Mr Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

Mr Chairman, I believe it is common cause that presently a very bad relationship exists between the police and the Black and Coloured communities in the Republic, and that instead of being considered the protectors of the people, the police are regarded— by Blacks in particular—as the symbol of oppression.

Order! I regret that I have to interrupt the hon member for Houghton. There are some hon members who apparently have some unfinished business to discuss. Once they have concluded their business the hon member for Houghton will be able to continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now, Sir, one of the factors which have led to this highly undesirable state of affairs is because the police have had to enforce over the years highly unpopular laws, such as the pass laws, curfew laws etc. Now that this major source of racial friction is destined at long last for the scrap-heap, all other things being equal, the relationship between the police and the Black community anyway ought to improve. All other things of course, as a certain economist has noted, are seldom equal, and there are yet other factors which are likely to inhibit such improvement. The role, for instance, which the police have had to play in the futile attempt to enforce the totally unacceptable and ridiculous instructions and conditions for the holding of funerals, which I have drawn to the attention of the hon the Minister before and of which he takes no notice whatever, and the very presence of the police at the funerals of victims of police action militate against such better relations being formed. So, too, I must point out, does police participation when forced removals are carried out. Most of these are suspended, but there are nevertheless still removals being carried out, such as at Moutse and elsewhere. Then there is also still enforcement by the police of racial separation in public places such as beaches, where such regulations still exist.

The main stumbling block, however, to better relations between the police and the Black and Coloured communities is obviously the behaviour of the police themselves— not all policemen, but many—during the past 19 months since September 1984 when the first outbreak of unrest at Sebokeng in the Vaal Triangle took place.

Since then we have had report after report of police excesses in the Black and Coloured townships throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. There have been reports almost daily of how the Police have teargassed people who were attending peaceful protest meetings. These meetings are “illegal” because of the ministerial ban on all outdoor meetings—and, more recently, on indoor meetings as well—without special permits being obtained.

We read about the teargassing of school-children in school classrooms; about teargassing of congregations in churches where people are attending meetings; and even about the teargassing of people in their houses. There have also been reports of police shooting at children in township streets, and there have been pictures in the newspapers of the police sjambokking students on their campuses. These excesses, as I have said, have been taking place almost daily.

I have here a bundle of press cuttings referring to such actions of the police. Even this week—in the past few days—the police teargassed a meeting at Lawaaikamp near George. A recent headline reads: “20 pupils hurt as police whip protestors.” These protestors were std 6 pupils at a Coloured school in Manenberg. There have also been reports of Bellville school pupils being teargassed at Kasselsvlei Senior Secondary School. So the reports go on.

Of course, what is very much in the public eye at the moment are the events in Alexandra township.

What do you expect the police to do?…

The hon the Minister must just wait a minute. He is going to have all the time in the world later on so he must not start a private fight with me. He can have a public fight and then take all the time he likes.

The events in Alexandra Township I am going to leave to my colleague the hon member for Sandton who visited there recently and who is conversant with what is happening there.

Recently I had a deputation of people from the townships in the Western Cape and I was told of policemen burning shacks in the vicinity of Crossroads. They were hunting for people who had killed a policeman but it is not for the police to decide who is innocent and who is guilty and to take the law into their own hands and punish both innocent and guilty at will. The sum total of all this is reflected in the 1 000 people who were killed by police action during the state of emergency which was lifted on 7 March this year. That 1 000 represents two thirds of the total number of 1 500 people who were killed. The other 500 were killed by Black on Black violence which I wish to state unequivocally again we on this side condemn just as heartily as we condemn violence wherever it may be found.

Then too there is the, what I call “overwhelming weight of evidence” of torture at the hands of the police, especially the Security Police, of people in detention. I am going to refer here to the report that was recently issued by the Department of Criminology of the University of Cape Town. The hon member for Overvaal referred to this report during, I think, the Budget Debate, and he cast aspersions on the reliability of this report. Why he should portray himself as an expert on this sort of academic inquiry is beyond me even though he is a member of the legal profession. Indeed when Die Burger attempted to cast doubts on this by quoting only comments which were adverse to the report, the department took Die Burger to the Media Council and the Media Council ruled that a total rejoinder had to be printed by Die Burger.

No, no, that is not so.

Oh yes it is. They objected. The findings of the UCT report include all manner of assaults on detainees. There is a vast variety: Beatings, forced standing, deprivation of sleep, electrical shocks and psychological abuse. These are, of course, apart from the inherent torture which is contained in solitary confinement. Needless to say, most of the victims who were cross-examined and reported on by the UCT department were Blacks, many were under the age of 20 and the Eastern Cape, as usual, had the worst record of all.

The question that many people in the Republic are asking is: “Has the Minister of Law and Order lost control of his Police Force and of the Security Police?” That is what people are asking. They are asking: “Are the police now a law unto themselves?”

Only you and the Cape Times!.

No, Sir, it is not only the Cape Times and myself but many people.

The conclusion which is reached by very many people is often in the affirmative. Even more alarming is another conclusion reached by many people—including myself, I may add—and that is that the manner in which the police—especially the Security Police—are behaving, is tacitly condoned from above—by the hon the Minister himself and by his senior officers.

We have frequently heard the hon the Minister say that he will not tolerate unlawful actions by the police and that the indemnity given to them by the emergency regulations did not protect them against unlawful actions.

I want the hon the Minister to tell me in how many cases he has actually taken action against the police. I wonder how many policemen have been discharged from the Force as a result of illegal acts which they themselves have performed.

The standing orders are there regarding the treatment of detainees but they do not have the force of law. I have asked the hon the Minister in the past—I think the Association of Law Societies or the Bar Council has also asked—that these instructions be translated into legislation. Then they can be contested in a court of law. As long as they remain only instructions they do not have the force of law. In any case, this would only give minimum protection to section 29 detainees. According to the reply to a question, there are at the moment 113 people still being held in terms of section 29.

These instructions do not protect people held under section 50 of the Internal Security Act which provides for a 14 day detention period that has been widely used during the past year. In 1985, in fact, just under 2 000 people were detained in terms of this provision, and a lot can happen in 14 days, believe me!

Such instructions would also not protect the people who are carted off to police stations and interrogated there and then. I have recently been told of torture being inflicted at the Guguletu police station, and the clinic at Crossroads has treated five people who claimed to have been tortured by the Guguletu Police who are looking for the perpetrators of the murder of a policeman. I repeat that one understands that the police are anxious to apprehend the murderers of a member of their Force, but it is not up to them to use illegal methods in their attempts to find the guilty parties. People arrested on suspicion of being involved in the murder have been stripped, given electric shocks, hooded and beaten.

Then too, I want to remind the hon the Minister that, since emergency regulations issued during the state of emergency superceded standing orders issued in terms of the Internal Security Act, no protection was afforded to the 7 777 people detained during the emergency.

I would also like to deal in particular with the Children’s Act which was also superseded. More than 2 000 of the 7 777 people detained were children under the age of 16. If one were to use the true legal definition of “children” and thus add to this figure those in the age group 16-20, the total would be much larger. These children were apparently exposed to a good deal of abuse during the emergency. There were certainly many hair-raising stories of children being subjected to violent treatment in police cells by the Security Police, and many were held in solitary confinement.

The hon the Minister has no doubt seen the report by the Lawyer’s Committee for Human Rights entitled The War against Children. This report was drawn up by a lawyer and was based on interviews in South Africa last year, on affidavits, on news clippings, on Government statements and, indeed on figures which I obtained in Parliament this year. I consider that to be a very alarming state of affairs.

The Child Welfare Association which is hardly what one would call a gang of wildeyed radicals, issued a statement about an 11 year old boy, Fanie Kuduka, who was arrested, charged with public violence, refused bail and kept in jail for two months. He was a psychological wreck by the time he was released and allowed to return to his anxious parents. I urgently appeal to the hon the Minister of Law and Order to take steps to prevent the abuse of children in detention and those being held and about to be charged. He should ensure that any future emergency regulations which, no doubt, he is contemplating right now, will not exclude the protection afforded by the Children’s Act. That is the important thing. The hon the Minister should also ensure that next-of-kin of young people are informed immediately when their children are arrested or detained and that parents are kept informed of the whereabouts of their children.

I know that this is supposed to happen, but very often does not happen, as I discovered when I visited young detainees at Modderbee. Most of them complained that they had had no visits, that they did not know whether their parents knew where they were etc. I took it upon myself to write to the parents of those children when I could get their addresses. I know what the hon the Minister is going to say, and of course there is justification for what he is going to say, and that is that many of these children are extremely violent, in fact they throw stones and that some of them even throw petrol bombs. That is true. I believe, however, that as long as we purport to be a civilised country and to uphold civilised standards, we should treat child offenders within the norms of the Children’s Act.

I want to place on record again my firm belief that as long as there are laws on the Statute Book giving arbitrary and indiscriminate powers of detention without trial, that will invariably lend itself to abuse. I have said this since the day the first detention without trial law, the 90-day detention law, was introduced in this House 23 years ago, almost to the day. I was the only MP to oppose it since my colleagues were not here at the time. We have seen that abuse leading to more than 50 deaths in detention since that sorry day. Nothing, I believe, has done South Africa and its legal system more harm than laws which undermine the due process of the law.

I am delighted that our courts are at last taking a step towards restoring the rule of law by setting aside some of the rather incompetent notices issued by the hon the Minister of Law and Order on the detention and restriction of persons. [Interjections.] Yes, examples are the orders on Mkhuseli Jack, Henry Fazzie and of course, on Winnie Mandela. This hon Minister is undoubtedly the best public relations officer that Mrs Mandela could possibly find. He ensures that she gets headlines in the world press at least once a week.

Are you jealous?

Not at all, Sir. The hon the Minister helps me in that regard as well, I must say. He has kept me in the public eye for many years.

I disapprove totally of Mrs Mandela’s recent utterances in favour of the use of violence. Nobody, however, is more responsible for her intemperate remarks than this hon Minister and his predecessors who have treated her abominably, have harassed her beyond endurance, and thereby have elevated her to heroine status in the Black townships and to martyr status in the rest of the world.

Finally, I want to ask the hon the Minister to do something about the charges that the police are acting as vigilantes, something that the hon member for Sandton will deal with. I am going to hand over to him a very dangerous document which came into my possession which is obviously that of an organisation which has a hit list on which there are the names of some 66 people. I would like him to investigate this matter because it is very dangerous indeed to allow anybody, be they policemen or the public or any outside organisation like the AWB, to take the law into its own hands.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to be tempted to follow the hon member for Houghton in respect of all the issues she raised here today. I think that in view of the limited time at my disposal, I should like to pursue my own arguments. Suffice it to say, therefore, that I am glad that the hon member for Houghton is not a judge in a court presiding over matters in which the Police are involved. I think it would be fair, if such a set of circumstances should arise to apply that the hon member recuse herself because I think she is completely biased. I really believe that.

The Official Opposition were quick to embrace the Van der Walt report, which reported on events in the Vaal Triangle. However, the Van der Walt report also commented favourably on some of the actions taken by the Police, and I think that at least some positive comments would have been appreciated as well.

*I should like to exchange a few ideas in the Committee today about the SA Police and political reform, and in the process I want to make an appeal on behalf of the SA Police. As my point of departure, I want to quote from the standpoints of three gentlemen about unrest and violence in South Africa. The first person, who I believe does experience clear moments sometimes, is Prof Carel Boshoff, who said on page 44 of his publication Hervorming en Geweld:

I agree with this point of departure, but I differ as regards the solution he proposes. Mr Justice Rabie gave his view as follows on page 7 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation:

It continues:

On 18 February during a sitting of the President’s Council the hon the Minister of Law and Order said:

With these three standpoints as a basis, I think we often admit to one another that South Africa is struggling with the problem of how to accommodate people’s aspirations and at the same time establish a feeling of stability and security among all the country’s inhabitants. How does one prevent one group from browbeating and dominating the others?

In the meantime we are engaged in uplifting reform, and this covers the total spectrum of the political agenda. The crucial debating point is which course must be followed to realise this reform. Does one take the course of evolution, or does one choose the course of revolution? In this context and in respect of this statement, the security forces, and in particular the SA Police, become the focal point. When one looks at the intensity of violence and intimidation it is fair and justified to say that in these conditions we cannot maintain law and order as in a normal constitutional state. As far as this standpoint is concerned, I rely on a statement made by Huntington in which he said:

This centralisation of power is necessary, because we are dealing with irrational violence. It is of material importance that the reform process is carried out successfully by means of a conference table and not through the barrel of a gun.

The revolutionary is an enemy of the conference table. There are Whites and Blacks who have an interest in a polarised society, since that is the only way they can support their arguments.

The maintenance of stability is of cardinal importance and enjoys high priority, placing the Police in the line of fire. In maintaining stability, the SA Police is being placed in the crossfire of opposing political powers. In combating revolutionary activities the Police Force, which is being exposed to and associated with the political system, finds itself in the foremost trenches. It is important to remember that Africa does not know the word compromise. In Africa, the terminology is victory or defeat.

That is an admission!

For these and other obvious reasons, no compromise can be made concerning the life and the property of any person.

Repeat that.

It is an old and well-known standpoint of this side of the House. I welcome the knowledge that those hon members are also awake. [Interjections.]

Political awareness and political mobilisation need not be condemned. It is the atrocities of intimidation and victimisation which all law-abiding citizens and the authorities are rebelling against.

It can be argued that a consumer boycott is a form of political expression in a certain sense, but whether or not such a consumer boycott can be carried out without intimidation is quite a different matter. One cannot talk to scared people about political reform. [Interjections.]

In this respect the SA Police play an important and vital part, since they are the ones who have to provide people with security. The SA Police’s high-profile presence on a long-term basis is essential to ensure a feeling of safety. When we take note of the findings in Prof Tjaart van der Walt report, it is clear that law-abiding citizens welcome the visible presence of the Police. Effective communication is of cardinal importance. This is brought about in order to allay fears, but at the same time it is an investment in good relations in future.

The short-term ideal is to get this negotiation process going with reference to the cardinal constitutional question of how the political rights of Blacks are being accommodated in this country. Unfortunately this dialogue will have to take place despite unrest and a measure of security. It cannot wait. The policemen should indeed be regarded as part of this process, precisely because the SA Police are where the action is, and are therefore in the ideal position to bring grievances to the attention of the authorities.

The long-term ideal—and this is the result of this negotiation process—must remain the establishment of a constitutional state. In the words of Mr Justice Hiemstra this means, and I quote from the speech he made on the occasion of an L C Steyn memorial lecture on 22 August 1984:

The revolutionaries with their substructure of international terrorism, desiring the overthrow of the existing order in this country, are prepared for a long-term battle. We have to be spiritually and physically prepared for this battle. In the light of this I should like to address the following requests courteously to the hon the Minister.

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

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

Order! The hon member for Krugersdorp may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Whip for the opportunity he is giving me to complete my speech.

In this context I should like to address certain requests courteously to the hon the Minister. Should we not be more accommodating to the SA Police in light of its manpower requirements in respect of the acceptance of potential members who do not have Matric? I have knowledge of a specific case in which someone’s application was unsuccessful because he had failed only one subject by a single percentage. In another case I know of a person who wanted to return many years’ service, but could not because he did not have a Matric certificate.

While we do acknowledge what has been done, I should like hon members to consider whether we should not find more funds for more convenient and more effective equipment to resist this onslaught.

In the third place I ask, taking into account what is being done already, whether or not more funds can be found to make the abnormal circumstances of the members of the SAP, who have to combat unrest and often have to be away from home for months at a time, more bearable.

In the fourth place I ask whether we should not give greater certainty concerning the period of service in the unrest areas in the interest of the policemen’s family lives. By doing that, I think we shall show understanding for the monumental part played by the police officer’s family, the family that is deprived of a father’s presence so often these days.

Is the answer to all these questions not that we should have a closed police unit for unrest control? Unrest control is demanding and is so specialised that, with respect, I believe the man who normally performs other tasks, cannot develop an understanding for the sensitivity and the challenges of unrest control overnight.

We are grateful for the extremely important and vital supporting role played by the SADF and the interesting responsibilities entrusted to them as set out in the White Paper on Defence. The fact is the SA Police is primarily responsible for internal security and the normal policing that is connected to the security situation. I think they deserve the thanks and appreciation of us all.

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

Recently the hon member for Krugersdorp suddenly emerged as a popular columnist and I think we should see his contribution this afternoon as a practice run for his next column. [Interjections.]

I think we all agree that South Africa is experiencing the worst politically inspired revolutionary onslaught in its history. Violence, unrest and horrible murders are the order of the day. One does not want to be an alarmist, but unless the Government urgently applies the full strength of our Security Forces to eradicate the terror in our Black towns and elsewhere, it will spill over into White areas. If that happens, all hell will break loose! [Interjections.] That is why it goes without saying that one should listen to and consider the discussion of this Vote with more than the usual attention.

In exercising its great and responsible task of maintaining and ensuring law and order and internal security, greater and greater demands have been made on the SA Police during the past year. In his annual report the Commissioner of Police, Gen Coetzee, made mention of the heavy workload placed on the available manpower, especially as a result of the sharp increase in violence, terror and unrest which is racking our country.

In view of this, one looks at the details of the money being allocated for this Vote with more than the usual interest. A question that is asked immediately is whether the amount budgeted for this Vote is sufficient, in light of the serious country-wide increase in revolutionary activities.

In examining the details set out in the various programmes of the Vote, I should like to make a few remarks. In the first place, considering the enormous increase in the SA Police’s workload because of the growing unrest situation, we are of the opinion that the amount of money allocated to this Vote is quite insufficient. A further remark I want to make, is that the present numerical strength of the Police Force, which the hon the Minister puts at 48 000, is much too small.

Of course the present Police Force does excellent work with the force at its disposal. If we look at what is at stake today, however, we ask for more money and a larger Police Force. The possible eradication of a highly developed Western civilisation is at stake. In addition, the possible overthrow of a democratic dispensation and its replacement by a communist dictatorship is at stake. A great deal is at stake, therefore. The CP would like to support the hon the Minister in his intention to enlarge the SA Police Force drastically.

On behalf of my party, I should like to express our great appreciation towards the hon the Minister, Gen Coetzee and all the members of the Force, for the very good work done in the past year. Little is wrong with the exercising of the control and administration of this important Department of Law and Order, and that is why it is necessary that credit be given where credit is due.

South Africa is deeply indebted to the SAP and cannot express enough thanks for the excellent services rendered by the Force to maintain law and order and internal security.

For the sacrifices our policemen have to make—often the supreme sacrifice—for the exhausting days and nights of standing guard and fighting for the security of our country in so many places and often far away from family and community; for all this we can only pay sincere tribute to the SAP.

In these days of tension and deadly peril in particular, one voluntarily thinks with compassion of those members of the Force who are the victims of barbaric riff-raff, revolutionary agitators and arsonists.

The SAP know who their enemies are and also that a vicious propaganda onslaught is being launched against them, aimed at making their task even more difficult. What we condemn most strongly, however, are the constant and blatantly unfair attacks made on the SAP by certain sections of the Press as well as by certain politicians. I am not talking only about the English Press. It has become a habit for them to denigrate our Police Force.

Even Jan Grobler!

They do so almost every day.

I find it equally deplorable that some of our Afrikaans-language newspapers are joining in criticising the SAP so unfairly. I have two reports in my possession, but I do not want to dwell on them for very long because time is limited. They contain those typical “yes, but” leader articles about the SAP. I quote from Rapport of 1 December 1985:

It is typical of that newspaper always to write: “Daar word gesê”. That is not what it says itself, but it suggests. The writer concludes as follows:

It is a pity that this type of “yes, but” reporting exists. This kind of commentary attests to an absolutely unsympathetic attitude that does the image of the SA Police a great deal of harm. Surely it is completely unnecessary and in addition it attests, to extreme ungratefulness towards the SA Police.

The hon the Minister is also the political head of this department. If there is one man whose head rolls regularly, it is the head of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Of course, I do not think it fair that only the head of the hon the Minister of Law and Order should roll. South Africa is demanding the heads of the whole Cabinet. The heads of the whole Cabinet must roll. [Interjections.] Why do I say that? I say it because the Government’s political policy is one of the most important contributory factors to the conditions of violence we are experiencing today.

The SA Police are often the victims of these wrong political decisions that are taken. They are the ones who have to pull the chestnuts from the fire at risk of their lives. One has only to think for a moment of the additional demands that are going to be placed on the Police once again with the abolition of the pass laws and the doing away with influx control measures—as if the Police do not have their hands full enough already. The NP Government’s policy of power-sharing has created the greatest polarisation conceivable among the various peoples. At the outset, when the new dispensation was implemented, organisations such as the UDF and its many revolutionary associates became active, and violence was the order of the day.

In the same way a large number of the Whites have been torn asunder as a result of the new dispensation. The vast majority of the Coloureds and Indians have rejected the new dispensation and, with hundreds of thousands of Blacks, have resorted to violent protest and bloodshed. It was the SA Police who had to stand the consequences for foolish political decisions which created unrest and division in our country. It was our SA Police who had to carry the additional workload. As a result of the vacillating, expedient political decisions, sufficiently strong action was not taken against the agitators from the beginning of the outbreak of the unrest. That was an expensive mistake. Nothing can affect the Police’s task and image more detrimentally than a weak and vacillating government. Varying policies can only facilitate the revolutionaries’ onslaught.

When, therefore, Dr Piet Muller of Beeldsaid the following about the security situation on 2 April 1986, we agreed with him 100%:

Truly, it is a credibility crisis! No one trusts and believes in the political ability of the Government to deal with the state of emergency.

In addition, Dr Muller said:

One of The Citizen’s correspondents summarised it in the following way on 7 April 1986:

We condemn the Government because it did too little too early. We condemn the Government because it slept too late for too long. Just think of the harm done to our country because the Government did not take action much sooner against the TV teams, cameramen and journalists who contributed strongly to encouraging the violence with their distorted pictures and reports. We condemn the Government because it permitted the television programme Network to become a platform on which agitators such as Jesse Jackson were permitted in an unbridled way …

Order! The SABC is not under discussion at the moment. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter? The action of the Police concerns our whole society, and if certain aspects of the SABC television programmes are involved in this, surely they must be discussed.

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen made the statement that the action of the Government was responsible for hampering the task of the Police, and I find that in order. I cannot permit the hon member, however, to discuss specific matters which are the responsibility of other hon Ministers and other departments. After all, this hon Minister cannot be held accountable for his colleague’s departments.

Mr Chairman, merely allow me then to conclude that point by saying I think it is imperative that the SA Police monitor Network’s programmes. [Interjections.]

We condemn the Government because it neglected to take action against Bishop Tutu who is the greatest economic saboteur and agitator South Africa has ever known. We condemn the Government for not taking action against Dr Boesak who is a first-rate agitator, and who fuels revolution in our country with his UDF organisation. We condemn the Government for not taking action against those who want to have discussions with the ANC. We say that from the very beginning the Government should have taken ruthless action against politicians, businessmen, church leaders and students who had discussions with the ANC. [Interjections.]

The ANC is a bloodthirsty enemy of South Africa which murders innocent women, children and holiday-makers. It is unforgivable and unacceptable for such discussions to be permitted; or are those who have such discussions with the ANC the licensed emissaries of the Government who intend to have discussions with the ANC themselves? That is the important question.

We are uneasy about the possibility that the Government will have discussions with the ANC in the near future. There are strong rumours that the Government is going to have discussions with the ANC soon. [Interjections.] Is that perhaps why the State President has suddenly discovered Nationalists in the ANC ranks? [Interjections.] Is that perhaps why the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in such ecstasy on TV on Monday night about the so-called positive spirit suddenly prevailing between South Africa and its neighbouring states? While the hon the Minister of Law and Order informs us regularly on exactly where the ANC’s training bases, from which they plan their terror and murder against our people, including the members of the SA Police Force, are in our neighbouring states, we are interested only in the total eradication of those ANC bases and nests, in their headquarters in Zambia as well, and not in discussions with the ANC. We are not impressed by the so-called positive spirit between the neighbouring states and us. We are not impressed by the resurrection of the Nkomati accord. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs must rather take note more often of how the ANC is sabotaging South Africa’s inland security situation to an increasing extent. He must forget about Nkomati.

We also want to ask the hon the Minister to tell his hon colleague—when he sees him again—that South Africa is sick and tired of people who want to have discussions with the ANC. He is welcome to tell the hon the Minister, in the pointed language the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs so often uses, that South Africans would rather eat their own oranges than have discussions with the ANC for the sake of foreign favour or for the sake of ANC benevolence. [Interjections.] Go and tell that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We remember the days when he himself, under the strong leadership of a Verwoerd and a Vorster, was still prepared to eat our oranges rather than to give in to the enemy. [Interjections.]

We want to know from the hon the Minister of Law and Order this afternoon whether he is in favour of a dialogue with those murderers of innocent women, children and South African policemen.

Mr Chairman, it is normally a pleasure to speak after the hon member Mr Theunissen during the discussion of this Vote. I must say, however, that he let fly at the whole world today, and if I want to make my speech, I shall not be able to react to nearly everything he said.

I want to make one thing very clear. The dialogue the Government will conduct in this country, will be to the advantage of the voters and of the South African population. This Government is not afraid of the responsibility of reform in this country, and it will be supported by its voters who realise what is necessary. I have no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Houghton. I do not think one should generalise, and I also think the principle of the least possible violence is truly imperative. We are not fighting according to the “Marquis of Queensbury” rules, however. We are fighting a cruel war outside and the members of the South African Police are in the front lines.

In respect of the question of minimum violence, I think if it is necessary to use sjamboks and teargas, that must be done, rather than making use of even more serious practices. Let that be seen as paternalism; I put it to hon members and to that hon Chief Whip that if one has to contend with hand grenades, AK-47s and petrol bombs as the Police do, one must take action. One cannot enter the chill of this Chamber and start moralising.

The hon member also spoke about children. In this regard I want to say those children are the ones who often act very, very violently, as she did concede.

The hon member also spoke about “psychological abuse”. I want to put it to her that one of my voters, the headmaster of a school in a Black area, was recently confronted by a “necklace” which was rolled into his office by these children. That man became grey and old overnight. These are things of which one should take cognisance and which one has to take into account.

I should like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister, the Commissioner of Police and the parliamentary staff who open their doors to us at all times and help us and pay attention to us in an effort to solve the complex problems of this country.

I want to pay tribute to members of the SA Police, who do difficult work throughout South Africa, for the thankless and often dangerous task they have to fulfil. Yet their task is also challenging, and sometimes full of adventure and very interesting. There is often routine work too, however, that we do not always notice.

I should like to express the sympathy of this side of the Committee for the families of members of the Police Force who have had to make the supreme sacrifice during the past year, as well as for members who were injured, lost property or had to suffer great discomfort.

It is a great pity that the task of the Police in unrest control and State security cannot be separated to a greater extent, but there are very definite reasons for that. Unfortunately the feeling exists, particularly among the Black public, that the Police and the Government are one. The Police are then presented not as the protectors and combaters of violence and as those who ensure safety, but as the hard and unapproachable hand of the Fascist government. That is not correct!

There is an immensely strong propaganda onslaught aimed at driving a wedge between the SAP and the law-abiding population of the Republic of South Africa. This is a calculated onslaught, and its objective is to place the SAP in the dock as the criminal and as the instrument of oppression. The objective of the people behind this sustained attack, accusations and intimidation, is the demoralising of the SAP. They want to cause further alienation among members of the SAP and the population, or a certain target group within the population. The Police Force is presented as the instrument that preserves the hated apartheid, instead of the members of the SAP being seen as those who maintain law and order, who assist in carrying out and establishing political and constitutional reform.

On page 25 of Sechaba of 25 November 1985 it is said emphatically:

This is a calculated attack, therefore. The ANC and other organisations not only want to bring about an estrangement among members of the population in South Africa; they also want to alienate all law-abiding citizens from the SAP. They want to get the SAP out of their areas and homes.

