Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should just like to furnish particulars of the business of the House for next week. The Second Reading debate on the Railway Budget will be resumed on Monday, 10 March, and the hon. the Minister will reply to the debate on Wednesday, 12 March.

For the rest, we shall follow the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The commission was appointed on 24 June 1976 to inquire into and report on the riots during June 1976 and the causes giving rise thereto. Because the unrest continued beyond June 1976, the terms of reference of the commission were extended on 8 October 1976 to include later incidents as well. The commission’s interpretation of its terms of reference was that it was not expected to make recommendations with regard to what should or could be done to prevent a repetition of the events, and consequently it concentrated on the matter of fact finding with regard to the riots and the causes thereof.

The commission submitted its report to the Government on 22 January 1980. The report was in Afrikaans and its translation into English will still take a considerable time. Initially the intention was to wait until the English version was ready, so that the report could be tabled in both official languages at the same time as is customary. After Opposition Parties had also been consulted, it was decided, however, to table the report in Afrikaans only so that all interested parties would be able to take cognizance of the contents thereof as soon as possible.

The procedure followed by the commission, as explained in the report, testifies to particular thoroughness. For example, at various stages of the inquiry, persons who not only enjoy high esteem in their own communities, but also have extensive knowledge of relevant matters, were co-opted as advisors. In addition to the hearing of formal evidence, the commission collected further information by having discussions with, inter alia, Chief Ministers and other members of homeland Governments, Black urban leaders and experts in various fields.

It is important to take note of the fact that no person was subpoenaed to give evidence before the commission. Therefore, the 563 persons who gave evidence in 26 centres in the Republic, did so voluntarily. Among the witnesses there were principals of universities, members of the teaching profession, researchers, members of church and other organizations, newspaper reporters, politicians, professional men, businessmen, members of the S.A. Police and members of the public who were not attached to any group. The transcribed version of the evidence which was given during the 126 sittings of the commission, comprises nearly 9 000 pages. In addition thereto there were no fewer than 495 items of documentary evidence.

†The commission brought out a comprehensive report of 640 pages, together with a schedule of, roughly, another 400 pages. From a study of the report it is apparent that the unrest and disorder in various centres of the Republic have been investigated in detail. The report itself is evidence of a systematic and meticulous approach. The commission devoted a large part of its report to the prelude to the disorder. As will be gathered from the commission’s findings, this prelude is more relevant to the causes of the outbreak of the unrest than to the continuation thereof. Apart from dealing with the causes of the unrest in 88 pages of the report, the commission also made findings in connection with elements or features of the riots as well as the consequences thereof. I want to extend my Government’s sincere thanks to the chairman and sole member of the commission, the Hon. Justice Mr. P. M. Cillié, as well as to those who assisted the commission in the execution of its mandate in a professional or clerical capacity, for the thorough and meticulous manner in which the inquiry was done and the report was drafted. They carried out their most difficult and onerous task with dignity and skill.

My task today is to introduce the report for discussion by this House. I am therefore not going to enter into the debate, that will inevitably centre around certain more pertinent findings of the commission. But I do want to refer briefly to three matters in my capacity as Minister of Justice. The first is the commission’s finding that intimidation in different forms was a major, perhaps the greatest, driving force in the riots. The commission found that even after the initial causes of the riots had ceased to be a reason for its continuation, organized intimidation ensured that the unrest not only continued, but also spread to other centres. That intimidation on such a scale was possible, and successful, is cause for concern, and I want to give the assurance that the Government will consider ways and means of curbing the occurrence and effect of attempts at intimidation in future. I accept that the Rabie Commission, at present inquiring into our security legislation, will take note of these findings and consider making recommendations in this regard.

In the second place, I merely draw attention to the fact that mention is made in the report of criticism levelled against the South African administration of justice and to the fact that the commission found that there was no evidence to show that the administration of justice was a direct or contributing factor in the unrest.

Lastly, I want to refer briefly to the question of compensation. As hon. members know, the State and persons acting on its behalf were indemnified in respect of actions in connection with the unrest during the period 16 June 1976 to 15 March 1977. My predecessor, however, appointed a committee to advise him about deserving cases where the indemnity legislation could have an onerous effect. I previously informed the House, by way of a reply to a question put to me, that I have already come to a conclusion on the final recommendations of the committee, which I received on 6 February this year, and that the Government would soon also take a decision thereon. A list showing the claims submitted to the committee and the cases in which ex-gratia payments are recommended by the committee will then be tabled.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the motion of the hon. the Minister of Justice and thank him for the opportunity he is giving the House to discuss this very important report I also want to associate myself with the words of gratitude expressed by him towards the chairman of the commission for their hard work.

Sir, we can approach this report as if it is a post-mortem of a funeral that took place four years ago, or a fragment of past history. I do not think it would be fruitful for us to adopt that approach here in the House. I believe it is much more important—indeed, vitally important—for us to approach this report against the background of present circumstances and the occurrences that have taken place over the past four years. In this regard I just want to say by way of introduction that South Africa is indisputably caught up in a process of change. The population is increasing willy-nilly; labourers are entering the labour market every year; there is an increasing demand for housing, etc.

We can distinguish between this type of almost involuntary change, almost unplanned change, and deliberate, planned change in South Africa. If we take a look at planned change, there is a bright side and a dark side, as there is elsewhere in Southern Africa. On the bright side there are those who seek diligently every day to bring about peaceful constitutional and socio-economic change. On the dark side there are those who have given up hope of the possibility of peaceful change and who are resorting to taking up arms and to violence in order to try to bring about a radical revolution by means of terrorism and subversion. These two processes of change are running a deadly race with each other in South Africa and both of them are present in South Africa every day. Consequently, if anyone reads this report carefully and looks back over the past four years, he gains a single overwhelming impression: The occurrences of 16 June 1976 and onwards were amongst the most polarizing in the history of race relations in our country. Those occurrences made the dark side of change in South Africa considerably darker and gave it impetus. I do not have to tell hon. members that racial polarization is one of the most difficult conflicts to resolve. It is in point of fact a conflict that cannot be defused through negotiation, for the simple reason that, since mobilization is taking place on a racial basis and polarization is occurring in consequence, people cannot change the colour of their skins in order to resolve the conflict Therefore, it is the responsibility of everyone who is interested in peaceful constitutional change to counteract this polarization. What signs of polarization can we identify if we look back over the past four years? Firstly there are the Black youths who have left the country. Brig. Johan Coetzee, head of the Security Police, says the following in Die Transvaler of 21 September 1979, and I quote—

It has been calculated that there were 4 000 refugees in Angola, Mozambique, Libya and Tanzania after the 1976 riots. Botswana has 1 000 permanent refugees. Since 1976, Swaziland has had 8 000 refugees.

It is important to realize that these Black South Africans are young and that their families are still here in South Africa That is why, apart from the serious atrocity of Silverton, the meaning of the dark side of that event is that those three terrorists were buried in Soweto and not in Moscow.

Let us take a look at the increase in acts of violence. In that regard Brig. Zietsman says that he has calculated that there were 4 000 Black South Africans who had received guerrilla training outside the borders of South Africa by June 1978, i.e. two years after the riots. In addition, Brig. Zietsman says that approximately 4 500 people have been charged under the security legislation of the Republic since 19 June 1976. The Sunday Express of 17 June 1979 referred to more than 40 acts of violence and terrorism since June 1976. Of course I cannot quote all of them, but there are the following examples—

27.9.77: Arms and grenades found by police near Swaziland border.

24.1.79: Unexploded bomb found near Peddie station in the Eastern Cape.

We know that cases are being heard in court at the moment. This is front page news in today’s Cape Times. There is a court case here in Cape Town and another in Port Elizabeth. I could also quote from cases which have been heard in court in the interim and have been reported in the Press. For instance, there is the case of the State v.

Aitken Ramudzuli and Enoch Duma. I quote—

Then there is also the case of the State v. Aaron Sipho Madondo, and I quote—

Then we have the following in John Kane-Berman’s book on Soweto, and this book is generally accepted as an objective analysis of that situation. I quote one extract from the court cases, from the one against the young Setswali—

This is Black mobilization on a racial basis. There we have it. He says this is the direct consequence of the riots that took place. We must look at this report against the background of this process of polarization, that I call the dark side of change in South Africa.

Let us take a look at the method of analysis employed in the report. As the hon. the Minister said, a total of 563 people gave evidence before the commission. However, it is important to note that only 15 of them were Black youths. There were 39 Coloureds, 184 Blacks and 340 Whites. In other words, the vast majority of the witnesses were White, and the findings of the commission are based on their evidence. Consequently we can accept that the Whites who gave evidence tried to identify the causes and presented their evidence to the commission accordingly. The commission also studied 178 court cases, concerning the riots. The report mentions—I am just referring to this in passing—that apart from the financial loss, 575 people died and 5 980 people were arrested as a result of these riots.

What was the cause? A great deal has already been written in the Press about the causes. It is impossible to deal with each one of those causes on merit within the time allotted for the debate. However, the commission distinguishes between two types. This is a very important distinction. The commission distinguishes between immediate causes and contributory background causes—as the commission calls them. The relationship between immediate and contributory background causes is very much like the relationship between a spark and a powder-keg. The spark may be the immediate cause of an explosion, but if the powder-keg, the equivalent of contributory background causes, is not present, no spark would be able to cause an explosion.

If we read the commission’s report, we see that the immediate causes have been identified fairly clearly. The question of the policy regarding the medium of instruction, the way in which this policy was introduced, the attitude of the officials, the reaction to the officials, police action and the frequent misunderstanding of officials are all immediate factors that, in the opinion of the commission, gave rise to the riots.

The point about immediate causes is that they can be rectified and eliminated fairly easily, because one can identify them quickly and do something about them. In my opinion, although the commission did not touch on it, one of the immediate causes was, of course, the attitude to the riots displayed by the then responsible Ministers. I am not the only one who says so, but in yesterday’s Beeld, for instance, there is a report concerning a conversation that Mr. Grosskopf held with Percy Qoboza, who was also an editor during the riots—

This shows a very reckless attitude, in view of the circumstances prevailing in Soweto at the time.

I have already made the point that I do not believe that a Minister who acts in such a way under those circumstances, is worthy of the responsibility of such a position. However, one of my colleagues will have more to say about that later on.

I am more interested in the contributory background causes. These are the structural circumstances and unless they change, the potential for riots will always be present. In other words: If the powder-keg remains, it is pointless throwing away a box of matches in an attempt to prevent the explosion.

The commission identified a number of contributory causes. I am not going to deal with all of them. Many of them cannot be blamed on the Government or on Government policy; but some of them can. Those which can in fact be blamed on the Government or on Government policy, deserve attention, because they are important. I want to refer to a few of them.

The first is the whole question of influx control. What are the commission’s findings in this regard? The commission discovered that although influx control and related matters were not directly responsible for the riots—therefore not an immediate cause—they were contributory factors nevertheless. I quote—

This is the important point—

Then we come to the question of group areas. The commission says—

Let us also take the question of the Administration Boards and Advisory Boards—

As far as the urban Blacks policy is concerned, I quote once again what the commission discovered in this regard—

Then there is still the whole question of discrimination. The commission puts it very simply—

It is a finding of the commission in regard to the contributory circumstances that played a role here. When one studies this, one thing becomes crystal clear. If we go back through the pages of this report to 16 June 1976, the polarizing nature of the occurrence is confirmed without a doubt. I quote once again from the commission’s report—

It is most disconcerting, however, that although there have been improvements in regard to some of these contributory and immediate causes—we cannot deny this—the most important background factors are still present in South Africa today. Not only are they present, but they form part of government policy. Discrimination is still with us. Group areas are still with us. Influx control is still with us. In other words, there are aspects of government policy that lead to polarization between White and Black, which are on the dark side of change in South Africa, and we can avoid confrontation only if we change the policy.

Now the question arises whether the NP is in a position to bring about those changes. I am asking this question in all seriousness. How many more commissions do they need to convince them that their policy is a source of polarization? We have the Sharpeville report of Mr. Justice Wessels. This was published a long time ago, almost 20 years ago. In that report we find the following—

There is also the report by Mr. Justice Diemont on the riots in Langa. In this report he says—

Then we also have the Snyman report on the riots in Paarl. I quote from it—

I quote from the Snyman report on the riots at the University of the North—

It is the commission that says so, not I. The Erika Theron report also showed the degree of polarization that was caused as a result of this. That is why I say that for the sake of all of us, the NP must quickly decide whether it wants to work on the bright or the dark side of change in South Africa. The report of this commission has made one thing crystal-clear, and this is that ultimately our struggle for survival will not be decided beyond our borders, but in our cities, in our towns and on our farms where Black and White will be forced to work out a peaceful form of existence or destroy each other. This is the only real question that deserves meaningful political debate in this House. But now I see that a new debate has been launched by the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism. Today the new debate within the NP concerns the question whether Coloured people may play against other teams in Craven week. We cannot afford to argue about such things in times like these. I find it extremely encouraging that the hon. the Prime Minister has given a straightforward opinion on this in a statement issued by his office. I want to quote from this statement because the hon. the Prime Minister presents the gravity of the situation to us very clearly in it. He says—

And then he says—

If there is one message in the report of the Cillié Commission, it is that we must urgently develop a sense of proportion in South Africa and that we must urgently give attention to these contributory causes, causes that are still present and that may cause the occurrences in Soweto to recur, because we are going to be burdened with the responsibility of ensuring that the dark side of change in South Africa is removed so that a meaningful debate may take place, not only between us in this House, but also between us and those people outside the House who are interested in peaceful change. It is our responsibility to do so. If we are going to waste our time by arguing about who should play rugby against whom, then the Greek idiom is true, viz. those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first send mad.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion of the report of the Cillié Commission is a very serious discussion. It is a serious debate. I want to say that we on this side of the House are promoting this whole issue of the preservation of a sense of relations in every possible way. No one in this country provides better leadership in regard to the preservation of that sense of relations than our own highly appreciated Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha.

As to the question whether the NP is capable of dealing with this situation, I want to state very definitely, but also with the greatest humility, that I am absolutely convinced that the NP is capable of dealing with it. We do not wish to dispute the findings of this commission. It is an important report and I think it is a good report. We should prefer to strive to get matters into perspective, to react positively to findings and in particular, to explain what has already been done to overcome the problems and to satisfy the rightful aspirations of the Black people in this country.

I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I want to convey my appreciation for his having made a responsible speech here. I want to thank him for doing so. If we can elevate this matter above politics as far as possible, it will give me the greatest pleasure.

As far as the question of the young Black people is concerned, I want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the significance of the report of the Cillié Commission lies in the fact that it is not going to pay us to try to score political points off one another or to try to say whose fault it is. This is a matter of national importance. We are all involved in this matter—White, Black, Coloured and Indian. If this report, on which I want to congratulate the hon. judge most sincerely for the hard work he put into it and the exceptionally important report he has published, were to have the implication that we in this country were to realize afresh that these problems concerned all of us and that we must all make a contribution towards solving them, then this report will make an extremely important contribution to our history.

I should like to go into each of the findings of the Cillié Commission, and I should like to try to react to the contributory factors and the background which was sketched in the Cillié Report and with which my department of Co-operation and Development was specifically involved.

Let me begin with the homelands system. The report stresses that the strongest opponents of the policy are specifically the leftist organizations. I do not believe that any leader of any of the National States is prepared to concede without hesitation that the territory of his State can be joined in one common package to form a unitary State here. Tradition, customs and the deep significance attached to land, are too strong for that. That is why the whole issue of consolidation is such a high priority for the Black leaders. Land, government and national pride go together. Because the three are indivisible, the Government believes that this policy is sound, is to the benefit of the Black man and White man, and constitutes the only true solution for peaceful co-existence by the establishment of a form of confederation and a constellation of States. Three States have already become independent voluntarily on this basis. Accordingly, when we discuss these matters with one another, let us get the fundamentals straight. The Government states that it sees its way clear to handling this matter—this is our basis and our foundation and we are not in a position to move away from that basis, that foundation, because it is a solid foundation and moreover, there is daily evidence that it is a solid and healthy foundation in practice.

I now come to the second matter, and that is influx control. The aim of the system of control is not to create a sort of embarrassment, irritation and humiliation for the Black men, but, in the light of the well-known economic law of labour demand and labour supply, the social needs of communities and the survival of the economy in the national states themselves, to establish a flow of labour which takes realities into account. According to the findings of the Cillié Commission, Black people have also expressed concern about possible overpopulation of the urban complexes which could occur if this measure relating to influx control were to be summarily thrown overboard.

There is no responsible person in this country who advocates the absolute abolition of influx control as far as I know. I do not encounter this point of view among Black leaders, except when it comes from that side of the House, and then it is extremely irresponsible. Then I have to cross swords with vigour because in my opinion, that is not in the interests of the Black people. It is in no one’s interests, and if one were simply to throw open the flood gates—I am speaking now from painful experience—one would really create chaos here, which no one would be able to control and deal with. Therefore let us understand one another with regard to the basic matters.

Therefore, even before the unfortunate occurrence of the riots, the Government had conducted discussions with the Black leaders with the aim of designing a more widely acceptable method of influx control and identification document. The Government is deeply aware of the inconvenience and disruption to which the individual is exposed and in the nature of the matter I take note of the finding of the Cillié Commission in this regard and regard this as a very serious matter. To me this was nothing new. I declared war on the “dompas” and the pass system long ago—I said it openly and I repeat it today—but we are not merely paying lip service in this regard. After all, the Government has adopted a definite standpoint on influx control on the basis of the findings of the Riekert Commission, by way of a White paper and also by way of an announcement I made in this House at the beginning of this session.

Let me dwell for just a moment on the reference book. We are making a positive effort to improve this situation with as little delay as possible. It goes without saying that every modern State must be able to identify its citizens for innumerable reasons of which I want to mention just a few: For income purposes, motor car licence purposes, transaction purposes, population registration in the sense of births, marriages and deaths, and for election purposes. After all, a State cannot really continue to exist without some form of identification in regard to citizens and other persons in its territory. The issue, then, revolves around the more acceptable and the most acceptable and at the same time meaningful system of identification, and that is what the Government has committed itself to.

This is a complicated matter and requires thoroughgoing consultation with the leaders of the Black States, because whichever system is designed, the citizens of those States will also be affected if they enter the Republic, besides those who are already outside the states in the Republic of South Africa. Accordingly a proclamation was issued in July 1979 to enable the powers of the legislative assemblies of the Black States to be expanded in this regard. This was followed up in August 1979 by a government announcement by myself in which the power to issue citizenship documents was transferred to certain self-governing States. Last year the reference books were amended so that a citizen of a Black State in position of a document issued to him in terms of an Act of his State would enjoy the necessary recognition and the right to be where he was. In this way an effort is being made to eliminate progressively the stigmatic aspect of the “dompas” and to replace it with an identification document which will be of the same nature as that of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. I have already said this, and I repeat it here.

