laid upon the Table:

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Order! Before calling upon the hon member for Green Point to speak, I afford the hon member for Vryheid an opportunity of giving an explanation.

Mr Chairman, on re-reading my Hansard, it appears that I said, amongst other things (Hansard, 29 April):

Sir, I withdraw the words.

It would also appear that the version I gave in response to your request did not accord precisely with the above-mentioned words, being rather an explanation of what I meant to say. It was not my intention to mislead you or the House. I was merely trying, from memory, to repeat what I had just said. [Interjections.]

Apologize!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member has withdrawn those words, but has he apologized? If not, will he not apologize?

Order! The hon member has clearly withdrawn the words. He was not required to make an apology. He gave an explanation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon member came to see you and asked for an opportunity to give an explanation, did he indicate to you what the nature of the explanation would be?

He indicated to me that he would withdraw the words complained of.

May I ask whether you indicated to him that an apology would be appropriate?

I indicated to him that it was improper for him to give to the Chair a version of his words which did not correspond with the original words used. The hon member has now withdrawn those words and he has explained why the version he gave to the Chair did not agree with the original words, and I accept his explanation.

Sir, my question to you is whether you asked the hon member at the time whether he would not consider tendering an apology. With great respect, Sir, that is standard practice.

The hon member came to see me at my request. I pointed out the objection to him. I pointed out to him that the version he gave to the Chair did not agree with the wording he had used in the first instance. The hon member explained the circumstances to me and I accepted his explanation.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I want to ask the hon member whether he would not like to take this opportunity to apologize.

Mr Chairman, I do not think that is necessary. I have very clearly given you my reason for being prepared to withdraw the words. When you asked me to repeat the words, I did not use exactly the same words, and that is why I have just withdrawn the words that I initially used. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon the Minister of Law and Order presented to the House his customary and what I would like to call pseudoscientific dissertation of how the SA Communist Party, the ANC and the UDF are really jointly and virtually solely responsible for all the problems suffered in this country. The hon the Minister seems to enjoy his little dissertation because he presents it at every possible opportunity. Let me just say to him in all sincerity that as long as that hon Minister, other Government members and some of his senior officers simply identify the SA Communist Party, the ANC and the UDF as one and the same force with precisely the same objectives and applying precisely the same methods, that hon Minister and the Government will remain unable to deal effectively with politically motivated actions in this country. I say that because the hon the Minister’s dissertations show no awareness of the tensions that actually exist between these organizations he enjoys mentioning so often. Indeed, they show no awareness of the tensions that exist even within some of these organizations. The hon the Minister does not seem to understand that, even within the UDF, for instance—and I assume this applies to some of the other organizations—there is a very wide variety of beliefs and opinions on political and economic matters, and even on methods of bringing about situations related to these matters.

He conveniently omits to mention that the UDF at least is publicly committed to peaceful change—even if he maintains that some of their members commit some excesses at certain times. The hon the Minister must come to understand that it is stupid, dangerously stupid, to blame an entire organization for the excesses of a few of its members—even if the hon the Minister believes that he and his department can prove that such excesses have been committed. If that were not so, virtually the entire NP would have been in jail by today. [Interjections.]

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he should stop spending his time delivering propagandistic dissertations. This is in fact what his speeches have been. His speeches on this Vote—and also at every other conceivable opportunity—are aimed at creating an atmosphere for propaganda. Heaven knows what he is trying to achieve by creating such a situation! [Interjections.] That is not his job, and I want to tell him that his dissertations are bad ones. He does that particular job badly. So I want to suggest to him that he should rather spend time attending to the improvement of communications within his own department, and also on improving discipline, training and attitudes within the Police Force. [Interjections.]

There is another issue which the hon the Minister loves to bring up. He talks about “forces”, “dark forces” and individuals—he calls them “advisers” and “instigators”—and we often hear about these people. We never, however, hear any names. Yesterday the hon member for Durban Point actually referred to them when he asked: If the hon the Minister knows who they are, why are they not brought to book? I would like to repeat that question. Why does he, for soapbox political purposes, talk about such individuals, but when it comes to the crunch does not seem to be aware of who they are? I honestly believe that when it comes to making a contribution to a sensible and an analytical debate in this House on how we should cope with the tensions within our society, how we should cope with the riots that occur from time to time, and how we should cope with gatherings that sometimes take place in contravention of the law, the hon the Minister has no contribution to make whatsoever. Neither, I dare say, does any of the hon members on his side of the House. I mean, the debate on law and order on the part of the NP has come to be one of the most sterile events in the life of this Parliament. I say this with sadness because it is one of the most important matters that needs to be attended to in this country.

I said that the hon the Minister should attend to the situation that obtains within his department as regards riot control and dealing with gatherings and crowds. The ineptitude and indiscipline that prevails there is almost unbelievable. It is strange that this should be so because there are parts of his department which, I believe, operate very, very impressively and effectively. I have always had great respect for the way the CID operates in detecting common law crimes in this country. I think they do work of a very high standard. However, when it comes to riot control or anything that is politically motivated, discretion and discipline is thrown overboard and the end result is a chaotic situation.

I have had the opportunity on several occasions to observe how riot squads of the SA Police deal with riotous crowds, and sometimes with crowds that are not riotous at all. I must confess that more often than not the conduct of the police reminded me of a scene from a Western movie rather than an orderly and effective controlling of crowds.

In the first place, I believe that communication among the various sections needs to be improved, and firstly, in terms of the information that the hon the Minister and this House receive from the higher ranks who in turn get it from the lower ranks. The hon the Minister knows what I am referring to. After all, the Commissioner of Police had to appear before the Kannemeyer Commission for virtually one purpose only. He had to explain why false information had been given to Parliament by the hon the Minister. Furthermore, he had to place the blame for it on the police. I believe this sort of thing should be attended to because on how many other occasions does this not happen?

Secondly, there should be communication downwards, from the hon the Minister and the senior officers down to the lower ranks. We have had an instance of that. There has been talk about eliminating people who it is believed are in possession of petrol bombs. We all know that that is a contentious issue now being investigated by the Kannemeyer Commission. They have to decide what this issue involves. Do the officers in charge bother to describe specifically to those policemen what they mean by “eliminate”? Does it mean that people must be shot dead at the first possible opportunity? Or does it imply that violence should be restricted to the minimum in order merely to render the culprits harmless? It should also be stipulated how a policeman must go about this task.

That is just one of the instances where better communication is imperative. There are many such instances where instructions lead to misunderstanding and difficulties. I believe the onus rests on the hon the Minister and on the senior officers of the Police Force to attend to these matters. In my opinion the rot starts at the top and it needs to be corrected from the top. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I wish to refer to the use of protective equipment by members of the Police Force. I have on various occasions in the House asked the hon the Minister what type of instructions are given in regard to the use of protective equipment. I am talking about protective helmets and shields, gasmasks, and that type of thing. There does not seem to be any clear guideline in this regard. In fact, the hon the Minister has on every occasion tried to evade questions referring to protective equipment. He does not give us a clear indication of what guidelines should apply. In a reply to a question put by me in this regard, the hon the Minister said it could affect the mobility of people. That is utter nonsense. How can a protective helmet affect the mobility of a policeman in a riotous situation?

That is not true and you know it!

That is an answer the hon the Minister has given to me. I say that he is talking rubbish and that he should attend to this matter.

You are making a misrepresentation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to say to the hon member for Green Point: “That is not true and you know it”?

Order! Did the hon the Minister say that?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I did say that.

The hon the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point alleges that the hon the Minister’s analysis yesterday afternoon of the situation in South Africa was not scientific. I must truthfully say, however, that the hon member for Green Point did not impress us this afternoon with the scientific character of his analysis of the situation either. [Interjections.] The hon member says the hon the Minister and his colleagues do not really know what is going on; we do not understand the situation. I want to give the hon member the assurance that we understand the situation better than he does.

The hon member made the important allegation that the UDF supports peaceful change. He is trying to profess that they are angels of peace. I want to ask him, however, why we, who are on the scene, then find that difficulties often arise where the UDF has held a meeting? Who causes those difficulties? The angels of peace? Who causes them? [Interjections.] The hon member must give us a reply to that.

I should like to address a few words to the hon member for Houghton. I was quite surprised yesterday afternoon when on the whole, the hon member for Houghton spoke quite reasonably. She even went so far as to condemn sharply deeds of violence. I want to praise her for that. We must convey a unanimous message to those outside who propogate violence. The hon member went further—and I appreciate that too—and said she appreciated the work done by the SA Police. We appreciate that. That is what the hon member said here, but the hon member for Krugersdorp pointed out to us that when we do not hear and see her, she says and does other things. [Interjections.] According to the evidence before this House I also want to tell the hon member that her suggestion that the hon the Minister’s salary be decreased is not based on evidence. This hon Minister has the interests of the SA Police and South Africa at heart. He improved the salaries and conditions of service of our police force, for example, to such an extent that we could not accommodate all the applicants who wanted to join the Force this year.

As I have said, I am in agreement with the hon member for Houghton concerning the valued job done by the SA Police. There are powers, however, who want to cause chaos and disorder in our country. They are stronger and better organized than some of us in this House think. Trained communist terrorists are present in South Africa, especially in our Black residential areas. They are our enemies as well as the enemies of peace and of peace-loving Black residents of those residential areas. The SA Police Force stands between us and the powers of chaos that advocate bloodshed. That is why they are the target of these enemies. We are grateful for the work they do, for the long hours they work untiringly. We appreciate it and we tell the policemen and policewomen so, White, Coloured and Black. We also tell their families who have to sacrifice so much. We appreciate it.

The public also appreciates the sacrifices they make and the work they do. Last Sunday in Uitenhage I saw five women from the public voluntarily serving refreshments to our young policemen at the temporary base of the SA Police. We want to thank those members of the public too. I want to ask the hon member for Houghton whether her party’s people were also present when we expressed our appreciation to the Police in this way. I did not see Mrs Mollie Blackburn there. [Interjections.] I wonder if she is once again leading a protest march against the Police.

Say that outside this House.

The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is becoming terribly excited, but I was not fighting with him. I merely said that Mrs Mollie Blackburn was involved with a group of people who turned up at the Kannemeyer court case to do certain things there which caused a lot of difficulties for us. It did not bring about peace and rest, but caused difficulties. [Interjections.] That is what I mean.

In her speech the hon member for Houghton also referred to detainees. She said that detainees in Johannesburg object because they are kept in cells where they are watched with the aid of TV cameras 24 hours a day. I made inquiries and as far as I could determine, we have not yet received any complaints in this connection from those involved. I want to state categorically that we do everything in our power to ensure that no one dies in detention. We want the people to live. [Interjections.] Hon members on the opposite side are laughing because we say we want people to live. They find it a joke, because they make political capital out of people dying in detention. We say, however, we want them to live and we shall apply any means to ensure that these people stay alive and we do not apologize for that.

The hon member for Johannesburg North made a speech here yesterday which made me think he is a Rip van Winkel. Where is the hon member living? He requested, for example, that our policemen should act against those involved in the unrests the way the British “bobbies” do. We must use horses and shields against these attackers. Surely the hon member saw on television how these people carry on in a situation of unrest. They are armed with pangas, stones, axes, knives and petrol bombs as well as live ammunition. We saw how these people acted when they squared accounts with Kinikini and his sons. Does the hon member for Johannesburg want our policemen to take action against such people with shields and clubs? That hon member will not see his way clear to doing it himself. The hon member would also not be prepared to expect his son to act against such people in such an unprotected way.

I agree, however, with one remark made by the hon member for Johannesburg North. He said (Hansard 29 4):

I agree with that, because that is exactly what we are being reported as doing in the Black towns at present. We shall maintain our presence there. We shall establish it in order to protect the possessions and lives of innocent and peace-loving people.

I want to ask the hon member, however, how he reconciles what I have just quoted with the following words also used by him. The hon member referred to the report of the Johannesburg bishops and then he said:

I must say it is a scandalous remark made by an hon member of this House. In White areas it is fitting and proper that the police protect the peace-loving people there against the people who want to assault them. When it comes to Blacks, however, the hon member says the Police are regarded in the Black residential areas as “disturbers of the peace and perpetrators of violent crime”. I say again, it is a scandalous remark made by the hon member for Johannesburg North.

