Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. Sir, in the short time allowed to me, I shall not be able to cover all the activities of the Department during the past year. Therefore several subjects have been allocated to different speakers. Hopefully my colleagues will raise these other matters as the debate progresses.

I should like briefly to refer to the proposal made in the Assembly earlier this afternoon in connection with the report of the Rumpff Commission, which inquired into the question of the subsistence and travel allowances paid to judges and to their clerks which were incurred during the course of their duties. I have had the opportunity of reading the report and I am satisfied that no judge was guilty of any intentional infringement of the regulations, and that no corruption of any description on the part of judges was found. Now, Sir, if that were not the case my attitude towards the hon. the Minister’s proposal this afternoon would certainly have been different. While we feel strongly that the integrity of judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the integrity of the Bench as a whole should not in any way be brought into question, we nontheless believe that the ordinary law should apply equally and openly to all persons, whether they be humble or high-placed. However, Sir, in the light of the findings of the Commission, the report of which I have before me with which findings I would like to say I concur, I think that the best way to deal with the report is to submit it to an all-party select committee which hopefully will arrive at a consensus as to how the report should further be dealt with. We in the PFP shall naturally serve on this committee which I trust will be able to fulfil its mandate before the end of this session.

Now, Sir, I should like to touch on another subject. I read this afternoon very briefly in The Argus a skimpy, almost off the cuff statement handed in by the hon. the Minister relating to the matter. I should like to deal with the remarks made by the head of the Security Policy, Lieutenant-general Coetzee, last week during a television interview. I think, Sir, that his remarks call for a very firm response from those of us who sit in the Opposition benches in this Committee. Sir, it was the intention of the General that some political trials should take place behind closed doors. He believed that courts were being used and had been used as political forums and that enemy organizations were thereby given undue publicity and he believed that this should be stopped. Now let me say immediately, Mr. Chairman, that we in the PFP disagree entirely with the statement made by Lieutenant-General Coetzee and we shall oppose, and the hon. the Minister should know this, any attempt to pull down any further at all the veil of secrecy on the administration of justice. There are already far too many enactments in our South African law and on the Statute Book, entitling judicial officers to close their courts to the scrutiny of the public and to the scrutiny of the Press, particularly when matters falling under the broad heading of State security come into issue. On the Order Paper, at the present moment—and I mention it but fleetingly—there stands projected legislation which will further this ominous trend. Mr. Chairman, a form of security tribunal to hear political cases in secret would be the last straw in plummeting our country outside the scope of a democracy and would sink without trace whatever respect there is both here and abroad for the legal system which we have in this country.

Sir, although the existing security legislation plus that which is clearly on the Order Paper and which is yet to come, has already raised huge question marks against what rights the individual has to freedom in South Africa, if General Coetzee’s ideas, whether they are the ideas as he expressed them on the television or the ideas which he has amended subsequently, are implemented in any form, then even this last pillar of a civilized society, namely, that of an open administration of justice, will have been destroyed. It was pointed out in a newspaper yesterday morning, and I quote—

Sir, that is not far off the mark. Mr. Chairman, I sometimes wonder whether this Government has any idea at all of what is really meant by such concepts as habeas corpus, the rule of law, equality before the law …

Have you any idea?

Above all, Sir, I often doubt whether the hon. Minister and the Government understand what they are saying when they talk about that term “the administration of justice”. When all is said and done, it is this hon. Minister at this time who is in fact the guardian of our system of law, corroded though it may be. It is his task, in this Ministry, not only to protect the interests of the State, but also to protect the interests of the citizens whom he serves. And that is not a hollow duty, Mr. Chairman. He cannot do this if he docilely acquiesces to legislation, to law after law, which destroys the right of accused persons, no matter what the charge may be, to a fair and open trial before impartial and properly trained judicial officers, a trial which is carried out in terms of predetermined even-handed rules, balancing the needs of the State with those of the individual. The phrase “justice must be seen to be done” is as true today as it was when it was first uttered. After all, Mr. Chairman, what is this country really fighting for? Why are our troops on the borders of Namibia? What is the rationale behind which South Africa is trying to protect our society? Is it not to preserve and expand a democratic way of life; is that not what the country should be fighting for; to ensure that maintenance of a civilized system of law and to build a country in which people are free? Surely, Sir, those are the ideals which South Africa should be and is fighting for. Yet, if we adopt the sort of ideas expounded by the Security Police chief, whether they are those enunciated on the television or those he has chosen to amend, we will ourselves be destroying the very values we are supposed to be protecting. I believe, Mr. Chairman, and I put it to the hon. the Minister directly, that it is his duty today to make a full statement—not a single line throw away—on the issues raised by General Coetzee to reassure the country that our courts are to be kept open and that secret trials are not the policy of the Government. I believe that the country waits to hear what he has to say in this regard with bated breath.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn now to the report of the Department which I have read carefully, as have, I am sure, all the hon. members present here. Firstly, I should like to commend the Director-General of the Department for maintaining a reasonable standard of service in the face of incredible difficulties over the past two years. I think it is a task which he and his senior staff have fulfilled admirably. However, just as it was last year, the overwhelming impression created by the report, submitted by the Director-General is that of a Department spluttering along on only one of four pistons, with engine failure seemingly imminent. I spoke on this very problem during last year’s debate. Just to refresh the memory of hon. members of this Committee I should just like to quote three sentences from the column 3907 of last year’s Hansard in which I had three things to say. Firstly, I said the following, and I quote —