Discussions are being proceeded with in order to reach finality, and when the practical investigation into the issue of the 72-hour provision in Bloemfontein and Pretoria, which is at present under way, has succeeded—and I have evidence before me which indicates that it is going to be successful, although it is very early to make a prediction-—this will result in an ideal state of affairs as regards taking the necessary steps in a meaningful and intelligent way in the interests of all the people of South Africa concerning those two burning issues which the Cillié Commission pointed out to us.

In addition, in order to launch this project I have already approved in principle the purchase of the necessary equipment and material and the incurring of certain expenditure in regard to a new identification document. Therefore we are making progress with this matter, let there be no doubt on that score.

The commission made findings about the administration boards and the advisory boards. I want to say that even before the riots may department was considering the possibility of creating a form of local management for Black people. What are the facts, four years after the riots? The fact is that more than 200 community councils have already been established and still more are in view. This fine development has taken place by way of negotiation around the conference table with the leaders of the Black communities. It was done together with them; not for them. It is on record in this House that I shall introduce the legislation as soon as possible—the departmental processes are already at an advanced stage—to convert the community council dispensation into a system of true local municipal management with provision for additional powers. The needs of the urban Black people in this regard are therefore being taken fully into account and satisfied.

The administration boards have already been reduced from 22 to 14 with the view to streamlining and in order to meet the challenges of the times more effectively. Some of the best instances of relations among and behaviour towards people, of whatever nature, have become a daily feature of these boards. Allow me to say that these boards are at the service of the Black people. The boards have also taken cognizance of the riots. Where they have made mistakes, they are big enough, and we on this side of the House are big enough, to say that we are very sorry about them. We are not perfect. We apologize for the mistakes, but then we do expect the same attitude from the other people who stirred up these things. If it is not too much to ask of us to be prepared to do this, then we can also expect it of them. As far as the administration boards are concerned, this, as well as the findings of the Cillié commission, have led to very positive results.

We are not insensitive people. We are very sensitive to these things, and if there has been or is insensitiveness on our part, then we apologize sincerely for it. We are sorry about it. It is only because we are not perfect people. However, we do try to do the right thing. Just to give hon. members an idea of how attention is constantly being given to the matter of relations by the administration boards, I just want to mention that during 1979 a number of meetings were arranged which I attended personally and where I myself tried to convey the message, in and out of season, that we must co-operate and create a spirit and attitude which is fine, friendly, sound and good. And let me say, in all humility, that we, should climb down a little from our haughty little pedestals, that we should again practise, as human beings, the fine and civilized values of profound humility and a sense of gratitude, and so on, in this fatherland of ours. Perhaps then we should make better progress. Let us not only pay lip service to this question of relations. I have seen 189 senior Administration Board officials attend this large number of meetings, some of which I myself have opened. They took part in discussions and training in regard to this very important matter of relations as far as the Administration Boards are concerned. From there the message was conveyed in a skilfull and controlled way to the subordinate officials, and literally thousands have been reached in this way. Just ask the people of Soweto today to what extent relations have improved in Soweto as a result of the nomination of Mr. John Knoetze and Mr. Louis Rive. A far sounder relationship between the Administration Board and the inhabitants is gradually building up there. The Administration Boards are at the service of the Blacks, and if there are problems, we want to rectify them and we shall rectify them.

As far as the urban Black people and their say in the government are concerned, the commission has made important findings. The hon. the Prime Minister has already declared that he wants to see a place for the urban Black in the Southern African constellation of states. The trail in that direction is already being blazed by way of the system of local authorities. Having a say on a basis which could lead to domination over other peoples is simply impossible. We say that that is not practical politics in this country. Still less, however, does the Government begrudge the Black people being able to obtain a greater say in matters that affect them directly.

We choose the road of local management because it is a sound foundation which can be built on. We prefer segmental autonomy and self-management because after all, one has to learn about these matters. No one is perfect, and what better place to learn than the foundation of good government, viz. self and local management? The Black people welcome this. They are looking forward with longing to this co-operation, which is growing by the day. We see it around us.

I agree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we must not hold a funeral—nor is that necessary—but we must look forward to what lies ahead. I hope that this debate will be an inspiration for us to do what has to be done with fresh dedication in the interests of all our people in this country. Then this debate will be worthwhile, and it will be clear that this report is the important historical report it really ought to be. In this way the local managements are being given the opportunity of performing not merely local functions but also more important functions than purely local ones.

The Cillié Commission also made important findings concerning the issue of citizenship—a source of great anger to the Black people. As regards the matter of citizenship, no urban-dweller is being deprived thereby of his right to be present there or to work. In this regard an in-depth investigation by the government is in progress to solve basic problems which cause people concern and which affect them. The Government has committed itself to doing so. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has appointed a committee of experts in this regard and we hope to have the necessary findings at hand as soon as possible and then to announce the Government’s decision in that regard. The matter is being given positive attention as the hon. the Prime Minister has already pointed out very clearly. The reality of the presence of the urban Black man is recognized, and let me say it, accepted.

The commission quite rightly had a great deal to say about discrimination. The golden thread that has run throughout the Government’s policy over the years—and still runs through it—is the effort to achieve a position where the word “discrimination” cannot have a negative meaning in relations politics. If this word has to be used, it must acquire a political meaning of merely the protection of a person, community or nation as against domination by another on a reciprocal basis.

Friendly discrimination.

In fact, therefore, the need for Government measures should only be based on promoting sound order and government in a multinational country like the Republic of South Africa. Vague references to discrimination in the course of discussions, without defining them properly or offering solutions, should therefore, in my opinion, be avoided. May the report of the Cillié Commission also teach us a good lesson in this regard.

Moreover, my personal creed is that in ordinary private intercourse among people, the relations must be based on Christian and humane values and recognition of one another’s human dignity. I have already announced that a senior official of my Department, Mr. F. B. du Randt, has been entrusted with the task of taking an in-depth look at this matter as regards legislation affecting my Department with a view to repealing measures which are no longer valid in this period, and therefore removing statutory discrimination from the statute book as soon as is practicable. We are engaged in doing this.

The fact that the Government accepted most of the recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions—and many of them were drastic—and is engaged in implementing them positively, shows that the Government is moving with the demands of the time. This is not just lip service, but real, measurable and radical steps that are being taken in this fatherland of ours. In the context of the total picture of what must be done, there is therefore a message of hope and positive action, particularly with regard to the young Black people in South Africa, to assure them, too, of hope for the future. Not only my Department but I personally make it my business to convey to the young Black man in this country a message of hope for the future wherever I can, because the future of my own children and of yours, Sir, depends on whether we are successful in this regard. Let that be a lesson for us in this debate. This is a problem we must tackle, and surely it is not only a problem for me, my Department or the Government, but for the whole of South Africa. The Black leaders say: “Help us to cultivate a meaningful understanding of the important circumstances of this fatherland of ours among our young people.” They cry on my shoulder about the problems of this matter. This is therefore a national problem. All of us must play our humble part. This also applies to the housewife in her situation and the young White child in his. We must also be able to give the young Black people in this country a message of hope for the future. If we succeed in doing so, then we have guaranteed freedom and evolutionary progress for all the people of our fatherland.

The commission has made very important findings about the issue of housing in urban areas. How does the Government handle the housing needs in a developing country like the Republic, and how does this compare with what is going on in other countries? After all, we do not stand alone in this never-ending struggle to provide our population with adequate housing in one way or another. Here we are dealing with a tremendous demographic problem, one which is setting the Treasury escalating demands. After all, the Republic of South Africa does not have inexhaustable sources of finance, and a tremendous population explosion is taking place, particularly among the Blacz people in this country.

What has been achieved? I shall only furnish a few examples, and these must be assessed against the background of the fact that provision must be made for all population groups over a far wider field of need satisfaction than housing alone. During the period from 1965 to 31 December 1979, 144 000 dwelling units were constructed for Black people in the White areas at a cost of R174 million. Surely this is a major achievement. From 1955 to 1 December 1978, 130 000 dwellings were constructed at a cost of R143 million in the Black States. The capacity to keep up with the provision of housing is severely restricted by the fact that the cost of living units has tripled over the past few years.

Accordingly we came up with the 99-year leasehold system. Problems that stood in the way have been eliminated and the system is in operation. This is a matter of major significance. Allow me just to dwell briefly on the 99-year leasehold system for the Black people. Building societies are satisfied with the system as it stands at present. Regulations relating to the registration of leasehold rights have now been promulgated. Staff have been trained and registration offices opened at the offices of the various chief commissioners. After consultation with conveyancers, special facilities for the use of their services relating to the registration of leasehold rights have been obtained. I have already given notice of amending legislation in regard to the approval of the submission of general plans. By the end of January 1980, general plans in regard to 43 000 stands were approved for participation in the 99-year leasehold system and a further 20 000 plans are at present being considered by surveyors with a view to approval. Therefore very rapid progress is being made with the implementation of this scheme and the administration boards are giving their wholehearted co-operation.

I should like to make an announcement in this regard, based on information furnished to me by Mr. Louis Rive. Three months ago it was the considered opinion of consultants that no additional houses in Soweto could be provided with electrical power before the middle of 1982, and that the total electrification project could not be achieved before the end of 1985. [Interjections.] However, it now appears that with the co-operation of Escom—and this was achieved directly by Mr. Louis Rive and Mr. John Knoetze, and I want to convey to them the greatest thanks, appreciation and praise, and that of the Black people—the co-operation of the City Council of Johannesburg and that of the tenderers, it is now possible, in the first place, to provide electrical power to several thousands of dwellings in Soweto within the next six months and also to erect 150 high-mast lighting units, which will light a substantial area at night-time. I have also been informed that the project as a whole can now be completed by the end of 1983. [Interjections.] Mr. Rive also informs me that it is hoped that it will be possible to report substantial progress with housing in Soweto within the foreseeable future. If I were not always being accused of making promises, I would have given this House details of this scheme this morning. [Interjections.] However, I too have learnt a lesson. I now wait until things happen and only then speak about them. [Interjections.]

Then, too, there are various other priorities which are being given positive attention. Often I get down on my knees and ask: “Please slow me down, oh Lord, please slow me down!” [Interjections.] The dispensation with regard to the development of community councils, is, in the nature of the matter, a process of evolution. Due to events in the past I am not satisfied in my own mind that the present power-and financial structures do not perhaps hold out possibilities for irregular conduct. Accordingly, I decided to appoint certain experts under the chairmanship of Mr. Gerald Barrie, the former Auditor-General. Other members of that small committee are H. C. Muller, recently retired accountant and senior partner of a firm of auditors, and Dr. C. F. Boyce, retired Deputy Postmaster-General (Finance and Planning). They have been appointed to make recommendations during the transitional stage of the transfer of powers from the administration board to community councils, with regard to the financial structure which must be developed in order to ensure that the whole process operates in an orderly and regular way. This expert committee will also report on practices and dealings that have taken place in this field thus far, in order to ensure that no irregularities have been committed or have occurred.

In regard to the financing of the administration boards and community councils, a matter which has been referred to by the Cillié Commission in very definite terms, we are now awaiting the Browne report. It will be available within a few weeks. Allow me to say that we have great expectations of this Browne report with regard to effective handling of this financing problem.

I should very much have liked to furnish hon. members with more information about the transport affairs which are also dealt with here. That is very important. However, I can only say that this is a very sensitive matter. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. We are giving special attention to this whole issue of transport. I think hon. members will readily agree with me, in view of the important facts at my disposal, that we have succeeded in handling this matter in such a way over the past 12 months or more that peace has prevailed, despite the fact that there have been serious difficulties on the horizon. There is something I should like to say to this House, and I also want to express my thanks for it If it had not been for the co-operation which I have had personally from Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi and Dr. Mdlalose and also from some of my colleagues, those things could have escalated and difficulties could have occurred. Therefore, let us give the necessary thanks and appreciation and credit where it is due. It is in the interests of their own people, and in the interests of everyone here, to ensure peace and quiet in this country.

The progress we have made in commerce on the basis of the 51:49 partnership is well known. I have before me information which I should like to give the House. It will now have to wait until my vote is discussed. Suffice it to say, however, that I have eight signed agreements on the 51:49 basis for Soweto, plus other agreements for other Black residential areas. However, I do not want to get too excited about this now and then later be accused of making promises which are not fulfilled. However, this is the truth. These things will definitely be brought into being in these Black residential areas as proof of sound co-operation between Black and White. We are therefore making good progress.

I now come to the issue of race relations. The Cillié Commission makes a number of important statements in this regard. The Government wants to appeal on this occasion to every right-thinking person in this country to give deep thought to this matter. We shall never be able to escape the fact that each of us, whether as member of a community or a nation, is only a component of a multinational country. Our way of life, cultures and needs differ, but it has been our consistent approach and philosophy to approach and regulate our mutual relations, whether they affect the individual, a community or a people, in a manner based on humane norms. They must also be based on Christian norms. Here we have an evolution of circumstances, comprising, inter alia, components of centuries-old movements of nations within Africa itself, settlements initiated from outside, treks into the interior and domestic wars, but also, certainly, by the will of the Almighty, if we attach value to the moving Preamble to our Constitution. It contains words which we profess in this House, and that Preamble was also approved by Parliament. This evolution of circumstances has created autonomous peoples and plural communities with very diverse cultures and social interests in South Africa No one can reproach anyone else for this state of affairs.

However, this does not mean that the hand of true friendship and true co-operation has not been extended on both sides or will not be extended in the future, to enable us to develop the soil and the wealth of this fine country and its human potential to the full. I say to the public at large that a wonderful thing is taking place in South Africa: The Black people are being sharpened through their contact with the White people; the Coloured people through their contact with the White people and the Black people; and the Indians through their contact with the Black people and the White people and the Coloured people. We have here a microcosm unique in the world: The Third World and the Western world together in this fine fatherland, the Republic of South Africa. Toynbee has written—

I think he is right.

This great human potential, these various supplementary and rich cultures and the faith of its people are wonderful to me. It is wonderful to me when I come into contact with Black leaders, to experience their faith, their desire that we can solve problems by way of an evolutionary process and not follow the road of revolution in this country. I find it inspiring to speak to them.

We must marshal our human potential and cultures in a powerful effort supported by mutual confidence and positive relations to develop, utilize and preserve the country’s heritage for all its inhabitants, but we must do so without violence, one partner against the other.

To me the report of the Cillié Commission is a wonderful thing. The commission must be to us a warning from God that we must search our own hearts, all of us, and consider what we find there. If those are to be the implications of today’s debate, things will go well with us. I make a similar appeal to our Black people that they, too, should do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who has just spoken has given us a glowing picture of that which he and the Government foresee for the urban Blacks of South Africa. I always admire his ability to make it sound beautiful. He uses those two words “beautiful” and “wonderlik” so well to reflect his own sincerity. The hon. the Minister says he has learnt not to make promises. At least he is making progress and perhaps we shall change his nickname again if he follows these lines!

The hon. the Minister started by appealing for this debate not to be made a political one. He said “Dit moet bo die politiek wees.” However, we are dealing with a political issue. We are dealing with the report of a commission of inquiry which investigated riots, revolution and bloodshed and pinpointed the causes which it found to be behind those riots. 90% of those findings apply to political policies. So, how can one debate a report dealing with the political policies of the Government and debate the reasons for the riots which are tied and linked to those political policies and at the same time keep out of politics? It does not make sense. The hon. the Minister says one must not apportion blame. Surely, one has to seek out the problems and deal with the people who are responsible for them. So, how can one then not apportion blame? The blame rests on the policies and on the people who carried out those policies which led to the situation of June 1976.

Before I continue I should like to associate myself with the words of appreciation to Mr. Justice Cillié. I believe this report is in the highest and finest tradition of our judiciary and that Mr. Justice Cillié has sought beyond superficial issues to find the root causes which led to the riots. I also believe that this report is an honest, factual and fearless one.

I should also like to put one point straight before I continue. Through a strange omission there is no date of the presentation of this report to the State President. It is signed, but the normal date indicating when it was presented, the date of the submission of the report, is missing. Could the hon. the Minister tell us when this report was submitted by the commission to the State President?

I will do so in my reply to the debate.

It is important that we should know that date because if this report has been in the hands of the Government for a long time I believe we are entitled to ask why. If the Government has been aware of these recommendations for a long time this hon. House and South Africa are entitled to know why the report was not tabled sooner. If it has only just been submitted to the State President, it means that this investigation has been going on over a period of four years. Whatever the case may be, I believe it is significant that we should know the factual situation. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister cannot indicate now so that I can either put forward an argument or leave it.

It was handed to the State President recently. Unfortunately, however, I do not have the exact date now.

Thank you. If it was submitted recently I will not pursue the matter any further.

Now, there is a third matter I should like to deal with because I believe it is significant. There has been a debate in the Other Place about this report. The official Opposition in the Other Place asked for the presence there of the former Deputy Minister who was in charge of Black education at the time of the riots, as well as of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who is now in that office. They were told that, in the first place, the hon. the Minister of Public Works and of Tourism, who was then the Deputy Minister, was not attending in the Senate because he was no longer responsible. They were also told that the hon. the Minister who is now responsible, said he was not responsible then and that there was, therefore, no point in his attending the debate. [Interjections.]

I was present in the Other Place and I was willing to take part in the debate. You are talking utter nonsense now.

Well, that is what the official Opposition in the Other Place was informed.

Then you have your information wrong.

I now want to come back to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development when he said one could not apportion blame. I believe one cannot wipe out the record of the history of events. I also believe one has to deal with them in the light of what they mean for the future. One has to find the real essence. I shall deal with most of what the hon. the Minister said in his speech, and I shall deal with it in relation to the specific lessons which I believe South Africa has to learn. I believe they have to be learnt now, perhaps faster than we have ever had to learn before, particularly in the light of the events taking place to the north of us and the pressures within South Africa. We must look at the practical matters which this report has found to lie at the root, not of the riots themselves, but of the atmosphere which combined to make it possible to exploit discontent, hate, resentment, frustrations and to translate them into physical violence and riots. I do not want to repeat what has been said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made a very detailed analysis of the report. As has been said, the language issue was die detonator. What matters is what the components are of the TNT which that detonator ignited. I believe that is what we have to look at here in order to see what the components were of the explosive situation which was ignited by the language issue. In doing that we have to determine to what extent the administration of the Government and of its Ministers was responsible and to what extent the attitudes that were then adopted are still the attitudes today.

