the hon member for Sasolburg said here. [Interjections.] It was really irresponsible of him to say here that Resolution 435 was being used to put Swapo in power. I think it is an absolute disgrace. It does not befit an hon member of this House to say such a thing.

But there was a time when you also said that!

Our boys are fighting to win on that border.

But the Government is betraying you behind your back. That is the trouble!

It is a sad day when a parent of this country comes along and says that the Defence Force is bent on helping Swapo come into power. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg has now made quite enough interjections. The hon member for Walvis Bay may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I prefer to be far more positive. Nor do I think it is worthwhile to waste my precious few minutes by reacting to a standpoint such as the one adapted by the hon member for Sasolburg.

At one stage you said all those things yourself!

Oh, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik always has to put his oar in! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the motion moved by the hon member for Durban Point.

You told me yourself that P W Botha was selling us out!

Order! The hon member for Jeppe has also made enough interjections now. The hon member for Walvis Bay may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, as I have just said, I should like to support the motion of the hon member for Durban Point. I should like to support the necessity for compulsory military training. I also support the necessity for a prepared and strong Defence Force as a buffer. Consequently I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute here to our security forces, and more specifically, to our national servicemen.

A motion like this affords us the opportunity perhaps to look at our national servicemen in a more positive way. I think that the time has come for us more frequently, and sincerely, to recognise the enormous role played by our national servicemen in the security of our country and its borders. This is especially necessary in these turbulent times, in which the onslaught on the minds and hearts of our young people is overwhelming.

The campaign to end military service is intensifying and is being conducted from inside and outside South Africa. The campaign against military service is even being launched from our Parliament. The enemy wants to demoralise our young people, undermine their will to fight for South Africa and cast suspicion on the credibility of the Defence Force. But I think that the poor support which the ECC is receiving is truly a testimonial for our young people. This is how our young people demonstrate their patriotism, their love for their fatherland and their will to be part of this people’s army and in this way to serve South Africa. [Interjections.] In them we find a loyalty towards South Africa which is far above personal and other affinities. At some stage or other every house is involved in this because our soldiers come from virtually every house in South Africa. What a wonderful thought: the whole of South Africa becomes involved! That is why the Defence Force is a mirror-image of South African society, and whether we want to admit it or not, the confidence which South Africa has in these boys is tremendous. I think it is almost unbounded confidence because they are being provided with arms to guard over the interests of the whole of South Africa. Hon members will agree with me that these national servicemen are worthy of the confidence which is placed in them.

But let us also give recognition at once to the members of the Permanent Force—the people who train our boys, school them and protect and assist them in the carrying out this gigantic task. We also give recognition to the hon the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force, who stand by them loyally in this task.

When we refer to the hon the Minister of Defence, General Magnus Malan, then we are referring to a person who is a general in his own right and who worked his way upwards to the top of the ladder. He knows the Defence Force inside out. Seen in that light, I think it is a great pity when someone in Parliament, and someone who belongs to the same population group as I do, refers contemptuously to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] It is a great pity, and it is an injustice we should put right.

Which Minister are you referring to now?

I am referring to the hon the Minister of Defence, if the hon member does not know it yet.

Who is he?

When lives and property in the Northern Transvaal were threatened, the Defence Force was there to offer protection.

Where was the Government?

When we talk about the Northern Transvaal—the CP has an hon member who represents that area, but I do not know where he was—…

He was there and waited for the Minister for three hours.

He waited for three days.

I really take my hat off to the brave farming community which is fighting the enemy side by side with the Defence Force and also alone. It is this steel, this perseverance, which carried civilisation and religion into the interior centuries ago.

Let us look at South West Africa. South West Africa is not here to say thank you. They are dragged across the floor of this House so frequently. For that reason I should like to say thank you to the security forces, to every national serviceman and to every parent on behalf of the people of South West Africa.

Do you have a mandate? [Interjections]

I know that big land and its people. I know the fear, I know the insecurity. That country is trapped in the maelstrom of international politics. [Interjections.]

You are an old woman (meid)!