As evidence in this connection I refer the hon member to the funerals which were held and from which he said the Police had to stay away. We heard again today in the reply of the hon the Minister to a question that the Police do not in any way interfere with people who want to have a funeral peacefully. Our objective is to allow people to go about their business in peace and order, but we shall not tolerate disorder. In this connection we are grateful, too, for speeches at funerals which were aimed against this. We are very grateful for speeches made at such funerals in which it is said that violence must be renounced. We say thank you for that. Violence and revenge are also preached on a large scale at these funerals, however. In this way, Rev Boesak allegedly used the following words on 13 April at the funerals in Port Elizabeth:

Is this the kind of language that should be used at a funeral? If people come back from there and start throwing stones, start plundering and committing arson, the Police can and will not watch it happen with folded arms.

We shall protect the possessions and the lives of law-abiding people in South Africa, and that goes for Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Indians. We shall under no circumstances allow them to be delivered to these lawless gangs who are conducting a reign of terror in our Black towns.

Mr Chairman, I shall deal in a moment with the two primary tasks of the Police to which the hon the Deputy Minister of Police referred. I want, however, to come back to what I was saying yesterday about what this House and the country owe the Police.

I said that we should ensure that they had sufficient manpower, sufficient equipment and the moral support of the law-abiding people of South Africa in their task. However, I also want to say that there is a clear quid pro quo, and that is, that while we owe this to the Police, the Police in turn owe to the Force itself discipline, restraint and obedience to regulations. Where their authority is abused, orders are disobeyed or irresponsible action taken by them, just as justice be seen to be done so must disciplinary action also be seen to be taken.

I know that the hon the Minister is sensitive about this, and that he has frequently denied his being blindly loyal to the Police, right or wrong—and he has every right to defend himself. However, it has been obvious in this debate that there is no doubt that he has given the impression that he will back the Police, right or wrong. I believe it is important that the distinction should be clearly drawn between the hon the Minister as head of the department and the Police Force in their task towards the State. He represents the Cabinet, and the distinction between the political head and the Force itself and its task is a very sharp dividing line which should not be blurred. The Police are the custodians of the law and the protectors of all law-abiding people, as the hon the Deputy Minister said—all people of all colours and of all political views. The hon the Minister is the political head, representing a political party in government.

I am not going to deal with it the way I had intended to, but an example of blurring this line was a letter that was sent to the hon the Minister pledging personal loyalty to him by senior officers of the Force. I know it was well-meant and well-intended, but I believe it was unwise because, when one has personal loyalty to a political head of a department, it tends to blur the clear distinction between an impartial Force loyal to the State, and loyalty to its political head. They meant to express their loyalty to the State, their loyalty to South Africa, but when it is expressed in terms of loyalty to a person I believe it is an unwise thing to do.

It works both ways. The image of the Police is damaged when the hon the Minister is too closely identified with the Force and takes political flak. The Police must be a friend of all and seen to be such. I want to support the hon the Deputy Minister’s view that they are the key to the restoring of normality because they must be seen and respected as the protectors of the law-abiding masses.

I have here a document prepared by the Black Councillors Task Group, in which they pledge themselves as elected Black councillors to some outstanding objectives and ideals. They dedicate themselves to their task. One of these ideals, the 12th of the 13 points indicated, is the following:

These are the people elected by the Black people, and they set as one of their targets to instil a sense of security in all South Africans. This is what we in South Africa owe to those elected members who are seeking to serve their own people—the guarantee of security which comes from a Police Force respected and looked up to by all.

We have in South Africa a ratio of 1,9 policemen per 1 000 of the population. There are some 45 000 men in the Police Force apart from civilians and ancillaries. In any of the civilized countries the ratio is much higher. I am referring now to countries in the Western World, countries where problems similar to ours are not experienced. We have set ourselves a target of 2,6:1 000 for 1995—ten years from now—which, I believe, is not at all sufficient. In the USA, for instance, the ratio at the moment is 3,3:1 000. In West Germany the ratio is 2,5:1 000. If we had set ourselves a similar target we would by now have had some 62 000 men in uniform. That would have made a tremendous difference to their ability to keep order.

Let us look at the work done by the Police on a daily basis—work that goes on day and night. The normal tendency is to focus the spotlight on the spectacular, for instance, riots and unrest. Day and night, however, the real task of probably 90% of the Police Force consists of combating crime, including 279 000 cases of petty theft alone in one year, as well as 4 200 escapes from detention, 3 800 cases of illegal possession of firearms, 25 000 cases of forgery and fraud, 24 000 cases of drunken driving, and so forth. These offences are being investigated and combated day and night. Yet we do not have the necessary manpower to perform that task.

I do believe, nevertheless, that the results achieved are outstanding. I therefore want to stress that we in this party support every effort to restore conditions to normal and to maintain law and order in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point must forgive me for not reacting to his speech.

In Die Vaderland of 7 March this year the following report appeared. Its heading is “Polisiemotor onpadwaardig”, and I quote:

The police chief who said this, is the chief of a town by the name of Otis in the USA. The Americans are welcome to come and see how the South African Police look after their vehicles. The vehicles of the SA Police Force are kept roadworthy and are clean and neat at all times. With the new colours of yellow and blue, the SA Police Force is fashionable as well. These colours, together with the emblem affixed to the doors, make the police vehicles very conspicuous and there should therefore not be a repetition of a recent incident, when a motorist did not obey the command of a policeman to stop because the police vehicle could not be identified as such.

The vehicles used by the police are effective and are fitted with the very latest radio and warning devices. The modern police vehicle is in sharp contrast with those of earlier years. The camel on which former policeman Awie Marais, elder and justice of the peace in the Maraisburg constituency, patrolled the North-west, and which frightened the hon member Dr Vilonel so badly as a young boy, disappeared from the scene a long time ago.

A number of bicycles, as well as 203 riding-horses, are still being used by the police. Just like the camel, the motor-cycle with the side-car has disappeared from the scene. Fortunately one of those Harley Davidson motor-cycles has survived. That old workhorse, with which one could even plough, has a soft spot in the heart of every policeman, and I do not think that the modern off-road motor-cycles on which cattle thieves are pursued, will ever be able to equal the pleasant and interesting experiences one had with the old Harley Davidson motor-cycles over a few decades.

The horse will probably always have a place in the SA Police Force, and the possibility of its once again playing an important role in the urban patrol service is not excluded. The policeman on the back of his horse is clearly visible. He is mobile and inspires respect in everyone. It is no wonder that use is still being made of mounted police in the centre of New York. Mounted police could probably have been used to great advantage in the prevention of motor theft and theft from cars at the recent exhibition by the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society.

The “Black Maria” of the twenties and the thirties also deserves a place of honour in the transport annals of the police. It is a pity that not one of these vehicles could be preserved for posterity in the police museum, as this type of vehicle was involved in so many incidents. During the 1922 strike on the Rand these vehicles were used to transport police reinforcements, and so it happened that the reinforcements to the New-lands police station were sent in a vehicle of this kind. These vehicles did not have an electric self-starter, and as a result had to be cranked by hand until the engine took. Once they had arrived at the police station, the vehicle was parked outside the grounds, and when it became necessary to vacate the building later, it was impossible to start the vehicle under the barrage of the strikers, and it resulted in a number of casualties on the police side.

In the struggle against criminals, 13 274 of the most modern and most sophisticated vehicles are used by the police. This year it will cost R49 million to keep these vehicles on the road, and during the course of the year these vehicles will cover approximately 340 million kilometres. There are 12 well-fitted garages at which the vehicles are serviced and repaired. One of these garages is in the Maraisburg constituency, and I should like to break a lance for these men and women who service and repair the vehicles under difficult circumstances. The staff live in relative isolation with their families, some close to Soweto, and that makes their contribution to the struggle against crime so much greater. We convey our sincere thanks to the hon the Minister and the police heads involved who are constantly helping to improve the conditions of these members of the Force. I want to suggest that the remuneration package of certain artisans in the garage under discussion be investigated once again, as I am aware of anomalies in the bonus system. Certain artisans are at a disadvantage, and do not earn the same salaries as their counterparts in the Public Service.

Another aspect which the hon the Minister can look at, is the malpractice that has arisen amongst buyers of worn tyres. Buyers have formed cartels which manipulate the prices at public auctions at which the tyres are sold. Possibly the tyres can be sold by means of a tender system instead.

Since 1960 the SAP has taken action against Swapo in the Eastern Caprivi and Ovambo, and many casualties have occurred because the vehicles used initially were not proof against the land-mines of the enemy. With the help of the CSIR and other institutions, a vehicle which effectively protects the occupants against land mines and attacks was developed. In 1969 a prototype of such a vehicle, called a Casspir, was introduced. Since then there has not been a single casualty amongst the occupants of a vehicle of this kind that has hit a land-mine. This is a remarkable South African produced vehicle. The engine, gear box, differential and many of the smaller parts are produced locally. Although this vehicle is bullet-proof, and proof against land-mines, it has an internal combustion engine and, as is the case with every other vehicle that has an internal combustion engine, it is not fire resistant. Just as the “Black Maria” of yesteryear was vulnerable because it did not have an electric starter, this sophisticated vehicle is vulnerable because it has an internal combustion engine.

Section 28(2) of the Explosives Act of 1956 determines that a petrol bomb is an explosive material, and provision is made in the Act for heavy penalties to be imposed upon those who use this explosive material unlawfully. I am of the opinion, however, that throwing a petrol bomb at a house or a vehicle should be regarded as a capital crime.

To the members of the Force, who work unseen and in silence to keep the wheels of the SAP rolling, and to the hon the Minister and the Commissioner of Police for the management of this section of the Force, I should like to convey my thanks on behalf of this side of House for the continued effort to maintain justice and order in our country.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Maraisburg does not expect me to deal with any of the subjects which he has raised because his remarks have been aimed directly at the hon the Minister.

First of all I want to say something about the speech made earlier this afternoon by the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, the hon member for Verwoerdburg. I should like to start my remarks on his speech by saying that we on these benches doubt the wisdom of having the Deputy Minister of Law and Order and the Deputy Minister of Defence in one person so to speak. It is not a good idea.

Why?

I shall tell the hon member why. I think it is open to being misconstrued, more particularly by the Black public of South Africa, when one has the same person running the Defence Force so to speak as Deputy Minister and running the Police Force as Deputy Minister. I think this is indeed a very bad idea. We should like to have a division between those two Deputy Minister posts because the Department of Defence and the Department of Law and Order have different functions entirely, and they should not be confused by appointing the same person as the Deputy Minister of both. This is the first thing I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister.

The second thing I want to say to him is that I wonder how he knows what I say when he is not there to hear me. He said that he was pleased that I had said what I did say in the House yesterday. He was delighted that I had given the SA Police credit for the work they did. I have always done that for the work they do in terms of their proper functions and where they are not abusing their powers. He said darkly and with sinister implications: What does the hon member say when we are not there to hear her?

You are feeling guilty.

No, I am not at all feeling guilty. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can assure the hon the Deputy Minister what I say here is what I say outside. What is more, it is what I say overseas as well. I am totally consistent and I always have been. It is the one thing for which I have been given credit by the Nationalists over all these years. I do not change my tune whether I am addressing a meeting in Newton Park, Houghton or in a NP stronghold. I am consistent and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will remember that.

I want to come to the hon member for Krugersdorp who luckily sits at the moment next door to the hon the Deputy Minister so that I can aim my ammunition straight across the floor, my R1, my bird-shot, my rubber bullets, my tear gas, the lot. The hon member said yesterday that I had never spoken out against violence. Where did he get that from? First of all he should give credit to the hon member for Albany because he was the very first person to draw attention to the fact that there had been violence by Blacks on Blacks. He did that when we had the debate on Langa during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill on own affairs, as the hon member ought to remember. He said absolutely unequivocally: We condemn with the utmost force at our disposal what has happened in Langa. When he said that, he spoke on behalf of this party.

Yesterday in my speech—I discovered this reading Hansard because one does not remember every word that one has said—I said right at the beginning:

What does that hon member mean when he says that I do not condemn violence?