Secondly, a little further down I said the following, and I quote—

Thirdly, still further down in the column I said, and I further quote—

Now, Sir, allow me to quote a few sentences from the Report of the Director-General which has just been published. I quote from page 45—

I further quote—

I further quote—

Further down the Report reads as follows, and I further quote—

Still further down the Report reads, and I quote—

My last quote is as follows—

Sir, that is what we are dealing with. That is what I said last year and that is what the reality of the situation has been for almost two years in this Department. And so it goes on. Quote after quote in this Report can be read out to this Committee which will illustrate an almost chronic breakdown in the services of the Department. There is not one single section of the Department which is not working under strain, where the members are not working overtime and where the services are not suffering. There is hardly a facet of the services provided by the Department which has not deteriorated as a direct result of the staff shortages. Of course, Mr. Chairman, no one is asking—not me and not anyone of this side of the House—for panic reactions, is asking for us to man the panicstations, because we know that with every economic upturn the Public Service suffers as private enterprise pulls staff away. When the economy is slowing down, as it has been doing for the past several months, then there is a marginal flow-back into the Public Service. However, Sir, the propositions of the crisis of the last two years in the Department of Justice I believe could well have inflicted permanent damage.

Last year I made eight suggestions, designed specifically—suggestions which were not sucked out of a thumb—which came about as a result of discussions with very senior people in the hon. the Minister’s Department. I made eight suggestions designed to assist the Department in putting its house in order. Briefly, those eight suggestions—I shall just paraphrase them—were the following, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could just note the eight suggestions if he notes nothing else:

[Inaudible.]

Right. Well, Sir, the first suggestion I made …

Is that all you do about it—you note them?

Well, let us give the hon. the Minister the credit. He is going to speak a little later and perhaps he is going to say something more interesting then we at present think he might. [Interjections.] Sir, the first suggestion was to pay professional allowances to all those with qualifications, regardless of the posts that they held. In other words, if these people were in administrative posts, to allow them to draw professional allowances if they had the qualifications so as not to denude the professional staff of administrative back-up. The second suggestion was to pay a major centre allowance. The major centres are where the shortages are most acute. The third suggestion was to upgrade administrative and clerical salaries. I really think this should be done not only in relation to the hon. the Minister’s own Department, but in relation to salaries paid by such pseudo-Government agencies like Iscor, municipalities, provincial councils and other such instances. The fourth suggestion was to eliminate the racial pay gap at administrative level. I know what has been done at professional level. I say that it should be done at administrative level as well right down to the most junior posts. The fifth suggestion was to release the magistrate’s court from extraneous work. The sixth suggestion was to hand over to local authorities the collection and administration of fines relating to offences committed in terms of municipal by-laws. The seventh suggestion was to move away from the policy of vertical differentiation in the Department and to have a straight single structured department with promotion on merit for all people who join that Department and who wish to make that Department a career in their lives. The eighth suggestion was to upgrade the educational training programmes and incentives which the Department undertook. Yet, even that section of the report which we have before us under the heading “Legal Training Branch” makes disheartening reading. What it says about the legal training branch is basically the following, and I quote—

The question must be asked whether this Government and this hon. Minister are really serious about putting his Department on a proper footing. Is he really serious about it at all or is he going to allow this Department by the very ineptitude of executive decision to slide along gradually into a state of chaos, with all that that will mean for the man in the street? I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not time that a dynamic, innovative and imaginative recruitment and educational programme among all races in the schools, the colleges and the universities be instituted, and further that the facilities for satisfactory work—I am talking about the quotations that I made a few seconds ago— and study be provided? Is it too much to ask the hon. the Minister to disclose to this Committee in detail what steps are being taken to alleviate the chronic situation in his Department, and perhaps somewhat belatedly to give attention to and to state which if any of those suggestions which I have made, have been investigated and implemented. If this problem is allowed to fester much longer, the administration of justice throughout the country will suffer to the detriment of our society and all its citizens.

Lastly—I have one minute left—I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement or an announcement on his final decisions, if he has managed to come to any relating to the findings of the Diemont Commission. He has not yet, as far as I am aware, made public his views on the matter. Three of the main recommendations were that a Deputy Judge-President be granted to the Witwatersrand Local Division, that the Witwatersrand Local Division be granted appeal status and thirdly that the areas of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, as supported by the jurists in that area, should be included in the jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division. I think that if we wait for final commission reports it may take many months and I believe that there are matters relating to the Diemont Commission’s findings which are urgent and on which the hon. the Minister should make a statement so that people can be settled in their minds as to how we are going to administer justice on the Witwatersrand in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton started his speech this afternoon by referring to the report of the Rumpff Commission. I should like to compliment the hon. member for the responsible way in which he dealt with this delicate matter. The hon. member has also supported the appointment of a select committee to consider the matter further, and I find myself in full accord with the hon. member for Sandton in this regard. However, unfortunately that is where the compliments must necessarily end, because I cannot say the same for the rest of his speech, especially not for the way in which he dealt with Lieutenant-General Coetzee’s alleged statement.

The hon. member for Sandton was guilty of a basic fallacy in his representations to the Committee, in that he alleged that Lieutenant-General Coetzee had remarked that there should be political trials behind closed doors. The fact of the matter is that there are no such things as political trials in this country. To infer that there are, is in itself a flagrant misrepresentation of the situation. [Interjections.]