Mr Chairman, may the hon member for Turffontein say that the hon member for Rissik is an old woman (meid)?

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Rissik has the courage to get up…

Order! The hon member for Turffontein need not make a long speech now. He is simply going to withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, may I address you?

No, you may not. You must simply withdraw the word.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! The hon member must first withdraw the word “meid” (old woman) and then we can consider the point of order.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word. On a point of order: If the hon member for Rissik has the courage to stand up and say what he said a moment ago, I would appreciate it. You will then hear what he said.

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.] The hon member for Walvis Bay may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to suggest that the hon member for Turffontein must apologise for the allegation he made.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan can safely leave the decision to me. I just want to add that there are hon members who turn their back to me and then constantly make interjections. They must stop doing so now. The hon member for Walvis Bay may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I have your ruling on the remark passed by the hon member for Rissik?

Order! You are raising a point of order which is not a point of order. The hon member for Walvis Bay may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I want to tell this House that I know how it feels when a next-door neighbour is maimed by a land-mine or wounded by assassins. I know how it feels when one stands next to the wreck of a vehicle. I know how defenceless the Black peoples in the north of South West Africa are against these onslaughts.

Our national servicemen are in the front line to fight the enemy. They are also there as agricultural extension officers, operators, animal husbandry officers, teachers, medical orderlies and friends of the masses. This does not benefit the enemy. It does not concern the heart of the enemy, but the heart of the people with whom they are fighting. That is the difference.

Then one realizes what gigantic task they are performing there. Then one is grateful that our boys are able, prepared and willing to do this wonderful upliftment work.

At Omega there is a Bushman community which a decade ago was still comparable to the Strandlopers of the time of Van Riebeeck. Within a decade they have been transferred to the modern century of electronics. The upliftment work being done among them by national servicemen and the wives of Defence Force members is praiseworthy.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Defence Force to continue with their good work. We know that our future and our survival is in their hands. We are proud of them and wish them every thing of the best for the future.

Mr Chairman, this motion is an opportunity for all the parties of this House to nail their true colours to the mast insofar as the use of security forces in the current unrest situation is concerned. They must do so clearly, unambiguously, without an egg-dance and in such a way that the people outside this House will know exactly where those parties stand in their approach to the control of current unrest situation in the country.

For me the first leg of the motion referring to the terrorist incursions from beyond our borders and the commitment to the defence of South Africa’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is not at stake because I do not believe there is a party in this House that has any difference of opinion in relation to the question of defending our borders. Perhaps I am wrong. I did, however, consider it important that we had an open debate about the use of our security forces—SAP and SADF—within the country.

We are touching here on fundamental issues affecting the State, namely the responsibility of the State to protect its people and their property. I would suggest that it is common cause that the SA Police do not have sufficient men for the State fully to exercise that responsibility. I believe that is a simple fact of South African life.

The next question, therefore, is: If our Police Force is inadequate for us to exercise that responsibility, how do we supplement it? How are we to supplement an inadequate police presence under the present circumstances? I will go even further than that and say—and I lay the blame for this squarely at the door of the Government—that even in the case of ordinary police activities—activities that are quite separate from unrest control—the Government has failed South Africa in keeping pace with the needs of the country.

Before the reform process was started, in the ordinary day to day policing and enforcement of law and order the NP did not administer the Police Force adequately. They did not, in other words, ensure that we had a sufficiently large Police Force that was well enough trained to meet our ordinary law and order needs. [Interjections.]

If our Police Force is inadequate, how are we to go about the business of protecting people in a situation such as that which has arisen in the townships? As I see it, there is only one other source of trained, disciplined manpower, namely, the SADF.

I realise that those hon members do not have another speaking turn, but I would nevertheless like to ask the hon members of the PFP some questions. Perhaps they can answer me across the floor of the House. During the early stages of the unrest situation those hon members were loud and round in their condemnation of the use of the ordinary police, the SADF and the riot police in the townships. Hon members can correct me if I am wrong, but I recall very clearly—and my memory still serves me well—that they requested the withdrawal of all those peacekeeping agencies.