The SAP is paying the price. Since 24 September 1984, at least 83 members of the SAP have been killed, 629 residences have been damaged, and almost R2 million’s damage has been done to Black policemen’s properties. Between August 1985 and January 1986 at least eight SAP members have died by the use of the necklace method. Despite that, Black policemen in South Africa have remained loyal.

We want to appeal to them not to lose courage, and not to give in to the powers of chaos and disorder. Despite great provocation members of the Force must always try to act within their powers and rights, so as not to encourage the propaganda onslaught against the SAP. In that respect I want to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon the Minister in the President’s Council on 18 February. Unfortunately I cannot quote him because of the limited time at my disposal.

All members of the population must support the SAP and help them in their task; they deserve this. The security action and political reform must never be hampered. They must complement one another and not work against one another. Members of the House of Assembly must acquaint themselves more fully of the true onslaught against the Republic of South Africa.

I do want to request that the hon the Minister and the Commissioner of Police consider making more and better information available to hon members of the House, to equip them and acquaint them with the specific attack that is being made on the Government and on democracy in this country.

I should like to ask for consideration to be given to establishing a reading room for members of the House of Assembly, in which the latest security information can be made available without endangering State security. In the second instance, banned publications such as Dawn, Sechaba, the African Communist and others can be made available to us in this way, so that we can see the nature of the onslaught against us. Poorly informed MPs are also poor soldiers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, last year during the equivalent debate I charged the Government with having let the Police down because it had failed to provide the manpower that was needed. Since then we have had perhaps the most testing year of any year for that Force. My charge of last year stands all the stronger this year.

The hon the Minister has announced a figure of I think 9 000 additional policemen that he was going to recruit, but the situation is that last year—1984-85—not only was the target for any increase not reached but in fact at one stage recruiting was stopped altogether. I quote from page 2 of the annual report: “… active recruitment virtually came to a halt from November 1984 to the end of March 1985.” Out of the nearly 5 000 applications from Whites only a matter of some 2 000 could be taken on, and far fewer out of the 1 000 from other races—the number appointed were 210 Coloureds, 147 Indians and 76 Blacks.

When we look at the Vote which we are now being asked to approve today we find that there is an increase of only 12% for this Force. There is an additional amount of R116 million for the whole of the Vote. This is happening at a time when the Police Force has been under the greatest strain because of its shortage of manpower and because it has had to divert thousands of men from their normal crime prevention duties to unrest areas. Apparently there has been no appreciation, no acceptance of the vital role that the Police have to play in restoring law, order and stability to South Africa but simply blind adherence to a blueprint which says that one’s budget cannot be increased by more than 12%. I believe if there was one Vote—together with a few others like education—where an exception should have been made, it is this one. It should have received special consideration.

It is ironic too that when so much resentment, hatred and bitterness towards the Police was created because of their having to enforce so many unpopular laws—in some cases degrading enforcement such as in the case of the Immorality Act—now that these have disappeared the Police should now be the centre of a campaign of vilification and propaganda which, if it succeeds, will leave scars which South Africa will rue. I say this because if the forces maintaining law and order lose the confidence and respect of the people in whose interests they maintain law and order, the whole system will break down.

I listened with regret to the speech of the hon member for Houghton which typified this campaign. I accept that there are the exceptions, that there are cases in which policemen have overstepped the mark and have exceeded their powers. What I do welcome is that this is indeed recognised within the Police Force; that there is self-analysis taking place within the Force. In this respect I should like to refer to Servamus of January this year, in which appeared an excellent article—an editorial—written on the subject of the behaviour of members of the Force towards the public, and the responsibility they carry, particularly for building sound interrace relations. This was written for those within the Police Force, and I do welcome it.

I do believe, however, we need more than that. And here I blame the hon the Minister directly and personally. I approached him in October last year and suggested that as the Standing Committee on Law and Order was not going to be meeting it should be used as a vehicle to keep Parliament informed on the security situation. That committee has not met since, except to arrange to hear the hon the Minister on a new Bill to be introduced during the current session. It did not meet once throughout the recess. It was not used at all as a link between Parliament and the Police Force itself. That is quite wrong. I believe, however, we have passed the stage in which that would have been enough. Let me say that we arranged, with the hon the Minister’s approval, for a briefing of our caucus, and I should like to say it was one of the best briefings I have attended for its frankness, its openness, its clarity and its overall value. It was an outstanding briefing indeed.

Be that as it may, however, I believe Parliament as a whole, through the standing committee, should have access to that sort of information. I believe that now, when we are operating by way of joint operational commands, we need—even if only temporarily—another standing committee of Parliament. We need a standing committee on security which would be briefed by and on the authority of the State Security Council. Evaluated information which could be released should be divulged to such a standing committee of Parliament. In that way Parliament, through the representatives of each and every party, could be informed of exactly what is going on. We could be kept informed, not so that we could blazon it out to the world but so that we could inform our own caucuses and keep our own members advised. Through knowing what is going on we could perhaps be enabled to make a better contribution to informing the public.

I believe, however, that this wall of silence and secrecy is not in the interests of our system or in the interests of Parliament, and that we should have a regular channel of communication. If we were able to use the power which Parliament has as an institution to inform people and to remove misconceptions, we would, I believe, be making a real contribution. Then we will not be mere rubber stamps to be used in relation to legislation which comes before this House.

Mr Chairman, I will not be able to deal fully with the other point I want to raise— the question of emergency powers. It is a dilemma of democracy. Where there is unrest and the lives of people are at stake, the forces of the law have to determine whether they will pre-empt and prevent offences, death and bloodshed or whether they will wait for it to happen and then punish those responsible. That balance is a very difficult one to maintain because the greater the threat to law-abiding people, the greater the need to pre-empt and prevent the killing of innocent people, the shedding of innocent blood and abuse—particularly of children— in the campaign that is being waged.

I think we have to look beyond powers by regulation and to define clearly the offences and the penalties to go with them—incitement, public violence, intimidation particularly, instigation of school boycotts and the manufacture of petrol bombs are all offences that should be defined as serious crimes with very heavy penalties. In their efforts to control a riot the Police will perhaps identify about half a dozen ringleaders who are then taken to court. However, they are merely fined R10 or so for public violence. In that way the stuffing is knocked right out of the forces of law and order. I concede that these people may perhaps get off lightly because of a clever lawyer, and indeed that is the lawyer’s job; it is his bread and butter. Nevertheless, a few months’ work by the Police Force is nullified in this way. The Police might have spent months trying to collar the ringleaders and restore law and order, and then these ringleaders walk out of court laughing and singing “Nkose Sikelel’-i-Afrika”. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member for Durban Point whether he has ever approached the chairman of the standing committee with a request for the committee to meet more regularly in order to discuss information regarding security matters on a confidential basis. I do not know of his ever having done so.

No, but I spoke to the Minister.

Yes, the hon member did mention it to me once, but only in passing. It is very easy to come and lay the blame on the Minister in regard to such a serious issue during a debate that is held once a year. Yet the hon member had the whole year to approach the chairman, or to approach me or even the Commissioner if necessary. In fact, the moment the hon member’s party approached me for information on this issue I immediately arranged for the information to be given to the hon member and his party caucus. What is more, I did so at the very highest level and the information given was very well prepared. All I am asking the hon member, therefore, is not to come and blame me in this debate for failing to provide members of Parliament with information on security issues. [Interjections.]

Whilst I am addressing the hon member I should like to ask him how he only has information pertaining to the increase of 9 000. Often during the past year, in public speeches and in this House, but particularly in public speeches, I explained that the Government had already decided to increase the size of the Force to 87 000—and to do so, if at all possible, within the next 10 years. I also explained that sufficient funds were being provided this year for the thousands—I am not sure of the exact numbers for this year—that can be accommodated during this year. That figure has been made public on more than one occasion. If that information has not yet come to the attention of the hon member, let me give him the assurance that that is the present goal …

But there is an additional amount of only R90 000 more for law and order.

The present goal is for a Force comprising 87 000 members. I am not talking about the money involved. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to an increase of 9 000 members of the Police Force. I am telling the hon member that the figure is not 9 000. We are, in fact, increasing the number to 87 000, as opposed to the present complement of 48 000. That is the position. Later on in the debate I will come back to the hon member. At this stage, however, I want to reply to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Houghton. I will reply more fully to the debate at a later stage this afternoon or early this evening.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to return to the hon member for Houghton, since there are a few matters which I want to put on record at this stage. Later tonight I shall also deal with the hon member’s speech in more general terms.

†At this point, however, I want to refer to just three or four matters. The first relates to the accusation that has been levelled against the Police and against the Justice Department as regards the conditions laid down in respect of funerals. These conditions have often been called “silly” by the hon member but she just does not want to take any notice of the serious circumstances surrounding these funerals, the standpoint of the Rabie Commission as to why we must have this procedure and, as I have explained in this House in previous debates this year …

What about the Kannemeyer Report?

I include the Kannemeyer Commission’s report. There is nothing in the Kannemeyer Report that I am ashamed of.

What about the first paragraph?

There is nothing in the Kannemeyer Report that I am ashamed of. The hon member also knows what these funerals are being used for—they are nothing less than political meetings. She knows that these funerals are being used for the display of the Russian flag, the ANC flag, the ANC colours and everything that goes with it, and with Comrades running along next to the coffin with dummy AK-47 rifles in their hands.

*All these things are happening, but the hon member keeps on and on telling this House and outside the precincts of this House the Government, to allow those things to happen.

But you cannot prevent them.

She says we must allow these people to use funerals to hold political meetings, to use funerals to incite people and to use funerals for intimidation. [Interjections.] The hon member keeps on acting as a mouthpiece for those people, and I take it amiss of her. She uses every debate in this House to act as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party in that sense of the word, and for the ANC, the PAC and the UDF—for every organisation involved in this issue. She keeps on being a public mouthpiece for them in this House, and I take this amiss of her.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister say that the hon member is “a mouthpiece for communism”? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon Minister say that the hon member for Houghton was a mouthpiece for communism?

Mr Chairman, yes, I said that by doing that and by repeatedly saying these things in this House, the hon member was acting as a mouthpiece for those organisations, and I specified them. It is correct.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I shall gladly do so. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is …

Order! Before the hon the Minister continues, I must appeal to the hon member for Houghton not to keep up a running commentary while the hon the Minister is speaking. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is preferable in his view to have the Police enforce these unenforceable conditions perhaps resulting in the killing of more people as opposed to just allowing these funerals to take place?

Mr Chairman, my answer to that question is very clear. It will not be allowed to happen. Those conditions are not unenforceable and they will be enforced by the SAP and the Security Forces. The hon member can take it from me that the conditions will be enforced. We have done so on more than one occasion during the past few weeks—the last occasion was two days ago in Tembisa, and we have done so in other places where there were large numbers of people involved. We have laid down the conditions for the funeral to be held in Pietermaritzburg and I want to tell the Committee that those conditions will be enforced by the Security Forces. [Interjections.]

*We have now had enough of this, and those people will have to take what is coming to them. [Interjections.]

For her usual purposes the hon member selected the one theme of “police excesses” again. We are always the people who use excessive violence. We are always the people who act outside the law, but no one else will ever be criticised. Only at a late stage in her speech—this is typical of all the hon members of the PFP—did she insert a sentence to say that they were also opposed to all forms of violence. That is done simply to have the words placed on record for a change. [Interjections.]

It is hypocrisy.

Yes, unfortunately I would have to withdraw those words if I used them, but I agree with the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the other side of the picture. Surely I have stated repeatedly that the Government will not allow or excuse any unlawful conduct on the part of any member of the Security Forces. I need not dwell on the fact that we take stem action against such members at all times, and that proper discipline is maintained. The standpoint of the Government is clear and on record.

Let us consider another matter for a while. Between September 1984 and April 1986 807 dwellings of policemen have been attacked, and damage to an amount of almost R2,2 million has been caused to the property of Black policemen of South Africa. The hon member for Houghton keeps quiet about that. [Interjections.] That was from September 1984 to 18 April 1986. Those are the figures I have here. During that period, up to 11 April of this year, 33 members of the Security Forces were killed, of whom 32 were members of the SA Police. Twenty eight non-White members and four White members were killed. In this process 584 members of the South African Police have been injured, many of them seriously. But none of this will be placed on record by the Official Opposition.

That is not true!

I want to furnish this Committee with a few details about attacks on Black members of the SA Police between 1 January and 29 April of this year. These were attacks on people who were not even on duty, but who were attacked in their personal capacities. There were 71 cases of private dwellings of members of the SA Police Force being stoned, five cases of private vehicles of members being stoned, and 11 cases of members themselves being stoned. These are the figures for the past four months only. In addition 51 private dwellings of South African Police Force members were subjected to arson attacks. In three cases their private vehicles were damaged as a result of arson attacks. There were 164 petrol-bomb attacks on the dwellings of members of the Force, three petrol-bomb attacks on their private vehicles and seven hand grenade attacks on their private dwellings.

That’s law and order all right!

There were five shooting incidents.

†Yes, that is law and order but the hon member would never refer to this kind of thing. Oh no!

Whý does it happen?

I must always go around arresting and charging policemen and bringing them to trial. I am always being asked how many I have arrested and charged. Those are the questions I am asked year in and year out. [Interjections.]

That is for unlawful activities!

This year ten members of the Force have already been murdered while they were off duty by these perpetrators of violence to whom we are referring now. So I can continue to furnish this Committee with information. These are the circumstances under which these people have to live; these are the acts of violence that are being committed.

I do not want to mention the names of any specific places now, but I can give the Committee examples of children of members of the Police Force who are no longer able to attend school. They are then sent to private schools. Some high school children are completing their studies by means of correspondence colleges as a result of the violence that is being committed against them. Some children, who are no longer able to attend school in the major urban areas, are being sent to the Ciskei or the Transkei to attend school there. [Interjections.]

Must I mention to this Committee examples of the propaganda onslaught attack on members of the Force, calling upon them to resign, and of appeals to hon members “to take action against the offices of commandos, to sabotage equipment and logistics, disrupt transport, communication and energy”? That is the kind of appeal which is being made to members of the Force.

Must I give this Committee examples of reports appearing in newspapers about the few Black members who decided to resign for personal reasons and whose resignations were then attributed to these threats? Must I give this Committee examples of how the parents are being intimidated at schools, or how the wives and children of members of the Force are being intimidated?

So I can continue. This is the life of violence to which members of the Force are being subjected. Why is a balance never struck by emphasising these things for us in the debates? [Interjections.] After all, the hon member for Bryanston has a feeling for these things. He and all of us know that certain hon members of the PFP, under the guidance of the hon member for Houghton, will never debate these things with a positive attitude. Why is it always I who have to have these things placed on record? It is a pleasure for me to have the facts placed on record, but why is it always I who have to do so? [Interjections.]

Why cannot the hon senior members of the Official Opposition who discuss these subjects not also bring a little equilibrium into the debates? Why cannot this message not also be conveyed by them? Why does the hon member for Houghton always noise only a one-sided image abroad? That is all she does, because it suits her to noise that one-sided image abroad.

You cause the confrontation! [Interjections.]

I am going to deal with the so-called “torture report”. Once again the hon member wants to noise the message abroad that we are torturing so many children of the thousands we are detaining. If one wants to believe her, we are merely torture machines. She does this because she thinks it is a popular subject to have published overseas under headlines such as: “Torture in South African Jails” and “Torture in South African Police Cells”.

[Inaudible.]

It is true! The hon member knows that is why this is being done. After all, she knows what the facts are. Why does she not stick to the facts, or why does she not make inquiries about the facts? May I mention a few of them to her?

The hon member referred to a number in excess of 7 000, but the figure I should like to mention to this Committee, is 7 996 people who are being detained under the emergency regulations. It is a small difference …

That is more.

Yes, it makes no difference now …

But according to the figure you gave …

I just wanted to give the hon member the figure which I have at present as the correct figure.

A large number of those people were visited by judges of the Supreme Court on instructions from the Government. Thirty two visits by judges were made to these detainees in all the major centres of South Africa and in many smaller places, apart from all the other visits made by the public servants responsible for them. Among all those large number of people who were visited by our judges, there were 128 who submitted complaints. The matters those complaints dealt with varied from assault down to bad food and that kind of thing.

Did you tell that to Dennis Worrall as well?

I have in front of me the facts concerning what the ambassador said, and the report which appeared in the Press is not correct. I have a verbatim transcript of his TV debate here, and if hon members want to hear it later in the debate, I shall quote it to them.

We should like to hear it.

The ambassador did us a favour by adopting the standpoint which he adopted on the TV programme, and not the way it was reported. I have the correct facts.

Do the judges …

Order!

The Police …

Order!

Oh, Sir, the hon member knows I will reply to her questions one after another. She speaks all the time and I speak all the time; it does not matter. [Interjections.]

Order! Regardless of whether the hon the Minister finds it irksome or not, it is not beneficial to the image of the way debates are conducted in this Committee, and therefore I am not going to allow it. The hon …

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

Mr Chairman, you were still talking to the hon member and telling her to keep quiet. She should really keep quiet for a while now. One cannot carry on like this.

Scared, hey?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

During that same period, including the 128 I have mentioned, only 310 complaints were submitted to any person or body concerning this terrible “torture machine” in which we are allegedly involved. Among all those thousands of people, 310 complaints were submitted concerning assault and all kinds of other things. That is the position, and the department or the Attorney General gave attention to and properly investigated each one of those complaints. I also have here the figures concerning what happened to each one of those complaints in the process of being disposed of. So far two thirds of those cases have been disposed of by way of the attention they received, and in only two cases did the Attorney General order a prosecution. Only in two cases!

Let us now deal with the torture report. In this connection the hon member for Houghton referred to the hon member for Overvaal to ask what knowledge he could have of this matter. She said he was just an insignificant little attorney, and all that kind of thing. I should like to tell her that the hon member for Overvaal is a jolly good attorney. If she ever needs one, she would be well-advised to retain him.

She is going to need one!

It was very clear in that debate—I think it was either the debate on the Budget or the State President’s Vote—that the hon member had gone to a great deal of trouble and had prepared himself properly. He had made a proper study of the report, which he commented on in this House. I want to comment briefly on the hon member’s standpoint and on this so-called scientific document, but before I go any further, I want to say something about her contemptuous references to the reports which appeared on this matter in Die Burger. In this Committee I want to make specific mention of the name of the senior staff member of Die Burger, who initiated and dealt with those newspaper reports on this particular report. He was Mr Freek Swart. I think he did South Africa an excellent service by identifying that report in that way and commenting on it. [Interjections.] The report purports to be the result of scientific research, but in reality it smacks of subjectivity and prejudice on the part of its compilers, and it was clearly intended to cast suspicion on the Government, the Police and security legislation. In the report the conclusion was arrived at that 83% of the 176 unidentified detainees, who formed the sample group of the project, had been physically tortured during detention and that all of them had undergone psychological torture. However the report teemed with assumptions and speculation that was not based on any verifiable or proven fact.

So, they are lying?

The scientific merit of the report was criticised in public by quite a number of academics, including Prof Frans Maritz, chief lecturer in sociology at Unisa, Prof Herman Krause, who is associated with the Sociology Department of the University of Port Elizabeth, Prof Nico van Zyl of the History Department of the University of Stellenbosch and Prof Jacob van der Westhuizen, the director of the Institute for Criminology at Unisa. These notes which I am quoting from briefly to this committee, were based on a very thorough report which I worked on myself and which I placed at the disposal of the Institute as my reply and as the reply of our department to that report.

I just wanted to single out a few aspects briefly. These people, and others, are agreed that the study in question was approached and carried out in a totally unscientific way, and from their comment it would appear that they are of the opinion that the document is not worth much more than the paper on which it was typed. I agree with them wholeheartedly. It is not worth much more than the paper on which it was typed. I think the hon member for Overvaal himself has also pointed this out.

The document purports to be a report of a study of detention and torture in South Africa, but statistics reflected in certain places in the report include data from the TBVC countries. That data has no bearing on us. No proper distinction is drawn between the legislation of those countries and that of the RSA. Furthermore, some statements and data in the report are totally incorrect and are not in accordance with the true facts. So it is alleged, for example, that since the publication of my prescribed rules in regard to the detention of section 29 detainees, a further six people have died in detention. The names of these people were mentioned. The truth is that only one of the people was being detained under section 29 when he hanged himself in his cell with his shirt and socks. Two of the cases to which reference was made were deaths which occurred in Venda and the Transkei respectively. But we were also blamed for this. Yet this is supposed to be scientific work. [Interjections.]

The statistics in the report in regard to visits to detainees by the inspectors of detainees is not a reflection of the correct facts either. It is mentioned that the group of respondents were visited by inspectors of detainees in only 17% of the cases, and during the years 1983 and 1984 in 34% of the cases, while the statistics of the Directorate of Security Legislation, which monitors visits to detainees by the inspectors of detainees, indicate that in 1983 there was a total of 149 section-29 detainees and only six of them, that is to say, only 4%, were not visited by an inspector because they were detained for a few days only. For the rest, all the detainees were visited. [Interjections.] In 1984 there were 426 section-29 detainees, and only 5 of them were not visited by an inspector. The reason for this was the same—they were only detained for a few days, and had already been released when the inspectors arrived. [Interjections.]

In the report the conclusion is arrived at that 83% of the 176 detainees questioned by the researchers had been tortured by the Police. That is the message which is gleefully noised abroad, while the official statistics concerning complaints of assaults or maltreatment by detainees to magistrates, inspectors of detainees and district surgeons, and registered in the Directorate for Security Legislation, since the commencement of the Act indicate that such complaints were received only in 13,78% of the cases during that period. What was noised abroad, however, was that it was 83%. The compilers of the report, in their criticism of the security legislation concerned, did not deem it necessary—even if it were only with a view to objectivity—to refer to the findings of the Rabie Commission concerning the need for this type of security legislation.

One final thought, Sir. If the compilers of the report had also taken careful cognisance of the directives of the Minister of Law and Order, which in this case happens to have been issued by me, they would have realised that some of their alternative recommendations were already part of the directives which were issued a few years ago now.

These were only a few thoughts in connection with the report which the hon member for Houghton accepted and endorsed in its entirety, and then reproached another hon member who did excellent work in assessing the report objectively in this House. These were just a few thoughts which I want to have placed on record in connection with this report. There will be subsequent opportunity to go into that report more fully.

I just wanted to have these few matters placed on record at this stage of the debate so that we could perhaps discuss other matters more peacefully later this evening. I want to mention one last matter to the hon member, namely that she and other hon members are so fond of urging me on to take strong action against the members of the SA Police Force. Things like “Why do you not do this?”, “Are you losing control?” or “You have lost control”, and other accusations of that nature, are said to me. It is the most popular theme of the hon member and the Cape Times to keep on saying that the Minister of Law and Order has lost control over the Police. Then we must ostensibly derive pleasure from it if and when steps are taken against members of the SA Police Force.

In a large Force such as the SA Police Force, as in any disciplined force of that magnitude, there will of course be people who commit an offence in connection with a regulation, a statute or the common law. Of course that will happen. The hon member has asked me whether I can furnish her with the figures in this connection. I do not take pleasure in doing so, but I will do so because it is also our duty to make this information, which is also public information, available to this Committee.

The statistics I have at my disposal are that during the past year steps were taken against 345 members of the SAP on a variety of charges covering the entire spectrum which I identified to the hon member for Houghton. The message which I therefore want to make clear to her and to this Committee is that there is in fact discipline, proper supervision and control in the SAP. Although it is not pleasant for one to have to say these things about offences by members of the Force, these are the facts of the day.

Mr Chairman, I want to react immediately to a few of the points the hon the Minister has just mentioned. I want to make it clear to him, to the extent to which it is not clear to him, that when hon members of the opposition, particularly hon members in this party, complain to him and complain in public about the conduct of policemen which we regard as unseemly, we do not do so with the idea of starting a witch-hunt. That is not our intention at all, and to imply that anyone derives pleasure from an individual policeman s finding himself in an impossible situation because he has been accused of improper conduct or has been dismissed from his post is not true, since that is not our purpose. The purpose is to prevent further improper conduct from taking place. The mere fact that the hon the Minister does not accept our intentions in this regard gives the impression of his total inability to address the real problem. That is precisely where we have a great problem.

It looks as though the hon the Minister is temperamental and finds it impossible to handle this important department. It looks as though the hon the Minister regards every complaint made to him as a kind of personal accusation or reflection. One cannot handle the situation in that way. At this stage there is no State department in South Africa in which a cool head and the meaningful, objective handling of the department is as necessary as in the case of the department of the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

The hon the Minister reacted to the accusation made by my colleague, the hon member for Houghton, in connection with his handling of funerals. Did the hon the Minister not read what the Kannemeyer Commission said on this subject? The first two paragraphs of the conclusion of the Kannemeyer Commission read as follows:

†Those were the funerals that were to take place outside Uitenhage on that day.—

That is the finding of the judge. The second paragraph reads as follows:

It has been reviewed.

It may have been reviewed, but I do not get the impression that the hon the Minister has taken any sincere lessons from that. I want to suggest that there have been indications that certain senior officers in the Police Force in certain areas may have learnt some lessons from it. However, judging by a statement which the hon the Minister issued in Port Elizabeth a few months after this report appeared, I gained quite the opposite impression. He specifically issued instructions that they should now take action in funeral situations. Moreover, he has now confirmed that. He feels much more concerned about the fact that there is a communist flag, an ANC flag, or whatever flag, at a funeral, or that political speeches are being made, then about the fact that death and destruction will result if the Police move in and try to break up the proceedings. [Interjections.] Time and again, in terms of security legislation, they impose restrictions on funerals which are quite ridiculous and quite impossible to enforce. Where, then, does the legal obligation lie in respect of restricting certain matters at a funeral? How do the family or the organisers of a funeral restrict the number of people attending it? Time and again, however, that is written in as a condition governing the holding of a funeral. That is the kind of nonsense which the hon the Minister imposes upon the situation and that is how he himself creates conflict. He creates conflict; he creates illegality, and then it is up to the Police to sort it out. I want to suggest that he places the Police in a situation where it is quite impossible to do their job.

To refer briefly to the most recent funeral in Cape Town, which was quite a large one for the seven people shot in Guguletu, once again restrictions were imposed which were totally incapable of being enforced. Thank heavens that somewhere—I do not know at which level—a police officer decided that they would not try to enforce those restrictions. Thank heavens that they did not seek to enforce them, because I want to tell hon members that if they had, it would have resulted in an absolute massacre. I want to tell the hon the Minister that unless he takes this aspect seriously, he will continue to provide this House every year with worse and worse statistics in respect of death and destruction in this country. He must begin to realise that his strategy is not working.

He does not.

Mr Chairman, I also want to ask for the Committee’s attention for another matter which has very important implications for the Police and particularly for the Press, and that is the question of the Media Council’s findings concerning last year’s so-called Boesak saga.

As hon members of this Committee know, the background is that The Star had published a report in which the Security Police were accused of having been responsible for a pamphlet which was aimed at publicly discrediting Dr Boesak. The Police denied this and made an accusation against The Star before the Media Council. In July last year, that charge was unanimously—I repeat, unanimously—rejected by all the members of the Media Council, and the majority of the Media Council—five of the seven members, including the chairman—found specifically that members of the Police were indeed responsible for the distribution of that pamphlet. Not only did they find The Star innocent, therefore, but they also found that members of the Police were in fact responsible for it. In the second place they found that two colonels in the Security Police had admitted this to the journalists of The Star.

One can quote a few of the arguments expressed during the course of the finding, inter alia the fact that the Police themselves had made no effort to enquire where the information in the pamphlet had come from, if it had not come from the Police’s own source of information. Many convincing arguments were advanced in those findings of the Media Council in which they concluded that this information and this campaign against Boesak had in fact originated with the Security Police.