You should go to Uitenhage and tell them there. [Interjections.]

Order!

Every member of this party in and out of Parliament condemns violence no matter from what quarter it comes. We are against violence.

I strongly resent his inference that Molly Blackburn and I—this is the word he used—“embraced” the instigators of violence.

Comrade Blackburn.

The hon the Minister probably got a member of his Security Police to write “Comrade Molly” on the wall, but never mind.

The hon member for Krugersdorp used the phrase that Molly Blackburn and I “embraced the instigators of the violence”, and he referred to a photograph which I presume had been taken of me sitting in Molly Blackburn’s sitting room with young Blacks who had come from Uitenhage to tell me at my express request what had happened the day before. This is when the deputation …

Most of them were not from Uitenhage.

Oh they were. How can you know? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not allowing this sort of argument across the floor of the Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, please tell the hon the Minister to stop pointing his finger at me; I dislike it intensely. [Interjections.] He does not intimidate me but it is extremely rude.

I would like to continue. In seeing those young men, most of whom were from Uitenhage—there were about 40 of them; I did not know them—Molly Blackburn and I were doing exactly what the hon the Minister said we ought to do in his speech yesterday. He said: “All responsible community leaders”, and Molly Blackburn and I are responsible leaders. [Interjections.] I want to pay tribute to the role that Molly Blackburn has played throughout the whole business at Uitenhage. [Interjections.] She has done a magnificent job; she has maintained connections with that community which no member of the Government and certainly no member of the Police Force has done. [Interjections.] We are doing exactly what the hon the Minister said we should do which is “to promote effective contact and to talk about the problems that were troubling the Black community”. That is exactly what Molly Black-bum and I were doing.

Helen’s angel!

Oh sit down and keep quiet! [Interjections.] That is exactly what we did and the hon member for Krugersdorp ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

I do not really care too hoots about his opinion of me as a radical. I do not even know what his definition of a radical is; it must be somebody who disagrees with the NP Government. If that is it, I certainly am a radical. I do not care.

However, something that I do care about and I take issue with him—now I am the one who is pointing my finger—is when he accused the hon member for Durban Central of abusing the privilege of being allowed to go on what the hon member for Krugersdorp called “a privileged occasion” to visit Maleoskop and the police training college. It is totally untrue that he has abused that privilege. [Interjections.]

Where is the hon member for Durban Central?

He is busy; you know that perfectly well.

You know what he is doing.

He is doing a job that this party asked him to do in Uitenhage; that is what he is doing. [Interjections.] The hon member is sitting in the court in Uitenhage, representing the interests of the six of us who went down to see what had happened, which is more than the hon the Minister did before he blurted out his statement. [Interjections.]

The point is, I was also at Maleoskop and there was absolutely nothing privileged about that occasion. The Press was present, the television cameras were present; indeed, there was a whole programme on that visit that was produced on SATV a few days after the visit. I wonder therefore what the hon member for Krugersdorp is talking about when he utters such nonsense. I think he owes the hon member for Durban Central an apology.

Why do you apologize so much?

Apologize! Who is the apologist? [Interjections.] That hon member owes the hon member for Durban Central an apology and he really owes me one as well but I do not care to have it; it makes no difference to my life, one way or the other.

The hon the Minister gave what I see I wrote in my notes as “a disapproving grunt”—he does that very often—when I said yesterday the UDF was not the main cause of unrest but that one of the main reasons was the exclusion of Blacks from the constitutional developments and that economic factors had such as unemployment, inflation etc played a very big part in the unrest as well.

The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development and of Education agrees with you.

Who agrees with me? None other than the hon the Minister of Cooperation and Development and of Education; he is becoming a radical as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to convey my thanks to the Ministry, the Commissioner of Police and to each and every member of the SA Police Force on their selfless service to the country and for the beautiful annual report that was made available to us. In the past there have even been objections to the cover of the annual report, but this annual report is excellent both inside and out. The statistics and information it contains are very positive and reflect the excellent work the department is doing. It is very easy to criticize rather than praise, and that is what one tends to do. If one looks, however, at the statistics on the solving of crime and the good things the SA Police Force does in the country, it carries far more weight than any small misdemeanour or transgression a member of the Police Force may from time to time be guilty of.

I asked the hon Whip to ensure that the hon member for Durban Central would be present in the House. At the moment he is still not present.

He is on his way.

It is significant that he was not present yesterday either.

He is busy.

I requested the presence of the hon member for Durban Central and was advised by the Whip that he would not be here. It is strange that the hon member has been absent from the debate—until his coming into the House now … [Interjections.] … for quite a number of reasons. Firstly, he is a member of the Standing Select Committee on Law and Order. Secondly, he is the alternate spokesman of the Official Opposition on law and order. Thirdly, he was present in the House yesterday afternoon during the joint sitting, but he immediately absented himself when this Vote came under discussion …

That is ridiculous. You are making a complete fool of yourself.

… despite his duty and notwithstanding all the other work he has to do.

Will the hon member take a question?

No. Until a few minutes ago, no member of the Official Opposition even tried to explain his absence or situation in any way.

Why should he explain anything to you?

I wish to point out that the hon member is the duly elected member of Parliament for Durban Central and that his responsibility as a member of Parliament is to attend sittings of Parliament and to take part in debates on law and order, seeing that he is the alternate spokesman on the subject, and not to pursue his legal practice during sessions.

Perhaps some of your people should remember that.

Order! I cannot allow a running commentary to be conducted on what the hon member is saying.

Sir, there are quite a few things that are not clear about the hon member’s presence in Uitenhage and it is very clear that it hurts hon members on the other side when one begins to ask questions.

Of course they are not clear to you; you are too stupid.

I think that that hon member’s presence, utterances and appearance all attest to stupidity. [Interjections.] The hon member for Durban Central is now present. It will be interesting to hear from him whether he is appearing in Uitenhage on behalf of the parliamentary caucus of the PFP as a whole, yes or no? Does the hon member want to answer that? He is not interested in answering. Is he appearing with their approval?

Yes.

Is the hon the Chief Whip saying that he is acting there with their approval?

We will see what Kannemeyer says …

He does not want to say anything about it.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Roodepoort that I cannot allow a question-and-answer session.

It is very interesting that it has been noticed more than once that this hon member is acting on behalf of six members of the PFP, and that it has not been stated that he is acting on everyone’s behalf. I maintain that the difference between those six members and the whole caucus of the PFP points to a very clear division in that caucus in respect of the hon member’s appearance before the commission in Uitenhage. [Interjections.] That division is such that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has problems with it, and I want to suggest that in that respect he is once again—because this has already happened in the past—being led and not leading the party himself. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Durban Central whether, when he appears before that commission, he appears as an advocate briefed by an attorney, or not.

Yes!

Well then, if he is appearing as an advocate, he is practising at this stage and not properly fulfilling his obligations as a member of this House. Furthermore, I want to tell him that if he appears before that commission, he will be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds and not be appearing as an impartial lawyer, but as a member of the PFP, on behalf of the PFP and as a biased member of the Opposition. The hon member is therefore experiencing a clash of interests. He is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

Those members are very ill at ease. [Interjections.] Why did the PFP, if they needed it so much, not, by common consent, commission an impartial and unbiased advocate, to appear before the commission? The hon member is there, however, at the instance of only six members. I sometimes have misgivings about those hon members and today I am quering their motivation for certain specific actions.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to reflect upon the professional integrity of another hon member?

I did not hear the hon member reflecting upon the professional integrity of another hon member.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this? For the past five or six minutes the hon member has been referring to the fact that the hon member for Durban Central is an advocate, a practising advocate, and that, in suspicious and questionable circumstances, he is in fact practising as an advocate before the Kannemeyer Commission in Uitenhage. Mr Chairman, I want to remind you with great respect that you and your predecessors have ruled quite clearly that professional integrity—in fact professional practice; not only integrity but what a man does in his professional practice—is not a fit subject for debate in this House.

Yes, but I must point out that, as I understood the hon member, he was reflecting upon the propriety of a member of this House acting in a particular capacity. He was asking whether it was proper for a member of this House to do so; in other words, it was not a reflection on the professional integrity of the hon member but on the propriety of what he has been doing as a member of this House.

Mr Chairman, I want to make it very clear that I am in no respect querying that hon member’s integrity as an advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa but, as you have just said, I most definitely queried other things. I sometimes wonder to what extent hon members of that party actively support the SA Police and stand behind them. Bearing in mind the language of the hon member for Johannesburg North yesterday, I have real misgivings about the way his party supports the Police Force. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by associating myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Durban Point concerning the members of the SA Police—and their families—who during the past year have given their lives while in service. The very traumatic and emotion-laden Uitenhage affair is one which hon members of this party see as terribly unfortunate and I want to indicate that we by no means intend using it as a way of labelling police action in general in the townships. There is too much of a tendency these days to get at authority and to use every possible opportunity to undermine it, by so doing playing right into the hands of the agents of unlawfulness. Concerning townships and circumstances surrounding law and order I do not think there can be a more suitable quotation than the following words of Mao Tsetung:

I think that that is very apt in respect of the townships in South Africa today as well. The person or persons who control the townships at night are in fact in control of it in more ways than one.

That is the subject I want to discuss in the few minutes I have at my disposal. I believe that, even before the incident at Uitenhage and the incidents in the Vaal Triangle late last year, there was a serious doubt as to whether the strategy employed in maintaining law and order in the townships was adequate. We have for a long time considered the question of the maintenance of law and order in the townships to be something that is going to be a prime factor in enabling the moderate Black to play his full role in the constitutional development which is unfolding before us. There is no question that, whereas the moderate White in politics holds the high ground, over the past few months it is unfortunately so that the moderate Black has lost the high ground which is now being occupied by the more radical elements. Without doubt we are going to have to put everything into reversing that situation because without the co-operation of the moderate Black we stand very, very little chance of entering into the next phase of constitutional development and getting Black participation in the Parliament of South Africa.

We believe that a new strategy in respect of the townships is long overdue and that an all-out campaign is called for. Unlike some members who believe there should be fewer police in the townships, we in fact believe that, if necessary, we should saturate the townships with the forces of law and order in order to reverse the situation where the radicals hold the high ground. If we have to use troops in the process, we will have to do so. We will have to work on the basis of tackling the worst places as soon as possible in order once again to place the initiative in the hands of the moderates. There is no question about it that we have actually let the moderate Blacks in those townships down. Our strategy has been unequal to giving those people protection and enabling them to participate in the Black community councils without having to fear for their lives. The avowed intention of revolutionaries to discredit the Government’s ability to protect the people is very much a stepping stone in the revolutionary process. To date we have not been successful in many instances in protecting the representatives of authority in those townships.

We believe that the adequate presence of the Police Force in the townships should, if necessary, enjoy absolute priority. Permanent members of the Police Force should be drafted into those areas. I endorse the point made by the hon member for Vryheid, namely that a township police force should be developed with great speed and that, if necessary, the reserve force should be increased in size in order to replace the police in the quieter White areas—the so-called White areas, for want of a better term—of South Africa. Furthermore, an all-out campaign should be launched to regain control in order to allow the moderate Black to play his rightful role.

One questions the ability of the South African Police—even with the best will in the world—to carry out that task unless the Government of the country makes an all-out effort to assist in accomplishing the task. After all, how can some of these townships be policed when they are unlit and when they are so overcrowded and so disorderly that the ordinary task is in itself a monumental one? So we believe that we have to set our standards of police maintenance of law and order in the townships far higher than they have been in the past, and that every effort must be made in that direction over the ensuing months. We must conduct a concerted campaign—using the troops as well—to regain the initiative and then allow the moderate Black to take control of the situation there.

Mr Chairman, we have reached the end of the debate which actually also introduces the end of a report year in Parliament. It was probably not an easy year for all who were involved in the maintenance of law and order in South Africa, whether it was in my own sphere or that of the Commissioner of Police or every other member of the Police Force and also whether it was in the sphere of one of the other branches of the Security Forces which share the maintenance of law and order in South Africa with us. It was a difficult year as regards the practical conditions in parts of our country but I do not wish to pause there. It was also a difficult year as regards the political onslaught made against the department and the Ministry and from the nature of the case against me as the political head in this connection.