After the riots in 1976 the then Leader of the Opposition went to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, and offered his co-operation to try to eliminate the causes. He was told that there was no crisis, that the Government would enforce law and order, that there was no problem and that there was no need to review or change any policies of the Government This report shows that that was totally incorrect The speech of the hon. the Minister who has just spoken, shows that the Government itself recognizes that there is a need to change the policies of 1976. We have to establish to what extent they have really changed, to what extent the root causes have changed, and to what extent the pretty words we have heard here about all the things that have been done, affects only the top—the surface of things—or to what extent they probe down to the very core of the problems. The building of houses is necessary and a good thing, and the introduction of a 99-year leasehold is a step forward. But it does not eliminate the root cause. The root cause is the demand by people to own a house to which they have title in perpetuity. Whilst 99 years is in practice perpetuity, it is the symbolism of it, the fact that they will never own the land on which their homes stand, that counts. Surely that is not an impossible step forward to take. Instead of talking about how good 99-year leases are, why do we not take that extra step and remove the root cause of dissatisfaction of people who feel that they do not belong and are not accepted as people who belong, because they are not allowed to own the land on which their houses stand? I give that as an example of the difference between whether we have got to the root of the issue or whether we are dealing superficially and cosmetically with the problem while leaving the root problem unchanged.

If we look back to what has happened, we see that the Minister who was in charge at that time, in 1976—he is no longer in politics—was honoured with South Africa’s highest civil decoration. The Deputy Minister who was in charge then has since been made a full Minister and he sits here in the House now. It took more than a few years before the officials who had a direct hand in the atmosphere of the time to be removed from their positions in education and in the Administration Board. It is all very well to say that there have been changes, but e even since then there has been a tardiness on the part of the Government to really get on with the job. It has left a credibility gap that has to be eliminated. Night after night we had the usual television parade of officials appearing on television to say that everything was fine—that nothing was wrong. Now, four years later, we find that everything was not fine and that most of the things they were defending have been blown to blazes by this report.

Obviously there is also an overiding executive responsibility. I want to say that I believe that the hon. the Minister who was responsible on behalf of the executive of the time should now pay the price for what happened in 1976.

I believe the hon. the Prime Minister would, if he took the step of removing that hon. Minister, do something which would have an electrifying effect on South Africa. It would show that the Government is serious in its intent to achieve the harmony of which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development speaks. It would remove the symbol in the minds of those South Africans who feel that they are not wanted. It would remove the symbolism of a Minister who was seen to be associated with the language issue at the time, seen to be “hardhartig” at the time, seen not to have listened to warnings at the time having been warned right here in this House by the Opposition at the time. He was also warned from outside, and yet he ignored those warnings and said that he was not told by his officials.

What did the commission say about him?

The commission said that he was not informed by his officials. What sort of a Minister is he if he is not informed by his officials? Why does he not make it his business to find out? I believe that although that hon. Minister has to an extent been politically neutralized by sponsoring the joint Connie resolution in their caucus, on Wednesday, he still represents, in the eyes of many who today are still close to flashpoint, one of the symbols of the maladministration of that time which led to this tragic event in June 1976. I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to dismiss the hon. the Minister whom he himself has had to chastize again this morning in a public statement. As long as that hon. Minister sits in the Cabinet, the promises will not be seen …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he does not realize that this hon. Minister is an enormous force within the NP? [Interjections.]

The hon. member has anticipated me. I see that the hon. Minister has not been totally neutralized by his joint responsibility for the anti-Connie motion. I congratulate him on the fact that he still has a supporter. I was just saying that I can see that many eyes on that side of the House are now looking at the backbencher, at the new hon. member for Koedoespoort as a possible successor as leader of their faction within the NP.

†It is vital that this debate does not end as an exercise in sterile futility, a mere historic record of a disaster caused by Government policies which failed, which were resented to the extent that they created an atmosphere of tension which could be exploded.

I now wish to deal with the hon. the Minister of Justice’s introduction of this motion when he spoke of intimidation as being the root cause. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training this week in the Other Place claimed intimidation as being one of the major causes. However, on page 624 of Vol. 1 of the report of the commission of inquiry, paragraph 26.1.2, the commission finds—

In other words, intimidation was what was used to exploit the situation. It was not the cause of the riots. It was used to inflame a situation that was caused by other things, by political policies.

I do not intend dealing with them in detail, because I do not have the time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to most of them.

It is our task, in this House now, to make sure that 7 March 1980 is not more tragic than 16 June 1976, because it can be more tragic if this House debates this report, finds that it is mere history and everything is now fine, and washes its hands of responsibility. I believe this House will then have done something as dangerous, if not worse, than 16 June 1976, because, while having the facts before it, it will not have acted upon the knowledge of those facts. What we have got to establish is whether all the root causes of June 1976 have been eradicated or not. If I am cynical about the pretty pictures the hon. the Minister painted, I have had 32 years of justification for being cynical of this Government We want more than mere promises, than castles in the air. We want assurances—promises, if one would like to call them that—that the Government sees, recognizes, and is prepared to take the action to remove the causes of discontent. Or is the Government still paralysed by the mental block of apartheid which seems to hamstring them?

We cannot again risk a situation where bad intelligence fails to identify an explosive situation. I cannot understand how, with all the security forces we have, this situation could not have been identified. The hon. the Minister of Police is completely wrong when he says there was no blame placed upon the police in the Cillié report.

I never said that, and you know it.

I believe we have got to look at our intelligence services. Instead of tapping phones and opening letters they should be trying to find the root signs of unrest which could lead to another Soweto. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the hard facts. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has dealt with influx control, but he knows he has not removed the resentment and bitterness. The hon. the Minister knows that it is not anywhere near even lessening the feelings of antagonism and bitterness. [Interjections.] It is just the same old refrain: “We are going to do it one day, we are going to do it.” Soweto was four years ago, yet we have only now got committees investigating it. The root cause remains however. There is still bitterness and resentment.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has made it clear that the policy of urban Blacks receiving their political rights in the homelands still applies. The hon. the Minister will give them no more than municipal rights where they live.

That is not true.

Do I interpret it correctly, viz. that the rest of the rights of the urban Blacks will be exercised in the homelands or in the constellation, that they will have no more than municipal rights where they live? That basic feeling of having no say, of having “geen seggenskap in die gesag oor hulle”, that same resentment and bitterness, has not been eliminated. We have not yet received any clear undertaking that it is going to be eliminated.

I have referred to freehold title. The language issue will be dealt with by one of my colleague. There is still too much arrogance in dealing with people. The hon. the Minister recognizes this, but the Government must take action against people who act arrogantly. The Government must set the example and see that their instructions are carried out.

I have not time to go on to citizenship, law enforcement, hurtful discrimination, etc. Basically it is the lack of “seggenskap”, a lack of redress through the democratic process of government which is the ultimate authority over them which is the key. A surprising gap in this report—it was evidently not raised—is the labour aspect. I do not have the time now to deal with this field of trade unionism and job reservation. When one looks at it, what has fundamentally changed? There have been administrative improvements, but the basic structure remains as it was then.

Why did we have no real problem in Natal? It is because of the atmosphere and I believe that the discipline of Inkatha played a major part in retaining stability there. But where there is not an organization like that, it was proven that the structures which existed, such as the control mechanisms of the authority of the State at different levels, failed to provide the stability and the leadership which was necessary.

I want to conclude by stating what I believe should still be done. I have said that I believe that the hon. the Minister who was responsible at the time should go.

Leave my leaders alone!

It would be an electrifying act of significant symbolism. I believe that we should have an Erika Theron type of commission to identify the different categories of urban Blacks and their aspirations. We should identify the permanently urbanized Black, the permanently resident Black who still has roots in the homeland and the migrant. I believe that we should involve all groups in consultation on the constitutional future of South Africa. We should involve Blacks as well as Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Unless we involve the urban Black we will not have removed the major basic causes of the atmosphere which led to the explosion. If we do exclude the urban Blacks from what is the common ground of South Africa we will be inviting the repetition of an atmosphere which can be exploited by agitators and revolutionaries.

I believe we must respect and accommodate—that is the important word which is missing—ethnicity, but bring participation in decision-making together at the top. I believe that South African citizenship is the right of every citizen of every colour and that any artificial dispensation which does not accept the fact of the right to South African citizenship will be rejected. I believe that in our administration we have got to give the moderate leaders of South Africa the weapons with which to fight their own radicals, and those weapons must be real achievements. We are not now giving that weapon to the real moderate leaders of South Africa to use against their own radical elements.

Concessions made under pressure are fatal. We have got to act because it is right to act and not as a concession to pressure. I believe—and I called for it last year—that the hon. the Prime Minister should establish a Council of State bringing together the homelands and South Africa in a forum where we can plan together a truly national strategy, a truly total strategy to design a common destiny for South Africa. I believe that unless we do this, the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative is doomed to failure. Unless we can get to the festering sores, cut out the causes and heal them fully, this debate and this report will be seen to have been a waste of time, an admission that South Africa has not learnt its lesson. If we act it can set us on a new road to the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are discussing a very important report today. It is very clear, too, that the judge went to a great deal of trouble with this report. It was undoubtedly for practical reasons, that it was not possible for the judge to submit his report earlier. Consequently the official Opposition and the other Opposition members must recognize that whereas the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development stood up here today and put forward certain ideals for the future, he did not do so in the light of the report by the judge, but that these things were already taking place while the judge was conducting his investigation. It would have been only fair for the official Opposition and the hon. leader of the NRP to concede that.

A second important matter that we should bear in mind, is the judge’s own statement in his report that he carried out an investigation and made certain findings, but that he did not make any recommendations. I shall deal with other aspects of the speech by the hon. leader of the NRP later. If it is so that members of the Opposition parties accept, as the judge said, that there were other causes and not only the language question—I shall come back to that in a moment; I just want to make a general statement first—then it is only fair that they also accept what the judge stated in his report, viz. that intimidators became involved at a later stage and dragged in all kinds of other things.

However, in his report the judge did not state what those people wanted. So if the official Opposition and the NRP want to criticize the Government for its policy today because the judge identified certain policies of the NP as possible contributory causes, those hon. members must tell us what those people who carried on with their intimidation after the initial action by the people, ultimately wanted. Did they want the policy of the official Opposition or that of the NRP? We are being criticized on account of our policy and it is said to be offensive. I wish to repeat that the judge did not say what those people wanted. He did not say what was to be done, either—he did not make any recommendations.

The two Opposition parties have sided with the judge. I also agree with the judge. I have no quarrel with him. But I want to show up the two Opposition parties. If the policy of the NP gave rise to the causes, they must tell us today what those people wanted. Did they want the policy of the official Opposition or that of the NRP? It is very easy merely to criticize our policy and not to tell us what the young people really wanted.

I also deem it appropriate that we remind hon. members that in the early ’seventies, too, we had debates on student riots. Surely we all know what happened throughout the world in the late ’sixties and early ’seventies as far as student unrest is concerned. Surely we noted the features of those student riots and certainly we, too, had the aftermath here of things which came to us from Europe.

It is very easy simply to get up here and state, as hon. members did, that the matter will be solved if the hon. the Prime Minister dismisses the then Deputy Minister from the Cabinet. That is political opportunism. Just look at the official Opposition after all the dismissals from their ranks. Where is the hon. member for Yeoville at this stage?

Outside the House.

Where is he sitting? Did that improve the situation opposite at all? In addition, the official Opposition and the NRP have such a long, ragged name that one should simply find them a short name, something like “Nonsense”! [Interjections.] They cannot come and argue with us and demand the hon. the Minister’s head just because of the riots.

I now want to consider very seriously what the judge said. Let us summarize all the factors. The judge stated that the factor which caused the first unrest was the language medium in Black secondary schools, and that the resistance began in Soweto. That was the initial cause. [Interjections.] In no other part of South Africa where unrest subsequently occurred were there indications that the language medium was at all a problem. So if the language medium issue had been the spark in Soweto, what was the spark in the other areas? I do not want to deal with this particular question today, but we must also take a look at what the judge says about the role played by certain members of the clergy here in the Cape Peninsula for example. Surely we cannot have our bread buttered on both sides. Surely we have to look at other things as well. Let us accept, for argument’s sake, that the language medium issue was the spark that ignited the riots in Soweto.

That is the first time you have admitted that.

The judge also says in his report that it is generally accepted that shortly after that spark, the question of the language medium policy was settled satisfactorily.

[Inaudible.]

I know that hon. member is dying to speak. I am now going to interrupt my argument for a while in order to tell that hon. member something. Since that hon. member is the hon. member for Pinelands, he should reply to what the judge has to say in his report about the role played by the clergy in the riots here in the Peninsula.

The Pope of Pinelands.

If those hon. members—and I associate myself with it—accepted the report of the judge, as we on this side of the House did today, and the judge tells us that a week after the spark, that irritation was removed, we must find out why those things continued. Why did the riots go on? There are two very clear categories that we are dealing with. A local riot on the language medium which was sparked off in Soweto, did in fact exist. We accept that. But then other things were added. After that it was no longer only a question of the language medium. According to that hon. member it was then the whole policy of the NP which sparked off the riots.

That is correct. Read the report.

I did read the report. The hon. member need not worry about that. I think I read it more thoroughly than the hon. member did. What does the judge say in his report about how the riots were carried on? The judge mentions demonstrations, organizers, boycotts, strikes, the distribution of inflammatory pamphlets, speeches, instigators, etc. The judge states precisely which categories of people did this. So if all those people participated in the riots which resulted from the policy of the NP—I should prefer to say, aspects of the policy of the NP—why did the riots occur at that particular time, for surely the NP had for a long time in the history of South Africa pursued the same policy, and yet we did not have such riots during that time? We did have isolated incidents of rioting in South Africa, but in the 30 years that the NP has been in office, law and order has been maintained and there has been progress in this country. In a sense even the Opposition in this country flared up.

Yes, it burnt itself out.

Now we must ask those hon. members: If we take it that these people rebelled against influx control, could those hon. members tell us what these people wanted as a substitute for influx control? Then the hon. members must tell us what they wanted. At the same time they must tell us whether there would have been any possibility of protest marches, strikes, etc. as regards their policy of influx control if they were in office.

Surely we cannot just hurl accusations indiscriminately, and keep depicting this side of the House as the pariah of South African politics. As far as influx control is concerned, this side of the House is today still implementing measures which the Whites of this country demanded as far back as the ’thirties and which were eventually introduced in 1945 when not this side of the House, but the United Party was in office. It was during their period of rule that the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act was passed. It was not this side of the House which implemented section 10 and the 72-hour measure. It was the United Party which did so.

The hon. member for Houghton is now getting agitated, but the point I want to make, is that it is irresponsible for a political party in this House just to criticize this side of the House and to say that our policy resulted in the Blacks rebelling, but not saying what the rebels wanted. They also fail to tell us how the rebels would have reacted if they had been in office. Those hon. members must now tell us that, if they claim to know what those people want. They must state whether they would be prepared …

But the report points out…

The judge pointed out to us that these people did not like the influx control measures, but the judge did not say that they were opposed to the whole idea of influx control. The hon. member should go back to the report; there are aspects which they do not like. [Interjections.] We can go on and review the whole issue of discrimination. If we regard discrimination merely as a concept and name it as one of the irritating factors, then I have no fault to find. Discrimination is always an irritating factor, but hon. members cannot mention any community of whatever kind in which discriminatory measures or attitudes do not occur. We need only look at the Rand Park Club. I do not take it amiss of these people. But what am I trying to illustrate? In discussing discrimination, I want us to take a look at the history of this side of the House in so far as the elimination of discrimination is concerned. Even before 1976 this side of the House was committed to move away from discrimination. This side of the House has moved away from discrimination so rapidly in recent times that even this side of the House has encountered problems. I admit that this side of the House has sometimes encountered problems as a result of that.

Those hon, members are not prepared to accept the political consequences if one acts precipitately without heading the political climate in South Africa and the people of South Africa.

We must realize that if we want to move even further away from discrimination there are nevertheless certain things which we must retain for the sake of the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians themselves. We cannot simply move away and then state that all discrimination is to be eliminated. If they attack us on those grounds, those hon. members must tell us what those people who instigated the riots in fact wanted, and whether they would be prepared to give those people what they wanted. We are being told today that we should throw our policy overboard and that they will rectify the situation with their policy.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated his case in a dignified manner today. I have no objection to that, and I think he gave a good account of himself. But he must not think that I am becoming flirtatious, because that will never happen. However, it will serve no purpose to disparage this side of the House in this so-called calm and dignified manner and then, with the same calm and dignified manner, fail to state one’s own side of the matter. I can go even further and point out how we are attacked in respect of each of these matters. But hon. members opposite never stated what these instigators wanted and what the position would be if they were in office. Surely it is only fair to expect those answers from them.

There are many more things which I should have liked to discuss. Unfortunately my time has expired. There is just one more thing. Hon. members of the Opposition must not think that they can prescribe to the NP and to the hon. the Prime Minister who should and should not serve in the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to a remark made by the hon. member for Durban Point to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training to the effect that he had said in the Other Place that intimidation had played such an exceptional part in the unrest, I should like to react The hon. member for Durban Point saw fit to quote from the report in order to substantiate his allegations. However, I maintain that the hon. member for Durban Point deliberately neglected to quote the rest of the story. If he had done so, we would have seen the whole matter in the correct perspective. The hon. member for Durban Point quoted from paragraph 26.1.2, on page 624 of the report. However, he quoted only the first sentence, which reads as follows—

However, he omitted to read aloud the rest The paragraph read further as follows—

At the end of the same paragraph Mr. Justice Cillié reacts by saying—

I maintain that the hon. member for Durban Point quoted the first sentence only purely and simply to motivate his line of thought. However, he omitted to place the matter in its true perspective by quoting the rest of the paragraph. [Interjections.]

In this morning’s edition of The Cape Times I read the following—

I agree that something is certainly radically wrong, but now I want to argue that that something that is radically wrong, is not caused by Government policy, but by the actions of certain people who are not favourably disposed towards the survival of all the various population groups in the Republic of South Africa. These are the intimidators and inciters. In the time at my disposal I shall try to come back to this.

I maintain that the question of the medium of instruction—i.e. the policy of the use of Afrikaans and English on a 50:50 basis in the content subjects, the only subjects in which it was used in this way—was not itself the reason for the uprising.

Furthermore I want to maintain that the uprising of 1976 cannot be seen as the reaction of all the Black people to the Government’s policy. In Soweto itself, as well as in the report, there is in fact sufficient proof that it was only a group, and principally the children, who were misused by unscrupulous agitators and inciters with the purpose of continuing the uprising that had arisen. The fact that the uprising continued after the question of the medium of instruction had been solved within two days after the march, confirms this statement of mine. Throughout the uprisings the majority of the adults did in fact go to work, while many of them were prepared to continue with their work in the midst of intimidation.

However, what are the facts? The commission said that the policy in respect of the medium of instruction in Black secondary schools and its implementation was one of the immediate causes. I want to deal with that. What was the policy concerning the medium of instruction in 1976? Children in the primary classes up to and including Std. 6 had the mother tongue as medium of instruction. At that stage Std. 6 was still part of the primary school. In the secondary schools the mother tongue was used in non-examination subjects. The language subjects, i.e. Afrikaans and English, were presented in the language itself. In content subjects Afrikaans and English had to be used “where possible”—this is contained very clearly in the policy.