What is not clear from the record of the Media Council hearing, however—this is very important—is that various very prominent newspapers in South Africa did in fact receive copies of that specific pamphlet and copies of a tape recording which was made of the situation, and that they also knew very well that those articles came from the Security Police.

A second point is that a number of attempts were made by the journalist responsible for the report, Miss Steyn, as well as by the editor of The Star and its legal representatives, to get some of these journalists to give evidence before the Media Council. Unfortunately they did not succeed in finding a single one of these people who was prepared to do so, and many prominent editors and reporters were involved in the affair. This was the case despite the fact that the reputation of a newspaper, and indeed the career of a fellow journalist, was at stake.

What comes to light as a result of this whole course of events? It is an immensely important finding that members of the SAP had a share in what amounts to a smear campaign against someone they regard as an undesirable political figure. I want to ask the hon the Minister specifically whether or not he accepts that finding. In addition I want to ask him, whether he accepts it or not, whether he is prepared to go into the matter any further and to determine to what extent it did happen, and to what extent this kind of thing may still be happening. This can indicate the extent to which there is control over what certain individuals in the Police Force do get up to sometimes.

Secondly, the SAP as an organisation— this does not concern individuals in the Police Force—was prepared to submit a charge against The Star to the Media Council concerning the situation. As I have said, the reputation of The Star and the career of a certain journalist were jeopardised by this. It was a very serious matter, therefore, and the charge was laid without the Police’s having launched an inquiry to find out what possible alternative source that pamphlet could have had. The report of the Media Council suggests specifically that this is in an indication that the policemen involved—I am talking about Colonel Scholtz and Colonel du Xoit—knew very well where the information in that pamphlet and the pamphlet itself had come from.

Thirdly—perhaps this is something that is of interest not only to the Police and the hon the Minister, but also to the media—we must take cognisance that a spirit of oppression is prevailing in this country at present, to such an extent that senior journalists and newspaper editors feel so intimidated that they are not prepared to give evidence to defend a journalistic colleague before a statutory body such as the Media Council. This is very bad for the freedom of the Press in this country, and I hope the hon the Minister will take cognisance of the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to say as regards a few arguments put forward by the hon member for Green Point that Ifind it exceptionally strange that he is so worried about a journalist’s career but that we have never heard that he is at all worried about the life of a policeman. Was it not also this hon member whom I read about as saying the chances of Police bullets hitting him while he was monitoring their activities in Black residential areas were greater than that the ANC would attack him? [Interjections.] Hon members of the PFP and the hon member for Green Point—to name him—are perpetually levelling accusations against the SAP. We never hear a good word from their side about the SAP.

The hon member for Green Point also expressed his concern about flags, to which we object strongly, which are used and exhibited during Black people’s funerals. Permit me to say I am worried about his own life when he attends those funerals.

I also wish to respond to a single comment made by the hon Mr Theunissen. Unfortunately he is not present in the Committee and I request one of his hon colleagues to convey my words to him. He mentioned Rapport here and accused this paper of supposedly saying in a report: “Daar word gesê …” I am not claiming that Rapport does not report in this way but I find it strange that the hon member himself says: “Rumours are going around that the Government is to hold discussions with the ANC.” [Interjections.] I want to ask why the hon member does not say who the person supplying him with this information is. If he feels he does not wish to disclose the name in the Committee, would he be prepared to give this information to the hon the Minister on a confidential basis and tell him who the persons are who are putting these rumours about?

I want to get to my prepared speech and should like to voice a few ideas about the denigration of the image of the SA Police. One of the most important strategies in a revolutionary onslaught against an existing political dispensation is to disparage the image of the structure of authority of the State. The SA Police as the primary enforcer of law and order is consequently also the primary target of our enemies’ efforts to destabilise the country.

In accordance with this it is declared ANC policy to incite the perpetration of mass violence in South Africa in order to thwart the police in the execution of their duties. The ANC is attempting by means of violence to build up a share of power especially among fellow citizens of colour. The impression is being created that the ANC may act internally without let or hindrance whereas the image of the SA Police is denigrated simultaneously by implying that the police are not capable of curbing the ANC. To succeed in this purpose there is intimidation of the local population in the form of brutal murders of members of the Police Force and their families or of persons who are haphazardly accused of being Police informers. Intimidation takes place to frighten off potential suppliers of information so that they will not use their basic civil rights in furnishing the Police with information on criminals.

In addition, innocent people—men, women and children—are murdered by means of bombs, land mines and the so-called “necklace” method to create the impression that the enemies of the country can act anywhere unhindered without their being prevented from doing so by the maintainers of law and order. Violence is used in efforts to make residential areas inaccessible to policemen who have to investigate crimes, take statements from complainants or witnesses or arrest criminals.

As soon as the SA Police acts and some of the creators of the unrest are shot, funerals are attended by revolutionary politicking, inflaming of emotions and the exhibition of banners and flags and those funerals are attended by important foreign diplomats and internal politicians—the hon member for Green Point and some of his hon colleagues among others.

When a policeman is deliberately murdered in the execution of his duty those same visitors, attenders of funerals and those same hon members of the PFP are silent. We have already seen that these enemies are strangers to humaneness in their murderous tactics such as igniting defenceless people, hurling hand grenades into a crowd where the perpetrator is faceless and untraceable or placing a bomb in a shopping centre at a holiday resort shortly before Christmas.

Recently this emerged again clearly when limpet mines exploded in Durban. A second limpet mine exploded shortly after the first while various policemen were at the scene to investigate the explosion and various police officials were hurt and one killed. One of the victims, Col Welman of the SA Police, died of injuries.

These enemies of the country simultaneously use the media in an underhand and well-considered way to discredit the public image of the Police. There are unconfirmed reports of the murder of women and children. Isolated cases in which individual members of the SA Police Force acted incorrectly are held up as the general rule and wrenched totally out of context. Steps taken by the SA Police against such offenders in their own ranks are seldom mentioned. Such unconfirmed rumours are given great prominence; when the truth is published later, it is done in such a way that it is hidden inconspicuously on inside pages of newspapers. The fact that allegations against the Police Force are refuted in most cases in the long run never receives the same prominence in reporting as the initial false or insinuating accusations.

Newspapers daily cast suspicion on SA Police actions; reports seldom refer to the infrastructure of communities which is totally destroyed. The SA Police and the SA Defence Force, which are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, are perpetually held up as the actual aggressors. The reason for the necessity of a strong presence is seldom if ever conveyed to the broad public. The irony of the case is that those very chief propagandists against the SA Police are nowadays the first to run to the Police when reactionary Black forces, sick and tired of violence, turn on these inciters and agitators. It is the duty of everyone in this country to combat the onslaught against those who enforce our laws. Not only members of the SA Police Force or their families, not only the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, not only members of Parliament but also every member of the Cabinet and every member of the community is expected to counter the onslaught against those who enforce our laws.

Nevertheless the onslaught is not only against those enforcing our laws. Last week at Brits we saw that an onslaught was also being made on our lawmakers. Rightist organisations like the AWB—with the strong support of political parties like the Conservative Party and the HNP—attack representatives of constituencies—especially of the National Party—and deprive them of their democratic right to report to their voters by whom they have been legally elected. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to follow my good colleague the hon member for Losberg who put the positive side regarding the SA Police in his very good speech. If it does not come from this side of the House, we hear very little about it. In the course of my speech I shall also associate myself with some of the matters raised by the hon member for Losberg.

Towards the end of his speech the hon member referred to groups of the extreme right and I am sorry the hon member Mr Theunissen is not present. This afternoon he started off with a very good speech in the House but the vein in which he continued rather gave one the impression that it was the vein in which Terre’Blanche’s “pandoers” would speak. I prefer to leave it at that.

Mr Chairman, we are living in a time steeped in terrorism and the attendant violence and killing because of revolutionary elements in our country which are attempting to overthrow the existing order. Obviously this also creates the ideal climate for the usual criminal elements to pursue their criminal careers under the umbrella of riots. This places an enormous burden on the shoulders of our law enforcers.

Nevertheless it is not only terrorist and criminal elements which place a greater burden on the shoulders of the SA Police; it is precisely the tragedy of our times that the Police are enormously hampered in the execution of their duties by being placed so much in the limelight and having public opinion focused on them to such an extent. The hon member Mr Theunissen as well as other hon members referred to this and I wish to agree with the hon member on this. The hon member for Losberg also raised this. It is not that the SA Police cannot withstand the test of the limelight; no, it can pass that test most successfully but its malice in many respects makes one shudder. We should have no illusions on the fact that it is a calculated onslaught and the declared objective of our enemies to disparage the image of the Police utterly and in so doing discredit its authority in the community entirely. We have countless examples of the policeman’s being presented to the community as the villain and the rioters as the so-called peaceful crowds.

Anyone, like the hon member for Houghton, who condones mourners singing freedom songs at funerals, standing with clenched fists against the background of the Red Flag and making inflammatory speeches at funerals, and anyone labelling them as peaceful crowds should to my mind visit a doctor to have a psychiatric examination. [Interjections.]

Time and again it happens that in news coverage of incidents attention is centered only on Police action while such Police action may be held up as a Sunday school picnic in comparison with what sometimes takes place among the unruly mob. The duty of the Police is inter alia to protect the lives and property of people; its members also have to protect their own lives. Yet it appears to me there are certain hon members here who think members of the Police should merely stand with their hands by their sides and simply take everything. Time and again, however, the psychosis is created that members of the Police are the perpetrators of violence and we find some people almost breaking a leg in their scurrying to take statements on so-called Police brutalities. We have had countless examples of that from the ranks of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] There are hon members—I have to say this today—sitting in this Committee and grossly abusing the privilege they enjoy in this House in this regard.

In spite of all I have just said and in spite of the concentrated onslaught of insinuations, the undermining of authority and everything related to that, I also take pleasure in being able to stand here and state with absolute conviction that the people engaged in these undermining tactics have not and will not succeed in their objective. In making this statement, I am not doing so merely from an exaggerated feeling of patriotism nor out of blind loyalty to the Police Force but out of conviction based on the knowledge of facts.

I in no way wish to create the impression that every policeman is a grade 1 angel but they are also only people and this side of the grave not one of us is a grade 1 angel. I said that people embarking upon calculated denigration of the Police would not succeed in their objective because in the first place the Police Force is a disciplined force with a deep sense of duty regarding those tasks entrusted to it.

The Police Force is 73 years old and within the period of its existence has developed a distinctive culture and an identity of which it may be very proud. If one pages through the latest annual, one finds the history of the SA Police since its establishment in 1913.

I wish I had time to go into this in detail; in conclusion I want to draw attention to a few points. The Police Force is exceptionally proud that it has tackled and carried out its task of ensuring the safety of the country and all its people without hesitation throughout. Although the SA Police was established only in 1913, it is possible to look back on a continuous Police and military service in consequence of its predecessors dating back to 1683 in the “Wag aan Wal”.

Development has not only enlarged the variety of crime committed but also assisted the criminal in concealing his misdeeds or carrying them out more effectively or leaving the scene more rapidly. The Police has had to keep pace with all these developments and also grow—not only numerically but also in its striking power.

In contrast with other countries where such attacks appear sporadically, in South Africa the Police also has to deal with a sustained terrorist onslaught on the borders of the country and also in our urban areas. It is in the sphere of counter-insurgence and riot control that the SA Police is second to no other police force in the world. Years of hard-bought experience acquired especially since 1966 in Rhodesia and elsewhere, improved methods of training, modern military equipment as well as modernised counter-insurgency techniques have all contributed to the fact that the SAP is highly regarded throughout the world today. The attainment of its ideal—the maintenance of law and order and the internal safety of South Africa and its inhabitants—has to date, however, claimed the lives of 600 brave policemen and a Police monument has been erected at the Union Buildings in Pretoria in memory of those who made the highest sacrifice. The monument is dedicated to the SAP.

In conclusion I want to read some lines from a poem which appeared in the official SAP magazine in June 1985. It was written by Warrant Officer Japie Jacobs of Pretoria Central. I quote:

A later stanza runs:

I think Warrant Office Japie Jacobs has summarised the feeling of unity and camaraderie and the culture distinctive to members of the SA Police in these words.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in heartily agreeing with the positive remarks the hon member for Kroonstad made about the Police, about its very difficult task and the work it has to carry out so tenanciously under such difficult conditions.

It is a pity that he and the hon member for Losberg did not refer specifically to the UDF in trying to get at the AWB. They used very strong language regarding the AWB but the actual organisation which holds the greatest danger to South Africa is the UDF, the front for the ANC in South Africa. No hon members of the NP have mentioned the name of that organisation. [Interjections.] Nevertheless they are very quick to speak of Terre’-Blanche’s “pandoere”.

The hon member for Kroonstad held it against the hon member Mr Theunissen for using certain words but he obviously did not watch the television interview with Mr Pik Botha a few evenings ago in which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs used exactly the same language.

The exact words.

Yes, the exact words.

All we want to know from the hon the Minister—we know his reply will be positive—is whether he is prepared to have discussions with the ANC. We know the hon the Minister is not prepared to do so but the problem is that certain members of the New Nats are making things difficult for him.

ANC “pandoere”.

The hon member for Losberg reproached the hon member Mr Theunissen for referring to certain reports in Rapport and for pointing out to the hon the Minister that rumours were going around that the Government wanted to negotiate with the ANC. Obviously the hon member for Losberg does not read his newspapers nor his own paper Die Burger. In that there is speculation and reports that efforts are being made to separate the nationalists in the ANC from the communists in that body so that they may be identified and negotiations conducted with them. Did the hon member not read this? Is he unaware of it? Or is he not a member of the New Nats?

We fully understand the difficult problems and I shall get to the hon the Minister shortly.

†I just want to refer to two matters mentioned by the hon member for Houghton. Firstly, she said that the Police take the law into their own hands. That is an inconceivable statement to make. Who administers the law? Who are the people who have to take the law into their own hands if it is not the Police? How can that hon member say such a ridiculous thing?

Because they judge people to be guilty!

I also want to ask the hon member for Houghton if she realises that in the present difficult situation in which South Africa finds itself, every unnatural death results in an inquest. Every policeman who is responsible for the death of a victim has to answer the questions that are posed to him at an inquest.

[Inaudible.]

Can the hon member for one moment try to imagine how difficult it is to restore peace and order in this country if a policeman has to face an inquest after every unnatural death?

What about riots?

The hon member should seriously consider this problem. [Interjections.]

*We appreciate the very serious problems the hon the Minister has to contend with and the uncomfortable position in which he finds himself. He has people criticising him from outside but he is also struggling within his own ranks with exceptional problems which are uncomfortable. Firstly, there are certain hon Ministers within his own Cabinet who, in their overeagerness to comply with USA demands, are tying the hands of the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

No, that is not so. [Interjections.]

I should appreciate the hon the Minister’s assuring us there are no people within his Cabinet who are holding him back for the sake of world opinion so that he is unable to carry out his duty as it should be under these circumstances.

No, that is not so.

You are getting it from both sides!

In his reply to the hon member for Houghton a moment ago the hon the Minister referred to Ambassador Worrall’s statement that he had been incorrectly quoted. Apparently it is Ambassador Worrall’s present custom to allege he has been misquoted.

Mr Chairman, may I put the hon member right? I said the ambassador had been misquoted and not he. I said so.

All right then.

I want to remind the hon the Minister of what occurred after the Uitenhage incident. After Dr Worrall had attended a function at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he was questioned by a British Press representative on incidents at Langa. He was asked whether he had attempted to justify the incidents at Langa to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to which the ambassador replied that it was a tragic happening for which there could be no justification. At the time his actions were approved of by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Dr Worrall’s words were mentioned in a Press report in inverted commas and I quote:

I should be pleased if the hon the Minister would try to put these words right because Ambassador Worrall continued that it was not as bad as members of the foreign Press made out. It is therefore a case of “Rebecca is just a little bit pregnant”, as Ikey said. “Rebecca is not completely pregnant—she is just a little bit pregnant.” [Interjections.] With such friends, the hon the Minister does not need enemies.

The latest recruit from within is the hon member for Brits who is unfortunately not present. He is also angry with the Police and undermining the Police from his side too. The Police should apparently have been there when the guests he had invited to his meeting turned up early and took up their positions in the hall. The colonel said he first had to wait for the brigadier to turn up before he could go to the town hall in Brits to lend assistance. So, the Police arrived too late because, on their entrance, the hall had already been filled by guests he did not actually want. [Interjections.]

You organised it, Frank!

And those are the hon the Minister’s friends! I request those hon members as well as those within the Government to assist the hon the Minister in fulfilling his difficult task successfully.

You have nothing to say about it.

The hon member Mr Theunissen referred to influx control measures which have now been totally abandoned. [Interjections.]

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

Unfortunately I have no time for it.

The CP was in the majority in Brits.

Definitely among the voters!

I am speaking about the meeting.

The Transvaal as well!

And in the hon the Minister’s constituency as well!

Order! We are not counting votes now. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen referred to the abolition of influx control which I regard as a very irresponsible step. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised how difficult the task of the Police will now be in tracing crime.

In conclusion I wish to refer to Prof Tjaart van der Walt’s report to which the hon member for Krugersdorp also referred. The Official Opposition is quick to attack the Police about incidents in these present tumultuous times but on page 40 of the report Professor van der Walt says the following:

That is precisely what the hon member for Barberton said last year during the debate on the Uitenhage incident. The hon the Minister and the Police should be permitted to carry out their duty and do their work as they have been trained to do.

At the end of this part of his report, Professor van der Walt says the following:

These words should echo throughout South Africa and the entire world. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased the hon member for Brakpan referred to the Van der Walt Report and the compliments to the SAP in it. I hope to refer to it later in my speech as well.

I wish to tell the hon member that I judge the AWB, the ANC and the UDF by the same yardstick. One group is ultraright and one ultraleft and I reject them.

The same yardstick!

Yes, the same yardstick. I proffer their leaders the contempt they deserve because these people are not serving the interests of South Africa at all. [Interjections.] One is to the right and one to the left and they are definitely not sincere towards South Africa. [Interjections.] That is my well-considered, humble opinion. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Houghton referred to certain statements I made in a previous debate on the report on torture and Dr Don Foster. I have had no instruction in psychology or criminology …

That is what I thought!

… but I want to say only this to the hon member for Houghton as regards Dr Don Foster’s report: It is a “Fostergate” which is not worth the paper on which it is written. It is a deliberate effort to show South Africa in a poor light and discredit the SAP.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

I put many questions on this report in a previous debate. [Interjections.] So far I have not received any replies to those questions except in a speech made by Dr Foster on 3 March 1986. [Interjections.] In consequence of this speech I wish to point out to the hon member for Houghton what type of person, institution and organisations she wants to defend here. Dr Foster said:

Surely this is not a scientific study. I repeat it is not worth the paper on which it is written.

Dr Foster then continued with this supposed lecture he was giving and said:

He said no such film was being made or planned.

What do we see in the newspapers, however? What do we see on television? I wish to read an extract from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 22 April 1986 under the caption “UK-dosent in martelprent”. I think this is common cause; everybody knows about this type of film. The report continues as follows:

In his speech he said he was not involved in the film but he appeared on television and defended this film Witness to Apartheid.What type of person is this? This person is misleading the hon member for Houghton.

Nonsense!

She calls it nonsense. Nevertheless I wish to go further and again put a question to the hon member for Houghton and to Dr Foster today. Is he not involved with Sir Richard Attenborough as well? Is he not making this so-called great film?

I referred previously in a speech to a speech he made at the Groote Schuur Hospital in which he spoke about the great film which should be made against and about apartheid in South Africa. Is this not a foretaste of this film? Is it not possible ultimately to find an association between Sir Richard Attenborough and Dr Foster? Let us examine what Sir Richard Attenborough says. The following report appeared in The Citizen of 28 April 1986 under the caption “Biko film to show horror of apartheid”. It runs:

[Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon Minister today I think these people are asking for trouble. Let us give them trouble.

This afternoon I request that a proper inquiry be ordered in consequence of the report on torture and its so-called findings and that it be determined whether it can be regarded as a so-called scientific study. It should be established exactly what institutions were involved with this report and what their motives were. This type of propaganda aimed at orderly government and intent upon misleading people and placing South Africa in a poor light can no longer be tolerated. Authority has a duty to act and I believe authority and especially the SA Police have nothing to hide so this type of distortion should be revealed to the bone.

What upsets one, however, is that in March Dr Don Foster denied in a speech that he had said a film was to be made exposing torture in South Africa whereas on 25 November last year during a lecture at the Groote Schuur Hospital he said explicitly that such a film should be made. I want it recorded that these people are busy with propaganda against South Africa which we— leaving the Government aside—cannot afford as a country and as South Africans. In spite of denials about films, it now appears that he also participated in the BBC production violating South Africa. I have already had this recorded and I want hon members to know this. We should know what is going on here and what types of elements are present at a university which is a so-called academic institution.

No, we have to make a stand here. We are involved in a revolution in South Africa and no academic body or institution can denigrate South Africa under the banner of academia. We have a duty toward the people in this country and we as the Government should act responsibly. We should protect the SA Police at all times.

Dr Foster reminds one of Sir Richard Attenborough and I have cause for this comment. Two years ago Sir Richard Attenborough was in South Africa, initially under an assumed name and also denied that he was to make a film discrediting South Africa. What do we have now? The hon member for Houghton is turning up her nose but what do we have now? The trouble-making story which he denied. He brought discredit upon reporters and the SABC radio and television services by denying what he had said. When he arrived overseas later he admitted it and he is now turning his words into deeds.

[Inaudible.]

No, she can shout…

Are you proud of Biko’s death?

I am not proud of anyone’s death. I am not a vindictive person which I must make very clear. [Interjections.] I am sorry Mr Biko is dead but, honestly, I am not going to permit innocent people to die in South Africa because of the utterances and motives of people who do not know what they are doing! Hon members had better realise this.

The South African Government should pay close attention to the film Sir Richard Attenborough wants to make; it can harm the country immeasurably in worldwide propaganda. In the same way attention should be paid to the film Dr Foster wants to make and to his participation in the BBC programme.

Does the Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Mr Harry Oppenheimer, approve of a UCT psychology student’s undertaking a scientifically suspect study and further blackening South Africa overseas?

We here, and every South African who loves the country, now have to choose between the radical leftist or rightist wings and moderation, which has a future in South Africa. When I spoke about the AWB, the hon member for Barberton shouted about it. Those people are Afrikaners and I am also an Afrikaner and proud of it but those people should come to their senses before they set South Africa alight. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the time has come in South Africa for us to pay some special attention to the wife of the policeman. I do not intend replying to the speaker preceding me as I think his argument spoke for itself. I merely wish to confirm that we in South Africa should be very careful how we approach a situation involving security matters.

The role played by the wife of the policeman is totally underrated in South Africa at present because people stare blindly at so-called malpractices supposedly perpetrated by policemen, little knowing what circumstances they have to put up with in their home life but also on the so-called battlefield where they have to act. We should have great appreciation and regard for the anxiety of the policeman’s wife. She is aware of circumstances in which the Police sometimes have to act in safeguarding this country and its people because her husband informs her about this.

We are experiencing a period in which people are using politics in an attempt to build a distinctive philosophy. Their philosophy is then linked to socialism and in consequence also to communism. Socialist philosophy says that if a person cannot convince someone that his argument is wrong, one should discredit him personally. One should denigrate him personally and make him appear suspect. Ultimately people start asking whether there is not actually something wrong with that person.

We experienced this again today in this Committee when the hon member Mr Theunissen launched a pointed attack on the hon member for Krugersdorp; we also saw it when an attack was launched on the hon the Minister. This is socialist philosophy from which communism arises and which these people use in their personal disparagement. [Interjections.]

In this country we have a duty to give the people maintaining law and order our moral support in respect of their family interests as well. Today I want to call upon every right-minded, peace-loving South African to give special attention to the circumstances of the wife of the policeman who has to defend this country in mortal danger without fear or favour.

How do we act? When we have a problem or when our lives are threatened, we expect a policeman to be there and, if he is not on duty, we expect him to be called back to protect us. He does it at the expense of his home life. We also accept that his wife and children are only a normal part of society but they are not. They are people who have to act under great stress and raise their children in such a way that an anxiety psychosis is not created in the child in consequence of the circumstances under which his father works.

I wish to appeal to all critics of the Police. It is a pity the hon member for Houghton is not present in the Committee. Has she ever considered the home life of a policeman? Has she ever considered the circumstances attending the family life of a policeman?

We in South Africa should reflect on what is required in maintaining law and order where we are dealing with a terrorist onslaught and terrorists who are openly predicting death for us. We should create a perception of why we should be sympathetic and morally supportive towards our fellow man. It is of no avail to serve coffee and sandwiches and rusks to a policeman when he is suppressing riots and in danger of his life if we forget that that man has loved ones at home anxiously waiting for the return of the father of that family.

Have we ever for a single moment considered the full significance of the following words: “My dad shoots terrorists”? But how does the child feel when his father arrives home wounded and burnt? Then it is the mother’s duty to inform that child about it in such a way that he grows up without a feeling of hatred and will enter upon life without hate of his fellows regardless of the fact that his father was perhaps disfigured or murdered in the process.

These are serious matters and the time has come when critics would do better to go and investigate circumstances there. They would do better to give moral support to the women and children who have to live under those circumstances and yet have to continue in a normal way in society.

One can never overemphasise the value of the policeman’s work. In England it was customary for the “bobby” never to carry a weapon on patrol. It was traditional that that policeman would never be attacked and that it would therefore never be necessary for him to defend himself. Circumstances have changed throughout the world, however, and policemen in England have to carry weapons as well. It is a psychosis created by communism that everyone should be on the defensive and that a person has to fight to safeguard one’s life and that of one’s fellows.

We in South Africa should move away from this type of existence. We have a multiracial country and I am most sympathetic toward Black policemen in particular who are the victims of this type of violence to an increasing degree. We should also support the Black woman in her anxiety and fears and in her duty to raise her child in such a way that he does not harbour ill feeling towards his fellows. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot find any fault with the general thrust of the speech of the hon member for Parys. I think we all appreciate that the Police perform dangerous and often very difficult work under trying conditions, and I believe that the points raised by that hon member are readily recognised.

I should like to revert for one moment to a point made by the hon the Minister a little earlier when he said that judges had made some visits—I think he said 35 visits—to the prisons, and that only a few complaints had been received and hardly any of torture.

32 visits.

I see, 32 visits. Judges visit the prisons, but the point is that the allegations of torture relate not to the prisons but to the activities in the police cells. That is the area which should be investigated.

Some weeks ago I received a copy of a memorandum compiled and submitted to the Government by the Alexandra Schools Association. This association comprises some 18 major companies, some of which are multinational, all of which operate near Alexandra and all of which have, over a period of years, made ongoing contributions to education, housing and community projects in that area. The companies and their directors who submitted this memorandum are not politicians, neither are they even political activists. They are concerned businessmen and industrialists, closely involved with their employees and with our community. What do they say in their memorandum? Allow me to quote just a few sentences. Referring to the unrest in Alexandra, they write:

However, they do not leave the matter at that. They state further, and I quote them:

Then they go further:

The final quote from this memorandum, which the hon the Minister has, is the following:

Would the hon member let me have a copy? I cannot recollect having seen it.

It has been sent to the hon the Minister by the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid.

I have not received it.

Well, this document should have been with the hon the Minister for well over a month already. We are in fact waiting for a response.

Send him one.

Over the past months I have had in-depth contact with the authorities, the civic association, the local now defunct council, the action committees, local businesses, the Youth Congress, the clergy and the police, to name but some of the organisations involved in Alexandra.

When unrest in Alexandra first erupted some two months ago, the PFP-controlled council in Sandton provided emergency medical facilities on the spot to all who needed them. The PFP council arranged refuge and temporary accommodation for the Police and for the families who were evicted from the township, and also for the councillors who were in fear for their lives.

What about a hear, hear now?

Many of these people were taken into our homes for a period of weeks on end while that unrest occurred.