*Sir, it is typical of the hon. members of the Official Opposition to make misrepresentations in respect of security measures. Why create the general impression that we in South Africa have political trials, and why go even further by implying that Lieutenant General Coetzee had allegedly suggested that political trials should be held behind closed doors? In my opinion this is the most outrageous representation one could bruit abroad from this Committee. The hon. member for Sandton was guilty of doing this this afternoon. That is why I cannot compliment him on the way in which he raised this matter.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member also saw fit again to question the commitment of this side of the House to principles such as habeas corpus and the rule of law. He even went so far to suggest that we on this side of the House do not know what these principles mean.

*Mr. Chairman, now I want to tell the hon. member, and I want to state this very clearly and categorically, that we on this side of the House are just as insistent upon preserving habeas corpus and the rule of law as he and hon. members on that side of the House are.

Tell that to Steve Biko. [Interjections.]

For the very reason that we are so insistent upon preserving those principles, we are also insistent upon preserving the structures which are essential for the maintenance of those principles. In South Africa one cannot preserve the principles of habeas corpus and the rule of law if one allows those people who threaten the security of this State to have their way, because in no State in the world in which onslaughts on the existing law and order have been successful, has there remained a vestige of the rule of law and habeas corpus. These very principles were the first two victims of the activities of the people who threatened the security, the law and order, in those States. We in South Africa cannot indulge ourselves in the luxury of being so naïve as simply to adopt the inane attitude that we want to preserve the principles of habeas corpus and the rule of law without caring what happens to the State in which those principles are to be maintained.

The Government’s first duty is to maintain the security of the people and of the State for which it is responsible.

†The hon. member for Sandton also said that it is the duty of the State to protect the interests, not only of the State, but also of the citizens of the State. I fully go along with that statement. However, the question is who are the people whose interests must be protected?

*In this regard the hon. members of the Official Opposition see only those people against whom action has to be taken in terms of the security legislation.

Their chums.

They do not see the many millions of law-abiding citizens of all colours and all population groups in this country whose interests must also be protected. The hon. members show no grasp of the fact that if the interests of the few individuals who threaten law and order have to be elevated to the highest priority, which is what they want, this will be contrary to the interests of the many millions of law-abiding citizens of this country.

When the issue is the weighing up of the interests of the masses of South Africa against the interests of the new individuals who threaten law and order, I believe that only one choice is possible. In that case the interests of South Africa and all its people must inevitably enjoy the highest priority.

The hon. member for Sandton also referred to the speech he made last year in which he expressed criticism on the staff problems which were being experienced by the Department. I shall come back to this matter, but at this stage I just want to mention the fact that this is the first budget debate in which Advocate Van Niekerk is acting as Deputy Director-General in charge of Justice. I want to welcome him to this office on behalf of this side of the House and I want to congratulate him on his promotion and wish him everything of the best. We are only too aware of the challenges confronting him, now and in future. We are convinced that he is and will be the right man for the job.

It is with appreciation that I mention the fact that Advocate Bosch rendered outstanding services to this Department over the past number of years. Advocate Bosh has now been transferred to the Department of Law and Order. I believe that there, as in the Department of Justice, he will make a very special contribution. I thank him for the fine services he has rendered to the Department of Justice and wish him everything of the best for his new task.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to permit the hon. member to continue.

I thank the hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

*Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I should like to express our gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the Director-General and all the officials of the Department who made the submission of such a complete and clear report to this House possible. I think one may say without fear of contradiction that this report is concise, to the point, clear and informative. For this we thank those responsible for this being the case, because it facilitates the task we have of discussing the affairs of the Department here.

Now I come back to the present staff position in the Department, to which the hon. member for Sandton also referred. Upon referring to the report in respect of the previous financial year, we find that it mentions the fact that certain services on the functional terrain of the directorate had to be suspended in consequence of a shortage of professional staff. There was also talk of impossibility of rendering an effective service throughout. There was a shortage of public prosecutors, which had an adverse effect on the administration of justice. On 1 April 1981 as many as 192 persons without legal qualifications occupied professional posts. This made efficient service virtually impossible. Consequently it was necessary to take interim measures in order to rectify the position as expeditiously as possible. With effect from 1 April 1981 a greatly improved remuneration packet for those with legal qualifications was introduced in professional divisions. This had an immediate positive effect. It resulted in a considerable improvement which had a positive effect on recruiting as well as retaining legal staff. It stimulated the recruitment of staff and slowed down the resignations rate.

At the moment the number of legal posts filled in the professional division compares favourably with last year’s figure and there is every indication that it will continue to improve. Whereas there were 86 resignations during the six months from 1 January 1981 to 30 June 1981 there were only 62 resignations during the next ensuing six months.

There was nobody left to resign.

As regards the number of posts filled, there were 114 vacant posts on 30 September 1980, whereas 192 posts were not filled by suitable persons. A year later the corresponding figures were 50 vacant posts and 80 posts not filled by suitable persons. The year after that there were 21 vacant posts and 25 posts not filled by suitable persons. Consequently I believe it may be said without fear of contradiction that great progress has been made in the field of professional posts. In my opinion it is not inappropriate to congratulate the Department on what has been achieved in this regard. This confirms what the hon. member for Waterkloof said to the hon. member for Sandton last year after he had complained about the staff position. The hon. member for Waterkloof assured him that the rectification of the situation could confidently be left in the hands of the Department.