You are wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.

I am glad to hear the hon members say so; but I am going to prove to them that they are in fact wrong. Perhaps they do not agree with some of their own colleagues. I have definitely heard them say, Sir, that the riot police should not be used in the townships.

Every Western country has a riot police formation. We saw it being used recently in the United Kingdom. More recently, we saw films of the training methods used in the United Kingdom. We saw those incredibly tough plastic shields, for instance; and we also saw the actual burning of the model of a man. Coming back now to the hon members of the PFP, I would ask: What are riot police for? After all, if we do not use them when riots occur, where are we to use them? I think the Official Opposition has dodged this issue. I felt this was an opportunity for it to stand up and say very clearly …

[Inaudible.]

I understand that. However, we are concerned here with what the Government does on the day when the Commissioner of Police says to the hon the Minister that the Police Force does not have enough policemen for the Force to do its job. What does the Government do on that very day? [Interjections.] What would the Official Opposition do if it were the government of this country and were operating against a political background that has been left strewn with wreckage from NP ideology? What would the Official Opposition do if it were placed in the position where it had to exercise its responsibility in a situation where there were not enough policemen and where the Commissioner of Police admitted that they could not contain the situation?

They would take the first plane to Europe. [Interjections.]

No, they would sprinkle petals.

We are not dealing with a delayed or suspended situation here that is all Marquis of Queensberry Rules and other niceties. People have to make important decisions about specific situations. I am not saying that subsequent strategies were in any way brilliant or clever, because I honestly do not know. I question whether anyone in this House—with the exception of the hon the Minister and his staff—actually has a sound idea of what really goes on in those townships. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

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

May I come back to the hon member? Thank you. As I said, I question it because we form our opinions on the basis of Press reports and radio presentations of what is happening. [Interjections.] I still hold it against hon members of the PFP today that when they gave evidence in connection with the Uitenhage incident, with the full knowledge of some of their members who have legal training they presented affidavits that went out into the world in an unsigned and unsubstantiated form.

No, you are wrong. There was nothing unsigned.

Yes, yes! They were unsubstantiated.

You are wrong. [Interjections.]

In that same debate there was no argument about the point made by the hon the Minister of Law and Order when he took them up on the question of the number of those affidavits that were rejected in court.

We don’t write the affidavits.

You only use them against South Africa.

Get your facts together!

I suggest that that was in fact the case with those hon members themselves. Why else would the court reject them?

It did not reject them.

Well, then, the hon the Minister was telling lies in the House. [Interjections.] Then he was lying. [Interjections.] I suggest that those hon members have a wonderful opportunity to take up the matter. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town did ask for repartee, but this is going too far. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

What about my question?

Yes, there is still time. I ask those questions because I believe it is very important that people be clear on the matter. I am not clear as to what their standpoint is and I am certain that people outside this House are not clear about the use of the security forces in the townships.

At the same time, I want to say that I think the hon the Minister of Defence and his staff must rewrite the book on SAP/SADF co-operation. We have rewritten our mobile warfare manuals. We have rewritten our counter-insurgency manuals. Let them rewrite this one as well. I want to be very honest with the hon the Minister. Troops dislike intensely having to operate in the role in which they are operating at present. They dislike working with the SAP. This is not because they dislike the SAP per se, but for a variety of reasons. When one considers that a commander of an infantry unit holds sway over the life and death of some 800 men and when one considers that the honour of that regiment is at stake wherever they go and whatever they do, then it is understandable that their attitude towards their role in a situation like this is very different—by virtue of their training—to that of the SAP, whose training, is related to the day-to-day apprehension of criminals and the solving of criminal cases and so forth.