What is the motivation for this policy? I do not want to go into this matter in depth, except to say that in respect of the mother tongue in the primary classes this is a universally accepted educational principle proclaimed by no less a body than the Unesco Committee in their report of 1953. Furthermore I believe that no comment is necessary concerning the language subjects that are taught through the medium of the language in question.

As far as the content subjects are concerned, the policy stipulates that “where possible”, equal use should be made of Afrikaans and English. The motivation for this was explained very clearly at that stage. This is the case because the pupil, as far as his communication ability is concerned, must be prepared for the spheres of employment in which he will probably find himself. Hon. members know that Afrikaans is used up to 60% as opposed to 40% for English. To confirm this, for the benefit, too, of the Black pupils and school boards, the Minister was quoted in the departmental circular No. 10 of 1970 by the Secretary as follows—

The school boards and Black educationalists knew about this and there is no doubt that it is a sound point of view which is only in the interests of the Black people themselves.

In departmental circular No. 2 of 1973, however, notice is given of an opinion poll to determine whether Afrikaans or English or both could be used as medium of instruction at a particular secondary school, in the light of the fact that it should be done as far as possible in both languages. The outcome of this is extremely illuminating. School boards made recommendations in this regard which indicated—and we find this in the report—that 61% of the school boards in the Transvaal recommended that it should be done on a 50:50 basis, as opposed to only 34% of the school boards that said that only English should be used. In the Orange Free State, 91% of the school boards said that it should be done on a 50:50 basis, as opposed to only 4% who said that only English should be used. In Natal 40% of the school boards were in favour of the 50:50 ratio as opposed to 59% who advocated English only. In the Cape Province 37% of the school boards were in favour of a 50:50 ratio, whereas 56% advocated the use of English only.

However, I want to concede that this particular circular caused misunderstanding in the sense that school boards were of the opinion that they were entitled to decide. That is regrettable, although the matter was rectified in various circulars.

It is clearly stated that English and Afrikaans should be used “where possible”. Now the reasonable question is how this policy was implemented in the context of the words “where possible”. I want to say that exemption was granted very readily. The norm applied when exemption was applied for, was that there had to be sufficient teachers proficient in the use of these languages who could teach the subjects in those languages.

What is the position in respect of these exemptions? In 1976, Afrikaans was not used as medium of instruction in 22,7% of Std. 5 classes in Soweto’s schools. Afrikaans was not used at all in 22,9% of the schools’ form I classes; 36,4% of the schools’ form II classes; 54,6% of the schools’ form III classes; not a single school’s form IV classes—and this is important—and 90% of the schools’ form V classes, which is equivalent to matric in the White schools, did not use Afrikaans at all. Surely it is clear on the basis of these statistics that the use of Afrikaans as medium of instruction did not play such an important part. Furthermore I want to say that examination results in Soweto and throughout the country demonstrate that Black people fare better in Afrikaans than in English.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was saying that the medium of instruction question was only used as an instrument by communist-inspired organizations to achieve their goals. I want to give only two more reasons for saying so. Seven of the secondary schools that participated in the uprising in Soweto only offered English as a medium. Consequently there was no question of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction at those particular schools. Furthermore, the department carried out a survey in 1975 which indicated that 95% of the subjects offered at senior secondary schools in Soweto were offered in the medium of English only, whereas only 5% of the subjects were offered through the medium of Afrikaans.

Mention was also made in the report of the fact that the question of incompetent teachers played a notable part The problem here is this: If it was to be determined whether such a teacher was incompetent to use the language or not, then it was the duty of the school board to carry out this investigation. What does one in fact do if such an investigation is ordered, the investigation takes place and the teacher himself, as well as his headmaster, as well as his ring inspector, confirm that he is competent to teach the subject in that particular language, but the children as such maintain the contrary? Then my question is: Who is one to believe: the children or the teacher, the headmaster and the ring inspector? I want to leave that aspect at that.

As regards organized resistance, it is very clear from the report that there were various organizations who took it upon themselves to launch this resistance. It is important—I have already made this statement—that the scholars were misused for these purposes. I want to indicate what the age distribution of the scholars is and I shall only mention the fact that in primary schools in 1976—these are Black schools throughout the Republic—there were 2 431 primary scholars who were 19 years and older, In the secondary schools there were no fewer than 24 177 scholars who were 19 years and older. I mention this fact because hon. members will now understand that it was very easy for the agitators to misuse these scholars who had indeed reached a very advanced age, in order to achieve their aims. In contrast to that is the illuminating statistic that in the same year, 1976, 47,5% of Black teachers at schools were under the age of 30 years; in other words there were a number of teachers who were more or less in the same age group as the scholars, something which in the nature of the matter contributed to making discipline extremely difficult for the teacher to cope with and impose on the child.

As regards the handling of this resistance, I want to point out that the officials were dealing with rebellious scholars and unhelpful parents. To me, the irony and the really shocking aspect of this whole matter was that the parents of the children of Soweto suddenly realized that they had lost their children at the hands of agitators. This is beyond all doubt, and I am also aware that some of those parents are upset about that. The lesson to be learnt from this is that the Black parents in these areas also have to guard against their children falling into the hands of other riotous elements.

It is clear to me, having studied the report, that the officials had to implement the policy and also very much wanted to do so, and that they wanted to do so sympathetically. The proof of this is that we had many exemptions in respect of the applications sent in by the schools. As a result of the major part played by the agitators, officials believe that the pupils were not so dissatisfied and thus not so enthusiastic to participate in the uprising.

My time has almost expired and I only want to say in conclusion that since 1972 a comprehensive programme has been introduced and launched to the benefit of Black education in this country. In this process we are doing this as rapidly as possible with the problems and restrictions and all we have in the execution and achievement of that goal. The unfortunate situation arose in 1976 and what was the result? Unfortunately the Black scholars themselves were the victims of these unfortunate circumstances because the achievement of these fine goals which the Government is working towards, has been delayed a long time. School buildings were burnt down, some of the teachers resigned and some of the scholars simply refused to attend school, with the result that these people themselves are the victims. I believe that if there is a lesson to be learnt among other lessons about good, sound relationships which we shall certainly have to cultivate, it is that there is no benefit to be derived from this type of protest and incitement, because eventually one prejudices oneself by doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Virginia seems to know better than the hon. judge who submitted the report. There is quite clearly a contradiction between the hon. member’s argument and the report. I shall come back to that point and try to demonstrate what I mean. First of all I think I have a responsibility, and obligation, to reply to one or two questions raised by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, because instead of a voice raised in somewhat strident terms, his was today very much a cry, an appeal for help. The first question he asked was what the young people in Soweto really wanted. If they did not want what they were receiving under this Government, what did they really want? Did they want our policy? Did they want the policy of the NRP? The tragedy of course is that in this stage of our history we are still asking such questions, and displaying our inability to communicate directly with Black people. [Interjections.] One of the main reasons for that is that we have simply not allowed the natural Black leadership to develop in order that they may state frankly and fearlessly to the Government where they stand. [Interjections.] That is the first point. I would like to say to that hon. member that we in these benches are prepared to accept the challenge. Why can we not, if you like, have a referendum in Soweto and elsewhere? We could submit the basic policies of the three parties, and then ask them which of these three policies they would prefer as a basis for future negotiation.

What would you advise them?

We are prepared to take the risk of submitting our policies.

That is not the point.

That is the point. [Interjections.] I am offering the hon. member an opportunity to do that, and if he does not want to accept that challenge, it is his business. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also says the language problem was only really present in the Soweto area, and he cannot understand why so much destruction and loss of life took place in many parts of the country. Has the hon. member not read the report? [Interjections.] The hon. member asks what the reasons are. I shall tell him the reasons; they are listed in the report. They are: A general air of dissatisfaction amongst Black and Coloured people throughout the country, in both small and large places; the problem of influx control; the Group Areas Act—particularly in Stellenbosch and Mossel Bay, and I am reading directly from the report…

In Mossel Bay?

Yes, Mossel Bay as well. [Interjections.] Further reasons are: The attitude of the Administration Boards officials—and this was a reason in many places—the whole problem of what it means to be an urban Black; discrimination … Discrimination is another reason. Just listen to what the report says about discrimination—

There are the reasons—they are clear and plain. One does not have to go beyond the report There are many other reasons, and if I had time I could deal with them all.

When we look at the report of the Cillié Commission, it recalls a moment of great tragedy in the life of this country, particularly when we bear in mind the number of people who were actively involved, the widespread nature of the trouble, the duration of the trouble, the number of people killed, the number of people injured, the number of people arrested and brought before the courts, the amount of damage inflicted, the effect on race relations and the economy, the effect on external relations between ourselves and other countries, the number of Blacks who have left the country as a result and when we bear in mind the number of Whites who have left the country as a result of all these events.

It is true that this is a moment of great import for our country, and whilst it is to be regretted that it has taken so long to see the light of day, we are nevertheless glad that we have it before us, because there is a thread which runs throughout the report which makes it very clear that the Government’s policy in relation to more than two-thirds of the total population of South Africa has failed miserably. This report is a grim reminder of what is inevitable when a Government seeks to govern without the consent of the governed. It is a report which actually ought to be etched in black for it speaks of death, of injury, of destruction, of imprisonment and flight. Quite sincerely, there are the 575 people who died needlessly and who, if it were possible are listening to the debate. More important: Their parents, brothers and sisters, families and their friends are also listening to this debate, and what happens here today will in large measure determine their actions and their decisions regarding the future. Therefore I would hope that we will not stay in 1976, but that we will come through to 1980 and ask whether it is possible for an incident which started in such a comparatively small way and grew to such enormous proportions, to still happen today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I cannot answer any questions as my time is extremely limited.

You put a lot of questions to other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I did not ask one single question. The report also makes mention of causes, and there is an obvious distinction between primary causes and structural causes. At the top of the list of factors which was an immediate cause—and I come now to the hon. member for Virginia—which led to disorder is “die voertaalbeleid in Swart sekondêre skole”. No one has ever suggested that this was the primary reason for the unrest which began on that fatal day, 16 June 1976, but we said at the time—Hansard will show that and the commission confirms it—that the so-called 50:50 language requirement triggered off the riots which in large measure was the outcome of years of grievances and discontent.

You are a hater of Afrikaners.

For years the Black and Brown people have been sweltering under an oppressive régime and the language issue was the spark which led to the fires of destruction which for a few grim months was like a veld-fire out of control.

Why are you reading this particular speech? You do not normally read your speeches.

Oh, stop yelping, man!

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a clever question. It is true. I constantly have to refer to the report of the Cillié Commission itself, and if I am reading a little more than usual, it demonstrates my deep concern, not only about the terrible failure of the hon. the Minister and the Government, but also because I care for my country and I will not allow this … [Interjections.]

Order!

It is clear from the report that it is not only the language factor, but Bantu education itself, as it was then called, that was one of the primary and immediate causes of the unrest. The report says—

That is very, very strong language indeed. One can go on to point out that this message was heard again and again by the commission all over the country, according to the commission’s report itself.

Let me finally quote from page 484 (paragraph 9.4.5)—

That is straight out of the commission’s report How does one go against that when the hon. members on the other side say they accept the evidence put before us by the commission? That is a reason given by the commission.

Then we have the audacity of some hon. members and, indeed, even some hon. Ministers who, after briefly saying a few things, immediately shift the focus to talk about instigators. Of course they were there. Let us once and for all concede that both sides of the House accept that fact. Let us not constantly refer to it as though it were something brand new. We accept that fact, but we make the contention, as strongly as we can, that no instigator would be successful if there were no root causes in which he could prey. That is the point The gunpowder was there, liberally sprinkled in the streets of Soweto and elsewhere, and when the fire fell, the whole place went up in flames.

who supplied the fire?

Sir, the tragedy of the 1976 uprising is that it could have been avoided. In the first place the Government has been repeatedly warned that the policy of apartheid was leading Blacks into a situation of utter desperation which could only end in an anger which could not be controlled for ever.

I took the trouble to read some of the debates which followed in the House in June 1976. Obviously, all of us were desperately concerned about the state of affairs. I would refer hon. members to the debate on Monday, 21 June 1976, only a few days after 16 June. Again and again one sees the kind of accusations hurled quite hysterically from that side of the House: It was the Press that was to blame; it was the communist Press, which included the Sunday Times according to one member; the hon. member for Bloemfontein suggested that the main reason was subversive propaganda and gave a long list of such propaganda. Even this particular party was blamed for what took place.

Of course.

Now the Cillié Commission’s report is before us and it lists not our policy but the policy of the Government as being to blame.

When the then hon. Minister of Justice announced that there was going to be a one-man commission of inquiry, there was quite a lot of debate on that. I took part in that debate and asked that the terms of reference include, at least, an analysis of the warnings which had been sounded from this side of the House with monotonous regularity down the years. Year in and year out we warned about the situation existing in the townships in our land. That was dismissed. That was not necessary. In order that we can know that warnings were given but ignored, I want to turn now to the record. First I want to refer to a question put by myself on 27 February 1976, six months before the rioting broke out, and answered by the then Deputy Minister, Dr. Andries Treurnicht. I asked (Questions, 27 February 1976, col. 400)—

1. (1) Whether any school principals have since February 1975 applied for permission to deviate from the fifty-fifty basis in the use of the two official languages as media of instruction; if so, how many;
2. (2) whether any applications were refused; if so, (a) how many and (b) for what reasons in each case.

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

Order! The hon. member has intimated that he is not prepared to reply to questions.

The interesting feature of this question put six months before the riots broke out was the reply given to me by the then Deputy Minister. He said that he conceded that this was taking place but said he could not give all the information. He added, and I quote (col. 400)—

We did not have the information, because that hon. Minister would not give permission and would not instruct his officials to get the information.

Was that in February?

Yes, that was February 1976.

What did you do then?

That was in 1976.

How did you know it, then?

Order!

Now I come to the second question, because we know how to ask important questions, not the stupid questions people like that hon. member asks. The second question I asked was whether any members of the Meadowlands Tswana school board had recently been dismissed, and what for, etc. The reply was that they had been dismissed because their actions were not in the interests of the Bantu community or the education of Bantu. What was their appeal, however? Their appeal was to move away from the 50:50 language medium basis. They were sacked from the board because it was not regarded as being in the interests of Bantu education to have people daring to ask questions like that My third question was asked on 4 June 1976, and I quote (col. 1127)—

I asked for details. That hon. Deputy Minister gave me the details by saying that a total of 1 250 children had boycotted schools. What was the reason? I have it here from the hon. the Deputy Minister—

How are we dealing with it? The answer—

Remember, the number of pupils involved was 2 250. That was part of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Another question by an hon. member who is no longer in this House (Hansard col. 1185 11.6.1976)—

That was 4 June—

The hon. the Deputy Minister answers as follows—

Where did we get that information? We read it in the Press. [Interjections.] That hon. Deputy Minister, however, does not even read the newspapers.

The final question I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister was on 11 June when I asked whether five headmasters had approached him and asked permission to deviate from the 50:50 language medium requirement. His answer was that they did approach him but that no permission was given because they seemed to be able to cope all right. All these questions—obviously I can only select some—had to do with the language issue and, in particular, with Bantu education. The Deputy Minister concerned was, of course, the present Minister of Tourism. It was also this hon. Minister who disregarded the warning given by the Institute of Race Relations by way of a telegram and by way of a visit by Percy Qoboza, and it was this hon. Minister who, one day after 16 June, said, and I quote from an interview in die Beeld—

Then six months later, on 6 February 1977, it was that hon. Minister who was asked by the Sunday Times if he had ever visited Soweto. One must remember the importance of his portfolio. He stated that he had actually been once, during 1976, and I quote him—

Probably other things as well. This is a clear dereliction of duty and there can be only one conclusion, and that is that that hon. Minister must go. He must do the honourable thing and resign, and I call upon him to do so before the end of the debate. If he does not do so, if he refuses to do so, then I call upon the hon. the Prime Minister to sack him in the same way as he sacked Dr. Connie Mulder. The main charge against Dr. Connie Mulder was maladministration. He did not know what was going on in his department I say the same charge is applicable here. That hon. Minister did not know what was going on in his department, and it is dangerous for the Cabinet not to know, it is dangerous for the Government not to know, it is dangerous for this Parliament not to be informed and it is dangerous for all our security.

During the last few minutes at my disposal, I do not want to dwell on 1976. I want to ask the question: Are we any better off in 1980? Firstly, whilst of course there have been improvements in the quality and quantity of Black education, it is still woefully short of what is required. In the course of this session of Parliament I have put two questions to the hon. the Minister. The per capita expenditure on Black children in urban areas in 1978 and 1979, was given to me as being R71,28, which is in very sorry contrast to the amount spent on White children, viz. R640 per child per year. As long as that situation pertains, we are simply not going to go forward. Secondly, I believe that Blacks will always remain suspicious as long as they are under separate departments of education. I want to say that this Government has missed a golden opportunity in not placing education for Blacks under National Education, instead of once again placing it under the Department of Co-operation and Development I urge this Government to learn from its mistakes and to make the changes now. There is no doubt that Blacks are opposed to the Government’s policy, and Black education bears the brunt of it There is the growing militancy amongst young Black people now, and therefore Black education is in the firing line and extremely vulnerable. If that is true, however, it is equally true that Black education holds one of the crucial keys to the resolution of conflict by relatively peaceful means in South Africa What this Government does in the field of Black education, will largely determine whether we go the way of revolution or whether we go the way of reform. Considerable goodwill still exists in this country, but we seem to imagine that we have the money in the bank an that we can draw cheque after cheque without putting anything back into the bank. The Ci lié Commission’s report is a bitter pill for the Government to swallow, but it will have to swallow it, for it is in the learning of this lesson, costly though it may have been in terms of human life and property, that we must realize that sooner or later an oppressed people will give vent to its anger and distress, and the learning of this lesson which can lead to urgent, decisive and significant change in the negotiation with Blacks could lead, I believe, to the healing of a nation, if we are prepared to take that kind of medicine.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. I wish to start off by saying that educational opportunities are most certainly among the most important matters to the children of any nation and of any community. In the case of the Black people of South Africa, it is certainly a matter of paramount importance. Nobody knows that better than we Afrikaners, who also regarded education as a means of advancement, and still do. I therefore wish to state that both my department and the Government approach education in that spirit and disposition.

That is why this department is writing a remarkable chapter in the history of the education of the Black people, with dedication and sacrifice and in co-operation with the Black people. For that reason it is also stated in the Education Act which came into operation on 1 January this year, that the aim is to enable every Black child to develop to the maximum of its potential. We have this report now, and one has to ask oneself what to do with it On the one hand one can single out all the negative arguments, and on the other all the positive arguments. The hon. members on the opposite side have singled out all the negative arguments. I believe, however, that the proper thing to do is to approach this report in a positive state of mind and to see how we can make the best of it.