It is in fact true that at present there is a large shortage of clerical and administrative staff. I believe, however, that this shortage should be seen in perspective. On the one hand it is a seasonal phenomenon which is bound up with the economy in general. On the other hand, however, I believe that it is merely a manifestation of the great challenge—possibly the greatest challenge—facing us in South Africa, and that is to maintain the principles, norms and standards of a highly sophisticated Western State in Southern Africa with the limited manpower at our disposal. I believe that this is a challenge which manifests itself in numerous fields. In fact, it is a general phenomenon today that a staff shortage is being experienced, not only in the public sector, but also in the private sector. As a matter of fact there is a staff shortage, or a staff problem, in virtually every Government department. I believe that the administration of justice is an extremely important field in which the principles, norms and standards, to which I have referred, must be maintained. Moreover, it is true that our administration of justice is held in very high esteem. In fact, both friends and enemies are plainly impressed by the standard of our administration of justice. For that reason we dare not allow the esteem in which our administration of justice is held to suffer as a result of a shortage of staff, and the highest priority must be accorded to the staff position in the Department. If what is involved is no more than an increased appropriation, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to make a new appeal to his colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance to let the Department have a more generous appropriation so that we may be able to maintain the administration of justice at the standard to which we have become accustomed in South Africa.

I am afraid, however, that even with an increased appropriation and a better salary packet it is not possible to create people who are not available. Consequently I believe that measures should also be adopted within the Department to alleviate this staff shortage to the largest possible extent if it cannot be eliminated altogether.

I also take pleasure in referring to the Justice Training Branch, which, according to the report, reached a new milestone during the year under review with the introduction of a course for magistrates on the administration of civil law. I welcome the recognition given to the importance of civil law in this connection. In the past this was a shortcoming in the training of magistrates. As a matter of fact, I can testify to this from my own experience. Magistrates, who have been doing court work for many years, have admitted to me that they feel themselves perfectly at home in the criminal court, but when civil actions are involved they do not feel quite equal to the task. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Mossel Bay about anything he said. As a matter of fact, I should like to endorse the congratulations he conveyed to Messrs. Van Niekerk and Bosch of the Directorate in respect of their new posts. I should also like to thank the Directorate for its annual report which, as usual, is an informative report.

At this stage I should also like to mention the outgoing Chief Justice and the incoming Chief Justice of South Africa, namely the hon. Mr. Justice Rumpff and the hon. Mr. Justice Rabie. Both of these gentlemen have already distinguished themselves. I think that the outgoing Chief Justice in particular was a great credit to the post. He was known not only in South Africa but throughout the world as a person who was cut out for the post and the status attached to it. I also want to congratulate Mr. Justice Rabie for whom we all have the greatest respect and we on this side of the House would like him to know that we think he is an excellent choice for the post and that we think he will fill the post with distinction. I want in all modesty to mention that I have been privileged to be the parliamentary representative of both of these gentlemen for many years. They are also greatly respected in their communities.

I do not actually want to say anything about my party today but since this is the first time the CP is participating in the discussion of this Vote I just want to mention that as far as the administration of justice is concerned our party believes that justice must be done, come what may, as the Romans stated many centuries ago.

The hon. speaker on the Government side has already replied to the hon. member for Sandton with regard to his objection to certain legislation and I am not going to devote any more of my time to him.

With the establishment of the Department of Law and Order it would appear that the once powerful Department of Justice, Police and Prisons is being further stripped of certain powers that have to date vested in it. With the exception of prison services, in reality all that it has retained is the administration of justice. I do not want to discuss this now. One feels rather nostalgic about it. I just hope that this Directorate will not also be absorbed by the Public Service within the Public Service as other departments were absorbed by the Directorate of the Prime Minister.

The staff shortage is mentioned repeatedly in the report. This is a pity because the proper administration of justice cannot be maintained if there is a shortage of ordinary administrative staff. However, I am glad to learn of the Director-General’s optimism with regard to legally qualified persons in technical divisions. Nevertheless we cannot allow the position with regard to clerical and administrative staff to deteriorate to such an extent that the administration of justice is in fact hampered as a result. We hope that a solution will be found to this problem and here I am thinking of the Director-General who has shown in the past that he is able to deal with these matters. I think that in this regard we are moving towards the position where the magistrate in the rural areas and possibly also other legally qualified persons in the rural areas will increasingly do only legal work.

At this stage I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his serious consideration—I think I have mentioned this before—that the legally qualified staff of the Directorate should be used for legal work and that the Department of Internal Affairs or another Department should appoint a Resident Commissioner or District Commissioner to deal with day to day State matters that have nothing to do with law.

Before I go on to discuss a few other points, I want to refer to the South African Law Commission’s report on Matrimonial Property Law. I must quite honestly say that I simply have not had the time to study this matter thoroughly. However, I want to make two points in this connection. In the first place it is interesting to note that the commission is actually recommending that the Perpetual Edict be abolished. This is the aspect concerning the marriage of minors. In this connection there is one matter that troubles me somewhat namely that it stated that such a marriage can now be annulled; it can be declared null and void. Such a marriage is no longer null and void ab initio. This is the first aspect troubling me in this connection. A section aspect is that it is stated that the question of matrimonial property will be dealt with according to the provisions of a Bill which is Annexure A to the report. I could not find any mention of the question of the right of inheritance in this connection. Under the common law a person who marries a minor without the consent of the minor’s guardian cannot inherit from that minor. Under no circumstances can he obtain any part of her inheritance indirectly either. As it happens, last year my colleague sitting here next to me, the hon. member for Brakpan and I had an application in this connection. I was able therefore to go into this matter again and I must say that one feels rather nostalgic when one sees a piece of common law like the Perpetual Edict disappear from our judicature. I think we must go into the matter of inheritance from a minor by the adult she married. This is one aspect. The other aspect troubling me is that if that child or the parents of that child do not apply for the annulment of the marriage, that marriage will stand. Apparently there is no minimum age-limit laid down in respect of a marriage that can be annulled. One can consult the Children’s Act but I think this Act stipulates that notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, these marriages are no longer null and void ab initio. I think we must give serious attention to this otherwise a child marriage may continue to exist in the process. I do not think this is what we want to happen.