There is another very important point. SADF command structures require young officers and NCO’s to serve for a certain period and then attend training courses. They work their way up through the ranks, attending courses and gaining experience until they attain a command. The SAP do not follow that procedure. In the SAP, the position is that one starts off as a constable and subsequently writes a sergeant’s exam. After writing one’s law exam, one becomes a warrant officer and then a lieutenant. The rest of the time, one is promoted on merit. There is a total absence of equivalent command and discipline functions, and the method of carrying out the job differs entirely. I want to say that we really should rewrite this manual and do this thing in the South African way. If the police cannot handle the situation, let the SADF put its men into the situation where they can handle it. They can put a properly commanded unit into the area and, if it is necessary to have a blue jacket around to keep an eye on the law, well and good. However the command must be in the hands of the SA Defence Force units that are there.

One does not want to get up here and talk about sensitive matters. I would prefer to talk about them to the hon the Minister afterwards. However, there are many instances where the SA Defence Force are at a disadvantage. It does not do the image of the Force any good and they cannot perform their task properly.

I would like to say a word or two about compulsory military service at this stage. I am not so sure whether I am filled with joy at the formation of the new Coloured CF unit. I would have thought that we would have taken this opportunity to take the step of opening CF units to all races. I would have thought that that unit would probably have chosen to remain a Coloured unit because the traditions and the esprit de corps that they have built up in the Cape Corps would live on in that unit. I am not sure that it is a good idea to give it a new name. I think they should simply have called it a second battalion in order to maintain that continuity. However, I think that the other CF units, the White units at present, should be able to reap the rich harvest of ex-servicemen who have the experience of serving in whatever group and who could apply to those units for membership. I also think that if we are going to usher in a form of service for all population groups, whatever method is decided upon I would suggest that national service should be open to all population groups. At the moment the situation is that the Whites do national service on a compulsory basis. Whitey carries the can because he has enjoyed that privilege for such a long time. The situation is too sensitive to ask the other chaps to join just yet. However, I suggest that one could ask for volunteers from all population groups to do national service who could then be sent to the same camps and the same units. If this is done, they can eventually be fed into Citizen Force units where they will undergo exactly the same training and develop exactly the same esprit de corps and feeling of loyalty towards that unit and the country as their White counterparts.

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

I will give the hon member about 30 seconds in a moment. We must have a system for ushering in the employment of other population groups, and I would suggest that the Citizen Force is the ideal way of doing this. They can recruit Blacks and Coloureds who have done training at Lenz, here on the “vlakte” or elsewhere. There is nothing at all wrong with an ethnic unit. There are, for example, Irish and Scots regiments but they are not ethnic by compulsion. Even Sassenachs may join Scots regiments and become Scotsmen over a long period.

I think it is very important to come back to the question of whether we are informed or not. The hon member for Jeppe says he is an informed person. He knows. I want to say that I think the SADF’s system of informing even members of Parliament needs a total overhaul.

I do not get my information from them.

I am not talking in the same “trant” as the hon member for Wynberg. I am referring to a day-to-day system of imparting information to hon members. There are boxes full of video recordings of what is and has been going on in the townships. If intelligent debate and a real appreciation and appraisal is expected of hon members, who should have a balanced view—mind you, that is not quite true in some cases—then I believe we should be better informed. Even some of the CP members might change their minds if they were properly informed about the situation. I do not think that we do ourselves any good at all by not at least allowing that sort of information to be made available to the opinion-formers. How can one form an opinion especially when one has perhaps to read the Cape Times, reject 80% of what it says and then attempt to form an opinion on the remaining 20% of the comments? It really is a problem, and I think members of Parliament should be far better informed, particularly in view of the current situation.

The other leg about which I want to say a few words, is the one dealing with the question of the recruitment and training of township law-enforcement units. I think the Government has dragged its feet on this one. In a period of three months—three months being a basic training period as far as I am concerned—we could have had a meaningful force in a great many areas throughout the country which would have freed the police and thus enabled them to concentrate elsewhere. Where there are people involved in the municipal authorities and community councils who in the normal course of their duties have to have some method of bringing their authority to bear against ordinary miscreants in their areas, these units are an absolute must, and yet we are going about it as if there is really no hurry at all; we shall do it in our own time. However, the urgency for it is now. I do not know why we do not involve far more instructors in the SA Police and the SA Defence Force to get this matter off the ground properly and quickly.