I think it was probably only in the days of Mr Vorster, the early sixties, and perhaps during a few years when Mr “Blackie” Swart was the Minister of Justice and Police in the late fifties that such a sustained, venomous, derogatory and personally insulting campaign was conducted against the responsible Minister and sometimes also against members of the Police Force in the execution of their duty.

You have forgotten about the Jimmy Kruger days.

I think those are the two parts.

When Mr Kruger was the Minister of Police—I am now referring to the period before the Biko incident because I do not wish to pause at those personal matters at the moment—there were times when it went just the same. I wish to say that, if there is anyone in the parliamentary sphere—except the hon member for Green Point because he is merely a cheap, insulting person, that is all—who has derived any pleasure from the intensity of the political debate on the involvement of this department and/or this Ministry—and that includes the other wing, namely the Director: Security Legislation—I shall be surprised to hear of it regardless of the intensity of the debate! I hope I am right.

There have been quite a number of people within and outside the House who have made it their business over the past nine months and more to act absolutely venomously against this Ministry and department. If they were to take the trouble over the next few months to inform themselves in quiter moments of the circumstances and, no matter how difficult, at least to attempt analysing all the circumstances in which we were involved and then to ask themselves honestly: Was it always necessary for us to have been so sharp?, I believe many hon members who participated in the debate would say: I do not believe it was necessary for us to have been so sharp. I believe they could ask with justification whether they had not done more damage by their actions. In my opinion many people will in future admit that they probably caused more damage than made a contribution.

People within and outside the House will also come to admit later that many matters have up to the present been erroneously laid at our door. If this should happen, I hope hon members and also those outside the House will be magnanimous enough to acknowledge this. Politically they do not have to like our people; they do not have to like the officials of the department and they do not have to approve of the duties we carry out. I only hope those people will be honest enough to acknowledge this.

I should like to answer to the debate as comprehensively but also as briefly as possible. One naturally also had to expect the Official Opposition to attempt putting its case as strongly as possible in this debate—I do not hold it against its members. I have already said that there is only one hon member’s speech to which I shall not reply because it was merely 10 minutes of insults.

The Official Opposition made one mistake in this debate. The hon member for Houghton, in fact, made a great mistake in this respect for which her party is yet to pay—it is already paying for it in Port Elizabeth. The hon member for Houghton once again led her small ultraleft group in the PFP in laying particular stress on the case which could possibly be made out against the Police Force. I shall return in detail later to the hon member for Houghton but I should first like to deal with other aspects. Nevertheless I shall indicate in greater detail what fatal mistakes she made in this debate, mistakes for which she and her small ultraleft group will pay dearly politically.

I should like to extend hearty thanks for their support to hon members on this side of the House who made a contribution. I find it a privilege to co-operate with our group of members in the House. The hon member for Krugersdorp is distinguishing himself as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and Order. He does very good work and has, in fact, also done much good reconnaissance work in the parliamentary sphere for which I wish to thank him. We have a new dispensation which has to be built from the ground up and in respect of which great patience has to be exercised.

The hon member for Krugersdorp also made a good speech yesterday, however; he actually made a speech which gave the hon member for Houghton cause for concern. That is why she has taken so much notice of him today. After all, I know the hon member for Houghton: Once she starts taking notice of someone, it is because of the political stand he is effectively taking in opposition to her and for no other reason—it will definitely never be for love. [Interjections.] God help a person the day the hon member for Houghton exhibits love towards one!

The hon member for Krugersdorp asked the hon member for Houghton inter alia where the PFP had been during the stay-away action in November last year. This is an important matter but there was not a sound from her side. [Interjections.] There was no sound from her direction when the chairman of that committee said: “I am a revolutionary and my main aim is to make South Africa ungovernable.” Not a word.

He was talking against disinvestment.

The hon member knows why but she need not concern herself. She does not worry me in the least as I do not hear her. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Krugersdorp also put the question whether it had been worthwhile to involve some PFP members on the occasion of privileged discussions.

[Inaudible.]

I wish to say to the hon member for Houghton I have reason to regret that I was friendly enough to invite some members of her party to Maleoskop. I have reason for regret and I am saying so to those hon members. [Interjections.]

The hon members for Losberg and Parys made their usual good speeches but expressed their concern that I should not permit the CP to hijack me. I wish to say to hon members that this will not happen; it will not happen for various reasons but particularly for one important reason which is that those hon members hurt us too gravely on this side of the House by the way in which they abandoned the NP. Those two hon members therefore do not have to concern themselves about this.

[Inaudible.]

I shall reply to the hon member’s speech; he does not have to become worked up about it now.

The hon member for Vryheid asked us what the Government’s stand was on the damage caused to the houses of policemen and/or those of the public. As regards policemen, they are cared for as we ensure that they do not suffer financial loss. As regards members of the public, I cannot reply in detail except to say that the State President’s Fund naturally also provides for some of the damage people suffer in consequence of this situation of unrest. I cannot reveal details of the extent at present.

I also thank the hon members for Humansdorp and Beaufort West for their contributions. The hon member for Beaufort West got in a good blow against me and the Commissioner of Police in the House on the representations he had made for improvements to the police station at Fraserburg to which we did not respond to his satisfaction. Nevertheless he now came to tell us that those inadequate facilities at Fraserburg had been so well improved and applied by the Police that they ended up as one of the 10 best cared for police stations in the country. I wish to request the hon member to convey my congratulations to the station commander and his men.

My thanks also to the hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Helderkruin for their sturdy contributions; they will realize that I do not have the time to refer to each in detail.

The hon member for Boksburg drew our attention to the system of crime prevention committees which has already been instituted in his community. This is an interesting development to which we would certainly all wish to pay attention.

†The hon member for Durban Point raised a few matters yesterday and another one or two this afternoon. This afternoon he specifically referred to our goal which is to achieve a ratio of 2,6 policemen per 1 000 of the population within the next 10 years. The hon member said that that was too long a period. I quite agree with him. The fact of the matter is that we have conducted an intensive investigation into this matter over quite a period, and I had four alternatives to consider. Eventually my advisers and I decided upon a particular scheme which was presented to me and which was the most favourable one to accept under our circumstances. It will take about 10 years, in the light of all the circumstances, to achieve this particular ratio. Although we have the support of the Cabinet and of the hon the Minister of Finance, finances are of course going to be the deciding factor if we are to reach that goal. I can only hope, with the hon member, that we will be placed in a position to achieve that goal at least within the next 10 years. I cannot take that any further at this stage.

Yesterday the hon member also said that there seemed to be something wrong with our intelligence services, and he asked why we did not know who was behind it all. I can give the hon member and the House the assurance that we know pretty well who is behind all this. I am satisfied that our intelligence sections are doing a pretty good job in all the different departments, but we also have our problems, of course. One of our main problems at present is the disturbed situation in some of these areas, which has as a result that we do not get as much information as we would have liked to have. On the other hand, however, may I refer the hon member to the fact that, in the last seven or eight months we have arrested more than 10 000 people on charges relating directly to the riots or the unrest situation. That is also as a result of good information that we received. Furthermore, there are at present a number of trials in terms of security legislation pending in court, as a direct result of intensive investigation by the security branch. This would not have been possible without information obtained by ourselves through our different intelligence services that operate in this regard. Therefore there is also a positive side to the issue that the hon member mentioned.

Can you not neutralize the agitators?

I am sorry, but I do not have the time now to go into a new aspect, but we may discuss it some time.

*The hon member for Brakpan apologized for not being able to be present here this afternoon. He referred inter alia to Coloured and Indian participation in the Police Force. I can point out to the hon member that the percentage of Coloureds in the Police Force comprises 6,37% of the total Force whereas the percentage of Coloureds in the Force is only 0,01% of the total population—which is therefore a very good representation. Indian representation is 4,04% of the total Police Force whereas they comprise less than 1% of the total population; there is consequently a very good representation percentagewise of the two groups in the Police Force.

Arising from the number of police stations we envisage building, the hon member asked me why so few of those stations were manned by Coloureds or Indians and/or were placed under their command and whether I could confirm this. As members of the Police Force develop, more police stations will be placed under their direct command, however. At present, we plan to build 12 new police stations for Coloureds and 4 new ones exclusively for Indians. From the nature of the case these stations will also be manned by them. I should like to reassure the hon member and point out to him that we receive more applications from Coloured and Indian ranks than we can accommodate. We are able to accept only matriculants from these two population groups into the service; this applies to male and female members and has been the case for the past two or three years.

As regards Ambassador Worrall’s explanation given in London—I examined the documents and the reply provided by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I wish to refer the hon member for Brakpan to a report in Beeld of 25 March 1985 in which the correction of Ambassador Worrall’s view was published. I accept the entire circumstances as described in the Beeld report and I believe it will also reassure the hon member as regards this case.

The hon member for Koedoespoort expressed his personal good intentions and those of his party towards the South African Police and I accept that they are bona fide good intentions. The hon member made one point in particular, namely that we should contribute in assisting to give the police “teeth”. Let me put it like this instead: We should assist the community to have “teeth”—not the police. We must help the Black community to have “teeth”. He raised one or two matters concerning which I want to enlarge on only one because he was probably unable to round it off through lack of time. He referred to the matter of Black family courts which is actually known as the Kghotla system. There are many problems attached to this Kghotla system. It was applied in certain places but control was lost to a certain degree and abuses took place. That is why it was discouraged—also from the ranks of the police. One cannot raise objections against the Kghotla system as such where it is applied within Black culture as a form of exercising discipline. If it is applied as such, no serious objection can be raised against it. It is the duty of Black community leaders, however, to see that the Kghotla system is applied in the traditional and decent sense of the word—naturally within the framework of their own culture.

The other aspect on which I wish to support the hon member is that regarding the question as to what degree we should contribute in enabling Black communities to institute guards for their own homes—a type of “home guard” system. I assume it is something similar to our system of B reservists, which actually comes down to members of the community patrolling their immediate residential block or two. They do it for a few hours a week depending on circumstances. This is a system which I believe we should attempt promoting among our Black communities; once again with proper control—as they see it—and on a community basis. I believe a great deal of good could be accomplished in this way. Discipline could also be maintained in this way, especially among the younger generation in some of those areas.

†The hon member for Sandton delivered a very constructive speech about an important matter. I want to assure the hon member that we have held discussions about this matter with representatives of the Press. There is a general appreciation among us of the problems existing on both sides. I think the hon member should leave the matter in abeyance at this stage. There is nothing much in the speech of the hon member with which I can disagree. This matter is, however, receiving attention. I am sure that in future we will be able to arrange our co-operation with the Press in this regard on quite a sound basis. I thank the hon member for his constructive contribution to the debate.

The hon member for Johannesburg North specifically referred to two matters of importance. Firstly he asked me about the spies on our university campuses.

It will be terrible for him if you find out who the troublemakers are!

Yes, terrible indeed.

Are there spies on our campuses? Tell us.

I should like merely to ask the hon member in passing whether he has ever heard of names such as Jenkins, Suttner, Niehaus, Hart, Adams, Lourens, Hogan, Christie and others. The hon member should know what the circumstances were in each of these cases. He should know where they operated. He should know that very well indeed. He should also know about the very serious crimes of which they were convicted in the Supreme Court of our country.

May I also ask the hon member whether he knows of some of the publications issued on some of our campuses, and what the contents of those publications are? He knows that very well. Does he also know that Nusas has been declared an affected organization? He knows that very well indeed. I believe I should leave the hon member at that, Mr Chairman.

Nusas? Since when? [Interjections.]

Nusas has naturally been declared an affected organization.

Tell us when.

The hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to an incident in Katlehong last year …

I think you are making an error in connection with Nusas.

I have never heard of Nusas being declared an affected organization.

Order!

Mr Chairman, if I am mistaken I will express my regret about it. That is, however, the impression under which my advisers and I are presently. If that is indeed not the case …

Do you intend declaring it an affected organization then?

No, that is not my intention. If it is indeed not the case I shall tell the hon member for Houghton that. That is, however, currently my information. If that is not correct I will inform the hon member for Houghton accordingly because she is the chief spokesman of the PFP on law and order. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he is standing by his statement that Nusas is an affected organization?