I come now to the second aspect of this report. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as matrimonial property law is concerned, in general I prefer the minority report of Mr. Justice Rabie, Prof. Smith and Mr. Kotze. I want to agree with them that we do not pass legislation for exceptional cases. In respect of certain of the proposals contained elsewhere we must really be careful not to pass legislation for exceptions because I believe that the matrimonial property law in South Africa works well for probably 99% of marriages, whether they are in community of property or out of community of property. That is why I agree with the minority report of the commissioners regarding these aspects.

I am also very pleased at the introduction of a civil course of magistrates. I think that for magistrates who have to do civil work— most of them, particularly in the rural areas, have had to do it and still have to do it—this is sometimes rather problematical. I have pleasant memories of most of the many magistrates before whom I have appeared. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterkloof for a most constructive contribution and a good speech. I want to contrast it with the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. What did the hon. member for Sandton with his negative attitude tell us again here today? In the first place he was very spiteful about the so-called good advice he claimed to have given the hon. the Minister last year during the discussion of this Vote. He insinuated that the hon. the Minister had not listened to him and as a result the Department was now in difficulties.

Just to prove to the hon. member for Sandton how senseless his statements are, I want to refer him to the hon. the Minister’s reply to a question regarding the staff position in the Department, Question No. 418 which the hon. member for King William’s Town asked earlier this year. If the hon. member for Sandton had just read his Hansard he would have found a reply there from which it would have been clear that when he participated in the discussion of this Vote last year the Department had for some time already been giving positive and practical implementation to the ideas he mentioned here.

The hon. member for Sandton then took the wonderful annual report of the Department and made selective quotations from it. In this report the department put its problems to the country and this Committee openly and honestly. The hon. member extracted all the venom he could from this and, as we have come to expect from the Official Opposition, he did not have a single positive word of appreciation for the host of dedicated men and women in this Department.

I should like to say a few words about the staff and officials of the Department. In my constituency—to refer to the rural areas for a moment—I have seven magistrates in seven magistrates’ offices and a regional magistrate. I visited them regularly and I talk to them regularly. I want to attest here this afternoon that I and everyone in my entire community and in my entire constituency have only the greatest appreciation for their integrity, for the efficiency with which they carry out their duties and for the dedication with which they and their staff carry out the tasks of this department in the administration of justice in our country.

Some of those magistrates are in offices where, under the new dispensation which has been in operation for several months now they occupy control posts with an administrative grading in contrast with control posts with a legal qualification grading. This is rather a sensitive matter in the rural areas. I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the department considers it to be an emergency measure and a temporary measure for magistrates’ offices in the rural areas to have control posts with only an administrative grading under the new dispensation. We know what the reason for this is. We do not have sufficient legally qualified persons to enable us to place a legally qualified magistrate in every town in the rural areas and in every magistrate’s office.

Hon. members know that a magistrate in the rural areas has of necessity a different image to a magistrate in the city. After all, he is the senior representative of the Government in its administration of the country in that particular district. He is regarded primarily as a person who administers justice and not as a man who is simply the chairman of the road board or licensing board or who is an income tax collector or a person involved with pensions or Land Bank affairs. I think we must cherish the status of a magistrate, particularly in the rural areas. The moment one takes away his judicial function so that people no longer see him on the Bench administering justice, one lowers his status to a certain extent. I hope that the Hoexter Commission, to which this entire matter has been referred, will come up with a long-term solution in terms of which every rural town will again, as in the past, be able to see its magistrate on the Bench administering justice.

As far as the staff position is concerned, it is true that at first glance the Department’s annual report fills one with concern. However, I want to agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay that one must see this entire matter in perspective.

The first perspective is that we have a country-wide manpower shortage in any case, and particularly in this Department. It is a country-wide problem and in general one can say that every developing country has this problem. We have to live with it. Salary adjustments alone are not the solution. We shall also have to improve the image of the Public Service as a career choice among our young people, particularly the image of the Department of Justice because Justice is pre-eminently the department which by means of better publicity and, for example, more bursaries for students, must set its sights on our graduated young men and women. We must emphasize the large variety of fields in which a person interested in a legal career can realize his ambitions in this department. We must place greater emphasis on the high degree of job satisfaction the department offers its employees. We must also place more emphasis on the very good promotion opportunities for expert and capable persons in the Department. This applies particularly to those persons who are prepared to study further.

The annual report mentions, inter alia, that the Department has a large-staff turnover. People come and go all the time. It also appears from the report that the officers still in service have little experience. This proves to me just how sought after Justice officers are in the various private sectors. Let us make a quick calculation: The Bar recruits Justice’s advocates, the attorney’s profession recruits State Attorneys, banks and boards of executors recruit people from the Master’s office and commerce and other bodies recruit legal advisers.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has become pre-eminently the Government Department which one can say is the training ground for law in the private sector. One could feel proud of this if it were not for the tremendous problems it is causing the department.

I want therefore to appeal to our young people in South Africa to look past the salary cheque at the end of the month for a change, to consider the other excellent advantages of the Department of Justice and appreciate the wonderful career opportunities this department offers them. I think we must also ask our young people the following question: Has the time not come for us to give attention once again to the motive of service to the administration of justice in our country in particular?