This involvement and that experience of February and March has taught us something. It has taught us that this perception of the Alexandra Schools Association relating to the police in Alexandra, is not wrong. They are alienated and they are hated by the entire community in Alexandra. As a result the police have had a very rough time. Make no error, the police have not had it easy; it has been a difficult and trying time for them. However, last week the bottom fell out of any hopes for peace in that community. On Tuesday, 22 March, at approximately 17h30, police roadblocks were set up at the strategic entrances to the township, and people entering and leaving were checked very carefully. To all intents and purposes the township was sealed off.

At about 19h30 three separate teams of men dressed in plain clothes though some wore the powder-blue shirts and trousers, and supported in some cases by Hippo’s, attacked certain selected targets. Mrs Rebecca Beea, the wife of the Civic Association chairman, told me the following, which I should like to quote:

She did not know where her husband was at the time, so the Black man who came into her house—there were some eight or nine of them—assaulted her and her children and gutted her house, set it to fire. She received serious head and body wounds which I have seen and which she showed me. This family has lost everything they possess.

Witnesses have told me personally that Colin Ntola, a Youth Congress member, was standing in the yard of his house when several Blacks in blue uniforms ran from behind a parked Hippo, carrying guns and pangas. Colin tried to run but was shot dead in the throat. Another witness, in another place, told me personally that at about 19h00 he was sitting in a people’s court, a people’s court which was settling a matrimonial issue, when there was a knock on the door. “Move out” was the message, “the Police are raiding”. As they scattered the shooting started and several occupants fell, either killed or wounded.

The witness to whom I spoke scrambled out and hid underneath a motor-car outside the house, but the men in blue set fire to the motor-car under which he was hiding. Eventually he crept out and hid in a neighbour’s toilet.

Alexandra looks today like a scene reminiscent of the movie The Killing Fields. A leadership vacuum exists as every known leader has fled, fearing death at the hands of the police. Houses belonging to the leaders have been gutted. Burned-out cars litter the streets. The pall of death hangs over that community. Local business has virtually ground to a halt.

What has happened and what is happening in Alexandra is nothing short of madness. There is overwhelming evidence that this latest round of violence and the killing was planned and executed by policemen and their friends—overwhelming evidence. Unless this insanity is stopped, and quickly, Alexandra will experience a new and dark era which will for years to come bear the fruit of bitterness and of hatred.

As a matter of urgency, the Police must pull back and call off the military occupation of that town. Leaders must be allowed to return to their homes in safety, and to come out from hiding, in order to meet with each other and to negotiate with the authorities. Normality must be restored, and this cannot happen while the Police behave in this way.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Sandton submit to me the names of the leaders who, according to him, have fled and whom he would like back in that township?

Absolutely! Certainly! I shall do that with pleasure, Sir.

As I have said, Sir, normality cannot be restored while the Police behave in this manner. It is time that the hon the Minister stopped making excuses. He must exercise his authority without delay. The perpetrators of arson, of murder and of violence—no matter what the provocation—must be brought to book, irrespective of whoever they may be. Only a judicial inquiry into the events at Alexandra will satisfy the conscience of our country and will allow some self-respect to be restored to the forces of law and order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton has adopted the same attitude towards the SA Police which we normally get from the hon member for Houghton. I understand that the hon member for Houghton has been a member of this House for 33 years now. I have been here eight years now. I have heard her speak in the debate on the Police Vote every year, and I have never heard her say one positive thing about the Police.

Never! [Interjections.]

That, Mr Chairman, is the tendency which is so clearly perceptible in the ranks of the Official Opposition.

When one comes in from outside, one could very easily gain the impression that the hon members of the PFP are the absolute enemies of the PFP.

You have the wrong impression!

Mr Chairman, everyone who listened to the speech by the hon member for Sandton today, could just as well have gained the impression that he was the enemy of peace in South Africa; that he was the enemy of law and order in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am saying this because the hon member for Sandton accused the Police—as did the hon member for Houghton—of being the cause of the unrest in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sandton accused the Police of being the people who caused all sorts of bloody atrocities to take place in a residential area like Alexandra. [Interjections.] But I maintain that the Police are in all respects the target of the radicals …

And the revolutionaries!

… and the revolutionaries who want to overthrow this Government and this State in South Africa by means of violence. [Interjections.] Those hon members—including the hon member for Sandton and the hon member for Houghton—are, after all, the rich people of South Africa, who live in their castles in Houghton and in Sandton. But when their houses are attacked with bombs and petrol bombs; when their houses are burnt down and their families are in danger, they will very quickly shout for help from the Police. But they are not experiencing these things themselves. It is the Police who have to experience these things themselves.

What actually happened in Alexandra? The Police there were provoked to breaking point by the left-wing radicals, who were pursuing revolutionary objectives. People are being assaulted constantly, even in their private capacities. Their houses are being burnt down, their families are being murdered, and the Police are absolutely sick and tired of the behaviour of those left-wing radicals. But when action is taken against them, the hon member for Sandton and his cronies cry about it. [Interjections.] One gains the impression that the hon member for Sandton—and I am saying this responsibly—cannot achieve his objectives by parliamentary means, and for that reason he wants to encourage people outside to help him achieve his objectives by extra-parliamentary means.

Today I contend here that the best friends of the community in South Africa—and I am including all the people in this country in this—are the Police. The Police are the target of terrorists, stone throwers, arsonists, petrol bomb throwers, bomb planters, snipers, rioters and strikers. This small Police Force in South Africa must deal with all these people! Consequently we must have understanding for the difficult and dangerous circumstances in which they must do their work in 1986.

We must not constantly criticise these people who are the target of the radicals. They are willing to accept positive criticism, but we must at least tell them occasionally that they have done their work well and we must also thank them sincerely for what they have done. It is our duty to do so.

It is after all their task to protect our lives and our possessions, and I think that under the present circumstances they are doing their work extremely well. They will appreciate it if we show understanding for the services they are rendering to South Africa in very difficult circumstances. I want to say that they are carrying out their task with limited manpower and in the most difficult circumstances. The hon the Minister has already informed us what the consequence is of their trying to protect us and keep radicals away from us.

With 48 000 policemen in the SA Police Force, the ratio between the number of policemen and the size of the population in South Africa is one of the lowest in the world. There are 18 000 Black policemen in South Africa. The ratio between the number of White policemen and the White population is less than 1:200, but in the case of Black policemen the ratio is less than 1:600. By means of better liaison and by supporting the Police we can also make a contribution. As a matter of fact I think that is our task.

Consequently today I want to suggest to the hon the Minister in all modesty that we must not think of virtually doubling the Police Force within 10 years. Then it will be too late. We must devise plans now, today, this year, of bringing at least 40 000 of these people of whom I spoke, particularly the Blacks, into the Force to strengthen the position of the Police. I know it is a matter of finance.

I do not think it can take place that quickly either, but we must think of using Black people in the Black residential areas. We must involve the responsible people, the moderate, the parents of these children, in the Force. They can act as a homeguard or as reserve police. What is more we must involve them today or tomorrow, and not in 10 years’ time, to increase the numbers in the Force by 25 000 or 40 000 people. We must do so as soon as possible and at the least possible cost. If we investigate this idea, we will see that it is possible in practice.

I also think we must give serious consideration to giving special training to a Black riot unit, perhaps more than one unit, to deal with riot situations. We cannot send these Black riot control units to take action against White right-wing radicals because, in my opinion, that would simply be adding fuel to the fire. I think the same reaction will develop among Black radicals if White riot units are sent to them. Consequently I think that we must specially train Black riot control units to deal with matters in Black areas.

In conclusion I want to suggest that we must devise a plan to protect places against both Black and White radicals, because in these difficult times in which we are living, both economically and otherwise, it is necessary for us to remove these radical people from the residential areas. We must not put them in prison, but in internment camps instead, like the ones we had in the Second World War. Perhaps they can calm down there.

Mr Chairman, initially I wanted to reprimand the hon member for Vryheid about a few very distorted statements he made here in this House about politics in general and the HNP in particular. But he spoke so well and so correctly this afternoon that I could endorse virtually every word he said; except when he touched on this theme of the right-wing radicals and the left-wing radicals right at the end of his speech. [Interjections.] The hon member can even call me a right-wing radical if he likes. The AWB, the CP and the HNP are usually referred to as the right-wing radicals, but the CP, the AWB and the HNP are not endeavouring to overthrow the State.

That is not what the AWB says.

We are endeavouring to overthrow the Government by means of the democratic process of persuasion. [Interjections.]

Now there are many hon members here in this Committee, inter alia the hon member for Overvaal who is held in high esteem by the hon the Minister and who the hon the Minister says is a good advocate, who do not distinguish between the State and the Government. It is the right of the HNP, the CP, the AWB and any other political party, including the PFP, to overthrow this Government by means of the process of democratic persuasion. [Interjections.] But the overthrowing of the State is another matter. [Interjections.]

We do not mind and the hon members can carry on like this, but I just want to point out to them that it is a violation of the truth to call the people who adopt the democratic course in South Africa, right-wing radicals in order to attempt to equate them with the left-wing radicals. There is a fundamental difference between the people on the left who want to overthrow the State and the people on the right none of whom want to overthrow the State. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon members will quarrel with me about the HNP and the CP, but I want to refer specifically to the AWB. Eugѐne Terre’Blanche was an organiser in my employ in 1972. [Interjections.] He was a very good organiser. Then he established the AWB, and obviously that was the end of his connection with the HNP. The AWB are now being crucified in particular with regard to what happened in Brits and I think to a lesser extent in Nylstroom. These events were even condemned as being unchristian from the pulpit of a church in Lynnwood, Pretoria, last Sunday.

What these people who have not been acquainted with these matters for that long forget is that two of the best practitioners of bully boy tactics in politics were the present State President in his day and the hon member Mr Van Staden. [Interjections.] There are hon members sitting in this Committee and there are also men who are no longer here who on 12 November 1969 broke up the meeting in Paarl by means of violence. They made it impossible for Dr Hertzog and me to speak. This also happened at all the other meetings. At that meeting the bullyboys of the NP, led by Mr Hennie Smit, Mr Piet Marais and Mr Wynand Malan, climbed onto the stage and threw our chairman that evening off the stage three times. I must tell hon members that there were four police officers on duty outside the hall that evening, and they found it all very amusing.

I disagreed with the Police somewhat and thought that they should at least have intervened when Fanie was thrown off the stage for the third time. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I want to say, to the great credit of the Police, that they showed self-control and, although we were angry and did not feel happy about the matter, they acted correctly. I want to tell the hon members: “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” [Interjections.] The Police are not going to help them and I want to appeal to the Police to treat the NP, the AWB and everyone else the same. They must treat us all the way they treated the NP in Paarl on 12 November 1969. Then things will not go far wrong in South Africa.

I want to touch on another matter, namely that we think that in these times in which we are living the Government must give serious consideration to changing the approach with regard to the licensing of firearms radically. The old attitude was that in order to prevent crime one should keep firearms away from as many people as possible. The new approach is that one must allow the person who can handle firearms, who can store them and who knows how to work with them, to own as many firearms as he wants and can afford. An organisation like the SA Guns Association is also advocating this standpoint.

I want to give the Committee a few statistics which I obtained from the South African Criminal Bureau, just to emphasise my point that it is not the man who owns the firearm who commits the murder; it is not the man who knows how to handle it and who keeps it locked up in a cupboard where his wife, children and servants cannot even get anywhere near it. The South African Criminal Bureau says that according to their information no person who owns four or more firearms has ever lost or parted with them as a result of negligence. This has never happened. Only 16,5% of all murders committed were committed with firearms, of which less than 1% were licensed. Fewer than 2% of the murders are committed with licensed firearms in the legal possession of the owners.

What is more—this is probably the most striking information—to date no man in South Africa who owns 12 or more licensed firearms—I know the Act says 12 is the maximum, but there are some people who have more—has been found guilty of committing a crime with one of those firearms. There was not a single one. The people with the most firearms do not commit any crimes with those firearms. I have a great deal more information but my time is running out.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to take a look at magazines like Shooting Timesfrom the USA and the publications of the SAGA. The hon the Minister, who in our eyes learns more towards the right … [Interjections.] … must take a look at the new approach towards the possession of firearms. He must accordingly allow more than 12 firearms …

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

No, I am not replying to questions now.

It must depend on the calibre of the person. He must be able to own as many firearms as he wants, after the Police or whoever is dealing with the matter have ascertained that he knows how to handle them. Evidence shows that it is the man who can handle firearms and care for them who does not commit the crimes.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react in too much detail to the hon member for Sasolburg. In any case it is not the intention of the Government to make the existing licensing restrictions more strugent and take firearms away from people. It just so happens that I was a member of the select committee which investigated that legislation at that stage, and it was felt that for a man with two hands, 12 firearms were really more than enough, no matter what position he found himself in. [Interjections.]

That is not the evidence.

Order! There is far too much muttering going on.

If one were to allow a person to own more than this number of firearms, then the situation could arise where people began building up their own private arsenals, particularly in today’s circumstances when some people are becoming a little panicky. Perhaps they will not be able to withstand the temptation to do so. I do not want to go into this matter in too much detail.

The hon member for Sasolburg has now interjected: Those are the statistics! From the statistics one could also infer that if one did not want a person to commit any crimes, one should simply give him more firearms. [Interjections.] These are the kind of inferences one can draw from statistics if one really wishes to.

I want to continue referring to the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech. In a certain sense he threatened us because he said that the events at Brits were only the beginning. He also tried to justify the events by referring to things which had happened in the past. But there is one fact that hon member cannot get away from: If that kind of behaviour takes place, the democratic process is being reduced to a farce.

How did the NP come into power?

Then it is no longer democracy, but what the English call “mob rule”. [Interjections.] That is what that kind of behaviour leads to. [Interjections.]

If in these serious days in South Africa we must find a solution to this country’s problems, we must talk to each other more and shout at each other less. [Interjections.] For that reason I want to appeal to those hon members to condemn this kind of behaviour unconditionally, and to do so loudly and clearly.

Then you must also tell the NP that! Tell Oom Koot and the State President that too! [Interjections.]

What happened in the past happened in other circumstances and times. Whatever the merits or demerits were at that stage, is not relevant now.

It is! It is absolutely relevant!

The point is that today, in the present circumstances, we cannot afford that kind of behaviour.

It is absolutely relevant!

I just want to discuss one other point with the hon member for Sasolburg. He said that the right-wing were not radical in the sense that they were not striving to overthrow the State, but that they were merely striving to overthrow the Government.

That is correct.

Judging by the constitutions of the CP and the HNP I can agree with this as far as they are concerned, but the AWB is not a political organisation or party.

It is registered as a political party!

It is not active as a political party.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

We know that there is a political party registered in the name of the AWB, which is linked to the AWB, but we also know that political party has never manifested itself actively in any way. [Interjections.] It is not registered under the name of the AWB, but it is an allied organisation.

One can see in the constitution of the AWB that they will not recognise the democratic process as we know it today. They are actually heading towards a one-party state. For that reason one cannot possibly pass off the AWB as anything other than a radical movement. [Interjections.] They not only want to replace the existing Government’s policy with another policy; they also want to overthrow the entire existing order and replace it with a totally new order. That is the definition of radicalism.

If I can leave the hon member for Sasolburg at that, I also want to talk about the circumstances in which we are living today. Any change which takes place, always leads to an uncomfortable situation. There is an old Dutch idiom about this which may be paraphrased as follows: “Everyone is agitating for reform here, but regrets it every day.” This idiom gives an indication of the dilemma of being a person. We are always striving for change, but we also find change uncomfortable.

Reform is nothing else but a form of change. That is why reform also results in a certain amount of discomfort in society and a certain amount of uncertainty. Before that change takes place, people know more or less what is expected of them and how they must behave towards other people, but when matters change, they become uncertain of how they must act.

This uncertainty results in a few things. The first of these is a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty in certain people because they do not know precisely how they must act and how people are going to react towards them. They do not know what is going to happen tomorrow and the day after that.

On the other hand it also results in rising expectations, because this change allows certain things or makes certain things possible which were not possible in the past. Consequently some needs can be satisfied which could not be satisfied in the past. Now people extrapolate this and say that if some things which were not possible in the past are possible now then other things may also become possible now. In that way expectations rise.

It then happens time and again that those expectations rise above the realities and the possibility to be satisfied, so that an unavoidable consequence is also frustration. These frustrated expectations then give rise to a feeling of frustration, rebelliousness and unrest. These are the unavoidable consequence of any process of change. The more rapidly the process of change takes place, the more seriously all these symptoms manifest themselves. That is why, when people ask why we do not speed up reform, we tell them that we must also keep these disruptive factors under control.

The logical consequence of all this, of the feeling of insecurity, of the rising expectations and of the feeling of frustration which arises from this, is that people are inclined to polarise. This throws this entire society into a disorganised state. If one wants to keep control of matters and if one does not want to be like a person who lands up in rapids in a canoe without a paddle and cannot avoid capsizing, one must introduce more stringent control measures than are necessary under normal circumstances.

For that reason I want to ask that although we recently revised our security legislation exhaustively, we must take another look at it in the light of the conditions we have experienced during the past few years and the experience we have of that security legislation. I do not have sufficient time to make specific proposals at this stage, but we must take another look at that security legislation to see whether it still makes provision for the disorganised conditions in which we find ourselves today, and which are a perfectly ordinary, logical consequence of the process of reform. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I share the concern of the hon member for Helderkruin that we should talk to each other more than we do at the present time. I am also grateful that he pointed out the heightened feeling of insecurity that people have in a time of change and the need to review the security legislation. I hope that the hon the Minister will give his attention to those matters. However, there are three matters that I wish to raise with the hon the Minister during the time available to me in this debate.

The first matter concerns the medical aid society to which members of the South African Police Force belong. I am advised that all members of the Police Force and the Prisons Service are obliged to belong to the Police and Prisons Medical Aid Society which is known as POLGEVMED but that Black members may not register any dependants as members, ie, no wives or children, whereas White, Coloured and Indian members may do so. I hope that the hon the Minister will explain whether this is correct and, if so, the reasons for this discrimination.

The second matter that I wish to raise concerns allegations of harassment by the Security Police. A leading member of the PFP in the Transvaal who works for a parastatal organisation, advises me that he was summoned by his director to a meeting where his activities as part of our monitoring group were discussed and queried. He was questioned as to whether or not his monitoring activities were taking place during office hours. He was advised that the director had rejected the allegations as unfounded but felt it was necessary to discuss them with him. In fact, this particular member of the PFP believes that he is being harassed, and I ask the hon the Minister to comment in his reply to the debate on this matter. Is it the practice of the Police Force to attempt to harass members of the PFP monitoring committees?

The third question I wish to raise with the hon the Minister concerns the preparedness of the Police to deal with the unrest and the awful violence we have experienced in the past 12 to 18 months. During the debate last year, I raised the question of the report of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and I want to ask the hon the Minister what he has done to address the conclusions reached in that report. During the course of his reply last year he referred to certain actions taken against individual policemen, but he ignored the general conclusions about excessive or unprovoked assaults, damage to property, provocation, humiliating or insensitive conduct, the indiscriminate use of teargas and Police conduct at funerals.

Subsequent to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference we had the Kannemeyer Commission which reported in June 1985 and, among other things, concluded in paragraph 2.6 on page 165, that section 49 of the Internal Security Act—

In paragraph 2.7 the judge concluded that—

Just the other day the Van der Walt Report was published which concluded that there was, among other things, an inconceivable lack of communication between the authorities and Blacks, and that there was a need for timely and effective liaison between the Police and Blacks.

As I have mentioned, during the past 12 to 18 months we have witnessed the most awful scenes of violence, and what I would like to know from the hon the Minister is whether he has learnt anything from these reports and, if so, what he has learnt. I actually doubt whether he has learnt anything at all, but I want to know what he has done about the reports.

Last Friday I received a reply from him to a question, and he advised me that 887 persons had died during the state of emergency in South Africa between 21 July of last year and 7 March of this year, and that 1 934 persons had been injured during that period. People claim that more were killed, but these are the figures the hon the Minister gave me last Friday. Of these people, 371 persons had been killed and 1 194 injured by the Police. These are staggering statistics and we need some sort of response from the hon the Minister.

In answer to questions he always says that the reason for confrontation between the Police and the Blacks is stone-throwing and petrol-bomb attacks, that Blacks were armed with pipes, sticks and stones, or that the Police were threatened by aggressive Blacks. The response is always the same, whether one asks questions about Mamelodi, Kabokweni, Duduza or Brits. The answer is always the same. The hon the Minister presses button “B” and the same answer is produced.

You ask the same silly question every time.

He never replies that after using every conceivable method at the disposal of the Police, they were forced to fire. I want to know from him whether the units sent to trouble or unrest areas are properly equipped with adequate riot-control equipment. I believe he should explain to the House what action is taken to ensure that his men are properly equipped and what action is taken to ensure that the equipment is in fact used.

I want him to explain to us how he ensures that his men adhere to section 49 of the Internal Security Act. I hope he will explain to us what instructions are issued to his men to ensure that they do not fall foul of that section of the Act.

In the estimates for the financial year ending 31 March 1987 it is intended to increase the spending on stores and livestock from R78 397 000 to R93 475 000. That is an increase of R15 078 000, which is almost 20%. Last year the estimated increase was only R3,5 million. I am aware that stores and livestock relate to a whole host of items, but I hope the hon the Minister will give us some indication of the percentage that relates to adequate and proper riot-control equipment, and whether it has been issued and used.

On 7 March I asked what the Police had been equipped with at Mamelodi on 21 November last year. I asked how many teargas canisters, quirts, shields, helmets, rounds of buckshot and R1 rifles had been issued to his men on that day. That was almost 8 weeks ago, and to date I have not yet had a reply. What is so difficult about the question? It should be quite simple to extract the information from his records. I am aware that he has competent officials in his department, both in his office and in the Commissioner’s office. I know this because I enter into regular correspondence with them and I receive polite and efficient answers. Why then is it that he cannot answer this simple question?

I want him to explain what he is doing to stop shooting people. Does he issue his men with sufficient equipment to control the crowds before they resort to shooting?

Last year, I cited the action of the British “bobbies” in dealing with rioting crowds in that country. Both he and the hon the Deputy Minister criticised me for that. [Interjections.] The truth is that the hon the Minister learns nothing. He is too set in his ways to learn anything as he is programmed to respond to every situation in a particular fashion.

It is like his attitude towards the ANC. Mention has been made here today of his attitude towards that organisation, and I should like to suggest that if one were to wake the hon the Minister up in the dead of night and whisper “ANC” into his ear, his response would most certainly be: “Skiet hulle!”

The fact of the matter is that it will not be too long before his Nationalist Government will be negotiating with the ANC, and this Minister will have done the Whites of this country a disservice by continually identifying the ANC as the enemy. It is time he sent out a different message.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North had a golden opportunity to deviate a little from the normal pattern followed by the PFP with regard to the Police. But unfortunately he continued on the same basis as the rest of the PFP members did, by only saying bad things about the Police. [Interjections.] I have not yet heard a single word from the PFP today which at least expressed appreciation for what the Police were doing in South Africa.

That hon member came here with rumours again. He said there were rumours in respect of a certain member of the PFP that the Security Police were going to make life difficult for him. I want to set that hon member’s mind at rest. [Interjections.] The Security Police have more important work to do than to run after a member of the PFP. They do not do that. [Interjections.]

The hon member then questioned the actions of the Police in their operations again.

Of the Minister.

No, the hon member questioned that. He questioned the actions of the Police. He must tell the Committee what the Police must do in an unrest situation. Must they sit with their hands folded so that other people can attack them, pelt them with stones and so on?

You do not understand English!

No, I do understand English. I understand English better than that hon member understands Afrikaans. [Interjections.] That hon member wants the Police to sit with folded hands so that the agitators and so on can do whatever they like to them. [Interjections.]

We in South Africa must maintain law and order, and as long as we have this Police Force in South Africa, we will be able to maintain that law and order, whether hon members like it or not. Those hon members form a small group who do not like it, but the rest of South Africa wants the South African Police to maintain law and order in this country. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member made the unfair allegation that the hon the Minister was not prepared to reply to direct questions, but that he always beat about the bush. I can call the Committee to witness in this connection. Every Tuesday the hon member has the opportunity to put questions on the Question Paper, and as far as I personally am concerned, every time I have been here, the hon the Minister has always replied directly to the questions which the hon member has put to him. Hon members ask how many people have been shot dead, but they do not ask how many of our policemen have been injured or shot dead. [Interjections.]

Do you know?

I know.

How many?

The hon member for Greytown must put the question on the Question Paper. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are not interested to know what is happening on the other side. They are only interested in the welfare of the agitators.

I think that we in this country must reach a stage where we all open our eyes and see what is really going on in the country. We must appreciate the law and order which is being maintained by our Police Force. The Police not only protect the people on this side of the Committee; they also protect the hon members of the PFP. That is why I am asking those hon members to show a little appreciation for the sacrifices which the SAP is making for the sake of security in South Africa.

The Law and Order Vote is being debated today against a background of rioting, lawlessness, murder and violence in a large part of our population. The worst atrocities this country has ever seen are daily events in our country. It is nothing out of the ordinary for us to read reports about people who has been killed in the most inhumane way imaginable by their own people.

This makes me think back to the time when our first young policeman was killed on the border. The news of his death sent shock-waves through the Republic of South Africa. A silence descended over the country, and we began to realise that South Africa was involved in a struggle against the evil forces of communism. We also realised that we were involved in a struggle for survival, and that lives would have to be sacrificed in the process. There were more cases of deaths on our border and gradually the population became used to this.

Inside the country we realised as long ago as 1950, when the South African Communist Party was banned, that the organisation would go underground, and would use satellites to carry out its evil tasks. At that stage the SACP already had the ANC in its power. Gradually a start was made with acts of terrorism in South Africa. Under the domination of the SACP the ANC totally changed its colour and objectives, so that today it is an organisation with no respect for human life. They are prepared to sacrifice the lives of their own people simply to block a peaceful dispensation in this country. They cannot afford that a peaceful dispensation should succeed in this country, because their plans to have this country and its people crushed under the heel of communism would then be frustrated.

As a banned organisation the ANC in its turn had to find a satellite to continue with the acts of terrorism, and to make this country ungovernable. The United Democratic Front became an ideal ally to continue exploiting poor social conditions in the form of a housing shortage and unemployment in the Black population, in order to make people revolt against the so-called Pretoria regime.

The Government is wrestling with these problems today, and our SA Police are in the thick of the struggle. Do we always realise in what conditions our Police must carry out their task, particularly today. We must realise that the people who must be controlled by our Police have no respect for law and order. Our Police have been trained in such a way that they would act in a disciplined and calm manner under all circumstances. But how would anyone like to be spat on, sworn at, pelted with stones, assaulted and even murdered? In spite of the Police order we are all human beings with feelings. How long would other hon members and I put up with something like this? That is why I believe that if a stone is thrown at a policeman he must have the right to defend himself with everything at his disposal.

Because I am better acquainted with the Police of Port Elizabeth I want to pay tribute to those people today, particularly when the rioting was at its worst in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. At one stage there were 1 500 men, with Defence Force reinforcements, who had to live in tents in shifts lasting three months. Who among us has lived for so long under very primitive conditions, without seeing our families? They were distributed throughout the Black areas and did service there day and night so that the rest of Port Elizabeth could sleep and work in peace.

I wonder whether our people in Port Elizabeth realise what that city would have looked like if those people had not been there? They deserve our thanks and appreciation and I want to thank those men most sincerely on behalf of the whole of Port Elizabeth. I want to pay particular tribute to our Black policemen in that area. They and their families lived constantly under intimidation and threats. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should just like to refer back to what the hon the Minister said about using the standing committee as a channel of communication. That may be his view, but I think he is wrong. I think the hon the Minister is the person responsible for initiating that sort of contact and that sort of information, and not a member of the opposition. However, if he would like me to take over, I would be quite happy to do so, if he feels he needs that sort of assistance.