I have said that that is the advice I have received today and that if that is wrong I will immediately come back to the hon member for Houghton—I hope even before the end of this debate. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I have just received a note from the Director: Security Legislation, Adv Bosch, who informs me: “It is correct that Nusas has been declared an affected organization.” [Interjections.]

†I leave it at that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Johannesburg-North also referred to an incident in Kathlehong last year when a national serviceman was doing duty with three or four young policemen. He referred to two particular incidents, and when I asked him whether those incidents had been reported he said: “Yes, they have been reported.” What I want to know is by whom and to whom they were reported. [Interjections.] To which officer were they reported? Can the hon member please tell me who the officer was?

I do not know his name or that of his lieutenant but he confirmed the fact that he had reported it to his officer.

Where and when was it reported?

On the day. [Interjections.]

No, I shall tell the hon member this …

He was telling a lie. [Interjections.]

Why did the hon member not … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is an hon member in this House who said that that was a lie.

Order! Did someone in the House say that somebody else had told a lie?

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

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Earlier today an hon member mentioned that that hon the Minister was “bewusteloos”. He was required to withdraw it and to apologize.

Order!

No, Sir, I am making my point of order, if you would allow me to complete it.

Yes.

My point of order is that what has just been said is far worse than saying that anybody is “bewusteloos”. Therefore, I believe the hon member should be asked both to withdraw the remark and to apologize to hon members on this side of the House.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you if you would be prepared to give a considered ruling on—not now, but a considered ruling—and/or refer to Mr Speaker the question as to when an hon member will be required both to withdraw and apologize, or when he will only be required to withdraw because at the moment we are in a state of total confusion.

Order! The matter will receive due consideration in due course. The hon the Minister may continue.

I also want to know from the hon member for Johannesburg North why over a period of six to seven months he did not bother also to inform me, as the responsible Minister, about the incident. Why did he not just drop me a note about the incident if it was such a serious one?

I only discovered it in the last few days.

Sure, it was just discovered within the last few days!

Is the hon the Minister implying that I am not telling the truth? [Interjections.]

I am not an amateur. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member also said he supported the hon member for Houghton because I do not come down like a ton of bricks on a policeman who oversteps the mark.

*That is what he expects of me. That is why my salary should be reduced, Sir, because I refuse to hammer policemen left and right. [Interjections.] That is what the hon member wants—“coming down like a ton of bricks on a policeman”. What does that mean other than to hammer a man?

†It means nothing less than that. [Interjections.] The hon member wants a reduction in my salary because of that. [Interjections.]

Order!

One can see by the hon member’s face he is guilty of the facts I impute to him. [Interjections.] There is not a single hon member who harbours any doubts about that. [Interjections.] Even the hon member for Durban Point agrees with me.

†The hon member for Houghton advanced four main reasons in support of the amendment which she moved. Actually it was not her amendment but the official PFP amendment for a reduction in my salary. The first reason was the misuse of force by the SA Police in the Black townships. The second reason were the so-called Koevoet brutalities. The third reason was the unnecessary shooting of rioters by the SA Police. The fourth reason was that I, as she put it, “accepted without question everything the Police do or tell him and because he has a totally misguided sense of loyalty to his duty”.

*Those were the four main reasons put forward by the hon member for the reduction of my salary.

There were more.

No, the rest were of lesser importance.

Let me take them from the beginning: First there was the matter of unnecessary force. In this regard the hon member referred especially to the report of the SA Bishops’ Conference in Johannesburg in connection with the Vaal Triangle. She also referred to the investigation carried out by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central as well as the report brought to my attention by the hon member for Albany.

What are the facts? The hon member requested that my salary be reduced before she had heard the facts and my reply.

You had a long time in which to tell us.

She could have taken the opportunity presented by three speeches but she is not in the least interested in the true facts as long as she can say she requests that my salary be reduced.

Were we to (give) you longer …

Order!

A short while ago the hon member for Greytown was so soundly asleep that at one stage he did not even want to apologize. He has suddenly woken but I wish he would keep quiet because with his noise at the back there it has become difficult for me to hear over the hon Chief Whip’s head what is going on while I am speaking to the hon member for Houghton.

It strikes one how the hon member presented these matters in the committee yesterday because over the past month the hon member for Houghton has discovered to her regret what influence her action and that of some other members of her party inside and outside this House with regard to this matter has had on the by-election in Port Elizabeth as far as it concerns her party. They know very well they are in for a trouncing tomorrow and one of the reasons for it is the contribution from the hon member and comrade Molly Blackburn and others in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order!

What also strikes one concerning the matters put forward by the hon member is that neither she nor any other member of her party has ever taken any interest in any casualty among members of the Police Force. This has never happened.

It is your duty to look at that.

What is the position in connection with the Vaal Triangle matter? The bishops published a report; they sent copies of the report to some of us, to me amongst others. What further course did this take? I immediately took note of it and confirmed to the bishops that I was doing so. I told the bishops their report was being investigated in detail—they have this in writing. That report was handed to General Zietsman, the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, for his personal attention. He gave his personal attention to the investigation in this regard. Still more: He and other senior officers as well as other senior officers on their own on occasion had discussions with the bishops in connection with the report, eliciting great appreciation from the side of the bishops.

So what?

Oh so? The hon member does not even wait to hear these matters; without further ado she requests a reduction of my salary.

An intensive investigation has already been conducted and in sum I can report as follows to the committee in this connection: In 13 cases the police investigation had already commenced before the publication of the document. In nine cases plaintiffs refused to make statements because civil cases had been brought against the State while in 13 cases the plaintiffs could not be identified to date. The result was that the police could not investigate charges brought by plaintiffs to the Bishops’ Conference because the nature of the charges could not be established and witnesses could not be interviewed. In two cases the Attorney-General refused to institute prosecutions whereas acquittals were obtained in two cases and five were closed as untraceable. In three cases the Attorney-General instructed that prosecutions be instituted and in four cases his judgement is pending. The judicial enquiry into one case has not yet been completed while the remainder of the cases are still being investigated.

Is that a cause for complaint? Is that a reason for the hon member to request the reduction of my salary, namely because the necessary attention is not being paid to matters? The nature of the hon member’s complaint is that attention be paid by the responsible Minister to allegations with regard to police misdemeanours. She complains that I do not pay the necessary attention to this and then she gives the following examples … [Interjections.] I am giving the hon member the facts. [Interjections.] Let us take the next case. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Houghton has addressed this Committee on three occasions in the course of the consideration of this Vote. I think the hon member has had ample opportunity to motivate her amendment. I request the hon member to afford the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Mr Chairman, I will do that.

I am referring to the second case, that of Port Alfred which was brought to my attention by the hon member for Albany. On more than one occasion the hon member for Albany brought various statements to my attention—most of them were not sworn statements but that does not matter now—on incidents which supposedly took place there. The hon member knows I attended to them immediately. The hon member knows that I was in touch with him within a reasonable time. The last report I furnished the hon member with was on 10 April when I wrote to the hon member as follows:

Is that a case of attention not being given? Is that a case of attention not being given by the responsible Minister to complaints brought to his attention in consequence of averred police abuse? The hon member for Houghton did not even want to hear about it yesterday before she came with her amendment and that was just for its sensation value.

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

I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes over. The hon member must give me an opportunity to finish and then we can look at it again.

Let us take the case of Cradock. Here we had the example of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who held it against us on more than one occasion because we did not take enough notice of him. The hon member should ask himself, however, why we do not pay attention to him. [Interjections.] He carries on in this House like a little boy crying at playtime because he cannot operate his top. He cannot get his top to spin and now he runs crying to his other friends as if it were their fault. That is what the hon member is doing. Now the accusation is levelled at me once more that also in the hon member’s case I did not pay enough attention to matters which he brought to my notice in a serious way.

What are the facts? Naturally the hon member brought a set of statements on an incident at Cradock to my attention. I took note of them at once and told him they would be investigated. The Commissioner of Police instructed a senior officer to investigate them and here is the report. This report was not delivered to me only today or yesterday; I received it as early as 21 March. The matter therefore received very rapid attention and I have the details of the report here.

What are the facts of this case? At 13h00 on Sunday, 3 February, the Police Force was informed that the house of a Black member in Cradock had been attacked with stones and damaged and that another Black member of the Police Force who was visiting the house was missing. Later the same day the corpse of Constable Bomali was found near the cemetery in the Black residential area; his body had been cruelly mutilated. Members of the Police Force had gathered on this specific Sunday to investigate a murder case and to attempt gaining and maintaining control over the threatening situation of unrest manifesting itself in Lingelihle with stone-throwing at police vehicles and erection of roadblocks and obstructions by means of burning tyres amongst other things. After the arrest of a suspect on the same day as the murder of the policeman occurred, Black youths became unruly there and forced the Police Force to act on various occasions and to fire on the mob to protect its members and property.

In the submissions made by the hon member are various statements, some taken by him and others by comrade Blackburn, in which residents complained about police action on this specific day. How was this presented? These conditions of unrest which prevailed there in which a police official was murdered atrociously were presented by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central as a peaceful scene. We were the crooks driving around a residential area firing at people left and right and even hurling stones at them. I ask you! Nowhere in any of these statements does the hon member mention an attack on a policeman’s house and that a policeman was murdered abominably. These are the reasons why the hon member requests that my salary be reduced. That is all the attention we pay it, however, that is all the trouble we take and the time we devote to doing our duty. We have to see that we carry out our duty but the hon member says to the House and the country that my salary should be decreased because I am not doing my duty as regards complaints they have brought to my attention on supposedly brutal action by the police.

The hon member knows very well that on more than one occasion I have said in the House and outside that neither the Commissioner of Police nor I am prepared to permit any member of the Police Force to break the law or Standing Orders deliberately. Neither are we prepared to condone such behaviour. On more than one occasion we have set the example of acting in this respect; the hon member is certainly aware of this.

I know my time is practically up but I wish to point out a few other matters briefly. There is the case of Koevoet. The hon member said: “We have refused …”—this was in response to my invitation to any member of the Official Opposition to accompany me to South West Africa—“… seeing that we do not want to be identified with any paying of ‘hulde’ to Koevoet. We do not believe the hon the Minister’s description of Koevoet having done an outstanding task.” In other words, we have to accept that hon members of the Official Opposition are ashamed of SAP members in South West Africa; they do not wish to be associated with them. The hon member also says they do not acknowledge the extremely successful fighting record of those SAP members, members who have carried out two thirds of the operations in that area successfully and captured enemy property worth more than R4 million over the past six years. They do not acknowledge this and do not wish to be associated with it. Do not think we are unaware how the hon member for Houghton reproached the hon member for Sea Point last year in the House and outside because he made a positive speech after paying a visit with me to the SA Police in South West Africa. That was the first positive speech on the SA Police in a long time by an hon member of the Official Opposition. From her seat the hon member reproached him that he dared say something positive about the SA Police in her presence.

I shall be leaving for South West Africa shortly and intend visiting the entire area. I shall tell every member of the Police Force the Official Opposition does not want to be associated with them, is ashamed of them and refuses to visit them. This is on record.

That is untrue and you know it.

Order!

The hon member does not need to apologize, Sir. It is on record and I shall tell everyone.

Order! The hon member for Berea must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but I do not apologize.

Mr Chairman, I wish to repeat to the hon member that I shall tell this to every member of the Police Force because it is on record in the words of the hon member for Houghton. I do not have to make up stories about it, I have it in writing and will present it to them as it is. I shall present it to them wherever I go; in addition, I shall not only inform members of the Police Force about it there but I shall also see to it that the message is carried widely enough to the SA Police as well. The hon member need not worry about that!

Do you say that you will say it in public?

I will say it in public, in your presence, and I challenge you to do anything about it! I shall say it in public because I have it in writing.

Then we shall call you a liar.

You may call me a liar as much as you like, but I have it in writing and I will say it in public.

Then you will have to sue us!