As far as the second Perspective is concerned one must always bear in mind that the date on the staff crisis in the department which seems to afford the hon. member for Sandton so much satisfaction reflects a situation which applied during the period for which the report was compiled, namely 1 July 1980 to 31 January 1981. The situation has improved drastically in the interim. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo delivered his usual speech of high quality and made some practical and most interesting suggestions, particularly in relation to magistrates’ courts in the rural areas. I think that was an extremely good point. Years ago, in the rural areas, the number one spot in the community was always held by the magistrate followed by the doctor, schoolmaster, etc. The esteem in which magistrates were held and their relation to the rural community was one of great importance.

I should like to take this opportunity of firstly commending the hon. the Minister and his department for the exemplary manner in which they have replied to a long list of questions tabled by myself and other members of the NRP. They put something into their answers which was above the normal departmental reply and one can see, going through them, the trend of putting across a point of view and attitude towards a very sensitive area. It is very noticeable and something which I would like to mention on this occasion. I will come back to a contrast a little bit later because this sensitive handling of things does not run right through the whole portfolio. A little more about that later. A second point I would like to mention is that I am extremely grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister’s reply to one question, about the referral of the whole medical-legal aspects of rape to the South African Law Commission. The hon. the Minister mentions in his reply to this question that the Law Commission is competent to consult all other relevant disciplines and I wonder if he could indicate in his reply if they would be empowered to call upon other interested bodies and organizations, for instance Rape Crisis, who have a particular interest in this matter and whom I am sure would be able to supply the South African Law Commission with some very factual on the ground circumstances which they would be able to embody into the changes that might be envisaged. I am certainly very grateful to the hon. the Minister for having taken this up. I know that other hon. members over the years have brought this matter to his department’s attention and it is certainly very good news that the matter will be reviewed.

Turning to the report, much has been said about staff and their circumstances and there are some ominous paragraphs, written by the department itself, concerning breakdowns, especially in respect of staff. I do not want to deal with that aspect as I think it has been covered. It comes from the department itself and there is therefore no use in somebody standing up and adding to what the department already knows. The area I would like to cover, is the question of how long it has taken to remedy the situation; in fact, how long it has taken to observe it first of all, and the fact that the erosion and decay of the situation were not arrested sooner. I am not doing this with the intention of laying the blame at anybody’s door, but I feel that one should on this occasion discuss this matter. Perhaps other hon. members would like to comment on this as well. With a centralized organization, it appears that we do not have the ability to react quickly enough or bring about remedies when we see a situation deteriorating in front of our eyes. There must surely be a reason. It may be that it is the Department of State Administration’s system or that it is simply that the whole centralized authority is too cumbersome to make the necessary flexible changes, some of which were mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Sandton. Somehow it seems that there is an error and that it takes far too long to take the necessary action to repair the situation. We seem to be content with two reports following one after the other describing a situation in which there is not really an indication of any remedy.

Those are all the reasonably nice things and I would now like to make a comparison between the sensitive and very thoughtful manner of the replies to many questions which I received from the department and what I consider a very insensitive handling of the area of detention and the attitudes, particularly, of some of the members on the Government benches today. It is ludicrous and one does not need to be a professionally trained legal man to appreciate the man in the street’s point of view that to all intents and purposes, according to our legal system, the State, in detaining people, has under its care innocent people. They have not been tried in court and are to all intents and purposes innocent. The record of detention and of the administration of justice in this regard over the past years, speaks for itself; it is a very poor one. During this period the State has failed to find a counter-balance to the fact that it has been forced by circumstances to take measures which are a deviation from the rule of law or the right of access to the courts.

You are using the Prog phrase now.

That is not so, it is one of your phrases too.

Access to the courts?

Yes, I mean access to the courts. The point is that for every step we take in that direction the Department of Justice must surely realize that one has to take an equally balancing step to ensure that that deviation from the norm is balanced by a sensitive handling of those people in those circumstances. We cannot claim that; we can only claim a dismal record where we have in fact had deaths and these people have to all intents been killed by the system. The system is responsible for their deaths. They were suspects, but they were not convicted people. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg finds this terribly uncomfortable and we all find it uncomfortable. The moment one mentions something that is uncomfortable, one can be assured of a loud noise from the other side because it then stops those hon. members from thinking. The fact is that we walk right into the hands of our enemies every moment we deviate from the law. Our effort should be to return to the rule of law at every opportunity.

The sensitive manner in which this is handled …

What law are you referring to?

I will not allow the hon. member for Roodeplaat to distract me. He can put me at number 11 in the cricket side in the future—that is fine. The point is—and I am sure the hon. the Minister knows exactly what I am speaking about—that the sensitivity of the handling of this matter is of vital concern. In the same manner as the hon. the Minister has shown, in other areas of his department, an appreciation of this, I believe that the time has arrived for us to really look at the whole question of detention and the whole manner of the administration of prisoners and be able to reassure the public that the department is vitally concerned with what happens as a result of them having had to deviate. This is not the opinion that is given in South Africa at the moment. I would like to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Sandton; Gen. Coetzee has fallen into exactly the same trap. If we try to use the methods that the Reds use, we are falling into exactly the same trap as that they are. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town who has just resumed his seat usually maintains a good balance in his speeches, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him, particularly with regard to what he has just said. The story that people have died because of the system is utter nonsense and he knows it. I want to put it to him that from Thursday he will have more than enough time to debate this matter under the new security legislation under the Department of Law and Order where it belongs. So I do not know what he is trying to achieve here today. I am not going to waste any more of my time on that hon. member.