I want to deal particularly with this campaign that we have seen repeated here in the Committee this afternoon—the perpetual allegations which are made. I am concerned that we are not countering this campaign well enough, and that the impact of the perpetual repetition of allegations will eventually start to gain credibility.

There are, I believe, three things that can be done. More frequently than presently happens, I think the hon the Minister should take one of the glaring allegations and have it investigated, flecked open for the world to see and judge. If it is true, it is too bad, then we must accept the result and the police will have to take the consequences. However, if it is untrue, then the world can judge for themselves. Unfortunately, too often the allegation is simply denied. One cannot investigate every one of them—I realise that—but take some of the more serious allegations that have been made and have an enquiry into them, an independent inquiry.

The other aspect of this matter is that when there is an affidavit and there is inquiry and that affidavit is found to be false, then that person should be charged with perjury and should be put in jail for it. I would like to see the people who make false allegations punished heavily, because that is the only way one is going to stop it. [Interjections.] I would like to see every affidavit that is made tested and, if it is false, a charge laid.

I want to go further. There is the instance of the film that was shown in England—this distorted, one-sided film that was shown—of police actions. I do not believe that we should censor it, hide it from the view of our own people. The police have masses of films and videotapes that were filmed in the townships. I believe we should show that film on television, just as it was shown overseas, so that people in South Africa can see for themselves the actions that were alleged. Immediately after that videotape has been screened, the other videotapes we have showing the other side of the picture, should be screened—videotapes of the “necklaces”, or other brutalities, and of the bodies that were discovered in the bush in Lebowa. The people in South Africa can then judge for themselves. [Interjections.] It will be a case of: “Here is what has been shown, and here is what has happened”.

This links up with the whole question of creating credibility. I do not believe that the Government’s public relations work is good enough. More specifically, I do not believe that the hon the Minister’s public relations work is good enough. Public relations work is an art, and I do not think that the Government has mastered the art. Public relations work cannot be treated as though it were a police or an army exercise where the steps that have to be taken can be completely defined and identified. I am sure it can only enhance the image of the Police if the Government presents both sides of the picture for the world to see.

Another matter I want to deal with pertains to the question of housing. I have already raised this matter by way of questions in the House. I compliment the hon the Minister and his department on the delightful village in Nigel that was developed for policemen whose homes have been burnt down. This is the sort of thing I was referring to. I also suggested that flats could be built. Flats in fact create more security. Nevertheless this is a delightful setting—five-roomed houses, tree-lined streets and so on. This is the sort of thing I think we should be giving greater priority to than we are doing at present as far as the building programme is concerned.

The hon the Minister himself referred to the five-year programme for the period 1985-90. That, however, was planned as a long-term project and when one looks at the pictures of the policemen’s houses that were destroyed—the hon the Minister mentioned this afternoon that over 800 houses had been destroyed by fire bombs, grenades and so on—one immediately realises that what is needed is not a five-year plan. After all, the hon the Minister himself referred to the problems that these policemen’s families were experiencing. Their children cannot attend high schools and have to resort to correspondence courses. Their wives cannot go out because they are victimised. We cannot allow these men to have this worry on their minds. The loyalty of our Police Force as a whole, and the loyalty of our Black policemen in particular, calls for nothing less than the greatest recognition and praise. I cannot find words to express my admiration for the way those Black policemen have stood loyal and firm even under the pressures to which they have been subjected, even in the face of the threats that have been made and the actions taken against their families and their homes. We owe them something in return. We owe them more than a “five-year plan”. I think we should repeat this “Blitz action”. This is how we should thank all our men in the forces—the officers and the men of other ranks—who are dealing with what is perhaps the most critical situation we have ever faced in peacetime.

It is not going to be easy to solve this problem. There is no instant solution. The situation will continue. Nevertheless—I have said this before and I repeat it now—the solution lies in a resident force, a municipal police force that can fill the vacuum after the Police have restored order and moved out. Too often they restore law and order, after which they withdraw and the whole thing flares up again. We have to be able to fill that vacuum straightaway with people from the townships, chosen from within their own ranks, trained and able to give teeth to the local administration so that that local administration—normally a town council—can be seen to be a body which can act effectively. That is the only way in which we will ultimately contain and solve this problem.

The other problem to which I want to refer is that of intelligence, the dwindling intelligence we are receiving in relation to when and where the revolutionary is going to strike next, which area he is going to choose for his activities, which school he is going to choose for his actions etc.

What about asking foreign television cameramen?

Yes, Sir, the hon member for Umhlanga, I think, has a very good idea. In order to find out where the next riot is going to be one only has to ask the foreign television cameramen. They always seem to know before we do.

They always get there first.

They are normally there, waiting for things to happen. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Durban Point said. In his customary calm and responsible manner he referred here to certain matters on which I fully agree with him. He is entirely correct when he says that those who make false allegations about our Security Forces should be duly punished. I absolutely agree with him on this. Also in regard to what he said about intimidation in our Defence Force, I can find no fault. He went on to put certain questions to the hon the Minister. He will of course reply at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to refer to a matter which is probably not prominently in the spotlight all the time. This is the particularly large contribution that is made by the “Afrikaanse Kultuurvereniging van die SA Polisiemag”. In 1984 Akpol, as the organisation is generally known, started a countrywide competition in 19 separate divisional commissioner areas to select the tidiest police station in each area, as well as in the Republic. The winners of the competition in the section for divisional commissioners’ areas are awarded a certificate with five silver stars, while the winner of the countrywide competition receives a certificate with five gold stars. Furthermore, the Gen-Maj Chris Crafford Trophy, bearing the symbol of the bitter aloe, is also awarded to the winners of the country-wide competition.

Those who are familiar with the bitter aloe, will know that it is a hardy succulent, which just about adapts itself to any area and even flourishes in the arid Karoo. A second characteristic of the bitter aloe is that when it is injured, the plant secretes bitter sap—but not nearly as bitter as the words that were spoken against our Police Force by hon members of the Official Opposition.

Often, when one is present in this House, one really has to pinch oneself to make sure that one is awake, and that one is indeed in the same country as some hon members on the opposite side. So divergent are the opinions of people in this country in regard to our Security Forces—they who have to guarantee the safety of everyone in this country.

I have said that the aloe’s sap is bitter. But the aloe also has the ability, when it is injured, to heal its own wounds and, just like Totius’s thorn tree, to raise itself up and to carry on, even after the heavy ox-wagon has driven over it. I also find the bitterness of the aloe characteristic of the SA Police Force, which also has to taste the bitter drops when suddenly a colleague, a comrade, a friend, a spouse, a father, is no longer there because he has had to pay the highest price, made the ultimate sacrifice, in the service of his country. Once again, as in the case of the aloe, it does not wither away, but still continues to serve its fellow-man.

This idea of Akpol, under the chairmanship of the Commissioner of the SAP, Gen Coetzee, is outstanding. This campaign can improve the service and lead to a cultural development as far as landscaping is concerned too, because the judgment criteria, all aspects of which I cannot cover, revolve around using natural flora to beautify the station area. Where natural vegetation cannot be used, cultivated plants in containers, flower-beds and so forth may be used, but the utilisation of the natural environment is the most important. Locally this makes the men more conscious of the neatness of offices and surrounding areas, personal neatness, efficiency, politeness, friendliness, as well as of the way in which they communicate with the public. The accessibility and the public’s entrance to the area also play a tremendously important part.

On 7 March this year the hon the Minister and Mrs Le Grange, as well as the Commissioner-General and Mrs Coetzee and many other high-ranking officers paid a visit to Fraserburg. It was a great occasion for this town in the beautiful Karoo. It is probably about these parts that Eugene Marais wrote—he was born in the Nuweveld mountains area, in the Roggeveld. I quote:

The small town of Fraserburg is situated in this area. Fraserburg had come first in the SWD region for the second consecutive year, but what is more remarkable is that it moved up from third place in 1984 to the first place in the country-wide competition in 1985. [Interjections.] This is a remarkable achievement if one takes into account that 1 200 stations from 19 divisional commissioner’s areas take part in the competition. If one takes into account that Fraserburg is situated in an arid area which has been ravaged by droughts and other climatic extremes for over seven years and longer, it is all the more remarkable. This testifies to the team-work of that station’s men, but above all to the co-operation interest, encouragement and support of the community and the local authority—a good example of community involvement. I also just want to mention that three of the first places that were won in the 1985 competition in the SWD area fall under the District Commander of Beaufort West. I wish these people everything of the best. May they go from strength to strength.

I referred to the bitterness, also as far as the SA Police are concerned. On behalf of this side of the Committee I once again want to express our sympathy to the families of those who paid the highest price in the service of their country during the past year. We should also like to direct a word of thanks to the policemen here at Parliament, but we do not want to forget Acacia Park either and the excellent service which they provide there every time we need them.

When one looks at the annual report, one realises the wide-ranging job of the Police and what tremendous demands are made on the capabilities of the people in the Police Force. They have to contend with the most hardened criminals and with the revolutionary elements, but they are also involved in furnishing a service in the social context to the enfeebled, the aged, the neglected or abused child. To provide such a comprehensive and selfless service—the motto of the Police is: “To serve and to protect”—requires thorough training and discipline in the most of provocative circumstances.

To ensure that training, technique and equipment keep pace with the onslaught that has to be combated, the Division of Manpower and Training was created. It gives continuous attention to retraining, the adaptation of the training programme as well as the combating of terrorism and unrest so that the Police Force will always be prepared. We have also taken note of and know about the new techniques and aids in this regard. The SA Police Force’s success story emphasises this and in this case we do not have to feel inferior at all to the rest of the world. Our Police again bear witness to this.

Today reference has been made to the SAP’s staff complement of approximately 48 000, but I want to make another brief reference to it. Let me tell the hon the Minister that we know where we are heading; we know that with a special intake our complement would amount to approximately 56 000 men. This brings us to the ratio of approximately 2,3 policemen per 1 000 inhabitants. This is not too bad if we compare it to various cities in the USA where the ratio of policemen to inhabitants is 2,3:1 000 or even 2,5:1 000 or with West Germany where it is approximately 2,5:1 000.

Today I want to ask whether, in the light of the present economic circumstances where unemployment and a lower unemployment rate is the order of the day, it would not be possible to employ more of our young people in the Police Force at this stage. An appeal for this was lodged earlier on today. I just want to put the question. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Beaufort West has stated that the police have a very difficult job. I would go further and say that they have an impossible job and that it is made impossible by the Cabinet and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.]

I want to read from an affidavit by Mrs Judy Chalmers who attended a funeral the weekend before last in Port Elizabeth:

Which occasion was that?

It was on 20 April.

This year or last year?

This year.

I read from another affidavit:

That was at the same funeral.

The hon member for Albany will tell the Committee about a funeral that he attended in Grahamstown last weekend—he has a similar tale to tell.

The hon the Minister accused me of marching under the flag of the ANC at one of these funerals.

Was it the ANC?

I do not know. I could very easily have marched under that flag. I was concerned about other things such as liaising between the people at the funeral and the police to try and maintain some sort of peace and to avoid violence.

It is significant that we are asked to attend these funerals by the Black people concerned. I doubt whether they would ask us to attend these funerals if it was their intention to promote the kind of violence of which they are so frequently accused.

This Cabinet represented by that hon Minister is debasing the youth of this country and jeopardising their future. The situation deteriorates and passions are inflamed. Blacks no longer see any disgrace in detention; indeed there is pride in it, and pain and death are accepted as inevitable companions on the road to self-respect.

The initiative to abandon apartheid and start negotiating can only come from those who govern—nobody else—and while we delay, the inhibitions that moderate violence are discarded in despair by the people. Surely we have the imagination to realise that we are producing a generation of Black and White South Africans whose bitter memories will leave irreconcilable prejudices. This is the result of Government policies, and it is only the Government that can change our course.

The State President recently spoke of the horror and destruction of Black on Black violence. There can be no words too strong to condemn the repulsive necklace burnings, but he went on to say that he had no alternative but to give the hon the Minister of Law and Order greater powers. That hon the Minister already has more power than he can handle responsibly!

Like Genghis Khan! [Interjections.]

This is the nub of the problem. The Government expects the police to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. It is not the police who are responsible for creating the laws that are tearing this country apart; it is the Cabinet. The hon the Minister of Law and Order is not only co-responsible for but an eager accessory to measures to impose the Cabinet’s will.

[Inaudible.]

The constable down the line has no pretensions to being a politician. He is just an ordinary policeman who gets paid to enforce the laws the Government makes.

Rotten laws!

If the PFP, the CP or the ANC were to take over tomorrow, he would be enforcing their laws. Unjust laws rejected by the majority have to be imposed by force. [Interjections.] Resistance and law enforcement then work together with a deadly ratchet effect. The hon the Minister’s concern is not then in monitoring and controlling his Force, but in screening their activities from public scrutiny and legal judgment. It is he, after all, who is responsible for the discriminatory legislation that the police are charged with implementing. It is his dirty work that they are doing.

[Inaudible.]

It is my strong impression that the hon the Minister of Law and Order sees his job in the most simplistic terms. [Interjections.] He is perceived as a Minister prepared to impose the Government’s will by force if necessary and protect his men from the consequences of almost anything they do.

He responds to flags like a railway shunter.

What does the hon the Minister think he is trying to achieve? What is his objective? Is he trying to conquer these fellow-citizens of his own country? In this futile process he is destroying his own people’s future. Without doubt, that will be the result of this ridiculous era. The townships are already ungovernable; it would be futile of the hon the Minister to try to deny this, and he actually acknowledged it in his first speech during this debate. The area accessible to him and his troops is limited to the firepower of the guns around the Casspirs.

That is a real platitude!

But is it not true? He is on a dangerous road travelled many times in history. Action inevitably becomes increasingly irregular. Torture, hostages, reprisals and massacres eventually become the order of the day.

Hon members should read the book Silence over Monte Solé. Some of us were actually there when something like 2 000 civilians were shot by SS troops. Once a week I used to go on a patrol at night through the snow through one of these villages, where women, children and dogs lay shot in the snow. Obviously they were buried later on, in the summer.

Are you trying to say that that will be the position here?

That is the kind of scenario we are moving towards with absolutely certainty. If we try to impose unjust laws on a hostile population which completely rejects them we shall end up with that kind of scenario.

Blacks are not prepared to accept second-class citizenship. They reject the structures of local government designed for them. However, they are prepared through leaders of their own choice to negotiate the constitution with which it is replaced. No fairminded person can take exception to this. Just to illustrate the difficulty which the police have, the 40 most verligte Nationalists should be given all the powers the police have and then they should be asked to come to Port Elizabeth and show us how we should control one of these funerals. There would be a crowd of people at the funeral. It would be an open-air crowd and these hon members would move among these people and say: “You chaps better disperse.” The people would not disperse, and they would have no choice but to go home and either get the Casspirs or say the law cannot be enforced. That is the predicament in which the police find themselves.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Walmer will pardon me for not responding to the sworn statements he held up, to the attack he launched on the hon the Minister and to his explanation of the ANC flag. I should like to pursue a very much more positive approach and examine the duty carried out by a specific division of the Police Force.

There are many people who in some way or other have close connections with members of the SA Police Force. On their behalf I should like to thank the Spiritual Care and Social Services Division of the Police for the assistance rendered to relatives of policemen under these difficult circumstances. On various occasions the hon the Minister has informed this House of the nature and extent of present disturbances and most people in the country are aware of the onslaught on the SA Police in particular. The involvement of the SA Police is a thorn in the flesh to radicals and a source of concern to moderates in the country. Moderates see the policeman as a person who has to hold his own in a hostile milieu. The radical sees the policeman as a Government instrument and as a pawn in the power game played at the behest of the Russian political masters. Some radical elements in the country are deliberately hostile to the Police and do everything in their power to discredit every possible Police action. Since 1976 the Police Force has had to deal with politically inspired violence such as is seldom seen in any civilised country.

During the year under review 39 members of the Police Force were killed in the execution of their duty. On 26 April 1986 the 33rd Black policeman died a barbarous death at the hands of perpetrators of violence. Has it ever occurred to hon members how many relatives have been totally disorientated in consequence of the death of the head of the family? Last year 381 members of the Police Force were injured in disturbances. This gives one an idea of the ferocity of the onslaught against the Police Force. Unfortunately this action is not aimed only at the policeman but at his family too. The policeman’s family suffers because riot conditions largely disrupt family life. Their houses are burnt and their possessions like cars and furniture—all their earthly possessions—are destroyed. Children are attacked and forced to leave their schools. They are also edged out of the community.

Many members of the Police Force are transferred to riot areas for periods of up to two months. Recently I was invited by the Divisional Commissioner to visit a temporary base in Cape Town. The members of the Police Force came chiefly from the Rand and after two months’ service were preparing to return home. In spite of hardships they had suffered, morale was high thanks to the involvement of the Spiritual Care and Social Services Division among others. It gave me food for thought when I met a policeman from my part of the country on that occasion and could talk to him a little. He informed me that he had last seen his daughter almost two months before. She is the head girl of the Newlands Primary School, a school in my constituency, which has a fine man as its principal. What father likes being separated from his family for two months? When a policeman serves elsewhere, in the midst of all her other activities his wife also has to undertake to care for her family singly. The hon member for Parys illustrated the problems of the policeman’s wife very clearly but I also want to ask who realises what she has to sacrifice in the battle against terrorism. How many neighbours, friends and acquaintances are willing to help her with everyday problems?

In the case of the Black policeman, his wife and her family live and work in a hostile world in the main. She and her family are shown no mercy. Recently the AWB “Stormvalke” indicated that they would protect policemen’s families when policemen had to be away from home. In itself this is a fine gesture and it is possibly a friendly one, providing there are no ulterior motives politically, but I am not so sure that there are no such ulterior motives attached. I am sure most policemen’s wives are able to defend their families themselves and will therefore be hesitant to accept the AWB’s “Stormvalke”. AWB members who are still able to dissociate themselves from the organisation’s violent mode of action and who want to help in protecting defenceless women and children against perpetrators of violence could do well to consider joining the Police Reserve and so protect the Black policeman’s family in this way as well.

Although it appears that the community is not doing much to support the policeman and his family in this difficult time, there are quite a number of those who are well disposed and who reach a hand to the Police. The assistance of the NG Church is a fine example of financial and moral support. Has the time not come for some of the other churches to assist as well? It is obviously doubtful whether the Anglican Church would help in supporting policemen’s families in times of emergency but fortunately there are 28 chaplains under the command of Major General Stoffel Colyn who care for the spiritual welfare of the policeman and his family. These members of the Police Force work quietly and unfortunately their activities are not always known to all. Nevertheless what they do in boosting the policeman’s morale and assisting his family can never be sufficiently stressed. They are assisted by 29 registered social workers which allows all members of the Police Force to feel that there is always someone at hand to listen and assist them in their material and even spiritual needs.

All in South Africa who appreciate the role played by the SA Police in combating crime and terrorism would do well to express their thanks and gratitude for the work of the Spiritual Care and Social Services Division more tangibly. On behalf of this side of the House I wish to thank Major General Colyn and his colleagues for their selfless service in the interests of the policeman and his family.

Mr Chairman, …

When will you be holding a meeting in your constituency again, Cas? Be sure to let me know!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus asks when I shall be holding a meeting in my constituency again. He is welcome to attend it and I shall definitely let him know when it is to be.

Today’s debate to a great extent is a sign of the times we are experiencing. If there is a matter which is of concern to me it is whether the finance provided for our Police in the previous and also for this fiscal year is adequate in the light of what circumstances demand. We note from the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for the year 1984-85 that the number of recruits to the Police Force of necessity had to be limited owing to a lack of money. I think we all realise that in the present climate in South Africa we require a considerably greater Police Force. The very fact that on occasion the assistance of the other security branches has to be called in—which we welcome— proves that the strength of our Police Force is not as desired. Consequently we regret that the amount appropriated for the Police in the current Budget indicates an increase of less than 12%. If one considers salary increments as well as the inflation rate, which affects all branches, it actually comes down to the fact that the amount appropriated for our Police Force this year is less than that of the previous year in real terms. If the hon the Minister of Finance in addition expects the Police to save a further 2% on the amount appropriated, I think this is going much too far. I want to say that we would welcome and support all steps taken by the hon the Minister to obtain a larger amount from the hon the Minister of Finance to enlarge and reinforce his Police Force.

I wish to raise a further matter. I note the following inter alia in the annual report of the Commissioner of the South African Police:

Whereas it is general knowledge that the UDF is nothing but a front organisation for the ANC, which in turn is controlled by the Communist Party, everyone who is concerned about conditions currently prevailing in our country is asking whether the time has not come not only for taking steps against individuals who are members of the UDF but for acting against that organisation as such.

Under the cry of democratic action, the UDF is fostering and assisting a revolutionary climate in South Africa and I believe the time is more than ripe for drastic steps to be taken against that organisation.

I wish to raise a further matter to which there has already been reference: It is the role played by the Press in South Africa. The most shocking report I must ever have read recently appeared on the front page of a recent issue of the Cape Times arising from the seven terrorists shot in the Western Cape.

In that report the Cape Times stated it as a fact that for all practical purposes the Police were guilty of blatant murder. That report could be interpreted in no other way than that the Cape Times was accusing the Police of murder. I therefore think the time is more than ripe that we no longer permit newspapers to go unpunished when making libellous allegations of this nature regarding our Police. It is not only a question of libel against our Police; that type of report can have no consequences other than further assisting the climate of revolution and revolt and one necessarily puts the question whether the purpose of that report was not precisely to promote the climate of revolution and revolt in South Africa further. As far as I am concerned, I should appreciate the hon the Minister’s considering measures to combat action of this nature.

The hon member for Durban Point mentioned the possibility—in the light of the fact that we are now being overwhelmed with all these so-called witnesses to police violence— that, if the Police were to investigate this and find sworn statements which did not appear to be true, they should be treated as cases of perjury. All of us who have some knowledge of the matter realise that it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction on a charge of perjury except in the case of statutory perjury. I am speaking from personal experience therefore I do not know whether it will actually provide a solution.

One fact which is as plain as a pikestaff is that one is known by the company one keeps. Today we once again had to listen to a totally unbalanced view from the Official Opposition as regards the situation involving us in South Africa. This is a party which is prepared to send investigative teams to every area where there have been riots but it is remarkable that it did not send an investigative team to the mass grave of burnt Black bodies in Lebowa. [Interjections.] Obviously it was not worth the trouble to the PFP and in particular to people like the hon members for Walmer and Johannesburg North to establish what had happened there and who was responsible for that heinous crime.

They did not go to have a look at Alexandra the first time either. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless today we have had that peculiar request coming from that party expressed by the hon member for Sandton. [Interjections.] Conditions in Alexandra are bad but what was the solution this hon member offered? He suggested the Police should be withdrawn from Alexandra! This is a party which suggests that the Police of the country should withdraw from a place where anarchy reigns! Apparently its distorted argument is that, if the Police withdraw from that area, there will be calm and order. If we wanted to be as crazy as to consider something like that, it could have only one result and that is that the forces of revolution would take over and control that area entirely. Is that perhaps what the PFP wants? [Interjections.]

No, the opposite is true. We who come from rural constituencies and have observed that the revolutionaries have moved their action to country districts as well have experienced that law-abiding Black people, in my constituency too, ask why we do not act more drastically against those who instigate unrest among the youth in their residential areas. [Interjections.] More than one Black man has already expressed that wish to me. During the Easter recess yet another respectable Black man came to me and asked how it could be possible that the young Blacks of Breyten, Carolina and Nelspruit were suddenly carrying out exactly the same acts. After all, they were children! There had to be adults behind those matters. He wanted to know why we did not take steps against those adults. That is the desire of the Blacks as well.

I regard it as essential that by our firm actions we physically show the law-abiding Black of today, who does not want trouble, disturbance and arson, that we are certainly able to protect him. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Barberton. He made a number of comments with which I am able to associate myself completely. Nevertheless there are a few remarks with which I should perhaps not want to associate myself but I could almost hear him this evening recognising the same standpoints as in the days when he occupied NP benches. I should like to revert to the hon member somewhat later in my speech.

I wish to refer to two matters: Firstly, and briefly, to the Special Guard Unit, which is especially involved in the safeguarding of the parliamentary complex as we know it. If one is in politics today, one has not chosen and is not carrying on one of the safest professional occupations. Today it is a fact throughout the world that politicians are often the target of anarchists and of people wishing to disrupt law and order.

We should have no doubt that we are indebted for the existence and maintenance of the parliamentary system as such to policemen and women who physically stand in the front line against the onslaught on democracy. This may still sound a little too abstract to some people so I want to say that the parliamentary system is literally maintained by the physical presence of the men protecting this Chamber and this complex. All who work within this complex owe their safety to the policemen inside and outside this building. I wish to say today that all of us—members of Parliament and all who work in this complex—would do well to take stock of ourselves and ask whether we really appreciate the presence of these policemen adequately and whether our conduct towards them always reflects our appreciation and gratitude clearly.

A policeman is a person’s friend; one should be pleased to see one because one usually feels safe in his company. We should not permit policemen to be regarded as our enemies. I want to take the liberty of expressing the thanks of all in the House toward the men in and about the complex here. I also wish to leave a thought with hon members of the House and that is whether we should not for once express our gratitude towards these policemen in a more tangible way.

Secondly, I wish to refer to the constituency of False Bay which is the focus of disturbances in the Western Cape. Khayelitsha, Site C, large parts of Guguletu and Nyanga are situated within the geographical boundaries of False Bay—even Mitchells Plain as a whole, which has its own representation in Parliament today. Hon members should therefore accept that I may perhaps view the situation in the Western Cape with more than the usual interest because I may also possibly receive more than the normal quota of enquiries about the situation. I wish to state today that all who contact me about the unrest situation in the constituency of False Bay and the Western Cape on the whole are deeply grateful for the role played by the SA Police in handling the situation. The Black people, to whom I speak as well, are grateful for disciplinary steps the SA Police takes in maintaining order and justice in the Cape Peninsula.

None of those who have approached me to date or to whom I have spoken believes in the so-called general abuse of power by the SA Police. Not one believes these wild stories about so-called Police brutalities; on the contrary, I wish to testify as the representative of False Bay that the sympathy and loyalty of the voters of False Bay are with the SA Police. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer more specifically to the N2 freeway which runs through the constituency of False Bay for approximately 40 km. I have never been able to understand why city planners carry out their planning in such a way that houses are built within 60 metres of a freeway. I have never been able to understand this. Of course, I cannot understand in particular why this is permitted in vicinities where one knows trouble will take place at some time or other.

When I came upon the planning of Site C at Khayelitsha, it appeared that that area would be developed 60 metres from the N2 freeway. Thanks to the help of the hon the Minister of Law and Order and of the present hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, Site C was moved considerably further away from the N2 freeway than it would have been according to the original planning. On this I wish to state that I believe it inevitable that the hon the Minister of Law and Order should also have a say in future planning operations especially where town, city and other developments are planned and executed. I consider this essential especially when we note the history of the constituency of False Bay and what has happened regarding areas such as Khayelitsha, Crossroads and Site C.

Residents of False Bay also wish our gratitude to be recorded to the Police for safeguarding the N2 freeway. On warm summer days when all are suffering from the Cape heat and visit the beaches, one sees the Police guarding the N2 freeway. When the Southeaster comes with its icy blasts, one sees the Police guarding the N2 freeway. We are sincerely and deeply grateful for this, Mr Chairman.

Nevertheless these are short-term measures; they are measures to deal with the immediate situation. There are obviously also long-term measures which will necessarily have to be taken because I find it unthinkable and unbelievable that people in a First World country walk to and from across a freeway of the standard of the N2. I believe we are unique in the world in permitting such acts to take place here.