The hon member for Wynberg wanted to ask me a question. He may do so now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member seems to be uncertain as to what our attitude is towards those who use violence in order to bring about change. I actually dealt with that.

I am not uncertain about that at all.

I want to ask the hon member what he understood me to say.

Sir, I understood what the hon member said about violence. What I said was that we were uncertain as to what that party’s viewpoint was about the use of security forces in the townships, and that this was an opportunity to clear up that uncertainty. My question had nothing to do with violence as such; I understood what he said about that.

Well, I think it is now very clear to everybody.

Yes, I think so. [Interjections.]

My time is just about up but may I just say in passing that this is not a simple matter. The hon member on my left here is a great fan of Von Clausewitz but his idea about a frontal attack like the Balaclava episode is the best way to make the whole thing fail. There is no way in which we can adopt an attitude such as that of this hon member.

I did not speak about Balaclava.

I suggest that the hon member goes back to see if the AWB can give him some better information.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town made a very good, positive contribution and I should like to thank him for that. He was critical of the SA Defence Force and I take note of that. I hope that he will further the discussion as far as the composition of the various Citizen Force units are concerned.

*My time is very limited, but I should like to begin with the hon member for Durban Point. On behalf of the SA Defence Force I want to thank him very sincerely for this fine motion which he introduced in this House today. I find it regrettable, however, that an amendment was moved to this motion which was so well conceived and formulated. Nevertheless we shall deal with that amendment accordingly. I have exceptional appreciation for this motion which the hon member moved. I also want to congratulate him on the way he dealt with that motion. One feature of the debate today was that an opposition party lifted the SA Defence Force out of the party-political arena. I want to congratulate the hon member on doing so, because I think those are the norms we apply when we discuss security. I am going to return to this later.

As soon as we drag national security into the party-political arena we are all going to pay dearly for it. The hon member for King William’s Town stated correctly that it was no use merely coming forward with criticism. How one is going to apply it is the question which ought to be put. In the case of dissatisfaction the Minister concerned or I can be consulted, and that is where the criticism must be raised. It must be said how we should rectify the matter, because everyone is partly involved in the security and the continued existence of the Republic of South Africa.

Over the years the hon member for Durban Point has demonstrated in this House and elsewhere that he is a very loyal friend and supporter of the SA Defence Force. I want to put it this way: I have no fault to find with what the hon member said today. To tell the truth, judging from the way in which he stated his case, I would have thought he was serving in the Defence Force. Once again he demonstrated his good insight into and understanding of the security of South Africa. I want to add that he was critical about certain aspects. However, his criticism throughout was sound, and it was always constructive; I want to thank him for that. His attitude was in sharp contrast to the destructive criticism which has been expressed time and again in this House, as well as to that criticism which is so frequently levelled at the SA Defence Force by radicals outside this House. If I had to describe what the hon member for Durban Point demonstrated here today, I would say that he was an experienced soldier.

†The hon member knows what it is all about because he has the experience and the exposure. I can see he understands the problem. He also referred to the townships and the deployment of troops in the townships and said that, as far as the SA Defence Force was concerned, he was worried about their not being under the command of their own officers or NCO’s. The hon member also referred to the specific tasks which are being done by the SADF. Lastly he said that there was a blurred perception among the public in regard to the roles played by the SADF and the SAP. If that is the case we will have to address it. I agree with the hon member that the SADF members must be under the command of their own officers and NCO’s, that their specific task is totally different to that of the SAP and that we have to keep those roles separate.

*I want to thank the hon member Mr Vermeulen and the hon members for Standerton, Kroonstad and Walvis Bay for the excellent and positive contributions they made today in respect of the SADF. One could see pride in the Defence Force radiating from them. Hon members must remember that when we walk out of this House this evening, it is still our Defence Force to which we were referring here. We must therefore walk out here and be able to say with pride that this is the Defence Force which is responsible for the security of our country. Let us also radiate such pride when we are outside this House.