I wish to raise a last point, namely that the hon member holds it against me for the so-called unnecessary shooting of rioters. The hon member knows, however, what the Government’s policy is and how we state that policy. We have at all times to act in the best tradition of the SA Police which is to serve and to protect and always to act with the least possible violence so that there is a minimum of loss of life, injury or damage. Surely this is known; there has been no change in that Government point of view. How many times does it have to be put to the Official Opposition? The hon member also knows that the SA Police is well equipped and well trained and has clear instructions in this regard. Why does the hon member doubt this? The hon member knows that I was present personally in Grahamstown, Cradock and many other towns on a private visit last year. I was in Port Elizabeth more than once as well as in East London and everywhere in the Eastern Province in connection with these matters but then the hon member comes and blames us for them.

Now I wish to ask the hon member what she and the Official Opposition expect of the SA Police when its members have to do with and are attacked by perpetrators of violence and murderers? Do we have to stand with folded arms? The hon member is aware of the Kinikini murder and the atrocities carried out in those areas, how portions of bodies were swung around at funerals.

And eaten.

And eaten as well. [Interjections.] Only yesterday a member of the SA Police was murdered horrendously in Uitenhage. He was burnt and we came upon his half-charred body lying under burning tyres in the street. The houses of councillors and police are attacked, their families are also attacked and murdered and even they are attacked and murdered. Are we not to take action? Are we not to protect ourselves? Is that unnecessary shooting? The hon member should tell me whether that is unnecessary shooting. Fire bombs and acid bombs are thrown at the SA Police and also at other people. Now I wish to ask the hon member what we are supposed to do when a fire bomb is thrown at a member of the SA Police. I said in this House, in her presence—and I have said it on countless occasions outside the House—that I will not permit a fire bomb or an acid bomb to be thrown at members of the Security Forces. Such a person must expect no mercy from the SA Police.

Hear, hear!

My stand has not changed but we are not dealing with school-children here. In Elsies River we were dealing with little tykes running around the streets but now the hon member wishes to equate our situation in other Black areas with the situation we had here in Cape Town in 1979 and 1980 and in 1982 on the Rand when we had to do with small children. Surely we are dealing with murderers and perpetrators of violence now. The hon member then requests that my salary be reduced because I have supposedly changed. She asks what has happened to me. Nothing has happened to me but I wish to tell the hon member that we are now dealing with murderers in the streets and not with small children who need a good hiding. [Interjections.] I wish to say to the hon member and to all hon members of the Official Opposition that I will not permit the SA Police to be exposed unnecessarily to mortal danger. Whether my salary is reduced or not, I shall not permit this. [Interjections.]

The last reason why my salary should supposedly be reduced is because I believe in members of the Police Force and do not take steps against them because I have a “totally misguided sense of loyalty to my duty”. I wish to tell the hon member for Houghton that I regard myself as a friend of every member of the Police Force and I am sure that every member for the Police Force regards me as a friend as well, regardless of personal viewpoints on politics and I am very proud of this. This does not mean, however, that we are blind to one another’s faults. I have never permitted my objectivity as the Minister to be influenced by this. That is my reply to the hon member for Durban Point who expressed his concern over this. I wish to assure the hon member that I have never over all the years permitted that that attitude which exists mutually should influence my objectivity in connection with the exercise of my duty as the Minister. I do my best daily to ensure that this does not happen but that does not mean that one should disturb good relations because one wishes to be clearly objective—as it is described.

There are many examples of my acting against individual members or a group of members where it required attention. I acted strongly and I do not find it pleasant to say so. There is a member at present serving a goal sentence of 10 years—immediate action was taken in his case. Hon members know to which case I am referring; it took place in Johannesburg. There are other such cases as well but it is not pleasant to speak about such matters. Nevertheless I have always tried to act fairly and correctly. If this is to be held against me and if this is the reason for a reduction in my salary, the House may reduce it—if it is to depend on the Official Opposition. If my salary is to be reduced, however, because I protect the Police Force from the point of view I have explained, because I encourage or inspire its members or because I have co-operated with them in improving their salaries and conditions of service to among the best in the public sector, if all this is to be held against me, then I would rather be loyal—I prefer to be loyal—to the SA Police than to some enemies of the Republic of South Africa. This gives me far more pleasure.

I wish to say to the hon member for Houghton and her little group of leftists in the PFP that they no longer contribute to political debate. The little they still attempt to provide by way of use of old clichés in attempting to draw a little attention and obtain a little publicity no longer impresses anyone—not in this House and not outside it either. I wish to tell her this is general opinion applicable to her and her little group of ultraleftists within the Official Opposition.

Sir, I am aware I have exceeded my time and offer my apologies to the Chief Whip on our side. I thank you for the opportunity of having been able to close the debate.

Amendment put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Mr Chairman, you will understand that this is a special occasion for me and for my department since it is the first time this department’s budget is being discussed in the House. It is also the first time that a vote of the Minister’s Council is being discussed.

My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and I are also very sorry that our chairman and senior colleague, Dr Nak van der Merwe, is no longer with us. We shall miss him in the Ministers’ Council. His positive, cheerful approach to his work will, however, always remain with us. It was a great privilege for us in the Ministers’ Council to have been able to serve under his chairmanship.

In terms of the Constitution this department, together with certain other departments, came into being on 17 September as an administrative structure to give substance to the philosophy of self-government by each population group in our country, chiefly in regard to its own affairs. The conditions under which my department, on an equal footing with its sister’s departments, accepted responsibilities for matters of prime concern, ie local government, housing and works, require me briefly to state my policy in regard to the duties of the department.

I should also clearly and appreciatively like to state that there is the closest co-operation with my colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates who carry the same responsibilities. When necessary, we hold mutual discussions, and these take place on a regular basis.

On this occasion I should also like to express my sincere appreciation to my predecessor, the hon S F Kotzé, for what he managed to achieve in the field of housing. His pragmatic approach to the extremely difficult problems relating to housing is, to a large extent, the one single factor responsible for the successful introduction of vital new trends of thought in a relatively short space of time.

Owing to the fact of the department having come into being recently, as I have already indicated, it stands to reason that no annual report covering its activities has been drafted as yet. At the next Parliamentary session there will, however, be a report available.

Let me refer briefly to certain duties for which the department is responsible. The most important Acts or portions of Acts relating to the responsibility for local government, housing and works for the White population group which the State President entrusted to me for implementation within an area which, in terms of a general law has been declared to be for the use of the White group, and in so far as their implementation does not have an effect outside the relevant area, are the following: The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951; State Land Disposal Act, 1961; Community Development Act, with the exclusion of certain sections to which I shall again be referring; the Housing Act of 1966, with the exclusion of certain sections to which I shall be referring; the Removal of Restrictions Act; Church Square, Pretoria, Development Act; the Government Villages Act; the Expropriation Act; the Rent Control Act; the Slums Act; and section 23 of the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Act.

In addition my department is also entrusted with the implementation of a variety of laws involving White settlements. We are still moving through a phase of rationalization in regard to legislation, in the sense that practical experience may indicate that certain legal provisions entrusted to me are possibly more closely related to the functions of other departments. Where it appears necessary, in the interests of systematic administration, the necessary adjustments will be made, with mutual consultations about this taking place between myself and my counterparts in the relevant departments. Apart from the department’s head office, there are also regional offices in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein and Kimberley.

I also think it fitting, as a backdrop to the discussion, for me to put forward my policy and my department’s policy in regard to the primary functions entrusted to us. We shall therefore be debating the various matters at greater length with one another in the course of the debate. It is obvious that I shall; through my department, and as funds permit, aim at promoting the interests of the population group I am serving.

Housing remains one of the top priorities. We all sympathize with those who do not have the necessary means to provide for their own housing needs. It is the object of my department to make it possible for every person, within my sphere of responsibility, to obtain and preferably own suitable housing.

To bring housing within the means of those who need it, is the great challenge facing us. We shall endeavour to achieve this by way of a variety of approaches. The promotion of home-ownership is of national importance. Fairly recently home-ownership was still the goal of the South African population in general. Every family that was at all well off could own its own home. Plots were readily available at a reasonable cost and urbanization, with its concomitant problems, had not yet manifested itself to any great extent. In the past few years, however, circumstances have changed radically, chiefly as a result of the tremendous increase in the urban population. The economic and great sociological benefits of home-ownership, and the positive influence of this on the up-and-coming generation, dictate that our aim will continue to be that of bringing family housing economically within the reach of everyone who wants it.

The devolution of greater responsibility to local authorities is a logical step in the perfection of the democratic form of government in our country and the fundamental principle of everyone having a say in matters affecting them. The South African system of control over local affairs by local authorities makes governmental institutions particularly accessible to everyone in the community. Already there is close co-operation between the department and local authorities on a variety of matters and sound mutual understanding which will continue to be our goal and which we shall consistantly develop. An important principle affecting housing and local authorities is contained in the Slums Act of 1976 which provides that the onus is on local authorities to ensure that suitable housing is provided for the inhabitants of the areas within their jurisdiction.

In regard to these State campaigns to promote development there are two factors of great importance. Firstly it is a matter of the judicious utilization of available land. Land is valuable, and the land we have available for housing must be utilized to better effect. The second important factor relating to development is that of the preservation and utilization of the existing infrastructure and available residential accommodation which, for various reasons, is under-utilized. We are experiencing an acute demand for accommodation in our cities, whilst in some rural areas first-rate accommodation is standing empty. My department is in the process of conducting a nation-wide survey of available, vacant accommodation, after which due consideration will have to be given to ways in which this accommodation, which represents a great investment of assets, can best be employed. Continually rising land prices are a cause for concern in that we shall not be able to supply the essential housing at a low cost.

Proper housing for our aged is a matter that is very dear to my heart. It is not always possible to have provision keep pace with demand, since State funds are limited. It is nevertheless my intention to work towards stabilizing the lives of those aged, children in need of care and those who must have recourse to the State for a livelihood.

†Rent control, which affected dwellings, garages and parking bays which were occupied before 1 June 1966, was systematically phased out on account of the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry into Housing Matters. At present only dwellings, garages and parking bays which were occupied before 21 October 1949, and dwellings occupied by protected tenants, are still under rent control. Rent control affects the rights of owners on the one hand and the right of tenants on the other hand and is of a sensitive nature. I propose to discuss the matter in detail at a later stage in the debate.

The private sector already makes a meaningful contribution to the provision of low-cost housing. This is appreciated but room still exists for greater participation, especially by employers and developers in this field. In this regard I should like to mention with appreciation the role of the housing utility company. All of the registered companies are not fully operational but others have already completed and sold a number of houses and flats.

Urban renewal and the rehabilitation of decayed areas is a task which will be continued with by my department. At present more emphasis is placed on the retention and restoration of structures which justify it. In the first instance this is the function of the local authority concerned, with which my department assists as far as possible. It is my and my department’s intention to act proactively in future in collaboration with local authorities where residential areas show the inclination to decay. In terms of the new constitutional dispensation the implementation of the Housing Act of 1966 and the Community Development Act, except insofar as they concern the composition of the statutory bodies which were established under these Acts, was assigned to own affairs Ministers. The composition of the aforementioned bodies as well as their committees rests with the Minister responsible for Public Works and Land Affairs.

Aspects regarding norms, standards and income limits for the financing of housing, etc, remain general affairs, while housing and community development are own affairs with regard to policy and all other matters in terms of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, 1983. Each population group has its unique needs. The Bill on development and housing which has been approved by the Ministers’ Council and in which the independent and effective management of affairs exclusively with regard to the White population group in respect of housing, development and related matters will be embodied, is expected to be placed on the Order Paper soon.

*Establishing and building up a new Government department is, at times, inevitably accompanied by disruption and a variety of problems. These can vary from a shortage of competent staff to a lack of suitable accommodation and essential equipment. My department already has an effect administrative and policy-making structure stretching throughout the country from the regional offices right up to me and the head of my department. This systematic administrative structure would be meaningless if it did not also extend to the public whom we are there to serve. Regional representatives of my department aim at being accessible to the public. My door and that of the head of my department are always open to allow for discussions, where necessary. The way in which the functions of the department have been defined, bottlenecks identified, aims formulated and matters dealt with is proof of the seriousness and dedication with which the task is regarded. Together with the head of my department, one of the first tasks I undertook was a visit to each of the offices and regional offices of my department, on the one hand to make closer contacts with the staff and, on the other, to promote a uniformity of approach. The establishment of the department is not a large one, but the staff tackle their task with dedication and enthusiasm. For the majority of them there is no question of official hours. The positive spirit in which my department and its officials have accepted the measures aimed at curtailing expenditure likewise do them credit. As an example I should like to refer here to the department’s regional office in Pretoria which recently moved to an old, neglected office block. After many hours of working overtime, even over weekends, the officers, acting voluntarily, did such a wonderful job of converting the offices that anyone could be proud of the new accommodation, on which I want to congratulate them.