I want to refer for a moment to the hon. member for Sandton. As far as I am concerned this hon. member is an ordinary …[Interjection]—he is, inter alia, also a jingo—fellow I have seen wandering about in the company of an attractive young lady and I feel the speech he made in this House today is an indication that his mind is not on his work and he should rather concentrate on the matrimonial property law. I think he will fare very much better in this debate if he gives that matter some attention. His thoughts are elsewhere.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred briefly to the work of the South African Law Commission and I also want to refer to the attention at present being given to the question of minority or majority at the age of 21 and the possible lowering of that age to 18. The background to this is that young people of today are not only able to vote at the age of 18 but are also much more independent than in the old days, and various law commissions throughout the world have made recommendations in this connection. In Roman times this age was 25. It is therefore a matter which is to a large extent adapted to fit in with the times and I think we must see it in that light.

Before I go any further I want to touch very briefly on another subject. This matter has come to my attention on several occasions and concerns the question of fees payable by State Attorneys to private practitioners who represent members of the Public Service, Police, etc. in court cases. I want respectfully to suggest that these fees should really be reconsidered. There have been a great many complaints in this connection from the legal profession and they do not see their way clear to continue offering their services at the present fees. This is really a problem.

I also want to refer to the question of the evaluation and effect of the Divorce Act, 1979, about which there has been concern for some time now in regard to what is happening to marriages in South Africa. The commission has undertaken the investigation thus far and, although the project was added to the commission’s programme during the course of the year under review, it was decided to start the investigation immediately. The first step was to obtain divorce statistics from the respective divisions of the Supreme Court in an attempt to determine the trends. The hon. the Minister has already issued a statement in this connection in reply to a question asked in Parliament and, on the closing date for the return of questionnaires, 15 April 1982, according to the Secretary of the Law Commission 150 completed questionnaires and representations had been received. Everything possible is being done to expedite the processing of this data and a summarized report in this connection will probably appear on 27 or 28 July of this year.

When one considers the opinions I have also obtained, because of my interest in this matter, one finds that these vary from those who say that marriage should be abolished to those who say that divorce should be prohibited. These comments therefore cover a tremendously wide spectrum. However, I want to state as a point of departure that there is no doubt that marriage is indispensable as a basis for South African society and that it must be treasured. The high divorce figure cannot simply be attributed to the 1979 Act. It may be a contributory factor but there are numerous other social problems that apply, particularly in the times in which we live today. I can mention a few of them but it is not a complete list because one would need a great deal of time to argue about this. In the first place there is the lack of marital maturity, particularly in the times in which we are now living. There is also the laxity of our people’s culture, the laxity of our churches and the whole attitude of many people entering marriage nowadays. To a large extent there is an opportunistic approach and an attitude of “what can I get out of the marriage” instead of “what can I put into the marriage”. There is also the materialism and exceptional standard of living many of our married couples want to maintain from the outset. The working wife is a very important link in this entire chain and there is undoubtedly the facet that there is insufficient contact between the husband and his wife and their children. There is also the theory that people are living much longer than they used to. A hundred years ago there was a good chance that a spouse would contract a second marriage, but nowadays this is far less likely. Spouses are living much longer. As a result of all the uncertainty in which we live today both with regard to the position on our borders and in other respects, there is also a looser relationship between spouses which worsens marital problems. An aspect to which we must give increasing attention and to which marriage partners in particular must try to give attention is the fact that the moment problems arise they should immediately consult a marriage counsellor or a minister. It is of no use to rush to an attorney since this does not always have the desired effect as so many things are then said that only make matters much worse.

I want to pay tribute to the members of the South African Law Commission which comprises the full-time member Mr. G. G. Smit, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Viljoen, Mr. Knoll, Dr. P. A. Nienaber, Prof. Van Rensburg, magistrate P. A. J. Kotzé, and the ad hoc members, Prof. Schmidt, Prof. Catherine Smith and advocate D. Shaw. Recently the last-mentioned member also made a tremendous contribution in respect of admiralty law and legislation has already been published in the Government Gazette which will enable us to make our contribution along with other civilized legal systems of the world.

An interesting development I should like to mention is the fact that thus far computer print-outs have not been accepted or allowed as evidence. The requirement was that in order to be allowed a document had to be compiled by a person and had to be proved. I am able to inform you that draft legislation on computer evidence is on the way and is accompanied by a simple set of legal rules to allow computer print-outs as evidence subject to certain conditions. There are innumerable matters to which the Law Commission has still to give attention at this stage, such as the revision of periods of time within which lawsuits can be brought against the State, the right of spouses to pension benefits after divorce, the lowering of the age of majority, to which I have already referred, the report on matrimonial property law which has already been tabled—and which is a wonderful piece of work—the revision of the law of evidence which is causing considerable problems, the admiralty law, to which I have also already referred, and statutory law reform which has already made its mark through the 800 or so Acts that have already been identified. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Roodepoort will forgive me if I leave his speech to one side as it is very difficult in a ten minute reply to make one’s own speech and at the same time deal with the preceding speaker. He had his own specific subject. I want to get on to a subject which the hon. the Minister knows I have been very interested in for a number of years. You can all relax, gentlemen, it is a very peaceful subject indeed. There is something about the Senate Chamber and its atmosphere which soothes even the most savage breast!

I want to raise the whole question to which the hon. the member for Waterkloof referred to earlier, namely the report of the Law Commission on matrimonial property, the status of married women and the law of succession between spouses, which was tabled last week. A lot of us have been waiting very anxiously for the final report and I have done a fair amount of nagging at the hon. the Minister to try and get the report as soon as possible.