I want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Wynberg. Last year, or the year before, he was the chief PFP spokesman on defence, and then he suddenly resigned. He came into conflict with his party in respect of the official policy of the PFP. Hon members will recall that the then Leader of the Official Opposition then took over as chief spokesman on defence. That was because the hon member for Wynberg had said that he refused to co-operate with that kind of PFP defence policy. Now, suddenly, he is once again the chief PFP spokesman on defence. Now I ask whether the PFP has changed in respect of their view of the Defence Force. I do not think they have changed. After all, we know that the left-wing clique within the PFP has won. [Interjections.] I shall tell the hon members what happened: He knuckled under. I now maintain that he knuckled under completely, because I listened to what he said today. What he said today, differed completely from what he said last year. He should not perform an egg dance here; he should be consistent and proud of the SADF.

During the remainder of the time at my disposal I want to talk about certain fundamental truths, and I want to point out certain facts about the prevailing situation in our country. I want to say once again that when I point out these facts, we must bear in mind that we are discussing the security of our country. We must not try to score debating points off one another during such a debate, and to drag our security around in the party-political arena. If we do that we are going to learn a very harsh lesson in this country.

We are living in a time of unrest and a new kind of conflict situation. In addition the most vehement and widest-ranging onslaught since the beginning of the Republic’s existence 25 years ago is at present being made on the RSA.

†This onslaught is being conducted according to the pattern of the revolutionary strategy. The intensity of the onslaught varies, but it is, in essence, directed at the foundation of our system. It is directed at forcefully overthrowing the present constitutional structure and then replacing it with a Marxist dictatorial power whereby the minority will dictate to the masses. [Interjections.]

I have no time to expand on the extent of the onslaught except to say that the political, economic, social and psychological areas are the areas where co-ordinated and orchestrated action to varying degrees of intensity is taking place.

I would like to concentrate on security and the onslaught against it. Terrorists, anarchists and others who wish to appropriate South Africa, throw everything they have into the struggle against the security of our country. They believe that if they can attack our security and make it waver, they will have overcome the main hurdle and will then be successful in the other areas as well.

Let us analyse what a revolutionary strategy is about. In the first place, a revolution is not a spontaneous event; it is mainly a political conflict in which unconventional methods and means are used. The aim is to attain certain political, social and economic objectives, inter alia, a one-party state with a socialist system.

There are a few factors or situations from which such a conflict can develop. These are: Prevailing social and economic circumstances that give rise to grievances and discontent; or alienation of and lack of understanding and communication among people and groups who do not know each other or each other’s needs; or perceptions of suppression and favouring—perceptions which are usually totally out of proportion.

The success of a revolutionary conflict depends on the manner in which it is adjusted and intensified to suit certain circumstances within the communities.

*The basic and first target of the revolutionary is to gain control over men’s minds and spirits. What is at issue is the control of the mind. The revolutionary’s success or failure is to a large extent determined by his ability to convey his message to the target population. He must therefore be able to influence the masses.

At the same time—I think this is what we as House should guard against—he must undermine the morale of the security forces and the instruments of the security forces, and create a general climate of collapse and a spirit of defeatism.

Having listened to the discussion which took place here this afternoon, one must guard very carefully against creating this situation, because these are precisely what the objectives of the ANC are. Their objectives are the dismantling of the security forces and the creation of mistrust and a spirit of defeatism in the country. We must guard against doing this here in Parliament, which is the highest body in the country. [Interjections.]

It is against this background that the motives of the agitators and the perpetrators of acts of violence must be examined. It is also against this background that the motion of the hon member for Durban Point should be seen. I do not want to say much about it today, but I think it is nevertheless important to know who is behind this unrest.

I remind this House of the SA Communist Party, the ANC, the UDF and other related organisations who strive to attain what is in their own interests at the expense of the interests of the majority of the inhabitants of our country. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

It is for this reason that reasonable and moderate community leaders are the special targets of agitators. If the hon member for Houghton carries on in this way, I am going to attack her and then she must not feel bad about this situation. [Interjections.] It seems to me she wants it, and I shall attack her any time. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that I did not mean that kind of want. [Interjections.] I come now to the Defence Force.