At this early stage in the debate I should like to express my sincere thanks to the head of the department, Mr Frank Gerber, for the support and assistance he has given me, and also for the way in which he set an example in the department. Likewise I extend a word of thanks to Mr Karsen, the Director: Housing and Works, to the department’s head office staff and also to every regional representative and his staff for the dedication with which they do their job and for the fine spirit that is evidenced in the functions they perform.

I also likewise want to extend my personal thanks for the dedication, enthusiasm and co-operation I have had from them. Last but not least, I should also like to express my appreciation to the executive and members of my study group for their valued co-operation and contributions. I do look forward to a pleasant and fruitful debate.

Mr Chairman, I extend my most sincere thanks to the hon member for Sea Point for allowing me this opportunity of speaking now as my travel plans will not allow me to be present here a little later or tomorrow.

I would naturally wish to reply to the hon the Minister’s speech. The hon member for Sea Point will do that, however, a little later.

This party, I am quite sure, extends to the hon the Minister responsible for Local Government, Housing and Works our best wishes on his assumption of this newly created office. I am sure, however, he will understand when I say we are certain that he is going to work himself out of this job, not because of his abilities, but for the reason that White local government just does not exist as a separate entity in South Africa. Try as they like, this Government cannot unscramble the South African omelette at the local government level. It is impossible.

Obviously, having said that, I wish to join the hon the Minister in extending our best wishes and thanks to the chief executive officer of his department and to the staff, and indeed, indirectly obviously too to the some 230 000 employees of local authorities in South Africa.

I should like to commence by making reference to the still undecided relationship in respect of the overall control of local government as it exists at first and second level of administration. We know full well that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Commission for Administration have been looking closely at the division of functions at the so-called provincial or second level. Let me put our position quite clearly. We believe very strongly in decentralized regional administrations, and this we feel has to be admitted. They can be called provinces or regions or federal states but we have to accept that they will be there. We feel that responsibility should rest at that level for the overall supervision of all local government falling under those auspices.

What we must guard against—I believe we should emphasize this—is the danger of control or domination of local government from one centralized point under the jurisdiction of one Minister—albeit separated on a racial basis—who, in determining policy or systems, may appear to be determined to stamp out all individuality of municipalities and to put everything into that grey uniform of a national straitjacket.

It is all very well to have a co-ordinating council of local authorities or of local government affairs but even that body excludes the representatives of 70% of the South African population who may well hold significantly different views. There is thus little doubt that this council may miss out on many important matters which are of major importance at local level. This is where I say one cannot separate White local government from any other local government.

I do unfortunately get the feeling at times that the word “co-ordination” is used by the Government to mean “uniformity” which I believe is clearly wrong. The hon the Minister must by now be well aware of how small his empire in local government really is. Much of it still resides under the provincial administrations while the balance is held in the fiefdom of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I think a fiefdom is an adequate description, since he behaves like a baron on occasion. [Interjections.]

In reply to an earlier question that I posed to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning regarding the breakdown of functions at the first and second levels of local government he said:

Good. Those are lovely words, Sir, and I hope we can take that hon Minister at his word and apply them to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works and that the powers currently residing with the provincial councils in terms of section 84(f) of Act 36 of 1961 will not be channelled into the hands of the hon the Minister whose Vote we are now discussing. We hope they will not come upwards; they should—if anything—go downwards.

In considering the transference of powers and responsibilities, let me warn the hon the Minister that the provincial ordinances and regulations with regard to local authorities are long and complicated—they are almost a minefield, if he is not yet aware of that. I merely want to cite one particular case in this regard. Which body under this hon Minister is going to be responsible for determining the regulations for the control of White children’s crechés? At the present moment these rest under the provincial councils. Are they going to fall under the regional service councils which are non-racial, under local authorities or are they coming up into the hon the Minister’s hands? Furthermore, will this hon Minister or the hon the Minister of Education and Culture be responsible for them? Who will then answer questions on these matters? Who will determine the space each child requires? Who will bring about this agreement between provinces?

No, Sir, the hon the Minister knows he has not got a job to do in local government and we really do not need to create a job for him. If he is going to be the Minister of Housing we will be happy but I think to make him Minister of Local Government and to give him powers in that area will be quite wrong. I can add, of course, many other areas. However, I should like to mention just one particular area which is quoted in the Yearbook under “Local Government”:

To what body are those by-laws going to be submitted? Are they going to be submitted to the hon the Minister? In relation to this point it must also be pointed out that according to the White Paper on this department one of its aims is to “conduct affairs with regard to local authorities, housing and works”. However, I know of little or no conducting of affairs with regard to local authorities. Is there any conducting going on? We in this party would really like to know that.

In the absence of any such explanation, perhaps I might at least suggest one area which does need consideration now and in which the hon the Minister could act, and that is the clash of desires in certain matters between local authorities and the National Government. I can understand it if this hon Minister does not want to get involved in such matters as the proposed desegregation of buses in Durban or the matter of beaches and recreational facilities all over South Africa. However, he cannot avoid some responsibility. The local government representatives have, in many cases, asked for this desegregation, whereas representatives of the governing party have opposed these requests at certain levels. This clash between local desires and the NP Government is likely to continue until the Government realizes that it cannot continue to impose its desires on local residents.

I should like to turn very briefly to the franchise and representation difficulties in certain smaller local authorities. Let me be explicit, however. There are many small towns where Indian, Coloured and other persons are not represented in terms of the local franchise. I cite Westville in my constituency in this regard. The borough of Westville has 9 White councillors, elected by the White voters. In the same area—absolutely contiguous, in the houses next door or across the road—a very small population of Indians is presently resident. They share the same White facilities such as electricity, water, roads, the library and sewerage. All these facilities are serviced by Westville. The population is small in number—there are only about 400 or 500 voters. Their representation at the moment is by management committee, which they do not want. The White voters of Westville … [Interjections.] I am sorry; is the hon the Minister taking advice at the moment? [Interjections.] Through their representatives the White voters of Westville as well as the Indian residents have asked for a common voters’ roll. Why cannot they have it? They cannot have it because the Government is determined to try to unscramble the omelette, as I say, to separate it into these racial compartments. I understand that a White Minister may feel that this is not his affair, but it is. It affects what is supposedly a White local authority. It affects White voters and White ratepayers and their expenditures. This point can be made in respect of many areas in the country. We have the ridiculous situation of having a so-called White local government Minister in South Africa while, honestly, there is no single White local authority. Not even Morgenzon is a White local authority. The hon the Minister cannot conduct his compartmentalized office without at every turn impinging on the other neatly packaged racial groups. Let me tell the hon the Minister that now that mixed marriages may take place, he is going to run into this problem even more.

To conclude I want to say that we do not believe that there are White local authorities any more than each of us represents a White constituency; we do not. We believe that the farce of separating local government into racial compartments must be ended and ended now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a brief reference to the speech made by the hon member for Pinetown who dealt with the issue of local government. In broad terms I can state that we all agree that local government is a very important aspect of the constitutional process. We all know that the very issue of local government is at present being given serious attention by various bodies. I do not intend responding to this issue at the moment because we shall very soon have ample time to discuss it at length.

*The hon the Minister referred to the restructuring of the department in the wake of the commencement of the new Constitution. Since this is now the first opportunity on which to debate the Local Government, Housing and Works Vote in this Committee, I cannot refrain from referring to the historic opportunity we are now being confronted with. The historic opportunity centres round the fact that this is the first Vote which is being discussed as an own affair of the Administration: House of Assembly under the new constitutional dispensation. This debate is therefore a subsection of the first chapter to be written about the new constitutional dispensation that South Africa is entering upon.

I should like to take this opportunity, at this historic moment, of taking both a backward and a forward look. We on this side of the Committee sincerely congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment to what we regard as a very important portfolio dealing with the administration of own affairs as far as Local government, Housing and Works are concerned, specifically a portfolio dealing with a very sensitive area in which own affairs can come into its own. I also want to take the opportunity of telling the hon the Minister that as far as this side of the Committee is concerned, he has the loyal support of every hon member, not only of the relevant study group, but also of the whole House.

Hon members must please excuse me—this is the first time that this Vote is being debated—for referring to the appointment of Mr Andre Cornelissen as Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly. I am also congratulating him as one Free Stater to another.

Mr Frank Gerber has been appointed to the post of department head with the designation of Chief Director. Mr Gerber has shown himself to be a competent top official.

So as not to congratulate Mr Gerber without mentioning a whole list of other names, let me take the opportunity of congratulating all the officials in the newly structured department on the greater responsibility now resting on their shoulders. Those of us who have had the privilege of co-operating with the old Department of Community Development for a number of years now, know that in them we not only have loyal officials, but also knowledgeable ones who are there to insure that this Vote of the Administration: House of Assembly, that of “Local Government, Housing and Works”, is brought to fruition.

The new constitutional dispensation rests on two pillars, that of own affairs and that of general affairs. In this debate I want to emphasize that own affairs are not subservient to general affairs; they are two equal partners, and they success of the one determines the success of the other. We have every confidence in the ability of the hon the Minister and his department to properly implement the own affairs functions of Local government, Housing and Works.

I want to refer to another aspect affected by the restructuring of the department, ie the National Housing Commission and the National Housing Fund, and also the Community Development Board and the Community Development Fund.

The new dispensation will affect both boards and both funds so that the administrations: own affairs of the House of Assembly, House of Representatives and House of Delegates will have their own boards and funds. That is a step in the right direction, because now the Coloureds and Indians are at least being put in a position to decide how they are going to spend their own funds and what priorities should be allocated to these funds.

I want to refer to the augmentation of the capital of the National Housing Fund. This is a fund that is instrumental in financing White housing. There are two very important matters involved in this. The first is that under very difficult economic circumstances, and with State spending cut to the bone, for the coming financial year an amount of R138,5 million has been voted for White housing, as against R120 million in 1983 and R120 million in 1984 for the housing campaign. As far as this facet is concerned, in the new constitutional dispensation the White housing campaign has not been subordinated to the overall budget, with more money having been made available for the housing campaign, in these difficult circumstances, than in the past.

In this connection we should also like to extend a sincere word of thanks to the hon Minister of the Budget. We know that he is very sympathetically disposed towards the whole process of obtaining housing and towards the problems of Whites buying their first house, including the problems of the White aged. We hope this sympathy will grow from year to year. The voting of more money is not an insignificant achievement. The voting of more money for the National Housing Fund is not only an achievement, but also an demonstration of the fact that housing for Whites, who cannot provide for their own housing needs, is one of the Government’s top priorities. I want to link up with the hon the Minister who said that this was one of the most important aims of his department. It is not merely an aim, however, because the hon the Minister and the department want to take this even further by giving White voters the assurance, from a political point of view, that as far as the Administration is concerned, housing is a very important matter. There is the further assurance, politically speaking, that I want to refer to, and that is the provision in the Constitution—and this has repeatedly been emphasized by the Minister of the Budget—that in providing …

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

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

I thank the hon Chief Whip for the opportunity to continue.

The second assurance, politically speaking, is that in future budgets the amount voted for the housing campaign will not be less than the amount voted this year. That is a very important assurance from a political point of view. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Works of the Administration: House of Assembly (Own Affairs) wants to point out that own affairs are not inferior or subservient to general affairs, but that both are the foundation-stones on which the Constitution is built and that the success of the one determines the success of the other.