I therefore wish to deal with the negative arguments raised by hon. members on the opposite side. All the hon. speakers on the Opposition side alleged that this report showed up the policy of the Government as a failure. I wish to remind those hon. members that when these riots took place, and even before 1976, there were attempts by young people and students in educational institutions in many countries, to turn the world upside down. Is that not true? Is it not true that the government of President De Gaulle was shaken by Red Danny, an out-and-out communist? [Interjections.] Is it not also true that in America, the help of the Army had to be called in to contain the riots? Now, I wish to ask those hon. members whether the policy of the South African Government was then being applied in those countries. [Interjections.] Surely they were not applying the policy of the South African Government there? They were applying the policy of the official Opposition there, or a similar policy. [Interjections.] And there were riots. [Interjections.]

Order!

Surely it has not been proved that the policy of the South African Government was not successful. The fact is that there was a revolt against the policy of the day in those countries. Regardless of what that policy was, there was revolt against it The same applied in South Africa.

I now wish to state a second reason why those hon. members have got it wrong. That was also the finding of Mr. Justice Cillié. Everything the hon. member for Pinelands has raised, was considered by the judge. He considered all those things. Mr. Justice Cillié arrived at the following finding—

That is the finding of the judge. [Interjections.] However, hon. members on the opposite side are not interested in seeing this report in its proper perspective. They are interested in doing only one thing. This brings me to what the hon. member for Pinelands has just said with regard to the then Deputy Minister, the man who is now the Minister of Public Works and of Tourism. The hon. the Minister has replied to every single thing the hon. member for Pinelands enumerated. Can the hon. member deny that? The hon. the Minister reacted to all those things. The hon. member received replies. On that, too, Mr. Justice Cillié gave a verdict, when he said the hon. the Minister could not be blamed, that he was innocent The judge stated—

The report exonerates the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Pinelands, however, finds him guilty. But quite the opposite is true. The report mentions that agitators and intimidation were an important motive force during the riots. But members of the Opposition do not condemn them. [Interjections.] No, there is not a single word of denunciation on the part of the hon. members of the Opposition. They did not say that this is an evil that has to be eradicated, something one has to be combated. [Interjections.] No, they are revelling in it. I wish to quote to hon. members what Mr. Justice Cillié had to say about this. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Cillié said … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Cillié stated that intimidation was perhaps the chief motive force in the insurrection. But hon. members of the Opposition wish to deny that. The hon. member for Durban Point quoted only one sentence here in support of his argument that intimidation did not play a role. That is what he did. [Interjections.] The hon. member said intimidation did not play a role at all. [Interjections.] I think what happened was that he happened to read only that one single sentence in the entire report [Interjections.]

Order!

The judge stated—

That took place everywhere. Wherever there was insurrection, there was intimidation. That was the case even before 16 June 1976. [Interjections.] I wish to quote further from what the judge stated—

But hon. members opposite do not agree with this. The judge went on to say—

The hon. member was asked by another member how he had known of certain things on certain dates. The judge referred in his report to the evidence of certain witnesses, and stated—

It was long before the riots that the hon. member put his question. When those pupils knew that riots were going to break out, this hon. member began to put his questions. He asked us how they knew about it I am asking him to tell us how they knew. The judge went on to say—

In other words, a Black man in Los Angeles also knew that riots were going to break out in June and July. I want to ask the hon. member whether he also knew that. I am quoting further from the report—

That was in February. I am asking the hon. member: Did he also know that? [Interjections.] The hon. member said the Minister and everyone else must have known that such a huge uprising was imminent. The judge stated—

The pupils themselves expected that it would not last longer than a day—

In other words, if the pupils did not know that this procession would last longer than one day and that their school attendance would not be interrupted for longer than one day, then how was any person on earth to have known that…

Except the hon. member for Pinelands.

… except the hon. member for Pinelands? If he had known that, it would not have surprised me. I wish to state further—and the hon. member for Virginia also referred to this—that shortly before the riots, an opinion poll was conducted on the question of language medium in education. The hon. member has stated that 63% of the school boards throughout the country had expressed themselves in favour of the policy as it was at the time.

What does the report say?

It is stated on page 49 of the report that an opinion poll had been conducted.

I wish to refer to the question of the language medium. The commission found that the implementation of the language-medium policy had created misunderstanding and dissatisfaction among the people of Soweto. The commission also found that at the time when the talks with the Minister took place shortly after the commencement of the riots, the question of Afrikaans could no longer have been a grievance or a reason for insurrection. In other words, shortly after the start of the riots, that grievance had been eliminated. The hon. member for Virginia has indicated that Afrikaans had not been the medium of instruction at the secondary schools in Soweto where the riots occurred. In areas such as the Cape Province and Natal, there was a 100% and not merely a 99% deviation from the policy. Riots nevertheless occurred here, and the question of language medium could not have been the cause here. [Interjections.]

Order! This debate has so far been conducted on a fairly responsible level and I am not going to allow it to degenerate as a result of interjections. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

They occurred in those areas where there had been a 100% deviation from the language-medium policy at the time. It therefore happened while the hon. the Minister was the responsible Deputy Minister of that department. Provision had been made for exemption. There were ways and means of doing so.

The fact remains, however, that it caused misunderstanding, and the question arises: What is being done to obviate similar misunderstandings in future? That is an important question. In respect of this specific matter I can state that it was, of course, already eliminated on 19 June, and there could no longer have been misunderstanding about that. However, one may put this question: What about other matters on which a misunderstanding may arise? How can one eliminate them? The first thing that has to be done, which has also been done in the past, and which is now being taken further, is an improved system of communication. In that connection, my department has established a liaison division, because it transpired during the riots that the Press, who are not educational experts and who would not be in a position to obtain all the information, also blundered in certain respects, and it is therefore important that the correct information should be furnished to the Press. Consequently, this liaison division has been created. We are also getting information from the Press, however. All the offices throughout the country are sending all the press reports written on education to this division of the department, and there they are studied in order to see what has to be done; in other words, in this way we are also making use of the Press to trace all misunderstandings immediately and eliminate them.

We went further and increased the number of regions from five to seven. The number of circuit inspectors and inspectors has been increased in order to establish a greater measure of communication between the local schools and the control organization. We went even further. The decentralization of powers has been taken further in that more powers have been granted to school boards to perform certain functions at the school; in other words, to delegate direct responsibility to the committee that has been elected by the parents.

At present we are also engaged in involving the Community Councils in certain local functions, for example to determine where educational facilities should be situated so as to serve the population best, and to assist us in acquiring the premises. This is also being done with a view to exercising control over certain funds, inter alia, the old levy fund, and to deciding where and how these funds could best be applied in the best interests of that community. The involvement of the communities concerned has therefore been increased. In that respect it is the policy of the Government that people, nations and communities should have a say over their own affairs. That is why, out of this department, which was established in 1959, 10 other departments have already been born, departments charged with 63% of the total Black population for which we were initially responsible. Consequently there is involvement of the people themselves in education.

What were the results of the riots? These were furnished by the judge. One result of the riots was that the damage and destruction of school buildings and equipment merely aggravated the existing shortage of these facilities. The commission stated that the education of the Black child was adversely affected by the riots. It is a pity that this had to happen. It is a pity that they should have been the losers as a result of all these things in which the hon. member revels.

Who revels in them? [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. member was delighted when the intimidators were running amok. [Interjections.] The commission found that education has suffered as a result. I wish to quote examples. The provision of text books and reading books is a programme that was begun in 1974 and had been scheduled for completion in 1977. As a result of the riots it could only be completed in 1979.

The other aspect is the building of classrooms, in respect of which there is a backlog. If it had not been necessary to replace all the classrooms that we now have to replace, we would have been in a far more favourable position today. Those who really suffered were the children. If hon. members were to study the annual report they would see that between 1960 and 1979 there was an annual increase in the number of Std. 8 and Std. 10 pupils who sat for examinations, but not in 1976. That was the only year in which the numbers dropped. They rose in all the other years.

What progress has been made in the field of education? I wish to state as a result of the excellent spirit of co-operation that prevails between the National Education Advisory Council, the Inspectorate—which consists mainly of Black people—and the teachers’ corps, 99% of which consist of Black people, results have been achieved. Results have indeed been achieved. In 1955, when education was taken over by the State, there were 970 000 pupils in primary schools, and by 1975 this number had increased to 3,3 million.

Really?

Yes. That is a growth of 250%. As far as secondary education is concerned, there were approximately 35 000 pupils in 1955, and by 1979 this number had grown to 508 000. That excludes Transkei and Bophuthaswana. That is a growth of 1 350%, and if the figures for those two countries are added, it is more than 1 700%.

What are you trying to prove?

I shall tell you what I am trying to prove in a moment. Let me refer to matriculants. In 1955, when the Government took over Black education, there were 674 Black pupils in matric. That was the starting point From their ranks we had to obtain the candidates to become teachers, to enter the professions, to man the Civil Service and provide the economy with manpower. This number had increased to 23 400 by 1979, and to more than 50 000 by 1980. It is therefore a story of growth. If one considers how many Black people in South Africa are attending school, viz. 22%, it may be said that in comparable countries …

[Inaudible.]

No, I am coming to my point. In comparable countries with comparable conditions, there is absolutely nothing that can be compared with this. [Interjections.]

But why did the uprisings occur, then?

It is therefore a story of growth. I wish to explain why this is so. It is as a result of continual planning in order to apply and implement the best available knowledge in the world. The one factor that can exert an important influence on what can be done and achieved in education, is the question of finance. The method of financing was changed as long ago as 1972. A new dispensation was then introduced, and this has had an immense effect. We have also made great progress with the preparatory planning for compulsory education. Very good progress is being made. For example, as far as the provision of text-books and reading books series are concerned, this stage has already been reached; the same applies to the elimination of double sessions. We have also made a great deal of progress with the reduction of the ratio between the number of teachers and the number of pupils, for example from 58 pupils per teacher in 1968, to 45 pupils per teacher in 1979. Surely that is progress. I invite hon. members to show me anything better under comparable circumstances. In respect of the building of additional schools and classrooms, during the past year alone we built almost 3 400 classrooms. Further progress has been made, for example, in lowering of the admission age, in upgrading initial education, and in introducing differential instruction, which includes remedial education. I also wish to refer to the programme for technical education which arose from the Van Zyl Report of 1975. In every major centre in South Africa today there is a technical centre, a technical institute. In addition to the already existing technikons, the technikon at Mabopane Township enrolled its first students this year. The teachers’ training colleges have a large number of students, and as a result of the fact that we now have 50 000 matriculants, we are rapidly approaching the time when we will be able to stipulate that in future a student will only be admitted to a teachers’ training college if he has a matriculation certificate. Surely that is remarkable progress that has been made. Where in the Third World has anything been achieved that could be compared with this? There has been a vast increase in the number of students at our Black Universities. Last year, the University of Fort Hare branched out to Zwelitsha and that branch began with more students than the University of Fort Hare itself had after 50 years of its existence. That gives hon. members an indication of how rapid the progress has been. We are also making tremendous progress with industrial training. In respect of adult education, we have converted just about every single school into an educational centre for adults. Teachers can improve their qualifications there, and older people who never had the opportunity, can qualify themselves and improve their qualifications there.

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

No, Sir, not now. All this progress and advancement has been attributable to dedicated planning on an ongoing basis since long before 1976. Since the establishment of this department, it has been its ideal to achieve all these things and to achieve even greater things in future. Consequently, I reject the allegations made by hon. members on the opposite side of the House that it is the policy of the department to keep the Black man down by means of his education. That is statement base and I reject it with contempt. All the activities of the department indicate that what they are saying is untrue and that the opposite is true.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “base statement”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, for three and a half years we have been waiting for this report to be tabled. Now that we have the report before us at last we find that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has failed dismally to use this opportunity in the interests of South Africa instead of using it in the interests of his own party. We find that the Soweto riots were discussed in the most important council chambers of the world, and in this regard I am referring to the UN and the Organization for African Unity, and nowhere was it advocated that the NP’s policy should be changed or that preference should be given to the PFP’s policy. On the contrary, we find that the Organization for African Unity used the Soweto riots in an effort to overthrow and undermine law and order in South Africa I think this country would have appreciated it far more if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had come forward with a warning to the radical groups in this country instead of trying to bring his own policy in through the backdoor with the and of this report. I believe the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development stated the matter very well when he said that this was a national matter and that this was not the time to level accusations. The hon. member for Durban Point, who is not in this House at present, referred indirectly in his speech to the police, but only to hammer them in the process. He spoke of the opening of letters, the bugging of telephone conversations and said absolutely nothing positive about the police.

Perhaps I should just like to dwell for a moment on the conduct of the police during the riots. If we examine the report we find in Schedule B, Part 2, that a host of incidents occurred during the disturbances. In the Cape Province alone there were between 400 and 500 single incidents. Now I am not even referring to Soweto, the West Rand, the East Rand and all the other places throughout the country. There was a vast number of incidents of arson, stone throwing, murder, assault and all the attendent violence. The police stood firm in the midst of all these incidents, in order to preserve the peace and maintain orderliness in this country. But so far we have not heard a single word of gratitude to the police from the Opposition.

Schedule F lists the number of people who died as a result of the looting, assaults, resistance, theft and everything that accompanied these violations. The figure is extremely high. It is 575. In the Cape alone approximately 274 people were killed. Once again I want to point out that of the 575 almost half were policemen. In the Cape alone there were 107 of them. I believe that one cannot allow the discussion of this report to go by without mentioning the S.A. Police and their part in preserving the peace and maintaining orderliness in this country. The police had to intervene. It is also noted in the report that they often had to act with selfrestraint, and did this effectively. I believe that in this regard they deserve only the greatest praise from this House as well as the leaders of the Opposition parties. However, those hon. members remained silent on this point.

There was constant defiance and provocation, there were assaults on the police, quite apart from the damaging of police property—to say nothing of all the insults that were hurled at them. In the midst of all of this the police remained calm. On page 294 of the report—I do not have time to quote it now, mention is made of all the praise for the police which Mr. Justice Cillié heard.

One must understand very clearly that the police could not have prevented the malady. They could perhaps have alleviated it, but they were not able to prevent it This is very clear if one reads the whole report in context On page 626 one reads that the commission found that (para. 28.1)—

Suppose the police had foreseen the uprising and had taken counter measures. I maintain that the riots would still have broken out on 16 June 1976. In other words the riots were concerned with things other than the language issue, as some of the other hon. speakers correctly pointed out These riots would still have broken out. This is clear from the whole report. The language issue was used as an excuse.

Two days later riots broke out in the Cape Province. The report states that the police were not responsible for and had no part in the riots which broke out here in the Cape—in the Transvaal, yes, but not in the Cape. I find this rather strange. I cannot quite understand this obscurity in the report. I believe that the worst that could be said of the police is that the degree or the proportions which the riots assumed could perhaps have been contained a little if the police had known about the riots in advance. They could perhaps have been contained a little by the preparations they would have been able to make. However, to state, as some people have done, that the riots could have been prevented if the police had known that they were impending is, in my opinion, not altogether correct. The riots, the marches and everything that happened as a result, remain illegal and we must see it in that light. They remain illegal and the police had to take action. I shall now quote from the report, page 626, paragraph 28.3—

However, suppose counter measures were taken, as the judge sketched them in the first paragraph? Surely the riots would also have increased in intensity after the police had tried to stop them Therefore, as far as this matter is concerned as well, it seems to me as if there is a contradiction in the report Many other things are also mentioned in the report I want to point out in particular the part played by mischief-makers during the riot situation. I am also referring specifically to the colleague of the hon. member for Pinelands. Reverend Russell. Hon. members will recall that at that time all of us received these and other pamphlets from Reverend Russel, and I am referring to the pamphlet entitled: “The riot police and the suppression of truth.” If we read what the judge has to say about Reverend Russell in his report, we see how poorly Reverend Russel comes out of it. Consequently I merely want to point out in passing to the hon. member for Pinelands that his colleague is described as a liar in this report Furthermore we have also seen what happened to certain clergyman further north. I believe this should also be a warning to this clergyman, an indication of what could perhaps happen to him.

The report also states very clearly that the Press was guilty of incitement in certain cases. It is stated very clearly that there was incitement by the Press. I believe one should take cognisance of the fact that the Press was not directly in favour of the riots, yet the Press did in fact influence these young people very strongly to continue the riots, to the detriment of South Africa. The Press cannot be exonerated completely from this seditious reporting at that time.

To conclude I merely want to emphasize very clearly that South Africa is greatly indebted to the S.A. Police. It is time that this country and the world realize that we are dealing with a formidable police force in South Africa, a police force which is not only able to avert domestic terrorism, but is also able to act as a deterrent to our immediate neighbours and the outside world—if these may have any ulterior motives. I believe that all of us in this House can speak only with praise of the conduct of the police in cases which occurred after the riots, and in the case of very recent events as well.

Mr. Speaker, allow me on behalf of my colleagues in the SAP to convey my sincere appreciation to Mr. Justice Cillié and his staff. When one reads the two volumes, one realizes what an enormous and difficult task they must have had to carry out, and we owe them our sincere gratitude for it.

The greatest danger in South Africa, when we conduct this debate today and discuss the report, is that terrorists and agitators may gain the impression that their conduct in the past was justified. South Africa cannot afford that. Since then we have had four years of change and adjustments, and I think only naïve people would not admit that a great deal has happened since 1976. However, we must ask ourselves the question: What is the point of this discussion? Are we having this discussion today to create an opportunity for mud-slinging, for deriving political benefit from it, or are we trying to prevent a repetition of what happened four years ago?

I want to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the calmness with which he commenced his speech this morning. It is only a pity that some other members on his side of this House were not as calm as he was. The purpose of this debate must be to avoid the mistakes of the past, and if we do not bear this in mind, we are not acting in the best interests of South Africa today. I am absolutely convinced that the circumstances which gave rise to this uprising in 1976 were not the cause of what happened. I am also convinced that the uprising was not spontaneous. It is obvious that this uprising was planned. It was planned not only for Soweto, but for the entire country. Of course causes for it must be advanced, for example the language issue, transportation, salaries, housing, the treatment meted out by officials, etc. Something which, I believe, really deserves attention is the way in which officials treat people of other colours. However, I do not believe that these things were sufficient to cause an uprising. Inferiority of Black education, influx control, the shortage of facilities, etc., certainly had something to do with the circumstances which prevailed there.