Hon members must all have taken note that the car of one of the hon members of this House was hit by a stone a week or two ago. A stone was thrown right through the windscreen of his car. I state here tonight, Mr Chairman, that every stone or other object thrown at a vehicle belonging to the innocent travelling public comes down to an absolute attempt at murder. It is an attempt at murder and nothing else. In consequence I request the hon Minister tonight mercilessly and ruthlessly to eradicate actions of this nature by wild elements of the public. Mercilessly and ruthlessly, Mr Chairman! I also wish to put it to the hon the Minister that he would have the full support of every right-minded hon member of this House and every voter in False Bay.

Mr Chairman, I am running out of time but I should nevertheless like to address the hon member for Houghton. Of course, she is not present and that after I informed her I would be talking to her. She referred to 1 000 people killed by the Police since the outbreak of disturbances, however, and to approximately 500 who had died at the hands of Black people themselves. Mr Chairman, have you noticed that the hon member for Houghton continues criticising and challenging the Police about people who supposedly died as a result of their actions? Nevertheless she does not utter a single word about people who died in consequence of communist, activist actions; she does not utter a single word about it when people die in consequence of communist action in this country. I should like her to tell me why not, Mr Chairman. Why not? Is she a friend to those people? Is she a friend to communist activists in South Africa or not? Because she is certainly not a friend to the SA Police, Sir. Helen Suzman is no friend to the SA Police at all!

The hon member for Houghton actually continued and said; “We will not tolerate unlawful action on the part of the South African Police.” The cases in which the South African Police were guilty of so-called “unlawful action” may be counted on the fingers of one hand—relatively speaking. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could you please ascertain whether there is a quorum present in the Committee?

I shall request the Secretary to ascertain whether there is a quorum.

Quorum:

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

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Walmer made a speech in the Committee which in a word I can only describe as shocking. [Interjections.] He made disgraceful insinuations regarding the hon the Minister and members of the SA Police. The hon member ought to be ashamed of himself because members of the SA Police stand between us and the revolutionary forces which want to take over control in this country. Instead of the hon member’s expressing appreciation for the work done by the Police in difficult circumstances, he insinuated here that the actions of the Police could be compared with those of people in Nazi Germany. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon member that his insinuations are disgraceful. [Interjections.]

Today hon members of the Official Opposition have once again completely proved that they do not have the vaguest notion of what is actually taking place in this country. [Interjections.] They do not have the vaguest notion; they have no conception of what is going on; they are not aware of who the true enemies of this country are so they do not know what those actual enemies are planning against us either.

I wish to tell hon members that there is no political party present in this Committee able to satisfy the revolutionaries with its official policy. The revolutionaries are not interested in whether the PFP, the CP or the NP is ruling because they want to take over power in this country themselves. By the members of the Official Opposition’s adopting these standpoints they are playing into the hands of these people. I therefore appeal to the hon members to exhibit greater responsibility and not to adopt this one-sided standpoint. It does not help us in this country; it does not contribute to reform if hon members denigrate the Police Force. They would do better to assist the Police in maintaining law and order in the country and then our reform would succeed and there would be a future for us.

I should now like to address the hon member for Sasolburg. The hon member tried to make excuses here this afternoon for his little bedfellows the AWB. I wish to point out to the hon member that the AWB is not an officially registered political party and hon members of the HNP know this. The AWB has never been a registered party in this country. It is a militant organisation composed of radical elements—radical elements not acting in the best interests of South Africa.

They ask for weapons and then criticise the Government.

Yes, they certainly ask for weapons.

I think the hon member for Sasolburg would benefit his party—I think his leader has always agreed with this—if he were to have nothing to do with members of the AWB. The hon member’s leader has constantly dissociated himself from the AWB. [Interjections.] Nevertheless the hon member for Sasolburg now comes and acts as an apologist for the AWB. I think he should have a little chat with Mr Jaap Marais.

What has the AWB done wrong? [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen is also coming aboard in an attempt to protect the hon member for Sasolburg. We know the AWB is the hon member’s pal. But let us leave the subject at that.

What has the AWB done wrong?

The hon member also made certain statements about the licensing of firearms. He referred to a so-called new concept, a new approach, which we should have about the licensing of firearms. If I understood him correctly, the hon member expressed the idea that we should make firearms more freely available to the people of the country. The hon member is nodding his head. I now want to ask him whether he is in favour of our making more firearms available to people of colour as well? [Interjections.] I should like to know what the hon member and his party’s standpoint is on this.

I shall answer you.

Is he in favour of it? He need say only “Yes” or “No”. Is he in favour of our making firearms available to more people of all races in this country on the same basis? The hon member owes me a reply.

I said clearly to whom they should be granted; I qualified this clearly. The hon the Deputy Minister should go and read what I said.

The hon member also quoted certain statistics as supplied by the SACB. I do not differ with the hon member on the matter of statistics but I wish to warn that we should not quote statistics and use them to create a situation in our country which is ultimately incapable of control. The granting of firearms licences is not a simple matter; it is difficult and there are many facets which have to be dealt with carefully. I emphasise that we are not opposed to people’s owning firearms. The Arms and Ammunition Act does not lay down any provisions on colour. This hon Minister had provisions on colour removed from the Act three years ago. We are not opposed to it from our side that people own firearms so 135 382 firearms licences were issued in 1985—in one year. At the moment more than 2 million firearms licences have been issued in South Africa. Firearms are dangerous, however, and should be under strict control; we have to retain control over the licensing of firearms. All responsible members in this House will agree; responsible organisations outside including SAGA among others also agree. I can tell the hon member our relations and our co-operation with SAGA are good, we understand each other and we hold regular discussions with each other. [Interjections.] Poor firearms control or a complete lack of it can create serious problems for us in this country. In this regard I wish to tell hon members that we all have a responsibility and, in speaking about and dealing with these matters, we should be cautious in the proposals we make on them. Consequently we cannot permit—as the hon member for Helderkruin said—that people build up private arsenals because a large number of firearms in the hands of an irresponsible or disturbed person could cause a bloodbath in our country and we want to try to avoid this. That is why, in each case in which a licence is issued, there has to be an actual, acceptable and good reason before a person may receive such a licence. Such reasons for instance are self-defence, the protection of hearth and home, sporting purposes or when a collector applies for a firearms licence. I wish to assure hon members and also the hon member for Sasolburg that, if someone has a real reason and applies for a firearms licence, chances are good that he will obtain it if we have investigated the matter and are convinced that he has an actual reason. As regards limiting firearms to 12, I wish to point out to the hon member that it is not an absolute prohibition that no one may possess more than 12 firearms; it is a guideline this Parliament has given us. We should examine it very carefully and, if someone wants more than 12 firearms, cirstances must be exceptional. If there are exceptional circumstances—there are many cases of such circumstances—the person will be permitted more than the 12 firearms provided for in the Act.

The country is full of exceptional circumstances now.

Nevertheless the circumstances have to be exceptional. If someone can prove for instance that he is a collector, he may apply for and receive the licence.

We are not opposed to a so-called new approach; on the contrary, we welcome it. We are also open to suggestion and every suggestion for the improvement of the application of this Act will be welcomed. I have already said the application of the Act is difficult and there are many facets which one has to take into account in any case. Consequently we are continuously involved in examining improvements which may be brought about in this Act. There was criticism on this in the past but I wish to assure hon members that, if we were to decide to amend the Arms and Ammunition Act, Act 75 of 1969, all those involved and interested parties would receive the opportunity of submitting their proposals to us. We should hear them and subsequently formulate our proposals for submission to the standing committee which would then consider them for submission to Parliament.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what one uses to pull the triggers of the two additional firearms if one has ten fingers and twelve weapons? [Interjections.]

I can see the hon member is no collector of firearms. He may collect other items but definitely not firearms. Consequently the hon member has no appreciation of how important it is to true firearms collectors to have the right to add fine specimens to their collections. If a person is a great collector of a variety of firearms, he will possess more than twelve weapons. He does not use them for firing but collects them because he finds them beautiful. The hon member collects other items just as other people collect firearms.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister became very excited just now because of the speech made by the hon member for Walmer. If the hon the Deputy Minister had paid heed to what the hon member had said he would have heard that the hon member was in fact addressing his remarks to the hon the Minister and to the Cabinet and not to the members of the SA Police. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech has characterised what has been a rather acrimonious and sterile debate here this afternoon. It has been sterile because hon members on that side of the House have chosen to respond to speeches from these benches in terms of personal attacks on us and a questioning of our patriotism and integrity. [Interjections.]

I find this attitude unfortunate. To insist, for example, on hon members on these benches eulogising the Police and decrying the violence in the townships in every speech is quite frankly childish. Of course we praise the Police for work that is well done and of course we decry the violence and criminal acts which are perpetrated in the townships. [Interjections.] Each speaker, however, does not have the time to do this in every speech. Our time is limited and we highlight problem areas to try to make the task of the Police Force easier.

The hon the Minister himself catalogued the extent to which the Police are faced with problems in the pursuance of their duties. The hon member for Houghton touched on one of these problems early on in her speech and I would like to elaborate on that.

One of the saddest developments over the past few years has been the breakdown of good relations between the Police and the Black and Brown communities of this land. As a consequence the Police have become almost totally isolated and alienated from the communities where their services are most needed. [Interjections.] This is a distressing situation and I believe it is one which should be causing the hon the Minister a great deal of concern. [Interjections.]

The first reason which is usually advanced by those seeking an explanation is that the behaviour of the Police is such that they deserve the opprobrium and hostility which come their way. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton went out of her way to stress the fact that when we refer to this problem we are referring to exceptional cases rather than generalising about it.

You are generalising!

It would obviously be an injustice to the many good and decent members of the Force who do their duty according to the highest professional standards to adopt such an attitude. The rotten apples in the barrel are not central to this particular argument and I shall return to those rotten apples later in my speech.

The point is often made that if people did not break the law they would not get into trouble with the Police. Quite so; we can all agree with that simple statement of fact. What is also true, however, is that when laws are unjust, discriminatory or impractical or when they are just plain stupid it is inevitable that people will break them. In time the same people will rebel against them and large-scale unrest will break out.

When this happens it is the Police and not the law-makers or politicians who are called in to enforce the law. Their job becomes more difficult when they are called in to put down insurrection. The Police are thus in the direct line of fire and must expose themselves to the accumulated anger and hostility of those who are suffering under indefensible and unjust laws. The Police are called upon to carry the can for the follies of the politicians and petty bureaucrats. [Interjections.] That is largely why they are the frontline targets today; not because they are inherently bad or inferior.

The apartheid laws are, of course, the best example of indefensible legislation. They affect almost every aspect of people’s social, economic and political lives. There are, however, many other measures which one could mention.

I would like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to a subject which was touched on by both the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Walmer.

I am speaking of that most emotive of events, the Black funeral. I have given the hon the Minister a full report on such a funeral which I recently attended in Grahamstown. I know that he will not have had time to read that report, and I do not expect him to respond to the individual points which I raised, but I would be pleased if he could respond to certain specific issues about Black funerals and the restrictions placed upon them.

For example, the organisers of the funeral I attended were told by the local magistrate that it had to be over by a specific time, namely 14h00 on Sunday. Why? There is no state of emergency in Grahamstown. What right has an official of the State to tell the relatives of the deceased that they may not take as long as they please to bury their dead?

Try it at a White funeral next time!

It is a gross impertinence. [Interjections.] Then they were told that only friends and relatives could attend the funeral. The hon the Minister must understand that one of the sayings in the townships is: “An injury to one is an injury to all”. Nothing on earth is going to stop people from attending these funerals.

They are intimidated! [Interjections.]

My blood runs cold when I hear the hon the Minister say he is going to enforce these regulations. If he does this, there will be chaos and disaster. I want to commend the officer in charge of the Grahamstown operation—It was a Col Blignaut—who did not enforce them. He showed extraordinary good sense in that situation and averted what could have been a very nasty incident.

He will be fired!

Yes, Louis will kick him out.

There were other restrictions as well concerning the display of placards, banners and documents. All documents and placards were, in fact, banned from that funeral. If one had walked along carrying a banner which read: “God is love” or a Bible or Prayer Book, one would have been breaking the law. This is patently nonsense, and such restrictions should not be placed upon funerals. [Interjections.]

My time is running out, but I said I would deal with the so-called rotten apples in the barrel. I would like to tell the hon the Minister that the wake held the night before the funeral, according to Xhosa tradition, was allegedly disrupted at 02h00 by police who threw teargas canisters into the house of the deceased, breaking windows in the process. Teargas canisters were also thrown into the garden.

Why?

Why, indeed! [Interjections.]

One asks why this is done. [Interjections.]

That is precisely what we would like to know!

There is not one hon member on the other side of the House who would defend that kind of action. There is not one decent policeman who will defend it either. These are the rotten apples in the barrel. The hon the Minister cannot tell me that it is impossible to find out who these people are and to get rid of them. People who perform such acts in the townships are destroying the good name of the Police.

The hon the Minister must take the following message back to his Cabinet. Good relations will not be restored between the Police and the Black and Brown communities until the Police are relieved of enforcing all apartheid and other racially offensive laws. There is an equally important message for him to take to the leadership cadre in the SAP. They must purge their ranks of those members who are responsible for sullying the name of the Force. If this is done, the Police will once again become what they should be, namely the heroes of the Black and Brown communities of this land, not the villains.

Mr Chairman, I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon member’s concern about these matters. I shall let the hon member have a reply to the letter and the report which he sent through to me. We are attending to this matter, and I shall come back to the hon member.

*Since we have come back to the end of this debate, I should like to thank all hon members who participated in the debate and particularly those who made a positive contribution for their interest and for their contributions.

I must say that this week was a far more pleasant one than the corresponding week last year and the year before last. On Monday I had a very positive debate in the House of Delegates and yesterday, too, in the House of Representatives. They were really interesting debates, and I am very grateful for the debate we were able to conduct here today. It was a pleasant change after the atmosphere which prevailed in debates of this kind during the past few years. I must say that I do not know what came over the Official Opposition, but these days one can even get along with the Official Opposition in dealing with its portfolio.

We are trying to help you!

Oh come now, the hon member does not have to help me all that much. I can get along without it, but never mind, I want to assure him and the hon member for Houghton and the other hon members that…

Did you have a valium supper?

Well, I did not have any supper. I worked right through the supper break, trying to ascertain … [Interjections.] I am trying to be nice to the hon member, if he would only give me a chance. [Interjections.]

It was, as I have said, a pleasant debate for me, and I shall try to reply to it as fully as possible. Of course there are a few members whom I shall have to talk to a little more directly, such as the men from Sasolburg and places like that, who are so fond of flexing their muscles and that kind of thing. We shall look into this a little tonight.

It is only a tiny muscle.

Yes, the hon member has been absent from this place for rather a long time. He will soon find out that that one does not flex one’s muscles so aggressively here. In this House, you soon discover the error of your ways.

I should like to refer to the contributions made by hon members on the NP-side. The hon member for Krugersdorp made his usual sturdy contribution to which we have already become accustomed here. He put certain question to me which I should like to reply to briefly. He asked whether we should not consider lowering the requirements for admission to the Force. He furnished examples. The answer to that is that the Commissioner of Police, in terms of legislation, can use his own discretion in connection with entrance requirements.

Although we have specified that matriculation certificates will be accepted as the minimum requirement, it does not mean that there are no exceptions to the rule. Surely all of us realise that in the Black community, for example, there are not enough members who are able to comply with this requirement. There is no problem in the Indian and Coloured community. We receive far more applications from candidates with matriculation certificates than we are able to accommodate. In the White community too, we cannot stipulate a matriculation certificate as entrance requirements in 100% of the cases. In more than 90% of the cases, though, it is in fact the minimum entrance requirement. We therefore realise that it cannot be maintained as a 100% requirement and provision is being made for exceptions.

I really would not like to see the day—this could happen under the present circumstances—we might be compelled by circumstances to lower our entrance requirement in this connection. I hope this does not happen, but I am worried that we might arrive at such a situation. The hon member may rest assured that the Commissioner will exercise his discretion as positively as possible when the necessary merit is present.

In the second place the hon member asked for more funds to be made available for equipment, and also that more funds be made available for better facilities. This is true. There is no Minister and no Government department that is ever satisfied with the amount allocated to them in the Budget. That is only human. I can assure the hon member, though, that in the SA Police we have, during the past year or two and in regard to equipment and facilities we needed urgently, immediately received support from the Cabinet and the State President, as well as the co-operation of the hon the Minister of Finance. In this connection the SA Police have during the past year or two not being neglected in regard to really urgent matters. I cannot deny that we have in general required more money.

The hon member also requested that members of the Police Force should have more security when they are going to be sent back to their homes or their bases after having done detached service in unrest situations. The hon member is a former member of the Force and is acquainted with the basic rules pertaining when members are called up and send to other places away from their home bases. To try to save time, therefore, I am not going to dwell on this issue. However, there are factors which create problems for us, when we want to indicate such a final date, and may then have to deviate from it. If we tell a person that he is being called up for two months, we really mean it. We should like to have him back home or at least on his way back home, on the last day of those two months. However, there are circumstances which can make things difficult for us in this respect, for example the unrest situation in the area in which they are doing service at that stage. There may be a sudden upsurge of violence, which is a factor in this connection. It could also be that at that juncture there is a large number of members in transit between Maleoskop and Verdrag—the other training centre in the Northern Transvaal. For example a series of riots recently broke out suddenly in Lebowa, and men from Maleoskop had to be deployed there within a few hours. Those men could have been scheduled to leave for Cape the next day, but then it was just not possible to send them to the Cape anymore. They had to go and render service in Lebowa and the men in the Cape had to wait for a few days longer until other people could be found to relieve them. These are the kind of practical circumstances which can disrupt our planning. There is also the question of the dates of promotion examinations, which are not all that important, but which could nevertheless be a factor in this connection. What is important though, is the availability of transport. We cannot say that we will in fact, convey those men by train. As the hon member will know, we try to return those men to the college in one group. There are certain procedures that have to be followed and from there the men go to their respective bases.

Consequently there are many factors which affect their return. There is something positive I want to say to the hon member, namely the daily allowance for these members—and this applies to all members of the Police Force—is being increased to R10 per day with effect from 1 April of this year. With effect from 1 April, therefore, we now have an equalisation of all members in the Force.

Louis, you must not kick Leon out. He is a good chap!

Yes, thank you very much for the advice.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member for Bryanston that it is the practice in this House to address hon members by the names of their constituencies.

I am being helpful, Mr Chairman, I only want to help.

Order! The hon member must not argue with the Chair.

The hon member also asked us to establish a permanent riot unit. Actually the hon member had more in mind than we now have per division. As hon members of the House know, there is one riot unit per division, which is established and available on a permanent basis, but if I understood the hon member correctly, he wanted to go further than that. He wanted greater involvement than that. We are at present giving attention to the matter and will probably have more certainty about this matter within the next few weeks. It is also being examined in a broader context, which is not relevant in this House now. Therefore the hon member must simply be patient. We shall have greater clarity on this matter within the next few weeks, and receive Government resolutions concerning the essence of the matter which he broached, and not necessarily in regard to riot units only.

The hon member for Roodepoort asked for more and better information, and in particular he requested that a reading room be made available here in Parliament. The publications of the Communist Party, the ANC, the PAC, the UDF and similar organisations should in particular be made available for perusal there.

That is Van Zyl Slabbert’s crowd.

Yes. The Internal Security Act prohibits such publications, except under certain circumstances and with the consent of the Minister concerned. Consequently this is a matter which the hon member should really advance through other channels. He may also make representations to me as the Minister responsible. This is also a matter which will certainly have to receive the attention of the State President and the Cabinet. Mr Speaker will also have to give this matter his attention. Consequently the hon member will have to use his discretion in this connection and, if necessary, make representations for consideration. I thank him in any event for his positive contribution.

The hon member for Losberg raised an important point, viz that the disparagement of the image of the SA Police, which is such a burning issue today, is in fact part of the ANC’s planning and objectives concerning the SA Police among others, because the State administration must be paralysed and, as far as possible, destroyed. That is really the case.

The hon member also referred to the meeting at Brits. I shall come back to that later, but I should just like to tell the hon members that my information is that the CPs and the HNPs were by far in the majority among the crowd of hooligans at Brits, under the direction of the AWB. That was in fact the strategy that was adopted there. I am also certain that my facts are correct, because the people who live there, know one another fairly well.

The hon members for Kroonstad, Parys and Vryheid referred to important matters, for which I thank them. Some of the hon members who are not present now, explained to me why they would be unable to be here during this debate. They are dealing with other business. Hon members need therefore not think that it is owing to a lack of interest. The hon member for Kroonstad also referred to the onslaught on the Police, and the hon member for Parys described the role played by the policeman’s wife and family, as well as the support which the family needs in this connection. I am very grateful for the splendid ideas which the hon members raised in this connection.

The hon member for Vryheid, who also asked to be pardoned for his absence, raised a very important matter, namely that when we expand the Police Force, we should also expand the numbers of the Black members to a far greater extent, and that we should use units composed of Blacks in the Black areas. That is a very important matter. Unfortunately we do not at present have the manpower in order to carry out this suggestion.

He said we must look after the women while the men are out fighting. I am prepared to help!

It seems to me the hon member for Bryanston took a long time over his supper this evening. [Interjections.] It seems to me as though his bottle-sandwich was quite thick tonight.

The hon member for Helderkruin mentioned two very important matters. Firstly he asked the HNP whether they wanted mob rule in South Africa, because that is what they are heading for. What the kind of people who behave themselves in that way are heading for is mob rule.

The hon member also asked the well-motivated question whether it was not time we took another look at the security legislation, and whether it could not perhaps be reviewed in order to determine whether it still made provision for disrupting circumstances arising out of the reform process. In that respect my answer is yes. But our basic problem in connection with the legislation is not that of dealing with a security situation for which the legislation makes provision; it deals with dealing with an unrest situation in practice. For that reason I am also coming to this House with legislation by means of which the Public Safety Act is to be amended. It may also happen that we might need other legislation to bring this situation under proper control.

The hon member for Algoa also paid tribute to our men who died on the border in the performance of their duties. In particular he expressed his thanks to the Police for their services in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. Those of us who were frequent visitors to that area can testify that the members of the Force and the other Security Forces who rendered service over a long period and who are still doing so today discharged their obligations there under extremely difficult circumstances.

The hon member for Beaufort West mentioned one important event which occurred in his constituency, and I am pleased he raised it here this evening. It is that the police station at Fraserburg received the award for the neatest police station in South Africa. [Interjections.]

In regard to the hon members of the Official Opposition who in practice take very little interest in the SA Police, I just want to say that I wonder how many of them have paid a personal visit to a police station during the past few months. [Interjections.] I see many members of the PFP have raised their hands. I do not want to be unparliamentary now, but I want to say candidly that I do not believe half of what they say! [Interjections.] I want to urge hon members of the Official Opposition to take the trouble to visit the police stations in their constituencies. [Interjections.] They should go and see how much trouble members of the Police Force are taking.

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

No, I would be glad if the hon member for Bryanston would just give me a few moments; I shall be able to listen to him again in a few minutes’ time. [Interjections.] The hon member must please give me an opportunity to complete my sentence. It would be a good thing if hon members of the PFP would go and take a personal look at how much trouble members of the Police Force are taking to make the police station an attractive and pleasant place in which to do their work.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to make money available to provide some form of housing or other to the police at the Randburg police station, where members of the Police Force have to sit all day long in the hot sun at the gate to that police station in order to guard it? [Interjections.]

Yes, I got the message. If the hon member is so concerned about it …

I am concerned about it!

Yes, I accept the hon member’s concern. I advise him to take the same kind of trouble the hon member for Brakpan took, and as member of Parliament address serious representations to us to erect the kind of guardhouse he would like to see there. The hon member for Brakpan even located people in his constituency, such as city councillors, who were prepared to render financial and other assistance in order to acquire that kind of facility. The hon member would therefore do well to consider making such an attempt himself; my door is open to him if he wishes to address further representations in this connection. We shall try to help him to give the policemen in his constituency a roof over their heads when they have to be on duty there! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Maraisburg also raised a very important matter. It has to do with the division which is responsible for spiritual ministration; that is, our chaplains’ corps and the social workers in this country. It is a division in the Police Force of which we are of course very proud, and which we feel very happy about. I can give hon members the assurance that it does one’s heart good when one’s chaplain visits the personnel at the beginning of a session and who; when one’s Vote comes up for discussion in Parliament, says a prayer for one in one’s office. Those are things which are of great value to all of us in Parliament who believe in them. This is also part of the kind of service performed by this division of our Police Force.

The hon member for False Bay asked for strict action to be taken against stonethrowers because they are potential murderers— are sometimes in fact murderers. That is true! Just ask the hon member, who had such an experience what the murderous effect of that stone was that was hurled at his vehicle. Ask members of the Police and other people who were involved in such incidents. It is quite terrible if a stone is thrown at a vehicle which is travelling at a relatively high speed. [Interjections.] Indescribable damage is caused. That is why so many people have already been killed in such incidents and other people seriously injured. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon member that this is a matter which ought to receive very serious attention.

The hon member for Houghton referred to the provision of section 50. She also made the statement that there were differences in the directives issued to the Minister in regard to section 50 and section 29. That is quite correct, but under section 50 detainees are detained as ordinary unconvicted prisoners.

For 14 days.

Yes, they are detained in a prison in the same way as ordinary unconvicted prisoners. According to the status which they enjoys under those regulations, which are determined by the Minister of Justice, they can receive visits from their next-of-kin and their legal representatives. Consequently they are not in the same position as a section 29 detainees. That is why the provisions for section 29 detainees are basically not necessary for section 50 detainees.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether detainees who are held under section 50 are in fact informed of the rights of privileges?

Yes, it is customary that detainees under section 50 are in fact informed of their rights, and also that they are in a completely different position to the detainees who are being detained under section 29. [Interjections.]

†The hon member mentioned that she had heard so many hair-raising stories of the torture by security police of children. May I ask the hon member why she has never reported this to me? She has never reported any of these hair-raising stories to me. She has never reported any of these hair-raising stories to the Commissioner of Police. Why do we hear it today for the first time in this House? It must have happened months ago.

You always say that.

I should not be blamed if under the circumstances I have a slight doubt about these hair-raising stories that the hon member mentioned. [Interjections.]

All I want to ask is why the hon member has only now mentioned this months after the events have taken place, while she has had all the opportunities in the world to let us know about them and to put us in the position to attend to such complaints and to report back to her, if at all possible. [Interjections.]

I want to inform the hon member that the number of complaints that I referred to is 310. That number includes the individuals who were detained in police cells. It does not apply only to people detained in a prison. In this regard it also covers the point mentioned by the hon member for Sandton.

[Inaudible.]

This figure includes police cells and prisons. The judges’ visits to which I referred mostly included visits to the relevant police cells in that particular area. I think that is also a matter that was raised by the hon member for Sandton.

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

No, Mr Chairman, not at this stage.

I would also like to place on record the fact that that number of assaults also includes complaints about assaults that allegedly happened during arrest and/or during interrogation. My information is therefore that the figure that I gave to the Committee included all these circumstances. That covers the points mentioned by both the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Sandton. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Green Point referred to one of the introductory paragraphs of the Kannemeyer Report, but what he quoted in fact identified the issue there as being a prohibition on a specific date which was then changed to another date, from which misunderstandings arose. However this is not the case we are debating in this Committee. What we are concerned with here is not such a specific case. In other words, the hon member cannot make that specific problem in the Kannemeyer inquiry applicable to the general debate we are conducting here on the conditions which are imposed in regard to funerals.

You must come to the second paragraph.

It is therefore not analogous with the circumstances set out in the report of the Rabie Commission. That is where the major difference lies between the points which the hon member made and the debate we are conducting here. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the media investigation arising from the Boesak case.