[Inaudible.]

Order! It seems to me it takes three to tango, because the hon the Minister of Law and Order is also talking to the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Defence may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I come now to the SA Defence Force. The Defence Force is the means, the instrument of the government of the day, to carry State objectives into effect. That is why the Defence Force, in conjunction with the SA Police, but with retention of its own culture and its own nature, tackled the task of combating internal unrest. The Defence Force is not simply passive. The Defence Force seeks success and plans in advance to achieve that success.

In certain respects this task which the Defence Force has received is an alien task, in a new environment. It is a task which imposes unique and heavy demands on the Defence Force, and which requires adjustments in its approach to the problem. Because the Defence Force acts in a calculated way, however, it also plans according to the demands of the challenge.

The first guideline according to which the Defence Force tackles its task is the realisation that it is a small, radical element in the Black residential areas that is fomenting all this mischief. It originates with the ANC—we need have no doubts whatsoever about this—the extension of the SA Communist Party. Against this element the security forces take action to prevent the vast uninvolved masses from being intimidated and manipulated. It is these peace-loving masses that have to be protected at all costs. These moderate masses must be protected. It is also these masses which the left-wing radicals are trying to control or influence by means of intimidation, terror and atrocities.

What is important is that these masses are seeking protection. They want to be protected. Quite recently a new element also reared its head in this unrest situation. These are juvenile street hooligans, skolly gangs, who with crime and parasitical behaviour batten on the uninvolved masses, and who are being manipulated by the radical elements.

The actions of the security forces in respect of these vast uninvolved masses have a second guideline to the implementation of their task. The presence of the Defence Force creates confidence among the masses, and by rendering friendly and helpful services they simultaneously build up goodwill. In short, the security forces must prevent this group from being ground to a pulp by the radicals and the criminal elements. That is why we build up sound relations and render assistance wherever possible.

That explains why radical elements go to so much trouble to bedevil and to try to destroy relations between the inhabitants and the men of the Defence Force. That explains why the members of the Defence Force are the targets of such an intensive, diabolical campaign to cast suspicion on and simultaneously disparage them. It is part of the propaganda pattern of disinformation and denigration, and of imputing ulterior motives to the SA Defence Force.

†This is why these leftist radicals propagate the withdrawal of the SA Defence Force from the Black residential areas. They seek to separate auxiliary and protection services from the population. They seek the sole right to threaten, to intimidate, to terrorise and to manipulate people in Black areas. This is the pattern of leftist radicals. In this way they wish to claim that the country is uncontrollable. These are the people who advocate anarchy. They are, wittingly or unwittingly, part of the unwholesome South African Communist Party-ANC-UDF alliance.

People, in whichever organisations, bodies or institutions they find themselves, who join in the chorus of the End Conscription Campaign and who advocate civil disobedience and other negative factors in our society, should do some soul-searching. They should account for the confusing effect that their opinions and actions have on our people. Those who should know better should not complicate the task of our men in uniform. These people do a disservice not only to the SADF but also to the country. They should rather consider acting against those elements which cause confusion. Despite difficult circumstances these young men serve their country and its people with loyalty.

*I also want to talk to the right-wing radicals. These people and groups are, in their way, just as bad as the left-wing radicals are for South Africa on its chosen course of reform and the creation of opportunities for all our people.

Qualify that! Who is a right-wing radical?

The hon member for Jeppe said here this afternoon that there were no radicals. I am talking about the left-wing and right-wing radicals outside this House, because I believe there are no radicals here.

You are a renegade, man!

The recipe of these people is alienation, polarisation and domination. If hon members would listen, they would find out precisely who they are. They are the disrupters of sound relations.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member Mr Vermeulen say the hon member for Rissik is a renegade?

Did the hon member Mr Vermeulen say that to the hon member for Rissik?

Yes, Sir, I said it and I withdraw it.