The problems did exist. People were susceptible to dissatisfaction and wanted action. I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that it was like widely scattered gunpowder-kegs requiring only a spark to ignite them. Was it necessary to strike the spark? I do not believe it was necessary. In its report the commission declared that not all the grievances were necessarily causes of the uprising. I have already said that it would be naïve people who would believe that these things that were mentioned were the reason for the uprising. I am convinced that intimidation was an important element in this effort to overthrow this Government by force of arms, as the commission found. If the uprising was caused by dissatisfaction amongst scholars—as we are being given to believe—I want to ask why we have experienced further problems in South Africa over the past four years, until we have reached the stage where we find that terrorists with arms imported from Russia are launching attacks. If the reason was the dissatisfaction with the language issue among scholars, they would most certainly not have required Russian arms to obtain satisfaction. It seems very clear to me that these problems we have experienced and are still experiencing in South Africa, were and are being organized from beyond our borders. The commission stated very clearly that it had no doubt that the ANC was constantly active in the uprising and that its activities most definitely had an effect on the outbreak and continuation of the uprising. If we examine the contents of the pamphlets it is clear that their aim was to incite and to organize and encourage demonstrations and protests. We can examine the words of one of the pamphlets mentioned in the report. It speaks of—

If one tells this type of thing to young people surely one can expect it to cause trouble. When there is an uprising it is the duty of the police to impose discipline and restore order and consequently the police are only doing their duty when they take action. If it becomes necessary for the Police to take harsh action they are fulfilling their duty to everyone in South Africa. If in this process the agitators are injured or killed, surely one cannot refer to “brutal murder”, for surely those people knew, before they protested and before they began to organize the protest marches, that their lives would be in danger. One thing is certain, viz. that the people behind the riots were certainly not to be found in the front-lines. They did the spadework and used the children and intimidators to complete the dirty work. The report before us teems with references to the part played by student organizations.

This brings me to my one major point of criticism, which is that student organizations on the various university campuses enjoy far too many freedoms. They are being watched and at times are also restricted. However, good order on university campuses is not the duty of either the State or the police. It is the duty of the university authorities. May I ask whether the time has not arrived for South Africa to set an example to the world and in the first place to bring it home to the universities themselves that discipline is their own responsibility, and in the second place to bring it home to students that they are privileged people who are studying at universities on a subsidized basis, that they are there at the expense of the taxpayer and of the State, that they are definitely there to study and not to agitate. Consequently drastic measures are necessary to eradicate subversive activities on our university campuses at all times. Activities of this kind pose very grave threats to our country and its people.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training referred earlier to Red Danny. We do not want any Red Dannies in South Africa. South Africa has always managed without them. If there are any Red Dannies in South Africa, they should leave the country as soon as possible. We are living in a time in which a process of change is taking place, and if feelings are aroused, those desired changes could be handicapped by the attitude of certain people. When a waggon becomes bogged down in the mud, one does not alight and fill it with mud. One gets down and pushes it out of the mud. However, these people want to fill the wagon with mud.

The most disturbing aspect of this report is its reference to the inability of the police and the officials to foresee the outburst in Soweto. I do not want to go into this matter in detail. I realize that there must have been certain problems. However, if I consider how competent our Police Force is and what they are achieving today in particular, it is disturbing to consider that there was a time when they did not read the signs correctly. The ominous signs and the warnings that were issued to the police and the authorities, as we have already heard here today, were apparently ignored; or perhaps not regarded in a serious light. But that was a mistake. That the police, in a place such as Soweto, were not prepared is perhaps unforgivable as well.

Where is that stated in the report?

The report creates the impression that the police were not ready, that they were not prepared when these things happened.

I know the hon. the Minister feels very strongly about this matter. I read his statement to the Press. However, I also read in the Press that there was a difference of opinion among police officers.

I am extremely sorry that it happened.

Yes, I agree with the hon. the Minister. These are the allegations and this is also the background against which we are conducting this debate today. In the report we also read about the teargas-canisters which were used by the Police, canisters on which the date 1943 appeared. I believe that our policemen deserve the protection which is their due, particularly in circumstances such as these. Consequently I want to request that a situation such as this never be allowed to arise again, a situation in which a policeman threw a teargas-canister which was thrown back at him.

If this debate produces nothing else today, I hope that we shall at least receive a frank assurance that we shall not have a repetition of this. We also want the assurance that the police will be ready for action at all times and will take action in time, and that they will also be well-equipped for their task.

I note in the report—and I am very proud of this—that reference is also made to the conduct of the police in Port Elizabeth. The police in Port Elizabeth acted in good time and in so doing prevented arson, murder and violence. It so happened that I was also in Port Elizabeth at that time. At that time I occupied a position in which I had naturally been informed of what was going on. At all times we felt that the police had full control over the situation. Consequently there was no arson or other problems in Port Elizabeth, although efforts were made to foment an uprising and commit arson. Fortunately, however, the police acted in time. Therefore I want to pay tribute today to the former District Commissioner of Police in Port Elizabeth, as well as to his men. I want to congratulate them on their efficiency.

Instigation by agitators must be stopped. If such instigation originates from beyond our borders, it is one thing, but if it originates within this country, if it originates with leading figures in this country, it is quite a different matter, a very serious matter. In the past week we have been conducting a debate here on the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and we heard of the irresponsibility of certain people, inter alia, the chairman of that council. This House and I would be neglecting our duty if we did not take cognizance of the words of Reverend Hendrickse, who occupies a leading position—thank Heavens it is only until the end of this month—on this situation. I quote from page 631 of the commission’s report—

If they kill people, are they also destroying symbols? [Interjections.]

He went on to refer to the parents and said that they should rather have entered the political arena themselves because—

Is that Reverend Boraine? [Interjections.]

Order!

That is Reverend Hendrickse. When a clergyman, who is moreover a leader of his people, uses this type of language, are we not neglecting our duty if we do not do something about it?

It was always the traditional policy of the old South African Party, the United Party and the present South African Party that homelands should be the basis of the political rights of the Black man, but to that end the homelands must be developed properly and rapidly before there can be talk of independence so there cannot and will not be an influx to the White areas. That influx would then be discouraged. Every commission that has given attention to this matter has up to now found it essential that there should be influx control. I reject the fact that influx control is being held up to us today as a reason for uprisings and trouble in this country.

We shall have to have influx control at all times, influx control which must be applied effectively. We do not want a repetition in South Africa of the post-war Sophiatown and Alexandra, and even less of the present-day Crossroads.

On behalf of my colleagues I pay sincere tribute to the men of the Police Force and the Defence Force who had to take up the cudgels when South Africa was in grave trouble. I trust the hon. the Minister does not think that I was criticizing the police too strongly. I was merely pointing out the problems that I saw. But the fact remains that when we, who were safe in our homes, saw on TV how those men had to take action, and the dangers to which they were exposed to, our hearts swelled with pride for the work the S.A. Police was doing. It gives us peace of mind to know that we have men in the S.A. Police and the Defence Force to look after our interests.

Mr. Speaker, we all listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and I think the impression all of us gained was that of a very well-balanced and responsible approach to the report on the events which preceded the report and as a result of which the report was compiled. I should also like to associate myself with hon. speakers on this side of the House, i.e. the two hon. Ministers who spoke and the hon. members for Schweizer-Reneke, Virginia and Potgietersrus. It has been very clearly apparent from the debate up to now that the Opposition does not really have a serious case and that the reproaches and accusations which are being hurled at this side of the House, really do not have the sting to which we were to be subjected, according to what we have been reading since last weekend.

Firstly, I wish to pause for a moment to reply to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. I agree with him that we cannot stand still at the events of 1976. I agree with him that in 1976, there were certain phenomena—and there are such phenomena even today—which gave rise to concern and in respect of which we should act soberly, and with equilibrium and with wisdom. If he says he cares for his country, he cannot outbid anyone on this side of the House as regards loyalty to his country and the extent to which he cares for his country. I do not wish to say that I sometimes have doubts, for then I may perhaps be offending him, but I do have certain questions which I wish to put to him. I agree with him that there is much goodwill among White, Black, Coloured and Indian people. There is much goodwill. Those hon. members are now trying to imply that at the time of the 1976 riots, no goodwill whatsoever remained in this country among Black people. I wish to deny most strenuously here that this was the general climate among the Black people. I also wish to say with the utmost emphasis that a great measure of goodwill, a great measure of understanding and a great measure of loyalty existed among the vast majority of Black people, precisely in that situation where they were being subjected to extortion and blackmail.

The hon. member quoted a passage from the report of the commission referring to what was said by certain Black witnesses, viz. that the purpose of Black education was allegedly to keep the Black man a slave of the White man. Did the commission endorse that statement? I maintain that the commission did not endorse that statement. Consequently I wish to ask the hon. member this question: Why, then, did he quote such a passage in this House? Why did he do so? To create an atmosphere? I wish to put a further question to the hon. member. Five months before the riots he had knowledge of certain questions, and he had misgivings. Did the hon. member know about the planned resistance and agitation in February 1976 already?

No.

I accept his word. However, the hon. member was exceptionally well-informed on questions which were being asked at that time.

I read the newspapers every day.

Does the hon. member believe everything that is printed in the newspapers?

No, not at all.

Oh!

That is why I asked you a question.

You believe only what suits you and you also read only what suits you. The hon. member waxed eloquent here and advised the hon. the Prime Minister that I should resign from the Cabinet.

Yes.

I say to that hon. member: You may as well cut it out I shall not resign for the reason which he is now advancing.

For what reason then?

We are now dealing with the report of this commission. Surely you gave the advice on those grounds. On my level I was not only implementing the policy, but I ascertained that Afrikaans was not being crammed down people’s throats. I ascertained that. I was constantly in contact with the Secretary, as the chief official, but those hon. members, so it seems to me, expected the hon. the Minister under whom I was serving and I myself, whenever a disturbance occurred or whenever an inquiry was received by these hon. members, to trot down to the area where such a commotion was allegedly occurring. I was with the hon. the Minister when we met the Black leaders and we did not encounter any feelings of hatred, such as those which the hon. members have suggested there were, among those Black leaders. On the contrary, we encountered something else there. I say to those hon. members and their people: Cut it out; stop making a political issue of the ashes of burnt-out buildings. Stop offering assistance to a small group of agitators. I am not saying that they are doing it intentionally, but from what they say it can be deduced that at least they are sympathetic towards people who use means of that kind. I say: Stop trying to blackmail the Government into a policy of capitulation in which there is no salvation for any nation in South Africa, not for the White nation nor for the Coloured people nor for any Black nation in South Africa.

Secondly, I want to come to a reference which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made to an article by Mr. Percy Qobosa in Post. He did not even read out the quotation correctly.

I quoted from Beeld.

I have Beeld with me as well. I have here the article written by H. G. Grosskopf, Editor Southern Africa of the newspaper, and one finds here firm agreement with the finding of the commission which reads—

We come now to the real point. The report reads—

The report goes on to state—

I wish to make a few comments with reference to this article, written by Mr. Percy Qobosa. He alleged that he went to a great deal of trouble to obtain an interview with me. I wish to say that I am not prepared, for the sake of good relations—and in that no one can outbid me—to admit to being guilty of an untruth. That he went to a great deal of trouble to get to see me, was not caused by my office. Instead I went out of my way, because at the time I was Deputy Minister with a task in which Black people had an interest, to grant interviews to these people who were spokesmen of their people. I want to go further. Mr. Qobosa maintains that he flew urgently to Cape Town to warn me about the language medium issue. To me he said that he was paying a courtesy call and that he had just returned from America. He did not tell me that he had flown down especially from Johannesburg to have an urgent discussion with me on this matter. To his credit I wish to say that he was in fact courteous and I received him with great courtesy. I wish to go further by saying that we did discuss the language medium issue, but that he did not in any way create the impression that there was a crisis which he wanted to discuss or that a threatening eruption was imminent. On this point I shall say that I am not precisely certain when the visit took place, but my impression is not that it was just before the riots. My impression is that it was shortly after the visit which Chief Minister Mangope paid to Cape Town when I granted him and his Cabinet an interview. In the discussion with Mr. Qobosa I referred to the discussion which I had had with Chief Minister Mangope—now President Mangope—of Bophuthatswana. I told him the general, accepted policy was a 50:50 policy. If my memory does not fail me, I told Mr. Percy Qobosa that my nation—the Afrikaners—knew what it meant to have another language crammed down their throats and that my nation had no intention of doing this to another nation. I adopted the same standpoint when the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana and his Cabinet were here, pursuant to certain events among his people in Meadowlands. I said my people had no intention of committing language imperialism. This was our attitude and this was our approach to the matter. He made another statement. He imputed to me that I had allegedly said that if we paid for the education of his people, we should at least be granted the right to decide how and what they should be taught.

That is not the same.

Mr. Qobosa’s statement was an afterthought. I say it is a distortion. It is one thing to bring it to the attention of a person in a friendly way that if the State provides the money it certainly has the right to ensure that the money is not incorrectly spent. That is one thing. But it is another thing to say: “I am paying for this, and you have nothing to say about the matter.” I say here this afternoon: This is a distortion of the conversation; it was not said, nor was it done in practice. If one or two officials, in the implementation of this policy, gave the impression that coercion was being applied in respect of the use of Afrikaans on an equal basis with English in these schools, I shall repudiate it, for in the discussions which I and the chief officer of the department, Mr. Rossouw, held, and in talks with Chief Minister Mangope and other Black leaders, it was emphasized over and over again that the policy in general was a 50:50 policy, but that in practice it had been deviated from to such an extent that in various regions there was not even a single school which used Afrikaans as a language medium for education in those schools.

I do not wish to go into the language medium policy again. Mr. Speaker, I shall respect your ruling in anticipation because the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and the hon. member for Virginia have already gone into this aspect in detail. However, I am going to sum up a few points to make my argument a cohesive one. Prior to 1955 the language medium in the schools and institutions was the medium of the church which provided those people with education. Up to that stage Afrikaans was not even being offered as a subject in certain schools. But after 1955 we accepted the principle that the mother-tongue should be the medium and that it should be developed, and as long as it was not yet possible to provide tuition in the mother-tongue, on the secondary level as well, both official languages were used and prescribed as medium, i.e. Afrikaans and English. That is the way it was prescribed and implemented. What fault can be found with that? I can remember my very first day at school. I came from a farm where we did not speak English. We simply waited until we went to school. There we would learn to speak English. The very first English sentence which I learnt in my life was “The cow has a long tail”. I can still remember it now. English was a language which was strange to us, but we did not commit arson and we did not rebel. In discussing this policy now, hon. members are trying to imply—these are the hon. members with the afterthoughts now—that the dispensation of Afrikaans and English as the two official languages in which tuition would be given at secondary level was an unhealthy phenomenon from the start, that it was rejected and that it was a sin to have done this. As long ago as 1951 the report of the Commission on Native Education appeared. In paragraph 924 of that report the following was said—

That was the standpoint at the time, and it has been pursued over the years. The report of the Cillié Commission also refers to this practice. In chapter 1.2.2 we find the following—

I shall not go into the history of this matter any further. Exemptions in respect of this rule were there from the beginning. Apparently there was misunderstanding in this regard, but there were exemptions when there were no qualified teachers who could provide tuition in the language concerned or when there were no textbooks available in the language concerned. There is a reference in chapter 1.3.5 of the report which reads—

As it stands there, it appears to be very coercive. Yet the fact of the matter—and we should not forget this—is that Afrikaans as a subject was given up to standard six. After that it was also taught as a subject. In other words, the likelihood that a secondary pupil would have no knowledge of Afrikaans is virtually non-existent.

I wish to go further. Teachers were to try to become bilingual before 1959. Special courses were introduced for them. All training colleges were to offer Afrikaans and English as media. Then came the survey in 1973. Reference has already been made to this, but I should just like to single out one facet. This applies to the Transvaal. Soweto is situated in the Transvaal. I am referring to the Transvaal because a very interesting observation was made here in respect of the data. This survey was conducted by school boards—i.e. the Black people themselves—regional directors and circuit inspectors. The following question was asked: What do you recommend: Should the tuition on secondary level be only in English or only in Afrikaans, or in both languages. The interesting reply was as follows: 61% of the school boards, the Black people, said “in both languages”; 99,7% of the regional directors said “both languages” and 87% of the circuit inspectors voiced the same opinion. These last two groups are the people whom one can regard as the experts, who have their finger on the pulse of education, and of Black education as well. But even 61% of the Black parents, the school boards, voted in favour of the 50:50 dispensation.

I wish to point out that any school could apply for a deviation. I submit—and we were told this time and again by the chief officials—that the policy was applied with so much leniency that no school in the Cape or in Natal used Afrikaans as a medium, and nine out of ten—this is the figure mentioned here—of the senior secondary schools in Soweto did not do so either. Over a period of twenty years we had no problems worth mentioning.

The hon. members have been discussing boycotts now. There were boycotts at that stage as well. But what has the experience of the Department been in respect of boycotts? Allow me to mention a few examples. In 1959, for example, a school in Tierkloof near Vryburg, if I remember correctly, was burnt down because of the expulsion of a student. In 1956 an entire school in Ventersdorp was destroyed because of the actions of the principal. In 1956 a number of schools in Zeerust were also destroyed. Then there is also the case of the Stofberg Memorial School at which all the male students went on strike in 1953. Why did they do this? It was over a question of beans on the table. The point I want to make is that when we speak of boycotts, it has been the experience of the department over many years that it had to examine the phenomenon of boycotts very critically so as not to allow itself to be stampeded by them. The practise we followed was to hold negotiations between the principal, the school committee, the school board and the pupils. This procedure was also adopted in the present cases. It is that procedure with reference to which the former member for Parktown, Mr. De Villiers, showed me the telegram from Mr. Van Wyk on the basis of which, after I had made inquiries with the Secretary, I told him: This is the situation. With those particulars I came to this House and provided him with information in this regard.

With reference to the persuasion of the pupils, one reads on page 558 of the report that the following was said (para. 2.3.4)—

Consequently the department did its best to eliminate any misunderstanding. What I want to say about the Tswana pupils is that responsible people said in that situation that it would be no use writing to the department because the reply would simply be the same! If any person is now able to say that he is deciding in advance that the reply will not suit him, or that the reply will be negative, where does one stand in regard to discipline within a Department, or discipline in a school? The report found that officials did not make an accurate analysis of the situation. That is true. I need not make any further reference to that. References were also made to the actions of the police, but I shall mention only one school, the one at Naledi. Unrest developed there, but why did it develop? It was not as a result of the language issue. The reason was that the police came to the school in search of a pupil whom they wished to question. Arising out of that there was trouble and molestation. It was not an educational matter. It was a police matter which was being investigated.

I am sorry that my time has almost expired. However I just wish to mention that that hon. member is now asking me to resign. Where does the judge suggest that I should resign on the basis of this report? That hon. member would do well to read what is stated at the bottom of page 94.

He made recommendations.

I quote—

That is the crux of the whole matter, but those hon. gentlemen are reproaching me for not having done my duty. As far as I am concerned, I say to them: Cut it out!

Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in attacking the hon. the Minister. He is a sensitive, intelligent person. However, it is a great pity that he made a speech here today from which it is quite clear that he has no absolutely regrets about what happened. [Interjections.] Apart from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, there was not a single hon. member on the other side who took the attitude that they are sorry about what happened. On the contrary, I sensed instead a defiant attitude on the other side. We say the hon. the Minister should resign and we say this for two reasons in particular. One aspect I will deal with specifically later, i.e. the fact that he was incompetent and should have known better. He should have paid more attention to things said about this matter in this House.