You have got egg on your face. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell that hon member that I do not intend to put up with his nonsense in this Committee tonight. I want to say that candidly to the hon member. If he wants to become insulting, he must not think I am an amateur in this game. He must not think I am an amateur if he wants to insult me in this Committee to the extent to which the Chairman will allow us. If the hon member wants to do that he must just say so. I can tell the hon member frankly that he must not think that I am one of the amateurs he is dealing with. [Interjections.] He had better keep out of the debate; I shall reply to him in a moment. At this stage he had better keep out of the debate. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Green Point referred to the media inquiry in regard to the circumstances arising from the Boesak case. In that regard I want to tell the hon the Minister straight away that I have no intention of digging up the grave and re-examining the remains. This is a matter we debated last year. Inter alia we also debated it in this House. I cannot remember the precise date on which the Media Council’s inquiry was completed.

It was in July last year.

Very well then. Inter alia we debated in this House the involvement of the police. I just want to place on record, however, that the Media Council’s decision was not unanimous.

But surely I said that.

The two members of the Council with legal training arrived at different findings. They found—I think I remember this correctly—that there was insufficient evidence to accept that the SA Police were in fact involved in the distribution of the tape-recordings. If I remember correctly, that is what the two members with legal training found. The other members of the council…

The other five!

… found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant such a finding.

The chairman agreed with the other five members.

Order! No the hon member for Green Point has already made his speech.

Mr Chairman, I accept that. I am not quarreling with the hon member for Green Point. I should just like to have these particulars placed on record. Furthermore, I also want to place on record, Mr Chairman, that this case before the Media Council was concerned with the question of distribution and/or knowledge in regard to the distribution of the tape-recordings. At that inquiry the police were not in the dock over the question of whether they were involved in the direct collecting of the evidence which formed part of the distributed documents. We have already debated that matter in this House. As the Minister responsible I consequently stated the part played by the South African Police in that matter. Consequently I do not wish to reopen that entire debate now.

Mr Chairman, I accept what the hon member says. The collecting of the information is not the point under discussion. He did deal with that. That is correct. The present issue is the distribution. In view of the finding of the Media Council, which I regard in a very serious light because it was the majority of whom one was a very senior judge—a Judge-President, to tell the truth … [Interjections.]

Come on, put your question, now! [Interjections.]

Order!

… I want to point out that the finding was that the police were in fact part of the distribution process; not the Police Force as an institution, but individual policemen who were not identified. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to institute an investigation into this matter to establish what the actual position is, so that the matter can finally be brought into the open.

One of those Police officers has already passed away in the meantime. I most certainly do not intend to rake up the whole matter all over again, and expose all the old bones. As far as I am concerned this matter has now been disposed of. If the hon member for Green Point wants to carry on with it, he will simply have to contact Dr Boesak and ask him to what extent he wants to be exposed to the public eye again in regard to this whole matter. The advice I want to give the hon member is simply to regard that matter as having been disposed of. I think that is the best advice I can give the hon member.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon member for Sandton asked me a number of questions, Mr Chairman. I regret that I have to tell the hon member that I cannot find any record of the receipt of the particular memorandum. I will, however, go into the matter further. It appears though that I do not have the record in question at hand in my office. I will, however, investigate the matter further and come back to the hon member at a later stage. I want to assure the hon member that the incidents and events at Alexandra during the past week are being investigated in the normal course of our duties. Investigations are also being conducted into the alleged involvement in the events there of off-duty policemen. I will in due course receive a report on this issue as it is at present being investigated.

It merits a judicial commission of inquiry!

Order! The hon member for Bryanston has now repeatedly referred to a judicial commission of inquiry. I think the point has now been adequately made. I appeal to the hon member to refrain from further interrupting the hon the Minister’s speech.

Thank you for your support, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the allegations are made against the Police and are being investigated by the Police, does the hon the Minister not think it advisable to have an independent judicial inquiry into this whole matter?

Oh no, please, Mr Chairman! I really cannot appoint a judicial commission of inquiry into every single matter in which the Police are involved or may possibly be involved.

†It is very interesting that the hon member did not call for a judicial commission of inquiry into the events that occurred a few weeks ago in Alexandra. In fact, his party did not even press for an investigation. His party did not even send their monitoring committee to Alexandra. Why not? [Interjections.] Why is a judicial commission of inquiry now being called for? [Interjections.] Is it simply because a few members of the Police may now be involved? However, when some other people were involved no judicial commission of inquiry was called for; not at all, and those events took place only six weeks ago. [Interjections.] I do not want to press the hon member. I do not mean this personally. I simply want to know from the hon member’s party why they were so quiet a few weeks ago when extremely serious riots were taking place in Alexandra in which a lot of people lost their lives. [Interjections.]

I have already asked the hon member for Sandton across the floor of the Committee for the names of the leaders whom he says fled because of the circumstances and with whom there cannot be any communication.

Well, they cannot communicate with each other.

I know that, but I would like the hon member to supply me with the names. I will be very interested to see the names with which the hon member will provide me. [Interjections.] I personally know only of UDF leaders who may have fled Alexandra temporarily. [Interjections.] Still, if the hon member will let me have the names we can go into the matter.

As I have said, I find it very interesting that not even the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is prepared to comment on the fact that his party was absolutely quiet a few weeks ago. They made no requests …

No, we were not quiet…

Oh no, the PFP made no official requests. [Interjections.]

The deafness of some people …

Yes, one is struck by the deafness prevailing tonight. [Interjections.]

†The non member for Johannesburg North referred to the medical aid scheme for the Black members of the Police Force. There is indeed a difference in the sense that White, Coloured and Indian members belong to a very good medical aid scheme. We have not been able, however, to get the Black members involved in the same scheme to the same extent as the other members are involved in it.

Why?

We have our problems. However, this matter is presently receiving the attention of the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, the Black staff of the SA Prisons Service are as much involved as the Black members of the SA Police, and my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice and I are presently negotiating this whole matter and it is, as I have said, receiving the attention of the Cabinet.

*There are, however, practical reasons for this, which go back a long way. The members involved are nevertheless receiving an additional allowance. I am not saying that the allowance is adequate, but it is at least a good attempt to try to help them to get through this interim period. I am not saying that the allowance is sufficient, but nevertheless represents an attempt to bridge the gap. It is a question of finance. I cannot tell the hon member when we will be able to change the situation, but we are working on it at present.

†The hon member asked whether it was the policy of the Security Police to harass members of the monitoring committee of the PFP. Really, Sir, we have more work to do than to harass these people. In any case, the hon member must just give me the information. If he will give me the names of the people involved and explain more or less what the circumstances were I will go into the matter. [Interjections.] Off the record, however, I must say I do not think it happened …

It did happen.

Well then, the hon member must let me have the information. I cannot answer him across the floor of the Committee on the basis of the little information I have. [Interjections.]

The hon member also asked me what equipment we have. He referred me to the Kannemeyer Commission and the Van der Walt Commission and asked whether we had learnt anything and posed other questions in similar vein. He has probably read about or listened to some people who have asked, after these events: “But has the Government not learnt anything since Sharpeville?”: Have they not learnt anything in the past 25 years?—all that sort of thing. That does not make any impression whatsoever. None at all. What are the facts? During the past year—for more than a year—I have kept the hon member as a member of this House and as a member of the public very well informed on every piece of equipment that we have available in the SAP. What is more, I have answered questions in this House in which I have specified all those pieces of equipment. I have even been taken to task by some of the hon members on my side who asked whether it really was necessary for me to give that long list of equipment that we have available to use under those circumstances. The hon member must just read the answers to some of the questions that have been asked in the House. In this respect I want to enlighten the hon member by giving him some examples provided during the past few months. Has the hon member heard that we have acquired some helicopters?

One.

Yes.

Only one?

Airwolf.

Has the hon member heard anywhere that we have acquired some helicopters lately?

Yes. [Interjections.]

Has the hon member heard that we have water cannon available? [Interjections.] Give the hon member a chance. He does not need the assistance of all the lawyers, attorneys and advocates and what have you. He can look after himself.

Order! When the hon the Minister puts these questions to hon members they must look upon them as questions to be replied to at a later stage. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member may nod his head but I cannot allow a question-and-answer procedure to be followed.

Is the hon member in a position to reply to me now?

The green paper means “yes” and the white paper means “no”. [Interjections.]

Has the hon member heard lately that we have a new rubber bullet machine? [Interjections.]

Green is “yes” and white is “no”. [Interjections.]

He does not know anything about it. [Interjections.]

*What is one to do with this kind of man who asks me a whole lot of questions, but does not even know what it is all about? [Interjections.]

†I want to refer to one of the hon member’s own questions, Question No 6. This question was replied to on 11 February 1986. He asked me for a great deal of information on the events at Mamelodi. As part of the answer to the question I replied to the hon member that the Police unit had been issued with tearsmoke, quirts, shields, helmets, buckshot and one R1 rifle per Casspir. That was, inter alia the information I gave as part of my answer to that question. The question the hon member referred to is Question 526 to which he says he is still awaiting a reply. The hon member will receive his reply tomorrow and it will read as follows:

That is the reply to the question. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Walmer has been replied to by the hon the Deputy Minister.

During his second speech the hon member for Durban Point raised a number of matters. I want to refer to the first issue that the hon member raised in respect of information being made available. I just want to confirm something with the hon member that he already knows and that is that my door is open at all times to him or any other hon member to make inquiries or to ask for information. We will try to assist them and provide them with as much information as possible. There is no question about that. However, I am not prepared to act as an information officer for any of the parties in the House. This is not exactly what the hon member asked for, but I am just stating a fact. I am not prepared to do that because I do not have the time. I think that is really asking a bit too much. The hon member must accept that my door and the door of my department are open at all times but I cannot take that matter further. The hon member can do that through the parliamentary channels and we will assist him as far as is humanly possible. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton has partly answered the question on the problem of perjury.

I see my time has nearly expired. As far as the films are concerned, that is a PRO job and the Bureau for Information is attending to it. I am sorry that I do not have the time to answer the hon member in detail about the housing that we are presently providing.

I would just like to tell the hon member that we have many plans in the pipeline to provide proper housing for all the affected members as soon as possible. This includes compensation for the loss of personal belongings etcetera that they may have suffered.

I quite agree with the hon member insofar as the long-term planning for proper municipal forces is concerned. That will give the necessary teeth to these councils and it will be of great assistance to them.

*Furthermore, the hon member adopted a certain standpoint in regard to petrol bombs. I want to refer him to the relevant passages in the report of the Rabie Commission, and point out to him that provision has already been made for legislation in this connection by way of the Intimidation Act, 1982, and the Explosives Amendment Act, 1983, which prescribe very heavy penalties.

I come now to the hon member Mr Theunissen of the CP. I want to thank him for his positive contribution in regard to the SA Police. He went on to say that the majority of people in South Africa did not believe in the reform plans of the Government, or did not believe that the Government was capable of implementing them. Consequently, the hon member said, there was a legitimacy gap. I want to tell the hon member that this is surely not the case. I can give him the assurance that the majority of the people in South Africa believe strongly in the reform plans and proposals on which the Government is engaged and about which the public have been informed. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me whether the Government intended to hold talks with the ANC. The standpoint of the Government is very clear: As long as the ANC is not prepared to renounce violence, this Government will not hold talks with them. There is no deviation from the Government’s standpoint. That is what the ANC must do, and it must also be demonstrated in practice. The Government will then talk to the ANC as a political organ, to the extent to which it may be applicable.

I come now to the hon member for Brakpan. I have already told him by way of an interjection that there is no hon member in the Cabinet who is keeping my hands tied behind my back. The Cabinet is a united team, under the leadership of the State President. It is not a case of some members of the Cabinet whose hands are free, and others whose hands have been tied. We are a team and there is no one who imposes any restriction on me in the discharge of my duties. The hon member may rest assured about that.

Are you not the Burger Geldenhuys of the team? [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to case of our ambassador in Britain. I also pointed out to the hon member by way of an interjection that the ambassador had not been correctly reported in our newspapers. To save time, I just wish to reaffirm that I have the report of his words on the BBC radio programme here in my hands, and I shall let the hon member have a copy. I just wanted to have this placed on record so that we do not act unfairly towards the ambassador owing to a lack of information. I shall let the hon member have the report in any case.

The incident at Brits was referred to, but I do not want to dwell on that now. I just want to refer to the interjection made by the hon member for Sasolburg, in which he asked what the AWB had actually done wrong. Just imagine asking what the AWB had done wrong! [Interjections.] Before I reply to that question from the hon member, I want to tell him that no form of strong-arm tactics— it makes no difference from which side it comes—is acceptable to us. [Interjections.] No wait, I am talking now.

If it is taken further so that it becomes thuggery, then it is absolutely unacceptable. If meetings are going to lead to thuggery, law and order will have to be maintained, regardless of who is involved. I cannot allow mob rule in this country. I am not accusing the hon member of this now; I am simply saying that we are not going to allow mob rule in this country. Law and order will have to be maintained, regardless of who is involved.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he understood correctly that I made no mention whatsoever of …

What is your question?

Order!

Did the hon the Minister understand … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member has a chance to make his speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he is equating the conduct of the AWB at Brits to what the NP did to the HNP during the late ’sixties and early ’seventies when the Police and the Government …

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member made his speech, and he need not start shouting at me; I heard what he said. I am now telling the hon member that there must be law and order in this country in regard to this matter as well, regardless of who is involved. It is no use our participating lustily in this debate while we leave this matter unresolved. The Government, as well as all political parties, has an obligation to make a contribution to the political dialogue in South Africa proceeding in as orderly and decent a way as possible.

Cowboys don’t cry!

Cowboys shoot crooks!

The hon member will not get me to cry about it! I still remember what those hon members did to us when they were UP-men; let us not discuss that now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Police in Brits did in fact maintain law and order?

Yes, I am satisfied. I received a report on the matter. I know how many policemen were present there and what their involvement was. I was informed before the time that there could be problems at that meeting. I discussed the matter with the Commissioner of Police, and we gave the normal attention to a matter of this nature, as we will always do. Any hon member of the House is welcome to tell us in advance if he has a problem or expects to have one. He is welcome to ask for help or advice, depending on the circumstances.

The hon member for Brits does not say that!

The hon member for Brits had a responsible conversation with me, and conveyed to me his concern as a result of the information he had at his disposal.

He came to complain!

I gave attention to that information in the correct way. [Interjections.] I shall do that in any case, regardless of which political party is involved.

Is that what you think?

I am also satisfied that the Police took the necessary action there. [Interjections.] At one stage the police officer asked the gentleman with the megaphone to stop using it, and he did so. Consequently there was police action.

The Afrikaans word for megaphone is “blêrmasjien. [Interjections.]

I also received the assurance from people who were there that they were satisfied that under the circumstances the SAP acted correctly at that meeting.

They were White skollies! [Interjections.]

I hope the hon member finds my reply adequate. I should not like there to be anything about this that is not clear. What I am saying here is in the interests of all political parties.

Will you do something about…

We need not try to adopt a sanctimonious attitude vis-à-vis some other people. There is no one in this Committee who need be terribly sanctimonious.

Remember 1966!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if we may have his assurance that all the promises he made about helping all parties to maintain law and order and so on apply also to the hit list which I handed to the Commissioner of Police tonight?

Order! Before the hon the Minister replies to that question, I want the assurance that hon members will give him the opportunity to complete his reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I have not yet seen that list although the hon member said during her speech that she would send it to me. She did not do so.

[Inaudible.]

I have not seen that document, so I do not know what is in it.

Are you on it? [Interjections.]

All I am trying to say to this Committee this evening is this: We must not joke about these fun-and-games in Brits and Nylstroom, and no one in this Committee must try to be sanctimonious about it—no one!

You ain’t seen nothing yet!

Neither the old UP men nor the Progs nor anyone else must act in a sanctimonious way here. [Interjections.]

Not the old Nats like you?

Ask P W Botha!

Yes, I said no one. [Interjections.]

Order! Whatever the position was in Brits, we are not in Brits now; we are in the House of Assembly.

That is why I should really … [Interjections.] … as the Minister responsible—I should not like to be involved in circumstances of this nature in future because one would like to see law and order and decency being maintained—like to make a serious appeal, seen from this aspect, and ask that we arrange our political meetings in such a way in future that we will have respect for one another and for the right of the other person to state his standpoint. It is his democratic right to state his standpoint. [Interjections.] If he has advertised a meeting and hired a hall, he has every right to be heard by whoever is present there.

If the hon member for Sasolburg wants to keep on flexing his muscles here this evening, I want to tell him that I am really trying now, in a serious way, to state the Government’s side of the matter and I am convinced that I have the co-operation of all hon members of this Committee. But if I do not have the co-operation of that hon member, I do not mind. He can tell us tonight if he does not want to give his co-operation and the cooperation of his party and also if he does not want to make an appeal to his friends to give their co-operation so that we will have orderliness and decency in South Africa, but then he must not come and tell us in this House “you ain’t seen nothing yet—let me tell you”. [Interjections.] The hon member must not come and say on behalf of any of these political parties: “You ain’t seen nothing yet”. We do not allow ourselves to be bluffed. I do not issue any challenges to the hon member, but I do want to tell him this: He is not the only person who can look after himself; we can all look after ourselves. But the hon member, after the challenging attitude which he adopted here this evening, must not come crying to me if he or his pals get hurt in future. They must not come crying to us. Not after this attitude of his. [Interjections.]

We did not cry in 1970 when you …

You are still crying. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg must contain himself.

Everyone in this Committee would like to give their co-operation and would like to act in a decent way. All of us would like to do that. I am convinced of that, and that is the way we are going to try to act in future. The hon member will simply have to decide for himself what position he and his party are going to adopt. I want to say, though, that I am convinced that the leader of his party will not agree with the attitude which he adopted in this Committee this evening. Mr Jaap Marais would not lend himself to that kind of thing. [Interjections.] I am telling him that Mr Jaap Marais would not lend himself to the kind of attitude the hon member has displayed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity, and I should again like to thank all hon members who made a contribution for their co-operation.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik pointed out in a particularly emotional way that the deletion of Chapter XXXIII of the old Free State Statute Book does the people of the Free State an injustice. Furthermore he said that the people of the Free State are being deprived of their rights and that the Government has no mandate to take this step.

Once again I should like to emphasise that the NP congress in the Free State decided virtually unanimously that this legislation could be abolished. The hon member stated that a referendum should be held about this, but I want to put it to the hon member that responsible people who really play a part in the Free State, did approve it.

They are a minority in the Free State! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik is so self-confident, he is in for a shock in future. As usual he is too self-confident. [Interjections.]

Order! I expect hon members to give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

The hon members of the CP as well as the hon member of the HNP, who is so excitable, must simply realise that as far as the settlement of Indians in the Free State is concerned, there is a development at Thaba Nchu in Bophuthatswana—it is an area in the central part of the Free State—where an opportunity has already been created for the settlement of the Indians. I do not think those hon members have any objection to this, because they support the policy of homeland development.

The question was asked as to the way in which the Indians, should there be any who want to settle in the Free State, will do so after the deletion of the legislation. In this regard I should like to read to the hon members the declaration made by the State President after the Free State congress had taken this decision:

This is now being done.

1. (a) Dat die beginsels van eie gemeenskappe, eie woonbuurtes, eie skole, eie kultuurlewe en ’n eie identiteit reeds volledige beskerming geniet onder andere uit hoofde van die bepalings van die nuwe Grondwet en die Groepsgebiedewet.
2. (b) Dat eenvormige regsreëls vir alle provinsies konstruktiewe beplanning vir die welvaart van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika sal bevorder.

The settlement of Indians will occur in the Free State in the same normal way as it occurs elsewhere in the country. Circumstances will not be different in the Free State. The Orange Free State is not a White group area. It is a “controlled area” in which the acquisition and occupation of land is limited to members of the population group to which the present owner belongs.

Your promises are worthless.

Mr Chairman, I reject that remark with the contempt it deserves.

The members of other population groups can acquire such land in the Free State legally or occupy it only by means of a permit, except where a group area is declared for them.

My time is about to expire, but I should like to point out that the Free State considers this matter closed. Once again I want to tell the CP that there is no political vigour left in the matter. It will serve no purpose to try to make political capital out of this. The Free State has accepted the matter. It has been concluded and they do not talk about it any more.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom reminds me of an old saying: “What you can, we can do better”. [Interjections.] I say this with regard to his reference to what Bophuthatswana is going to be doing in ThabaNchu. “What you can do, we Free Staters can do better”, he is saying to Bophuthatswana. He definitely wants to go and hide behind the Tswanas. That Free State member now wants to go and hide behind the Tswanas. “What you can do, we can do better”. That is his attitude. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the Chief Whip of the NP— and I should like to have his attention— where his Minister is. Where is his Minister?

The Minister is sitting over there.

I am not referring to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. I am referring to the hon the Cabinet Minister Mr Rajbansi. [Interjections.] That hon Minister should have observed the rules. Seeing as he participated in the debate, he should have been here tonight to listen to what the opposition had to say in reply to his arguments. [Interjections.]

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

No, the hon member will just have to remain seated. He did not do his duties. He brought that hon the Minister here to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the NP and he should have seen to it that the hon the Minister was here tonight to listen to our standpoints. Where is he now? [Interjections.] The hon member must really stop making a noise; he did not do his work properly. [Interjections.] I think I should ask the hon member for Umlazi if he does not want to go and look for the hon the Minister, because they are good friends. But he will not find him, because they are on “holiday” by now, if it is not a breach of privilege to say so.

One really cannot hold a meaningful discussion on the provisions of clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the draft legislation before us, without referring briefly to the history of the Indians in Natal.

During the debates that took place on 5 February last year and 13 February this year in the House of Delegates, the hon members of that House referred back to the arrival of the Indians in Natal in the year 1860 in a very positive way.

Amongst other things, the member of Parliament S Pachai said that they—those are the Indian immigrants—flourished and prospered to such an extent that it made some people jealous. That is true. Things went well for the Indians in South Africa and steadily improved. But it is also a part of history that already with the arrival of the Indians in Durban on 16 November 1860, the Natal Mercury amongst other things stated:

As the Indian population increased and spread over the Natal Colony, the Whites became concerned and antagonistic towards them. The Cape Colony and the two Boer Republics also realised the imminent danger of uncontrolled Indian immigration, and started placing restrictions on the Indians in good time.

Today it is also an historical fact that over the years a number of our most foremost statesmen expressed concern about the Indian question. As far back as 1923 no less a figure than Gen Smuts said:

According to him Natal was suffering as a result of it in 1923. There were also many people over the years who were concerned about the weal and the woe of the Indians. We all know—the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Delegates also referred to it in his speech yesterday— what a special role Mahatma Gandhi played in improving the lot of the Indians in South Africa.

Various high-level conferences between South Africa and India also took place, in Cape Town amongst other places. For example, reference is still made to the Cape Town Agreement today. The main aim of that conference was to work out a plan according to which as many as possible of the Indians in Natal could be repatriated.

The Press at that time also heatedly participated in the debate on what was then indeed a problem in Natal. One of the newspapers commented on the presence of the Indians in Natal and the problem it presented. I should like to quote it. Strangely enough—I mention this for the sake of the inhabitants of the Free State—it was a Free State newspaper of that time, The Friend,which wrote the following on 23 January 1926:

That old UP newspaper! [Interjections.]

Yes, I hear hon members over there referring to the “old SAP newspaper”! That newspaper attached more feeling and value to being White than those Nationalists do today. [Interjections.] Listen to what The Friend, the old SAP newspaper had to say:

That is what was written in the old SAP newspaper. [Interjections.] It would have been a good thing if the Nats who are sitting over there could still speak that language and could be imbued by that spirit. But this is no longer the case.

I have referred to the so-called Cape Town Agreement. Even before that agreement was concluded in 1927, and after that as well, some of our most prominent political leaders openly adopted a very sceptical stance in their pronouncements towards the Asiatics. Thus for example, Gen Smuts, when he was the leader of the official opposition round about 1924, said that in that agreement honour and prestige was the issue for the Indians, but for the Whites it was their survival. What did Adv Eric Louw have to say about it? He said:

He was referring to the promises and undertakings that were made at the Cape Town Agreement—

Here he was referring to the Indians—

These were people who were far-sighted, and had good insight when it came to the politics of their day. [Interjections.] We would do well to take note of that today.

The above references reflect a part of the history of the Indians in Natal.

The inhabitants of the Free State realised the threat of Indian immigration to their country a long time ago and in good time. That is why they incorporated the provisions of chapter XXXIII in “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat” in good time. Now the irony of the matter is that it is the present Government and the present State President of South Africa, Piet Botha—a born inhabitant of the Free State—who is allowing those protective measures to be removed from the Statute Book.

A Lesotho-Free Stater.

As has been said, the above is part of history. Nothing eventually came of the repatriation scheme.

Under who was that?

Since 1961 the Indians have officially been regarded as South African residents. Last year, on 5 February, a private member’s motion was moved in the House of Delegates by the hon member Mr S V Naicker—presently the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. His motion read as follows:

The motion that was before that House at the time is essentially what we have before us today in the draft legislation. A year later, on 13 February and on 18 February 1986, the legislation before us today was dealt with in the House of Delegates and in the House of Representatives and was approved and carried through ever so quickly by the two Houses concerned. During all those debates the objection raised by the Indians was that the Acts had to be removed from the Statute Book because they were of a discriminatory nature. An essential element of their objection was that Indians did not have complete freedom of movement in the Free State and in Northern Natal, and that they could not go and live in those specific areas.

The argument of the hon members of the House of Delegates that the Act is discriminatory is in truth merely a smokescreen behind which they have hidden to be able to get at another Act. In my opinion they were not so concerned about discrimination because there was no freedom of movement. It was merely, as I have said, no real objection at all. It was merely a smokescreen behind which they did. What they in fact wanted, was the right to go and establish themselves in the Free State and in Northern Natal. They want to be given property rights there, they want to get hold of agricultural land; they want to go and erect industries there to show the Free State’s inhabitants how things should be done. [Interjections.]

In the debate of 5 February 1985 in the House of Delegates, the hon member Mr Kathrada said that in the Free State there were certain pieces of land owned by people who in their opinion were lying fallow. He said that that land could be put to meaningful use by his people. That is where the Indians let the cat out of the bag. I have been standing here looking around me and wondering whose land it could be that Mr Kathrada had in mind while he was travelling through the Free State. I then thought of the hon member for Winburg, the hon member for Fauresmith, and possibly the hon member for Bethlehem too. I think that old friend had their ground in mind.

What about Smithfield?

No, the hon member for Smithfield’s land will never go to an Indian; of that I can assure this House. [Interjections.]

It is the Groups Areas Act which they want to get at, and not these two Acts which the NP wants to abolish so hastily. It is the Group Areas Act which the Indians want to destroy. That is the huge mote in their eye, and they know they are going to manage it. They know that with the pressure they are bringing to bear the Group Areas Act will soon be a thing of the past.

Hoorah! Hoorah!

But it is not only they who want to destroy the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] We have just heard the “hoorah! hoorah!” from down Pietermaritzburg way. It is also the Progs and the “New Nats” who want to see it destroyed. It is the “New Nats”, or shall I say the “Pik Commando” who want that Act deleted from the Statute Book.

That would be the “Prins Commando”.

Yes, he is the self-appointed crown prince of Swaziland. We may just as well call him by that title. [Interjections.] It is those people, those “New Nats” and the Progs, who insist on it and make plans to have the Group Areas Act removed from the Statute Book. I see the hon the Minister who in his day was a top class attorney, is inspecting me with a glint in his eye. I know he is also one of the “New Nats”. We may just as well tell each other that now.

No, I am merely a good Nat. [Interjections.]

He says he is a good Nat. Yes, he is a good “New Nat”. [Interjections.]

We should actually say what people had in mind when they said that these Acts should go. [Interjections.]