Order! I do not think it is conducive to the dignity of this House for hon members to hurl such abuse across the floor. Hon members must take the dignity of this House into consideration, as well as their own dignity and that of others. The hon the Minister may proceed.

These right-wing elements are the disrupters of sound relations.

They are unworthy of South Africa’s name and status.

A moment ago I referred to pride when I was discussing the Defence Force. There is another reason why this House, and the country as a whole, may justifiably be proud of the Defence Force. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with it fully. That pride is based on the successful record of the Defence Force. It is a Defence Force which after almost two decades of involvement against the enemy in South West Africa has never incurred the slightest scratch. I think that is a remarkable achievement, and I think the hon member for Sasolburg should go and read about it, because he does not know what this is all about.

Nowhere in the world is there another Defence Force that has achieved so much success. In one particular case we sent paratroopers in against superior numbers of the enemy during an operation, and they were successful—we only lost one man. I can continue in this way to enumerate one operation after another and one task after another. On all of them is stamped only one word in capital letters: “SUCCESS”. Such a Defence Force deserves to be praised. It does not deserve the insulting language that has been used here this afternoon, nor the suspicion-angering of those who do so for personal gain.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer, viz our defence family, the Defence Force and Armscor jointly. They are also in the military frontline, because they are responsible for the technological development and capacity for growth in the Republic of South Africa. Opportunities are being created which do not only gain esteem for our country, but which also provide our people with work and allow them to earn money. Recently Armscor has been in the news because of the Alpha helicopter and its participation in the air display in Chile. Several countries participated, and it went off very successfully—the whole display was organised under the guidance of the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence.

I want to quote what the chairman of Armscor, Commandant Marais, said in the latest edition of Financies en Tegniek of 14 March:

In conclusion I want to say that I took this opportunity today to prove with facts that the Defence Force and Armscor are in the military frontline of our country. These are facts which testify to a winning recipe and to a successful course. It is a recipe and a course for which all of us in this House and everyone outside in South Africa should be grateful. I support with thanks the motion as introduced.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have only three minutes at my disposal to reply to the debate. I should like to thank the hon the Minister, the hon member Mr Vermeulen, and the hon members for Standerton, Kroonstad and Walvis Bay sincerely for their kind words and support of the motion. I sincerely appreciate this; in fact, I had hoped that we would be able to discuss the motion in that spirit throughout. If there is any time left, I should like to return to what they said but at this stage I only want to express my thanks to them.

Unfortunately, as usual, the hon member for Jeppe played politics with the Department of Defence. [Interjections.] I strongly deplore this. In the end he did not move his intended amendment, which was mere politicking, but his whole speech revolved around politics. I regret the fact that that party, which consist of fine South Africans, is toying with our safety. [Interjections.]

What the hon member for Sasolburg said could have been a joke if it were not for the fact that it was such a tragedy. [Interjections.] I do not know if he wants to attack Moscow with the AWB to look for the ANC there, but it sounded like that. I am not going to waste my time on it. [Interjections.]

†I want to turn now to the Official Opposition and its amendment. I notice that the hon member who moved the amendment is not present at the moment. However, they moved an amendment to the effect that the day-to-day operations of the Army should be controlled by a standing committee of Parliament. I really do not think I need to waste much of my time on that. What is significant, however, is what they are rejecting. They are refusing to make an unqualified commitment to the defence of South Africa. They have moved to delete the commitment to the defence of South Africa—the protection of life and property and the defence of our sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have moved to delete that. In other words, they oppose it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not believe the hon member was speaking for his party. I challenge hon members of that party to tell us if the hon member was speaking for that party. I do not believe it.

You are talking rubbish!

Then I challenge them. I challenge the hon Whip of the Official Opposition. There is a convention that we do not vote on private members’ motions. However, I am prepared to sit down now and let the hon Whip of the Official Opposition call for a division and prove that they are prepared to support their own speaker’s amendment. If they are not prepared to do that it shows they do not support it. Is the hon Whip of the Official Opposition prepared to do that?

Order! [Interjections.] Order! The hon member must also attend when I call for order. The time for the debate has now expired.

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