There is, however, a second aspect. The hon. the Minister can so easily say things and make statements without considering what an insult it may be for people of colour in South Africa. It makes no difference that he says that there was perhaps a difference in intonation. The fact remains that according to Rapport he said the following in Windhoek—

[Interjections.] If he says something like this, how does he expect to be interpreted? When this statement was read to me four years ago, I said it sounded like the language of Milner. This is the type of attitude that is adopted. In 1976 there were Coloured school children who participated in riots, and how does the hon. the Minister know that some of them are not also playing rugby today? That hon. Minister, however, interferes in rugby and says that one should not play with these people.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says I am talking nonsense, but he should really think twice before issuing statements. He should consider how they could assail the human dignity of other people. It is for that reason that we tell him that he should disappear from the political scene. South Africa cannot afford such things.

†It is quite easy to get up and to say “I told you so.” When one is referring to these riots, however, and the tragic consequences that resulted, I believe that to say “I have told you so” or even “I am sorry” or “You should have known,” is to no avail, because it can never bring back to life the hundreds of people who were killed during the riots. Secondly, we must also think of the fact that the irreparable damage that was done to good race relations in South Africa can never be rectified in that way.

What we must try to understand, at this point in time, is why there is this inability on the part of the Government to heed warnings timeously and to accept criticism in the way they should. For that reason I must say to them: “Yes, of course, we have told you so.” If one looks at the Cillié Report, it contains the absolute proof, which nobody can deny, that there was dissatisfaction about the medium of instruction, as well as a degree of discontent which gave rise to the riots of June 1976.

The fact that the judge had to quote so many different circulars which dealt with medium of instruction indicates that this was of the utmost importance. I should also like to mention that, as early as 29 April 1976 the hon. member for Umhlanga had the following to say in this House. I am sorry to see that the hon. Ministers who are concerned with Black education, have disappeared at this stage. This hon. member said, however, and I quote from his Hansard (29 April 1976, col. 5708)—

He went on to say—

And he went on to mention a number of well-known White schools, such as Jan van Riebeeck Hoërskool and Bishops. What was the reaction at that time of the hon. the Minister? He immediately replied to that, and his reaction was typical of the kind of reaction one gets from that side of the House. When one makes an informed attack or comes with informed criticism, they throw in everything to try to make out that one is uninformed, that one does not perhaps know what one is talking about, when they fully know that one has levelled valid criticism. His reply to the hon. member for Umhlanga was that it is applied very leniently and then said—(Hansard, 29 April 1976, col. 5739)—

Then he said—

Then he quoted the situation in matric classes and said that there it was 95% English and 5% Afrikaans. When we look at page 71 of the report of the Cillié Commission, however, what do we find? We find a column where schools are mentioned where Afrikaans was not used as medium, and if one subtracts that, one finds the percentage where Afrikaans was used as a medium of instruction. Let us look at these figures. In Form I it was 77,1%. Only 22,9% of the schools had no Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. In Form II, 53,6% had Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. In Form III 35,4% had Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. It is true that in Form IV none of the schools had Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. In Form V, only 10% of the schools had Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. The hon. member for Umhlanga made a speech in which he spoke about instruction in secondary schools. The hon. the Minister rallied around and gave the figures only for matric. They were the correct figures but it is symptomatic of the “glibberigheid” we get from the other side when they are attacked. That is why I say he is totally incompetent or has been misled to that extent by his own officials, because if they could give him the exact figures for matric, he should have known what the figures for the lower classes were. This is exactly what happened. In fact, even in schools where English was the only medium of instruction this tendency could be seen developing. Even today, however, the hon. the Minister of Public Works and of Tourism persists in using only the argument of the 90% relating to matric pupils. Meanwhile people also knew what was taking place in the lower standards. Why, when one refers to secondary schools, the only reaction one gets is a glib answer only reflecting the situation with regard to matric pupils?

The information on which the hon. member for Umhlanga based the speech to which I have already referred, was a letter received by the old United Party, from a Black inspector of education, in November 1975. On a previous occasion I quoted from that same letter. That was on 25 April 1977. I should like to quote from it again (Hansard, Vol. 68, col. 6068)—

He then continued to say—

This was the information on which we reacted. The attitude of hon. members opposite, however, when they are confronted with valid information, is always one of “let’s laugh about it; let’s fob it off; let us give them insufficient information in order to try to conceal the true position”. This is our problem. I should like to add that I believe all the work that was done by this commission …

Order! What does the hon. member mean by the words “let us fob it off” ?

Mr. Speaker, that is the same as to say “let us laugh it off".

I understand what it means, but what I want to know is in what sense it was used by the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga, in the speech I referred to, was trying to challenge the then Deputy Minister on the situation in secondary schools. The Deputy Minister then gave him only the figures for matric. Possibly because we have a government that is so strong in numbers and that has been in power for such a long time, one finds that this sort of attitude has unfortunately permeated into certain State departments as well. This is what one finds when one reads this report carefully. That is the same type of thing that seems to have occurred and to which reference is made in the report That is why I submit that should we want to prevent a recurrence of this type of incident in South Africa there must be a change of heart of the part of hon. members of the NP. This is the same reason why I was so utterly disappointed by the speech of the hon. the Minister of Public Works and of Tourism. In his speech he surely reflected no change of heart at all. I see he has disappeared from the House. He is not even here now.

Of course, if one reads through Hansard one finds more than sufficient proof of this specific sort of attitude that I am trying to illustrate. I can refer for instance to the speech made by the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he replied to the said speech made by the hon. member for Umhlanga. What did he do? He only quoted figures relating to the numbers of new pupils in schools, comparing the situation in 1977 with that of 1910 and of 1955, etc. All that was quite irrelevant. I can go on to quote numerous other examples to prove that hon. Ministers and hon. members of the NP always try to follow some escape route in order to try to avoid facing the real issues. They always refer, for instance, to all the improvements resulting from the policy of the Government. Why do they never stop to think and to realize that all these things are completely irrelevant. The real question they should ask is why it is that, in spite of all the so-called tremendous advances and improvements, this sort of situation still occurs. They should do their homework better. There is also this constant changing of Ministers. In the 10 years I have been in Parliament, there have been four, maybe even more, Ministers controlling Black education. They are not even allowed sufficient time to become masters of their own subjects. I want to quote from a report of a Commission of Inquiry into the Teaching of Official Languages and the use of Mother-tongue as Medium of Instruction in Transkei Primary Schools. This Cingo Commission of Inquiry sat in 1962. I quote from page 10—

A little further on the Regional Director of Bantu Education in Transkei had the following to say—

That is a warning about the 50:50 system. The considered recommendation of the commission reads as follows—

As long ago as 1962 a commission already considered this and even on educational grounds found that at high school level a 50:50 system was unsound. The interesting reasons they gave, were that Afrikaans teachers in the schools were inadequately qualified and that these teachers had a low standard of attainment. What did Justice Cillié find? He found that one of the reasons why these people caused such difficulties, was because the teachers themselves were not proficient and sufficiently trained.

Why not?

Why not? [Interjections.] It is not very easy. I can tell the hon. member that I was educated at an Afrikaans university and when I started teaching at high school in the medium of English, I found it very hard and very difficult How can one expect teachers with a std. 6 qualification …

I said “one of them”.

Oh, one of the reasons? This is the problem. According to this report eminent educationists, such as P. R. T. Nel, who later on became the Director of Education in Natal, and Prof. Boshoff served on this commission.

I want to refer to another matter. On 30 April 1976, when the hon. the Minister replied to the accusations about the medium of instruction at secondary schools, the then member for Port Elizabeth Central asked the following (Hansard, 30 April 1976, col. 5739)—

Later on he asked—

What was the reply? I quote—

The question that was put to the hon. the Minister was whether the community had a say in the matter. Afterwards they pleaded innocent about all this. What does it help to come with amendments, changes and adjustments later on? Why come with it later on when we in South Africa have had to pay and nearly 575 people have had to die?

I should like to continue by saying that in dealing with Blacks, and especially in dealing with this particular matter, the Government has right throughout, even in this debate, adopted an attitude of being far too clever by half. It will be of no avail if we merely try to make cosmetic changes in this respect.

But you have always been wrong about education. You have been wrong since the earliest years.

You do not even play in this league.

You are too dense to be stupid.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke about all sorts of wonderful improvements, but if one wants to solve the problems of education in South Africa, one will have to find a political structure where people will be able to improve their own lot through due democratic processes. To come along at this stage and speak about municipal rights, or slightly more, is totally inadequate. As long as this Parliament has to decide what the total amount is which is to be spent on education and as long as we have to carry that responsibility as far as the education of urban Blacks is concerned, we will run the risk of a repeat of the tragic circumstances we experienced a few years ago. It is on that basis that I believe the hon. the Minister and any other hon. Minister who shows any disregard for the feelings of Black people or for people of colour will have to treat them with the respect that they deserve and not make such statements as have been made by the hon. the Minister of Public Works. That type of person we do not need in politics in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Durban Central. He concentrated on the question of education, and that is understandable, since he is an ex-teacher. However, I could not help gaining the impression that the hon. member for Durban Central was actually advocating that Afrikaans should not be used in Black schools.

Who said so?

That was the impression I got. [Interjections.] What is more, when this debate began this morning, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—and I think he was right in doing so—that although the events which gave rise to the publication of Mr. Justice Cillié’s report took place four years ago, he hoped we would conduct this debate against the background of the present. The hon. member for Durban Central made a long speech about the question of education in the Black schools, which allegedly led to the riots at that time. In the light of the appeal made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we should discuss the report against the background of present-day circumstances,

I do not believe that any hon. member on the other side of the House, including the hon. member for Durban Central, pointed out any problem to us which exists in any Black school at the moment in respect of the medium of instruction. His speech was completely irrelevant to the real debate. All he was trying to do was to score debating points and to apportion guilt, but in the light of the present circumstances, he really did not make any significant contribution.

It is true that Mr. Justice Cillié found that the question of the medium of instruction, the use of two languages in certain Black schools, was the direct cause of the riots, but what I am asking myself is why some of the Black young people objected so fiercely to the use of Afrikaans. There is a reason for that. Has it not been our experience that over the years, the enemies of the Government have referred to this Government, to all who would listen, as the “Afrikaner Nationalist Government”? Has it not been customary over the years for the Afrikaner, and the Afrikaner in particular, to be presented to all who would listen, to the Black man in South Africa, as the culprit and the cause of all his problems?

Is it not a fact that—I am not saying this is intentional—the Afrikaner is hated by a large section of the population of South Africa? This is what we have been up against. This is why this attitude towards Afrikaans developed among some of the young Black people. Not only at that time, but right up to this day—have hon. members read this morning’s editorial in The Cape Times?—reference is made repeatedly to “this Afrikaans Nationalist Government”. Time and again this connotation is used by the enemies of the Government. Now I want to sound a warning to those who sow hatred against the Afrikaner among people of colour in this country; I want to warn that the matter will not rest there. They may succeed in making White Afrikaners the target, but in the end the true victim will be the entire White civilization in South Africa—Afrikaans-as well as English-speaking.

If I may go on to something else, there is another matter I wish to raise. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke asked the hon. member for Pinelands why he had not referred to the role played by certain of his spiritual associates in the Cape in consequence of the events, especially those at Langa and Nyanga. An important part of Mr. Justice Cillié’s report is devoted to the allegations made against the South African Police by certain clergyman in the Cape, led by Rev. Russell. We all know that the writings of Rev. Russell and his spiritual associates contained the most slanderous allegations concerning the S.A. Police. In the debate up to now—which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said we should conduct objectively, considering all aspects of the report—no word has been said about this yet.

How many speakers have they had?

What was the finding of the commission? I should be glad if the hon. member for Pinelands could tell us whether he agrees with Mr. Justice Cillié in his findings in respect of Rev. Russell and Co. We find that the commission was anxious for Rev. Russell to give evidence before it. What does Mr. Justice Cillié tell us in his report? He says there was an indication that the commission expected the authors, and especially Rev. Russell, to give evidence. The report mentions this specifically, and says—

So Rev. Russell was present when the invitation was extended. The report goes on to say—

When these most reverend gentlemen of the cloth, who alleged so sanctimoniously that they were only interested in justice and the truth, were invited and had an opportunity to substantiate the slanderous allegations they had publicly made against the South African Police, therefore, they were conspicuous by their absence. What was the finding of Mr. Justice Cillié in connection with the report and the memorandum of Rev. Russell and Co.? I quote what is said about this on page 409 of the report—

Therefore the situation was deliberately handled in a completely prejudiced way in order to cause further problems for South Africa I should like to know from the hon. member for Pinelands what he thinks of this behaviour of Rev. Russel and Co.

They support it.

There will be a deathly silence on the other side of the House about this subject. It is also interesting that it emerges in the report that even the ANC and the PAC actually used so-called church organizations as front organizations to cause problems. This fits into the same pattern, where on the one hand we have clergymen who allow themselves to be used in order to slander South Africa, and our police in particular, and on the other hand we find the ANC, the PAC and the Communists using church front organizations to promote their cause in South Africa.

A great deal has been said about this report, but nowhere has the Opposition referred to any positive finding in the report. They concentrate only on the negative side, and we admit that there are negative parts.

Tell us about it.

I believe the hon. member for Pinelands listened to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and others who have spoken, and who have already told us what was done long before the report even appeared. However, there is one other matter I wish to discuss before I conclude. There is something that has been pleaded for in the Press, or I should rather say insisted upon, in respect of Mr. Percy Qoboza. It is now being insisted upon that the ban on The World and Weekend World be lifted. The impression is being created by Mr. Percy Qoboza himself that this report completely exonerates those two newspapers. Surely that is not the truth. The report of Mr. Justice Cillié deals specifically with the period between 16 June 1976 and 28 February 1977. The World and Weekend World were not banned during that period, after all. Those two newspapers were only banned at the end of October 1977, and not necessarily because of the conduct of those two newspapers during the period of the riots, as investigated by Mr. Justice Cillié. Therefore, to argue today that the report of Mr. Justice Cillié completely exonerates those two newspapers and that for this reason, their banning was not valid, is not logical. The fact remains that long before those newspapers were banned, Mr. Qoboza was repeatedly warned that there would be problems if his newspapers persisted in the attitude they had adopted.

It is interesting, and one should take cognizance of the fact that after these two mouthpieces had disappeared from the scene, the unrest in South Africa died down.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude. The man who, in the special circumstances of South Africa, disregards the difference between races, between peoples, between groups, is disregarding the truth. The man who in South Africa, with its particular circumstances, disregards the preferences of races, but also the prejudices of races, the man who disregards the preferences and the prejudices of various groups in South Africa, is making the greatest mistake of his life. In everything we plan, therefore, we shall have to take this fact of life into account at all times.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Barberton in any detail. I just wish to say two things. The first is that if he wishes to know about the actions of the Rev. David Russell the best thing is for the Government to unban him so that he will be able to answer the questions which the hon. member has posed in the House.

Why did he not give evidence?

Ask that of the Rev. David Russell. If he is unbanned, I am sure he will be able to answer that question. Secondly, the hon. member is of course not right when he says that the banning of The World and Weekend World had nothing whatever to do with the unrest because those newspapers were only banned in October 1977 while the unrest began in June 1976. The hon. member himself then told us that Mr. Qoboza had been called in time and again and warned about the statements the newspapers were carrying and the sort of leading articles which were, according to the Government, provoking further unrest. The commission’s report shows one thing very clearly, and that is that the Press did not have anything to do with either the outbreak of unrest or the continuation of unrest. Therefore, I think the demand that both The World and Weekend World should be unbanned is a reasonable one, and I personally would support it.

Sir, we are reaching the end of a long and interesting debate and a lot of hon. members have had much to say about the Cillié Commission’s report. I should like to add a few comments of my own. The first is that I am on record as criticizing the tardy appearance of the Cillié Commission’s report. I do not withdraw that criticism. What I do withdraw, however, is the further comment I made, which was that because it has taken so long to produce, it would have no value. I withdraw that remark because I do believe that the report does, in fact, have value.

Simply because it suits you now.

Firstly, it presents, in detail, a very vivid picture of the disaster that struck South Africa.

Had it not suited you, you would not have accepted it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I am going to get the same treatment from the Chair as other hon. members have got.

Order!

Thank you. It presents, in detail, a vivid picture of the disaster that struck South Africa with such devastating consequences on 16 June 1976 and which continued, in fact, well beyond the period examined by the commission, because the commission’s report ends with events that took place on 28 February 1977, whilst the riots went on well into the first half of 1978.

Secondly, the report analyses the causes of the unrest and, most important of all, contains an unmistakable indictment of Government policy. Therefore it is very valuable. There are, of course, some parts of the report with which I am not in agreement, and I shall come to that in a moment Before that, however, I cannot resist pointing out to hon. members, including the noisy hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, some of the things that they said in 1976 when the riots were debated in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that the riots were timed to coincide with the independence of the Transkei. Have hon. members ever heard such nonsense!

I still maintain that.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg put it all down to the machinations of the PFP, as we then were, and, of course, to the Press, which is, according to them, always busy advancing the cause of Moscow. He was joined in his opinion by the hon. members for Koedoespoort, Hercules, Stilfontein and Pretoria West, all of whom made the same foolish accusations. [Interjections.]

I now want to join with those hon. members here who have stated that the major blame for the initial outbreak of the unrest should not have been laid, as the commission has laid it, at the feet of the relevant officials in the erstwhile Department of Bantu Education, but at the feet of the Minister of Bantu Education and the Deputy Minister in charge of education at the time. It should, indeed, have been placed at their feet. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton is in no mood for interjections today.

Thank you, Sir. They were warned over and over again. The hon. the Deputy Minister said a little earlier in this House that he had inquired of the Secretary for Education and had been assured that the situation was under control. He also asked whether we expected him to have gone down to find out for himself. The answer is “yes”.

Absolutely!

He should have caught the next ’plane to Jan Smuts Airport when he heard, earlier in the year, in April, May and again in June when he was warned by urgent telegrams given to him by the then hon. member for Parktown, that great trouble was brewing. He should have caught a ’plane, gone to Jan Smuts Airport…

Only one telegram.

There were two telegrams. Anyway, he should have consulted with the school boards, with the PTAs, with the leading members of the community and with the headmasters of the schools concerned. Maybe then the instruction, regarding language medium, which everybody said was causing so much unrest in the schools in Soweto, would have been withdrawn and maybe, with a bit of luck, we would not have had the terrible uprising that we had. What we had instead, was the hon. the Minister and his Deputy—I am not sure which deputy, but I think it is the present deputy—paying one visit to Soweto in all the six months that followed upon the outbreak of unrest, from 26 June until the end of the year, because I asked a question in Parliament of the then hon. Minister and the answer was that they had paid one visit.

By helicopter.