Only last Sunday another one of the “New Nats” wrote in the Rapport…

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

No, Sir, I am not going to disturb that hon member’s rest. I think he should rather remain seated. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, apart from the Progs and the “New Nats” here, there are also “New Nats” in the Press industry, particularly amongst the ranks of Rapport. Pollux in particular is one of them. In Rapport of 27 April 1986 he wrote:

A foreign newspaper man asked him:

The hon the Minister replied that the restriction also applied to him, meaning that he could not purchase land in Guguletu. That is differentiation, says the hon the Minister, not discrimination.

Hon members must listen to this interesting little addition of this “New Nat” in Rapport. He writes this about the hon the Minister:

[Interjections.] There we have it. That is what is coming up—and the Indians know it too! [Interjections.]

Hon members need only go and read the debate in the House of Delegates on 5 February 1985 to see how the hon the Minister of National Education struggled with his Indian colleagues. He also had to do all in his power because they insisted on hearing his standpoint on the Group Areas Act, because as far as they were concerned the Act that had to go was the Group Areas Act. The hon the Minister then told them that their arguments touched on wider issues. The hon the Minister also knew what those “wider issues” were: It was the Group Areas Act of course.

Then the hon the Minister came along— he was acting in his former capacity as Minister of Home Affairs—with his old, hackneyed argument that there should be an orderly and safe community for every individual and population group. That is an argument which no one, least of all the people of colour, believes any more because the NP and its leaders suffer from a total lack of credibility. One day they give one kind of assurance and the next they say it is not negotiable.

We want to tell the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and his colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education—we have drawn our conclusions from observing them—that they do not always hit it off with each other. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs is far too the left of the hon the Minister of National Education who is the NP’s Transvaal leader. To the hon the Minister of Home Affairs it is a foregone conclusion that the Group Areas Act, also as far as the Free State is concerned, should be abolished. The hon the Minister of National Education still keeps up the pretence that he is struggling with it, because we know that he does not struggle because of his heartfelt convictions, but because he has to contend with the conservative Nationalists of the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

I therefore say that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs is a “New Nat” and if it depends on him, the Group Areas Act will be abolished. The hon members would do well to go and look how heartily he is thanked by the hon the Minister, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates. They need only go and read what is written in column 497 of this year’s Hansard of the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if the fact that the hon member for Green Point complimented him just now by saying: “So ’n bek verdien ‘jam’” means that the hon member is now becoming a Prog? [Interjections.]

I do not think he was referring to me. I think the hon Minister’s “bek verdien ’n bietjie “jam” van daai kant af”—though I do not want to use the word “bek” because it does not sound too nice.

The hon the Minister knows he is the man who is going to see to it that the Group Areas Act is abolished so that the Indians can obtain residential and proprietary rights in the Free State and he knows that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is on his side. The hon the Minister will open the flood-gates to the Indians so that they will invade the Free State like locusts. [Interjections.] The hon members need only listen to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills says—and the hon the Minister knows him well.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to refer to a section of the people of this country as potential locusts sweeping through the Free State?

Order! I cannot say that it is unparliamentary but whether it is in good taste is a different question and a matter of opinion.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw that remark; I did it with very …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it really in the interests of South Africa that that kind of description of a section of our citizens should be used in this House?

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen may proceed.

Mr Chairman, …

They are really sensitive!

Mr Chairman, in terms of two pieces of legislation it is a criminal offence to incite one section of the community against another. [Interjections.] A statement like this will be heard by other people. How would the hon member feel or how would I feel if the situation was reversed and we were said to be the locusts? Would it not in those circumstances constitute an offence under the Act if that statement were made outside this House? If that is so, the statement must of necessity be unparliamentary. I say it would be an offence outside this House and I ask you to ask the hon member to withdraw it.

Order! I can only decide on that question should I have full evidence of intention but prima facie this House is a place where there is free speech and it is not for me to decide on whether I would use the words or not. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw the reference with great pleasure … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member wanted to say something. What did he say?

Mr Chairman, I said that if the hon members take offence to such an extent on behalf of the Indians, I shall withdraw that word “locusts” with pleasure, because the hon members know …

Order! Is the hon member withdrawing the word?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it, but then I would like to continue by saying immediately that it amazes me that the hon member for Yeoville who referred to my people as “velledraers” and “karosdraers”, has the temerity to stand up; he is the last one to stand up. [Interjections.] Where does he come from? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is now alleged that I have made remarks which are calculated to have the same effect as the remarks which have just been made here. I did not intend to take part in the debate for these very reasons but perhaps the hon members would look at the Aliens Act, 1937 which they are now repealing. They should look at the racist remarks which are made there. We have now gone back to that same racism, and racism in South Africa is a criminal offence.

Order! The hon member must now make his point of order.

Mr Chairman, I have made it. I am saying that what the hon member is saying now is also a criminal offence. His intent has been crude.

What he is saying is true!

It is not true.

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

Order! The hon member for Sunnyside is raising a point of order.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Yeoville allowed to complain now, because in the Transvaal Provincial Council he said that when he was civilised, we as Afrikaners were still sleeping on skins in the bushes.

Mr Chairman, you were there and those were not the words which I used. The hon member is deliberately misleading you, Sir.

Order! What the hon member said then is of no relevance at the moment …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I am talking; the hon member for Sunnyside must resume his seat. What the hon member for Yeoville said at the time is of no immediate relevance now. If hon members are not going to give me the opportunity to speak, I am going to ask them to leave the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Yeoville to say the hon member for Sunnyside “is deliberately misleading the House”?

He was there!

I consider it to be unparliamentary and the hon member should withdraw it.

I withdraw it; I say he is misleading the House.

The hon member Mr Theunissen may continue.

I do not want to start squabbling with the hon member for Yeoville, but I think he must be prepared to take his medicine.

I am taking the medicine but I believe in truth. [Interjections.]

The hon member should just listen. In that debate the hon member for Reservoir Hills made a beautiful remark about the Afrikaners in the Free State. He said: “The people of the Vrystaat are chiefly Afrikaners. We cannot threaten them, we cannot flatter them, we cannot bribe them, but we can at least play on their Christian conscience.” I thought about that for a long time and then said to myself: “Good heavens, who all can speak about conscience?” I know of certain people who certainly cannot speak of conscience.

I want to tell the House there are no bad intentions, not towards the hon member for Yeoville either. [Interjections.]

Harry, you must not start something; you are going to have a lot of trouble. Let me tell you this.

I do not know what the hon member for Reservoir Hills had in mind when he made that remark, but let us leave him at that.

Harry, you are going to pick up trouble. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to threaten another hon member in this House?

Is this what goes on now? This is worse than Brits! [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member taking a point of order to the effect that he was threatened?

Yes, I am taking the point of order that the hon member for Rissik is threatening me in this House. [Interjections.] He is delivering undue threats. I do not mind his threatening me with debate or anything else but I am not prepared to tolerate this kind of thing!

Order! Did the hon member for Rissik threaten the hon member for Yeoville?

Mr Chairman, I told the hon member if he wants to start this kind of argument in this House, he must take what is coming to him.

You cannot even tell the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! I accept the word of the hon member for Rissik. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not customary to threaten hon members, not even by implication. The hon member Mr Theunissen’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I listened to what the hon member Mr Theunissen said. He read a number of quotations, and I should like to mention to him what the HNP—the soulmates of the CP—said regarding … [Interjections.]

Louis, let them listen first!

Order! The hon member for Rissik and the other hon member will stop their vehement discussion this minute otherwise it will have to be continued outside the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to quote to the hon member Mr Theunissen what his soulmates, the HNP, said on occasion concerning the CP’s policy regarding Indians. The HNP said—while reading it, I can hear the voice of the hon member for Sasolburg—the CP is …

Ask Jaap, Louis! [Interjections.]

… full of untruth, smear tactics, deviousness and dubious politicking. Is it not ironic that the CP are attacking us tonight! I want to read it for the record. If the hon member for Sasolburg wants to know where to find it, I can tell him it is written in his newspaper, Die Afrikanerof 13 October 1983, with the heading “Treurnicht: Indiërs tussen HNP en die KP”, and I quote:

Trouble amongst the right-wingers!

The report continues:

I ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether this report in Die Afrikaner is correct. [Interjections.]

Ask the AWB, Stoffies!

I should like to warn the hon member for Sasolburg to beware of the CP. He must be very careful, because I wonder whether he knows what the CP thinks of him and his people. I quote again, this time from Die Afrikaner of 9 March 1983:

[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know what part of the legislation under discussion the hon member is discussing? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik expressed judgment on the NP in the Free State here yesterday in an arrogant manner and an embittered spirit, radiating hatred and jealousy. [Interjections.] I should like to quote to the House what a giant figure such as Dr Malan once said of the NP in the Free State. He said:

History will judge one day who was right—a giant figure such as Dr D F Malan or a political pipsqueak such as the hon member for Rissik. I can put it better, however, as Mr Jaap Marais said:

The hon member for Sasolburg must beware of the CP! [Interjections.]

The HNP did not make only one reference to the CP and their leader, the hon leader for Waterberg, in their newspaper, however.

What clause are you dealing with now?

I am discussing the policy concerning the admission of Indians as well as the policy concerning the admission of Indians which the hon member and the hon member for Rissik spoke about.

Rather tell us what happened at Blyde River.

I have never been to Blyde River. On October 1982 Die Afrikaner reported as follows:

Order! The hon member must confine himself more closely to the Act.

Mr Chairman, the Free State dealt with the whole matter in a responsible way. What is more, they took the initiative first, even before the new constitutional dispensation was put into operation. The previous leader, Dr Nak van der Merwe, convened a committee under the leadership of Adv H J Coetzee, who is now leader of the NP in the Free State. This committee researched the historical background, the meaning of Chapter XXXIII and its legality inter alia. Broadly based discussions were held inter alia with the executive committee of the Free State Agricultural Union, the executive management of the Municipal Associations of the OFS and the executive of the Coloured Labour Party. Consequent upon this, the matter was taken further and submitted to the top management and the congress. Two of the most important considerations regarding the decision to repeal Chapter XXXIII of the Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat according to the State President’s declaration, were the following:

1. 1 Dat die beginsel van eie gemeenskappe, eie woonbuurtes, eie skole, ’n eie kultuurlewe en ’n eie identiteit reeds volledige beskerming geniet onder meer uit hoofde van die bepalings van die Grondwet en die Groepsgebiedwet.
2. 2 Dat eenvormige regsreëls vir alle provinsies konstruktiewe beplanning vir die welvaart van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika sal bevorder.

As always the delegates at the Free State congress argued about this matter on a high level. Only one delegate pleaded for the retention of the Act. The congress decided with approximately 450 votes for and six against that Chapter XXXIII of the old Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat to be deleted.

Those are the only Nationalists left in the Free State, my friend!

The following considerations were taken into account:

1. 1 Die betrokke wetgewing is vaag, verwarrend en bevat uitgediende kwetsende terme. Daar word twyfel uitgespreek deur sommige oor die regsgeldigheid daarvan.
2. 2 Die voortbestaan van die betrokke wetgewing bring mee dat van sentrale owerheid verwag word om twee Wette ten opsigte van die Oranje-Vrystaat te administreer, naamlik die gemelde ou Wet en die Groepsgebiedewet.
3. 3 Burgerskap en permanensie is reeds in 1962 aan Indiërs deur dr Verwoerd verleen.

I shall return to this point later.

1. 4 Ons Grondwet erken en verskans die groepskarakter van die RSA en sy mense. Dit gee ’n nuwe positiewe betekenis aan die Groepsgebiedewet.
2. 5 Die res van die land is grootliks georden tot ordelike gemeenskappe en woonbuurte.
3. 6 Ons bou ’n nuwe Suid-Afrika en ons kan dit nie doen met ’n ou maatreël wat feitlik nie meer van toepassing is nie.

The CP always sanctimoniously professes to stand by the old principles of the NP and our Nationalist leaders. [Interjections.] Dr Verwoerd himself rejected the CP’s standpoint about the Indians on 7 April 1965—21 years ago. Why are they unfaithful then to Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint? Why have they remained there all the time, instead of resigning from the NP on 7 April 1965? Dr Verwoerd put it very clearly in column 4180 when he said:

The hon members of the CP nonetheless say they are the great Verwoerd supporters.

In conclusion I want to say the Free State was a model republic in its day. True to tradition, the Free Staters’ development process did not come to a standstill in 1854. [Interjections.] We did not come to a standstill in 1910, nor in 1926 or 1961. [Interjections.] We stand by 1983 and we in the Free State, as children of reform, progress and development, are building a new South Africa with the concept of co-operative coexistence. [Interjections.]

In 1968 we celebrated along with the hon members of the CP who are sitting there, when the NP had been in power for 20 years. A publication was issued entitled: 1948-1968 … en nou die Toekoms! The following is written on page 73:

We, as Free Staters, stand for co-operative coexistence.

Mr Chairman, it is true that there are differences between the HNP and the CP on a few matters. My hon friends here in the ranks of the CP will agree wholeheartedly with me. They are in favour of an Indian homeland, and we are not. We stand by the approach which Dr Verwoerd had, namely that as long as the Indians are in South Africa, they must have their own business communities and own residential areas, as has substantially been the case up to now.

There is another point on which we also differ from each other; or at least so people say. They say that we want to chase the Blacks into the sea, but the CP does not want to allow them on the beaches and therefore we cannot reach an agreement! [Interjections.] All I can do is to leave it to hon members to sort out these minor matters. There are no secrets between ourselves and the CP or between ourselves and you, Sir. There are a few matters on which we differ with the CP, matters which have been mentioned, but about which no comprehensive discussion has as yet taken place. This evening I cannot dwell on what the future may have in store for us. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the speech which the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates made here last night. He said:

Here he consciously aroused sympathy for the Indians as a suffering party, as people who have in fact been treated badly by the Whites. I see that the hon member for Houghton is nodding. [Interjections.] What the hon the Minister omitted to mention last night though …

I was indicating something to one of my colleagues! [Interjections.]

Yes, it would be better if the hon member for Houghton left.

What the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates omitted to mention that about three years ago in Assam, India—which is his mother country and to which he is inextricably bound racially, biologically, culturally, linguistically and religiously—3 000 people were killed “when riots broke out against mainly Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh during the elections in 1983”. I wish that the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who is so concerned about the meeting at Brits, would go and help the Muslims in India against the Hindus. [Interjections.]

Yesterday I referred to this briefly by way of an interjection. How does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates and his racial, spiritual, national and cultural compatriots deal with the Sikhs of the Punjab? Just over a year ago they shot and killed approximately a thousand Sikhs, murdered them in their Golden Temple—their holiest shrine in Amritsar. [Interjections.] I therefore want …

Order! Did the hon member, referring to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates, say that he and others had murdered people? Did the hon member use the words in that sense?

No, Mr Chairman. If I used it, I withdraw it. I was referring to greater India.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should just like to know what part of the Free State the hon member is dealing with now?

Mr Chairman, we are coming to the Free State. The hon member should not become nervous so soon, the worst is still to come.

Just look at the bloodbath. After World War II the hon Chairman and his racial, spiritual and national compatriots pleaded and fought for a united India. Eventually they had to draw a dividing line between Pakistan and India, where millions of people were killed. [Interjections.] Subsequently Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan, yet there is no end to the Sikh uprising. There is an incessant liberation movement among the Sikhs. [Interjections.]

Consequently the hon Chairman must not come here and snivel about his treatment at the hands of the Whites in South Africa, especially not with his background, his origins and connections—cultural and otherwise. [Interjections.] In South Africa he ought to confess his gratitude for the way in which the Whites have treated the Indians here, because the Indians do not treat the Sikhs or the Pakistanis in their own mother country the way we treat them here. [Interjections.] We therefore reject with contempt the feeling of pity which this hon Minister tried to arouse here last night for himself and his people. He ought to be ashamed of himself! He ought to have come here and crawled in gratitude, because he received treatment here in South Africa that his spiritual, racial and territorial compatriots in India did not receive from him and his people there. [Interjections.]

In the second place the hon the Minister repeatedly quoted Gandhi here yesterday evening. The following has been said of one of Gandhi’s heiresses, Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Nehru—and I am quoting from a report in the Sunday Times of 4 November 1984:

[Interjections.] These are the new allies of these people; these people they want to bring into the Orange Free State. The people they look up to were not therefore great South Africans of the past. No, they look up to Gandhi and to Gandhi’s descendants and to the heritage of India. Above all, to whom do they grant awards in South Africa? They grant awards to Mr Nelson Mandela.

Then the very same Mrs Gandhi, who was assassinated a while ago, wrote a letter to Professor Fatima Meer of Natal University. I quote:

[Interjections.] In other words, these people who are looking for sympathy for themselves, are inextricably associated with people who in South Africa blatantly choose the side of communists such as Nelson Mandela. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Which clause of the Bill is the hon member discussing? [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to tell the hon member that I have just had a look at the clock. He has been dealing with his introduction for quite some time, and he must now return to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We are dealing here with the fact that people of the Indian community are now going to acquire large sections of South Africa. [Interjections.] Furthermore I think it is essential, and the right of this House, to illustrate the historical links of the Indians in South Africa as well as those of the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates.

Order! We are not dealing with cultural ties and matters of that kind now. We are dealing with an amendment. To be precise we are dealing with the Matters concerning the Admission to and Residence in the Republic Amendment Bill. Thus far I have given every member an opportunity to digress to a certain extent and talk politics. The time has now come for us to confine ourselves to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I gladly comply with your request but I should just like to emphasise once again that I did it because of the bonds between the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates and Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, to whom he referred last night, to illustrate clearly from when he derives his spiritual sustenance. [Interjections.]

The hon members must not be so sensitive about it now because I told their hon Whip that I was going to attack the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates here this evening, and I am also very sorry that he is not here this evening. I think the hon Whip may have forgotten, but I did my duty.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

No, I am not talking about the hon member for Umhlatuzana now. All I meant was that I said that I was going to attack the hon the Minister tonight.

In the second place, as far as immigration is concerned, the hon the Minister emphasised in his speech yesterday evening that they were not asking for immigration. He pointed out that the Indian brides that came here to this country in his opinion few in number, that their numbers were decreasing and that people were unnecessarily afraid of the brides that were supposed to be coming. He then said, however,—and this is important—that they were not asking for immigration. But the hon the Minister did not tell the whole story. The Indian publication, Fiat Lux, which is distributed in Durban and in the rest of Natal, published a complete speech made by the hon the Minister in the House of Delegates. I quote:

He is referring to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. Now it is clear to me why he waxed so lyrical last night about his friendship with and admiration for the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, and why he eventually pleaded for the decision to be left to the hon the Minister. He knows that the hon the Minister is going to comply with their requests for more immigrants.

I have already said no to him. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir.

Then the hon Minister Rajbansi went further and said—the NP members must listen carefully now:

The “spirit” in which the Bills are being passed is that of equality. One must therefore, on the ground of these covert and tactful words of the hon the Minister, accept that they intend to insist that Indians be appointed to the Immigrants Selection Board. They will not be satisfied unless it is done on a pro rata basis with the Whites. The Freestaters will simply have to take note that the Indians are going to insist that immigration to South Africa should at least be on a quid pro quo basis vis-à-vis the Whites, as far as the numerical ratio is concerned. Therefore if 50 000 Whites per year come to South Africa as immigrants, then the Indians on the Immigrants Selection Board are going to insist on a proportionally equal application. [Interjections.]

One simply has to read what is written here.

If you read, you must understand as well!

One must then realise that one is dealing with 600 or 700 million people of whom half, if not more, are dying from misery and starvation. [Interjections.] They are going to try their best to bring more people from India to this country. The one part of the country where they are not living yet is the Free State. That is why they see green pastures in the Free State for more Indians than we already have in South Africa today. [Interjections.]

In this regard I should like to say something about the Group Areas Act. I have spoken with hon members on the other side who know about these things. I have also gone to speak with Natalians and I asked them what the position was in Natal. It seems to me uncertain whether the Indians will be able to acquire land in kwaZulu. The Government must now tell us: Is the Free State being thrown open to Indians so that they can acquire land anywhere by means of permits, while they are going to be kept out of kwaZulu because of Black customs? Is the Government going to keep them out? Is it reasonable and right that the Whites and the Afrikaners have to throw open the Free State to the Indians, while kwaZulu keeps its territory barred to them? There will be an uprising in South Africa because of this. We are not prepared to accept that the Afrikaners must make sacrifices in order to create increased living space for the Indians while the Zulus are not doing it as well. [Interjections.]

I want to say something else about the Group Areas Act. The hon members of the NP referred to this, but I have just said that this Act itself is in jeopardy. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates says that the Act must be abolished. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made a speech during the past few days from which it was clearly apparent that as far as he was concerned, that Act could be changed. I crossed swords with the State President on this matter, and apparently he intimated that I had misunderstood him or that he had misunderstood me. The fact of the matter is that the Group Areas Act is not a protective measure to keep the Free State in the hands of the Afrikaners. One can already make exceptions in respect of farms and towns by means of a permit. My contention is that if the Indians want to come in, it will be on a larger scale because the Indians will not be interested in the Free State if they are only permitted to occupy hired premises. They want to own property in the Free State.

Now I should like to ask the Minister concerned whether, if an Indian school has to be erected, they are going to purchase land for that school in a Black residential area or in a White residential area?

Or in their own residential areas?

They do not have their own residential areas yet. If an Indian residential area has to be established are they going to take land presently occupied by Blacks, or are they going to take land occupied by Whites? [Interjections.] I have no doubt that they will take some of the land which belongs to the Whites. Here in my hand I have a leading article from Die Volksblad of 11 September 1985—Die Volksbladis the mouthpiece of the NP in the Free State—in which the following is said:

It is tactfully put, but it is clear that Die Volksblad has no doubt that the Group Areas Act would not stand in the way of Indians who want to buy White farms or land in White residential areas. The same applies to the Chinese of course.

Where is the hon the Minister of the Free State? Shortly after the by-election in Sasolburg the SABC arranged a recorded interview with me. They told me to speak about the Indians and the Free State and I did so. The person concerned told me that it was part of an entire programme to be broadcasted on television to be shown to the Free Staters—the Indians are coming, this is what the situation is going to be if the Indians live here, and this is what you will have to do, you Boers!

But there is no sign of that programme! So I made inquiries. No one will be able to ascertain who told me those things because I am going to protect him. I have it on authority from the innermost circles of those concerned that the hon the Minister of Justice prevented that programme from being broadcast. [Interjections.] So I said it publicly. What I am now saying in this House, I said in public.

Then a report appeared in Die Volksbladof 28 November under the headline “Reaksie op HNP-bewerings—TV-program oor Indiërs kom”. Oh yes, it is coming! We Free Staters want the Indians here! We are not afraid of the arrival of the Indians! We are not shy! We are quite prepared to make this land of the Voortrekkers available to the hordes from India! [Interjections.] We are Christians! We give away what we have! [Interjections.] What is ours, we share with the whole world, even if we share it with the millions, with the masses from India and China! We are not afraid! [Interjections.]

There is the newspaper report, but to this day that TV programme has still not been shown. That hon Minister of Justice either told a lie when he said that that programme was going to be broadcast, or knew that he was afraid and simply pretended that it was going to be broadcast!

Order! The hon member must withdraw both allegations, that the hon the Minister either hypothetically told a lie or knew he was afraid and merely pretended that it was going to be broadcast; that must also be withdrawn.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Furthermore, there is the important matter that the State President stated categorically in one of his major speeches this year that we had set aside our colonial past in 1961. It sounds as if the past of South Africa, and of the Afrikaner in particular, was a colonial past. I cannot believe that we have a man at the helm in South Africa today who could have made such a statement, while it was General Christiaan de Wet himself who introduced the Act concerned in 1890 in the old Free State House of Assembly in order to keep the Indians, the Chinese, the Coolies, the Arabs and the Brown Asiatics out of the Free State. [Interjections.]

The situation in the Free State is therefore that that province is a reserved territory for the Afrikaners and the Whites—with the exception of course of the Blacks and a few Coloureds. That situation was the creation of the Free State Republic. It is not part of our colonial past. And that is not all either.

A great deal is always being said about it here, but I should like to tell the Transvalers that I have the Constitution of the old Transvaal Republic here with me. I am referring to the Constitution of De Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek; Algemeneene Bepalingen, artikel nr 9:

That is the apartheid policy; the policy of separation. It is certainly not the heritage of the Empire. The Empire placed Coloureds in the Cape on the common voters’ roll. The Empire allowed the Indians into Natal. The crosses which we bear, we bear especially as a result of our colonial past, as a result of the Empire. It was a Republic heritage, however, it was an Afrikaner heritage, it was an act of the Boers when they enacted artikel 9 in the Transvaal Grondwet and when General De Wet stood up in the Free State and said that no Arab, Coolie, Chinese or Brown Asiatic would be able to live in the Free State. [Interjections.]

I should now like to ask the hon members opposite, who are entitled to their leader, whether they are not afraid of a State President who displays such blatant ignorance when he makes a statement which is untrue and which the Press has seised upon repeatedly. It is a statement which testifies to almost no knowledge or insight into our imperial and republican past! All I can say is that I find it shocking. [Interjections.] The action of General De Wet in introducing that motion can be regarded from various points of view. An hon member pointed out quite correctly the other day that there was no unanimous feeling in favour of it. At the time there were English-speaking people and others in the Free State who did not share the Afrikaner’s cultural heritage …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Sasolburg has confined himself to this particular clause for such a long time that I should respectfully like to submit that he is no longer concerned with the Bill at all.

Order! The hon member is sketching the history of this matter at great length. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

What about Adam Tas?

What about Jan van Riebeeck? [Interjections.]

That deed of General De Wet to reserve the Free State for White occupation, and not allowing the Indians and others …

What about the Blacks? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Springs and the hon member for Newton Park must control the pitch of their voices and speak more quietly. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

This deed of General De Wet contributed to the formation and creation of the character of the Free State. General De Wet did, by means of this act, left a deep imprint upon the Free State for decades—in fact for almost a century. As far as the formation of that Free State character is concerned, that deed of General De Wet was as important as his bravery during the Anglo-Boer War. Has the Free State ever produced a greater man than General De Wet? [Interjections.]

The character of the whole Afrikaner nation is being impaired if incursions are now going to be made in the character of the Free State, and that is the essence of our opposition to this step. [Interjections.] We say that one cannot underestimate the Free State and the role that the Free State has played in Afrikaner history. Sometimes the Free State also plays a role in inspiring and uplifting us when we are in difficult situations, since we are after all a problematical nation. Like N P van Wyk Louw, I also want to say that we love our people, “ook om sy ellende, ook om sy swaarkry”, but I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

The Free State has always had an elevating effect on the Afrikaans nation. I was a Bolander, but I bear witness to the fact that the Free State, since I was a child, had an uplifting effect on me and on all Afrikaners. It is, for us, the cleanest province, if I may put it that way. [Interjections.] To impair that character of the Free State is to impair the nature and the character of the whole Afrikaner nation. [Interjections.]

We are dealing here with a world-wide tendency. After World War II the colonial powers withdrew from Africa and Asia because “Asia must be free”. They all withdrew, and the Indians, the Indonesians and the Blacks of Africa said that the cause of their poverty and misery was attributable to the Whites. All that they needed in order to progress in life was for the Whites to get out. When the Whites left, the millenium did not begin for Indonesia, India and Africa, nor did economic prosperity come. What is happening now? Now the non-White masses— who are in the majority by far in the world-are migrating in their millions to the White countries. They are migrating into America, Britain, Germany and Europe, and now Indians and Asians are doing the same to us. [Interjections.]

Hon members should go and read Jean Raspail’s novel, The Camp of the Saints, if they want to know what is going to happen.

No, we have no time for stories.

In this situation and against that background we say today that we are not prepared to accept this possible massive incursion from the land masses of Asia into our country.

In France, which has often taken the lead in indicating the new tendencies in the Western World, and which was one of the most liberal, most socialist and most communist countries in Europe, there was in a recent election a far-right swing of 10% because there are already between 2,5 million and 3 million Arabs and others from North Africa in France.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 22h30.