I want to refer to another very topical aspect, and that is the financing of housing for the aged by both the private sector and the State. Firstly there is no one who would deny that there is an increasing demand for housing for the aged, particularly housing for those who are dependent upon a fixed investment or a social pension. The State has a specific responsibility in regard to the housing needs of this group of people. The fact remains, however—and this we cannot explain away—that housing for the aged is one of the most expensive kinds of housing one can imagine. Judged on the basis of the per capita norm, it is one of the most expensive housing campaigns that can be launched, because conservative estimates indicate the per capita cost of such housing at approximately R30 000. The department subsidizes the costs by one per cent or one-twentieth per cent. There is also a subsidy in regard to the operating losses of a housing scheme for the aged. Added to that there are still the subsidies for health and welfare services, relating to the nursing staff and the service centres.

With all these facts in mind, one realizes that housing for the aged is a very expensive kind of housing. The State, however, has a specific responsibility towards the aged who have to be provided with housing. Within these two parameters one can ask oneself whether it is far-fetched to expect even the aged who live in these homes to furnish a quid pro quo, if they can afford it, over and above the subsidized rental they are paying.

In referring to the financing of housing for the aged by the private sector—these are frequently referred to as retirement towns—let me say that it is a welcome phenomenon to have the private sector wanting to participate in the provision of housing for the aged. The State cannot carry this burden alone. One should issue a word of warning, however, against specific schemes and developers. The senior citizen’s need for housing makes him an easy target, particularly in the present economic climate. It is heart-rending to see how the aged are exploited and risk their life savings to obtain housing in schemes that are not viable. It is therefore fitting to extend a timely word of warning to senior citizens to be careful when purchasing accommodation in retirement towns or housing schemes for senior citizens. One could afford these people greater protection by compelling developers to submit plans for such development schemes for approval, in advance, to the Council of the Aged or a regional welfare board. The point I want to make is that there should be a certain degree of control over the establishment of housing schemes for the aged.

I want to conclude by pointing out the contrast I have noticed between the present debate and certain elements in the debate that has just been concluded. It is a striking contrast, because this Minister makes certain plans, but his plans involve building houses and not burning them down. This department says: Let us make plans for consultation, not boycotts. In the spirit of the new Constitution, to which I have just referred, and the functions entrusted to this department, I know that the goal of the hon the Minister and his department is to build and not to break down, to build up better attitudes, to build up better communities and thereby to build a better South Africa with a place for everyone.

Mr Chairman, on this particularly historic occasion, namely the discussion of the first own affairs vote, I should very much like to congratulate the hon the Minister on behalf of the CP on his appointment and to wish him and his officials all the best with their task. In the same breath, however, I also want to tell the Minister that in the nature of the matter we shall differ radically with him on many things.

For example, I should very much have liked the hon the Minister, as Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, to have had the final and sole say on these matters, as far as our electorate is concerned. Unfortunately this is not the case. At the outset the hon the Minister gave an explanation of the workings of his department. We are very happy to know exactly what it deals with. The hon the Minister also has a long list of legislation that he has been instructed to administer. All those Acts are subject to a general Act and this House on its own may alter no jot or tittle of that legislation.

That is not true.

Just a moment. I am coming to the hon member for Bellville. I just want to refer to the hon member for Pinetown, who is not here at the moment. He made the point that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is in fact the Minister of Local Government. I think he made a valid point there, because the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is in fact the big boss of local government. When the hon member for Bellville started speaking and spoke about the two pillars of the policy that is under discussion here, namely own affairs and general affairs, he was justified in mentioning only housing and works, because local government is not an own affair.

I want to agree with him as far as housing for the aged is concerned. We have no fault to find as far as that is concerned and we share the hon member’s view in this connection. Towards the end of his speech, however, the hon member said with reference to the previous debate that in respect of this department, too, we want to build and not break down. That breaking and burning down, however, has nothing to do with this House. I think that as far as that is concerned, the hon member found himself in other areas that do not affect this House at all.

How can you say it does not affect this House?

After all, there are no Whites that have smashed and burnt down houses.

If there is one area in which a Babel-like confusion still prevails in respect of the operation of the new dispensation, it is in particular the issue of what is actually own affairs and what is general affairs. The hon member for Bellville referred to this, too. This is particularly the case in the area of local government. I hope the hon the Minister to whom this has been entrusted in the Administration of the House of Assembly, the Minister whose Vote we are at present discussing, will give us greater clarity in this area in the course of that discussion.

The members of that coalition government proudly maintain, as the hon member for Bellville did, that local government affairs are pre-eminently the province of own self-determination, such as own residential areas, own schools and an own community life. However, what does practice teach us? I have not yet heard of any legislation that this hon Minister has tried to pilot through this House. If there is any legislation that this hon Minister intends to introduce in the House during this session, we should like to hear about it this afternoon, because what are the facts? All the legislation that affects local management affairs has to date been introduced by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is also the chairman of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs of which this hon Minister is merely a member.

While the hon member for Bellville made such a fuss about own affairs in this province, let us just take a look at what appears in the Constitution. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 reads:

• (a) any matter assigned to local authorities by or under any general law; and
• (b) the exercise by any local authority, otherwise than in accordance with general policy determined by the State President acting as provided in section 19(1)(b) of any power to raise loans.

It is clear, surely, that in every sentence I have just read there is a general connotation. In the first sentence we read: “… subject to a general law … in the second: “… by or under a general law …"; in the third: “… or in accordance with general policy”.

Perhaps we should have a look at the Explanatory Memorandum on the Constitution as far as this matter is concerned. Perhaps it will enlighten us a little. [Interjections.] I read the following on page 62 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall return to the arguments of the hon member for Pietersburg. [Interjections.]

With reference to what the hon member for Bellville said here this afternoon—the fact that this is an historic day—I should like to add that today is an historic day because it is four years ago today that the final results of the 1981 election were announced. [Interjections.]

It is those hon members of the governing party—with the exception of a small group of men, who got cold feet—who brought about reform in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to convey my congratulations to the hon the Minister on his promotion. Without going into too much detail, I want to assure him, nevertheless, of the sincere support he has from members on this side of the House. I also say this on behalf of all local authorities in South Africa.

When I direct myself to hon members of the opposition parties who have so far participated in this discussion, I want to focus in particular on the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Pinetown. They must now accept, once and for all, that the provincial councils in their present form are going to be phased out. We really must not argue with one another on this point.

When is this going to happen?

The hon member for Pietersburg has become entangled in the problem concerning the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. He referred to the regional services councils. They of course form part of the process that the Government is engaged in. I should like to put it to hon members of the opposition parties that we are no longer debating the Constitution. The debate on the Constitution has been disposed of. We have now passed that stage.

They must accept that there is a plan of construction, one that has been approved by the electorate of South Africa, a plan of construction according to which a structure will be set up in which all population groups will be able to co-exist in peace and security. That plan was laid before the electorate of South Africa on 2 November 1983, and it was approved in the referendum that was held on that day, as well as in subsequent by-elections. Moreover the area for the establishment of that structure has been identified, and especially since we are discussing an own affairs Vote for the first time this afternoon, we are in the process of levelling the area that has been identified. Allow me to tell all hon members in this House this afternoon that I shall be a particularly happy man if the present Parliament can only succeed in levelling the rough terrain so that those who will come after us can build on a level foundation. [Interjections.]

Oh really, Mr Chairman, I should just like to point out to the hon member for Sunny-side that the State President, in his opening address on 25 January this year, issued an invitation to people to come forward to help build this structure. The bricks with which we are to build this new structure must be bricks of faith, hope, love, justice, tolerance, realism and trust. When I am asked who may participate in the building, my reply is that those who were invited by the State President to have a share in the erection of this structure may participate. I believe that people whose hands are not White will also be building this structure. They, too, will have to have a share in the erection of this structure, otherwise we simply shall not be successful on the road ahead.

I should now like to turn to another aspect, the aspect of housing. The housing problem in South Africa can be effectively tackled and solved only by strengthening the ties in the housing partnership between the public and private sectors. The private and public sectors are two important pillars on which the economy of the Republic of South Africa rests. We should do well to take note of the State President’s speech on 31 July 1981 in which he stressed the problem with reference to housing. If we have a look at the State President’s Opening Address on 28 January 1983, we see that the housing problem is emphasized once more; and on 27 January 1984 as well.

The active involvement of the employer in the promotion of home-ownership has become a vital necessity. Employers will enjoy the advantages of this, and I should like to mention certain of those advantages: A better corporate image which will ensure a more contented worker, an established and stable labour force and better labour relations, a reduction in the cost of recruitment and training as a result of lower staff turnover, the retention of loyal and contented employees, with a significant increase in productivity.

I want to refer briefly to the larger employers, who are doing their share. In the first place there is the SATS which made 61 824 housing units available to its staff to enable them to obtain their own homes. Besides that, 25 543 units were offered to officials for rent. Sasol, as a large employer, offers its staff 6 282 permanent housing units and 1 600 temporary units. Iscor contributes every year the sum of R20 million in new capital to its housing fund. Iscor has invested R30 million in housing for its workers at a new mine at Ellisras. In the financial year 1983-84, the Department of Communication and Public Works granted 643 loans. Since the scheme was implemented in 1980, 1 741 employees have been provided with housing. This is an achievement. Finally, I want to refer to Escom. Escom, too, has a housing scheme and provides 6 399 White workers with a home of their own.

This afternoon I should like to convey my particular appreciation to each employer in South Africa who genuinely takes the provision of housing seriously. I should like, however, to make an appeal to those employers also to consider the possibility of supplying welfare housing when their people reach retirement age so that this will not be the responsibility of the State alone.

This afternoon I should like to wish the hon the Minister and his department everything of the best. I regard local government and housing as the level of government that affects most intimately the daily life of each and every man in this country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to add my voice to those who congratulated the hon the Minister on his new job and wish him all the luck in the world. Believe you me, Sir, he is going to need it. I should also like to wish his senior staff and his other staff all the good luck in the world because they are also going to need lots and lots of luck, particularly in the field of local government, if they are going to make anything work.

I should like to make just a few points in respect of the speeches that have been made before I get on with my own. In any case it is convenient to do it in this way because I am going to be broken in the middle anyhow because of the passage of time.

Not in half.

Oh, no. [Interjections.]

I should like to mention just a couple of points. The hon the Minister made the point in his speech that he was going to give housing the highest priority, the ambition being that everybody should be a home-owner. This is something with which I concur heartily, as also does my party.

The question of utility companies is one that I should mention. These companies have done an excellent job in the Cape and I happen to be member of a utility company, a member of the board of a utility company, which, I believe, is also doing an excellent job in providing housing in the Southern Natal area. However, I wish to sound a word of warning concerning utility companies. They are a useful part of the building scene, but one must be very careful indeed that they are not used to undermine legitimate and normal private enterprise. If one is not careful, this can in fact be the result of excessive use of utility companies. Whilst I support them very much—I have proven that by remaining on the board—I feel that one has to be a little careful and confine their activities to certain levels of business, otherwise one is going to disrupt the ordinary building industry.

The hon member for Pinetown made the point that White local government does not exist. He indicated his thoughts on the dangers of control of local government under one Minister. I find it rather odd that local government is now to be under the control of four Ministers. Of course, this in itself is going to create quite a number of problems. However, generally I concur with the thinking of the hon member for Pinetown in that White local government per se cannot exist. It just cannot exist in any local authority—or almost any local authority, anyway—without having a lot of interplay with the other groups. The hon member also made the point that he had hoped that local government affairs would be handled by the provinces.

Before anybody raises the issue as to why we supported the new constitution in the referendum if we do not support certain things emanating from the new constitution, I shall state quite clearly that we supported the new constitution because we believed it was a step in the right direction. The constitution at the national level had been more or less defined and we were quite prepared to go along with that. At no time, however, was there a definition of the future of either provincial or local government. Therefore, I feel that, in spite of having supported the constitution, and in spite of the fact that we knew that there would be changes in the local government scene, and we knew that there would be changes in the provincial scene, we did not anticipate the sort of change that has been indicated at this stage. I must freely confess that I can only say “indicated”, because at this stage I do not know what the ultimate proposals are. I can say, though, that any system which gears all local government of any community to Pretoria is bound to fail. It is bound to fail, because there is such a variety and complexity of activities in local government. The Local Government MEC’s for the provinces—all the provinces—have probably been the busiest men in any provincial administration.

Hear, hear!

Do you agree?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.