What happened was that after the unrest started, the Minister of Bantu Administration took off for the Greek Isles and his Deputies took to the hills. [Interjections.] We never saw or heard of them again.

You are being absolutely ridiculous now.

We never saw or heard of them again. The whole thing became one vast police exercise and nothing else. That is what it became. [Interjections.] What we had, was unrest spreading from one Black township to the next, and let me ask the hon. member, whoever he was, who said that there was no language question in the Cape, and yet there was unrest in the Cape, whether he does not realize that shootings had taken place already and that the country was aflame like a veld fire. The unrest spread from one township to the other. There has never been such a display of solidarity among the Black people as there was in those months following the outbreak of unrest in June 1976. It was not only among the Black people that this solidarity was displayed in place after place as the commission’s report shows, but amongst the Coloured community in Cape Town as well there was solidarity with the Black community. I include the Coloured community in the Black community.

I should like to say a few words about the role of the police. We have had some words of praise for them from the hon. member for Barberton. I want to say quite unequivocally that I find the commission’s exoneration of the police, except for Day One unacceptable. In regard to Day one the police are criticized—firstly, because they did not know what was going on; secondly, because they were badly equipped and, thirdly, because they were under-strength. The criticism of Day One is, of course, understandable, because the police were untrained, there was no loudspeaker to warn the crowd to disperse, and they evidently had no knowledge that a student demonstration had been planned. But why they did not know, with all the Security Police running around, I do not know. They were too busy tapping phones and intercepting mail to worry about the outbreak of one of the biggest disasters that has ever hit this country. They had no loudspeakers, the tear-gas cannisters which they had, were ineffective—apparently only one of them exploded—and so on. One only has to read the report to see exactly what went on. [Interjections.] What happened then was that the police fired into the crowd—whether it was before or after the throwing of stones is apparently still a matter of doubt—and two young Blacks were killed. Hastings Ndhlovu and Hector Petersen were shot dead by the police; the tinderbox was now alight, and the disaster which was to engulf South Africa for two full years commenced, leading to unprecedented loss of life and injury to people, and I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central that it is shocking that not one Government member except the Minister of Co-operation and Development has expressed any regret or sorrow for the dead and the wounded of the riots of 1976. We had billions of rands worth of damage, economic depression in South Africa, universal condemnation abroad, a mandatory arms embargo and a most tragic deterioration in race relations at home, something from which I believe we have not recovered, and I doubt that we are going to recover.

One wonders what would have happened if, on that fateful day in June 1976, the students had been allowed to have their protest meeting without police opposition, or if the police had refrained from using their guns. One wonders what would have happened if, instead of untrained, badly equipped men, an experienced anti-riot squad had been used to cope with the situation on 16 June and thereafter, and the subsequent unrest. What would have happened if the police had refrained in the subsequent days and months of unrest from appearing at the funerals of young people who had been shot dead by the police, from appearing in their camouflage uniforms and armed to the teeth? What would have happened if the Police had refrained from raiding the homes of the parents of students and arresting students in the early hours of the morning, and if they had refrained from entering schools and arresting students after, at long last, they had been persuaded to go back to school? I believe that these actions were provocative to the extreme, and I believe that all of those things added fuel to the whole terrible situation that had arisen. What if, and I believe that this is the most important “what if” of all, we had had an intelligent Minister of Police and Justice at the time, in charge of affairs on June the 16th, instead of a man whose entire attitude was geared to the whole “kragda-dige” attitude of his Prime Minister, who put into detention every recognized adult Black leader, who had thousands of young students locked up and for many months refrained from providing the protective equipment to the riot police, something which could have acted as a deterrent and have saved many lives. On 22 June 1976, in this House, when 114 people had already been shot dead by the police—only six days after the riots began—the then Minister of Police, replying to a question put to him by the hon. member for Sandton about why the police had not had face-guards and water-cannon at their disposal, said (Hansard, Vol. 63, col. 10102)—

The then Minister of Police gave this reply as if that was the object of the question. He then went on to say—

I can hardly imagine a responsible Minister of Police giving that sort of answer here in the House when he was asked why the riot police had not been provided with proper equipment He then went on to say—

Obviously, the idea of saving lives and of reducing casualties never even entered the mind of that Minister of Police. So, for a long time no special riot equipment was provided. People continued to be shot by the police because at times the police’s own safety and their own lives were threatened and they had no protective equipment. Also, they shot because of the attitude which was handed down from the top.

The commission fixed the number of people actually killed by police action at 445, and the number wounded at 2 389. A further 124 were killed by other means and there was a much higher number of casualties by other means as well, apart from the number I have already mentioned. There are, of course, people who doubt those figures and say they were much higher. I have also seen much higher figures. In any case, however, it surely seems to me that the commission’s figures cover only 8½ months, and that is from 16 June 1976 to 28 February 1977. The unrest continued in fact until June 1978, according to the finding of the commission itself. Therefore there must have been more casualties. The point I am making, however, and I am making it quite clearly, is that I personally cannot reconcile the enormous number of people killed by the police action with the behaviour of a Police Force which was intent upon using a minimum of force, and which was equipped to deal with riots of this nature.

I have some comparative figures which, I believe, show this very clearly. During the 1960’s the USA was rent by unrest and riots. One other hon. member has mentioned this here today. It was estimated by various commissions that were appointed thereafter that between June 1963 and May 1968—that is over a period of five years—more than two million American citizens took to the streets in rioting on university campuses and in the streets. The cities from the east coast to California went up in flames. All that happened because of civil rights issues and, of course, in protest against the war in Vietnam. Do hon. members know how many people were killed during that time as a result of police action? Less than 200. I put it down to the fact … [Interjections.] America was in an uproar when four students were killed at Kent State university, and I put it down to the fact that police are properly trained to handle crowds in conditions of rioting and unrest. [Interjections.]

You are certainly no friend of the police.

You hate the police.

Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am a friend of South Africa and I should like to tell hon. members here that if the attitude of Black people continues to be one that reviles the police as their enemies, this country is doomed. Unless we can establish relationships between the Black population of South Africa and the Police Force that has to maintain law and order on an amicable basis, we will never get anywhere in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that the foolish attitude of the then Minister was a cause of police action leading to high mortality, for unprotected policemen are much more inclined to use fire-arms than properly equipped ones.

I have to say that I believe that the fact that so few Blacks, particularly young Blacks, gave evidence before the commission because they were intimidated by their own people against doing so—this is what the commission says—or because they were worried about security police action if they did give evidence or because they considered the commission to be a creature of the apartheid system, the fact that only 15 Blacks under the age of 18 gave evidence to the commission has led to an imbalance in the findings of the commission regarding the actions of the police, many of whom gave evidence before the commission, as did many officials. The frantic calls I received from desperate parents during those terrible months after 16 June 1976 and from eye witnesses to shootings from police cars—I handed in affidavits about a green Chevrolet and a white Valiant—panic-stricken appeals for something to be done about the hostel dwellers of Mzimhlope who were raiding the residences and ravaging through the townships, and even the wild scenes which the hon. member for Sandton and I saw with our own eyes when we went to Alexandra Township while a police raid was actually taking place, lead me to believe that the commission’s complete exoneration of the riot police’s behaviour after 16 June is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.

The present hon. Minister of Police has said that he considers that the police have come out of the riot commission’s report very well. The reality, however, is that what happened between the riot police and the Black people during the unrest, has embittered and radicalized hundreds of thousands of young Blacks who saw with their own eyes what took place in Soweto, Nyanga, New Brighton and everywhere else throughout South Africa. It has radicalized and has motivated thousands of young Blacks to leave South Africa to undergo training for terrorist activities.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Houghton, but I am really not sure what the hon. member actually wanted to say.

She ran out of steam!

She ran out of steam. I should like to react to her speech, but it would create a problem. I think I should rather not do what she would perhaps like me to do, and that is to react to her speech in a spirit of excitement, so that too little time will remain to give attention to other matters. However, I do want to comment on one or two aspects of what the hon. member said.

In the first place, I cannot understand why the hon. member makes use of the opportunity in one debate after another to make remarks which can only cause adverse publicity for our country abroad. [Interjections.] The hon. member is constantly making interjections when other hon. members are speaking, but the moment she is speaking and others do the same, she appeals to the Chair. I should like to ask her where it says in the report that “They were running around tapping ’phones instead of doing their work in Soweto.” Why did she say that?

It is probably true. That is why.

The hon. member makes these mischievous remarks only for consumption outside this House, but she does not make any contribution to the debate. The hon. member asked what would have happened if those students had been allowed to hold their protest marches that day without any outside interference. However, the hon. member has not read the report. If she had, she would have seen in the report what preparations preceded the marches, who the persons were that were involved in them and what they had been ordered to do on the day of the marches and if the police should bar their way. After all, these were not peaceful marches through the streets by students in order to raise funds for their school. The hon. member knows that, but now the hon. member asks this question to create the impression that we were dealing with thousands of little angels on that occasion.

Helen’s angels.

Precisely. Helen’s angels. Then came the big bullies of the S.A. Police and they moved to bar the way of Helen’s angels, and so we had riots that lasted for two years. That is what the hon. member is telling the world. Surely this is not the behaviour of a responsible member of this House. The hon. member also referred to what had happened in the USA. It is true that fewer people were shot dead in the USA. This is for reasons which are surely peculiar to their circumstances. After all, all of us who have been to the USA since the ’sixties know the battered appearance that some parts of the USA still retain because of those riots. I can give the hon. member one good and well-known example. The hon. member knows what Fourteenth Street and its environs in Washington look like. There are the monuments “of the cities in the United States that went up in flames”, according to the hon. member. We cannot allow that in our country. We cannot allow cities to go up in flames in our country.

I am really sorry that the hon. member made this kind of speech this afternoon. We are dealing with a really serious matter this afternoon. It is a serious matter which we have to debate here. None of us can be indifferent to the report of the Cillié Commission. None of us is indifferent to the circumstances which gave rise to the riots and their consequences. There is no hon. member of this House who is not giving serious consideration to the report, who is not to the best of his ability taking cognizance of the recommendations and the findings in the report, and who will not give attention to these in the future in order to create a constitutional and social order in South Africa in which this kind of thing can be avoided. Surely we are adults. Paradise cannot be created overnight Heaven on earth cannot be created overnight.

To those hon. members on the other side who wish to create the impression that hon. members on this side of the House are indifferent to the report I want to give the assurance that this is not the case at all. After all, in introducing the debate on this side of the House this morning, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development repeatedly gave the assurance, in reply to the first speaker on that side of the House, that this was the standpoint of this side of the House. If it has not been repeated by every other member, surely this is no justification for accusing this side of the House of being indifferent to it. I want to say repeatedly that we view this matter in the most serious light.

I should like to take the opportunity of assuring the Commissioner, Mr. Justice Cillié, and his staff of our appreciation for the great trouble that was taken with this report and for the careful attention they gave to all relevant facts. I also want to take the opportunity of saying that it was a privilege for the S.A. Police to try to co-operate with the commission and to assist the Commissioner under difficult circumstances. What I am going to say about certain aspects of the report this afternoon will not be said in a spirit of detracting from the status of the commission. I do not wish to do that at all. However, it is unfortunately true that I want to and have to place a different construction on one particular aspect from the one placed upon it by the commission. The only real criticism of the police in the report relates to the events shortly before and on 16 June, and it is dealt with in paragraph 3.9 of the report in particular. The most important criticisms are made on page 126, in paragraph 3.9.1 of the report, and I quote—

These are basically the criticisms that are levelled against the S.A. Police. The commission motivates its standpoint as follows (page 126, paragraph 3.9.1)—

Then the commission finally comes to the conclusion—

This is an extremely important finding, because it affects the status of the police with regard to the maintenance of law and order. Therefore it is a serious matter. For this reason I, as the responsible Minister, and others in this hon. House must ask ourselves what gave rise to the commission’s finding. Is it well-motivated, or can we place a different construction on it? With great respect towards the commission, I should like to give a different interpretation to these matters which I think should also be emphasized and brought to the attention of the public. I cannot accept that the police should be held co-responsible, along with these other elements, for the riots. I want to emphasize a few aspects. The commission says, inter alia (page 101, paragraph 3.1.2)—

I repeat “sonder dat die onrustiges, die amptenare of die polisie daarvan bewus was …”.I wish to emphasize a further aspect to hon. members. I quote from the report (page 102, paragraph 3.1.4)—

That is what the commission says. Arising from this, I want to mention that at that stage, and for a long time afterwards, one had to apply to the proper authority, being a magistrate or the Commissioner of the area, for a permit in order to hold a public meeting or assembly or a protest march down a street. No such application was made. If application had been made, it would inevitably have come to the attention of the police.

I wish to refer to a further matter and to emphasize it again. In this connection I quote from paragraph 3.2.4 on page 103 of the report—

Once again, this is the finding of the commission and not of a witness. On page 104, paragraph 3.3.1, of the report, the following is said—

In the following paragraph 3.3.2 the commission goes on to say—

The commission also mentions that around 4 o’clock that afternoon, a certain Major G. J. Viljoen was informed that there were going to be problems at Naledi High School, that Col. Kleingeld was informed that a meeting would be held at one of the high schools in Orlando the next day and that the pupils of another high school had said that the children would march from there the following day. Having analysed this information, the commission says—

The commission goes on to mention that three reporters from The World were aware on the previous afternoon of the action the students had planned for the following day. However, it is striking that the commission mentions immediately afterwards that the editors of all the other newspapers in Johannesburg only told their reporters to go to Soweto the next morning. So these people did not know either.

It is the job of the police to know.

I am not saying it was the job of the reporters to know. I am only outlining certain aspects of the report that have to be emphasized. We must ask ourselves: Did the police know or should they have known in advance about this protest march and should they have taken measures to prevent it? If not, do they share responsibility for the riots which broke out in South Africa? The commission’s report mentions on page 127, in paragraph 3.10.2—

I wish to emphasize further that during the whole preceding process, for very good reasons and in co-operation with other bodies, the police maintained a low profile, except when they were specially called out to deal with law-breakers. For this reason I say that looking at the findings of the commission only, I am very sorry that I have to place a different emphasis on the finding that the police were co-responsible for the riots that broke out. Another important factor is the fact that the police were dealing here with children and not with adults. We all know how unpredictable the behaviour of these children, and other children in similar circumstances, had been during the preceding years. For this very reason, it was the policy of the S.A. Police to maintain a low profile in order to prevent rebelliousness at schools when the police made their appearance there. At the small number of meetings of which the police were aware, the police had to make use of the services of informants, and as the commission confirmed, no information of large-scale protest marches—let alone the proposed marches and riots of the following day—reached the police. It did not come to the notice of the police before 4 o’clock on the afternoon of 15 June.

I just wish to emphasize a different aspect, and that is what happened when the information did come to the notice of the police. The necessary steps were then taken. That is why I said in a Press statement before the debate that the police were never indifferent to any event which took place in Soweto. The police took cognizance of everything when that happened. That afternoon and early evening of 15 June, when the particulars came to their notice, the necessary steps were taken. In any event, the police were already on the alert throughout Soweto, as well as in other parts of the country, because of a threatening bus boycott. The necessary patrols were sent out early the next morning. Soweto is a very big place; one cannot simply climb a hill and observe the lay of the land from there. Therefore the necessary precautions had been taken.

I understand that my time has almost expired, and therefore I just want to add that if the police had acted differently and more harshly during their first encounter with those children, the results could have been even worse than they were. However, we must bear in mind that the police had to deal first with hundreds and later with thousands of children. From then on, the agitators, the intimidators, the people who were really stirring up trouble, the hooligans and all the other scum who later became involved, really came to the fore. Active steps were taken against them.

I just wish to emphasize one or two aspects, namely that I should like to give this House the assurance that we have all learnt from these circumstances, including the S.A. Police. We have learnt a great deal with regard to equipment, behaviour, preparedness, etc. However, the police cannot be accused of not having been prepared for the events. The police were prepared. Even if some of the tear-gas was old and did not explode when it should have, nobody is to blame for that. One does not have an opportunity to try out tear-gas to decide whether it will still work. However, I do not have time to discuss the details. Precautions had been taken, but I want to give the assurance that although we were prepared for the events and the circumstances created further problems for us, the S.A. Police is today equipped with the most modern protective devices, the most modern equipment in sufficient quantities to be used by large numbers of policemen in such circumstances. This applies to our methods and our arms as well. When people on the other side of the House talk about attitudes, I want to ask who promoted the best attitudes during the riots in Soweto and elsewhere. It was the police officers. Who can disagree with me when I mention the name of Brig. Visser? He made one of the largest contributions from the part of the State to improving the relations in Soweto. Those relations still exist today. [Interjections.] Soon he will retire on pension. Therefore I want to pay tribute to those policemen who took action in Soweto, the present Commissioner of Police and other senior officers who were involved. I want to say that it was a great disappointment to me that some of our newspapers interviewed a few senior police officers and presented this as “police quarrelling about report”. A brigadier whose present conduct does not do credit to the Force is being presented by them as the mouthpiece for confirming that the police was not prepared on that occasion. As for me, I want to pay tribute to those police officers who made that positive contribution, not only in combating the riots, but also in the splendid example they set in building human relationships. I have two pages full of examples here which I could have given the hon. member for Houghton if I had had the time and the opportunity to do so. I want to express my regret about the fact that the man who was the commander in Soweto and who did not see to it that his people had food to eat during the first three days, who did not see to it that his people, according to him, had proper weapons, who is crying now about tear-gas canisters that did not explode, and who did not provide the basic logistical support for his people, is now being used as the mouthpiece for denigrating the police in the Press.

Finally, I should like to say that I am really grateful to the commission for having examined so carefully every action on the part of the police. Reading the report, I could point out ten or twelve splendid examples of where the commission found that the police had behaved firmly, reasonably and correctly under the most difficult circumstances, under the most dangerous circumstances. I could also point out examples of tribute which is paid to the police by the commission. For this reason I am also grateful for the fact that, apart from the remarks made here by the hon. member for Houghton, remarks which I believe were somewhat mischievous, the police have not been dragged into the political arena in this House today. I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful for the fact that I have been afforded an opportunity to place this one aspect in a different perspective. I believe it is necessary, for we cannot allow the impression to continue that under serious circumstances, those responsible for maintaining law and order in South Africa were not able and ready to do so. This is really not so. Together with this, I assure the hon. members that we have also learned our lesson. The country may rest assured that the S.A. Police has the most modern equipment today and is fully prepared to deal with similar circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, since my hon. Cabinet colleagues who are in charge of the relevant portfolio’s have in my opinion replied in full to the charges that have been levelled, I do not feel it incumbent upon me to reply to the debate at this stage, except to point out one thing. Except in the few cases where the debate became a little heated, this debate has been conducted on an exceptionally high level. I appreciate this, particularly because it is a very sensitive matter. With leave of the House I consequently move—

Agreed to.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

I, on my part, just wish to add that the way in which this important matter has been discussed here today was a credit to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.