Did you nag?

Yes, I have in fact nagged him since 1974, and he did not notice it!

[Inaudible.]

I will nag him in a different way in the future. In 1974 the commission started its investigation and it has therefore been a very long time that all the women’s organizations have had to wait to get this final report. I want to say at once that I like many of the recommendations in the majority report, unlike the chauvinistic hon. member for Waterkloof who has announced that he prefers the minority reports Nos. 1 and 2, I presume. I suppose most of the chauvinists in this House will say that. I am hoping that the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of this matter, will be persuaded otherwise. Generally speaking, there are many recommendations in the report which I like. Having said that, I feel strongly about the provisions in chapters 2 and 3 of the Bill regarding the abolition of marital power, which state that it should continue to apply to existing marriages though it recommends its abolition in community of property marriages as from now on—that is if the Bill becomes law—and in antenuptial contract marriages where the marital power is included. The majority report recommends the abolition, but it does not recommend the abolition retrospectively and I think this is a great mistake. I want to point out that the draft Bill which was produced for comment in 1979— the hon. member for Waterkloof will remember it—recommended in clauses 11 and 12 the abolition of the marital power completely—both for the future marriages and also for existing marriages. I believe that it is absolutely the right line to take. The majority report acknowledges that this marital power is archaic and that it is out of keeping with modern life. The men here today know that 40% of married women work, run their own businesses and professions and, if I may say, act in public office just as efficiently as the men in the community—some even better. Far be it for me to say of whom I am thinking! Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is completely out of keeping that women married in community of property should still be subjected to this archaic law whereby they are, to all intent and purposes, minors in law; it is quite absurd. The majority report actually acknowledges this and says that it is quite out of keeping with modern life. I therefore believe that the Bill recommended by the majority report is making a mistake in legislating to perpetuate for several more decades—one might say for 50 to 60 years because that is what one can surely estimate as the period that existing marriages will by and large last—this archaic concept, which they acknowledge is wrong. I do not believe that a new marriage law, which we are contemplating, should add to the confusion by abolishing the marital power in all future White, Coloured and Indian marriages while retaining it for existing marriages. I also believe that it should not be retained for out of community marriages for Blacks, because, as you know, the position of Blacks is exactly the opposite to Whites. They are married out of community of property but retain the marital power unless they actually have a contract of marriage in community of property. In countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, when the marital power was abolished, it was abolished for all marriages, existing marriages as well as future marriages. It caused no trouble whatsoever.

As far as the accrual system is concerned, which I approve of in principle, I can understand that it can only function for future marriages. It is too difficult to estimate what the accrual system would involve if one tried to estimate it for existing marriages. I understand that perfectly and I do like the principle as it will give some protection on the dissolution of marriage, either by death or by divorce, to women out of community of property. I think, however, that there should be some discretionary rights given to the courts as far as existing marriages are concerned. I am very pleased that the recommendation is made in the report and the Bill that the prohibition against donations between spouses should be repealed. I think that is right. I also like the proposed change in the Matrimonial Affairs Act regarding contributions of spouses towards household necessities and the limitation of the retrospective section. The hon. member for Waterkloof will perhaps remember that I had a big argument with the then hon. Minister of Justice, who now belongs to his party, about this very fact when we introduced the changes to the Matrimonial Affairs Act. The very thing which I asked him to introduce and which he obstinately refused to do, is now being recommended by the Law Commission, but this is of course several years on. There are three minority reports, two of which are signed by the prospective Chief Justice, which disagree with the most forward-looking proposals in the main report and in the Bill. It seems that I am destined to cross swords with the Chief Justice and I only hope that I do not have the misfortune to appear before him as an accused!

I see that the report recommends a special inquiry by experts into the very confused position of Black matrimonial affairs. This is another matter which I raised several years ago in a private member’s motion in 1975, when I asked for a special commission of inquiry into the situation. The commission asks that an expert commission be set up urgently. I agree with that, except that I do not agree that the experts should be, as the commission recommends, people who have special knowledge of indigenous customary law. I believe it should have people who are experts in both civil law and the customary law. It is because of the conflict between these two that the confused situation has arisen. I can think of one person who is eminently suited to be included on such a commission of inquiry and that is Prof. June Sinclair of the University of the Witwatersrand who is an expert on matrimonial law, both as far as customary and civil law is concerned.

I want the hon. the Minister to tell us today what his intentions are about the draft Bill, whether we will see it this session, whether he intends introducing the draft Bill as it stands and whether he accepts the majority recommendations of the commission. I want to tell him that very many women in South Africa are waiting with bated breath to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply in this regard.

I would like to refer to a matter if I have a moment left. This is probably the last opportunity I shall have to talk to this hon. Minister about section 10(1)(a)(bis) detainees, to whom the hon. member for King William’s Town referred. At the present time there are three people who are in preventive detention at Modder B. One of them is Johnny Issel who has been there for five or six months and who has had three banning orders served on him and is due to come out on 15 May. I hope that the hon. the Minister will at last let this man resume a normal life. The other is a man who spent several months in jail under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, called Ntombela. I think the hon. the Minister should take a good hard look at that case as well. There is of course the unfortunate case of Mr. Tatsa whose case I brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister last year during his vote. This man has an unbelievable history of having spent more than two years in solitary confinement, first under section 6. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I do not react to her immediately because I have to deal with some other matters which I think deserve a response at this stage.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to what Gen. Coetzee had allegedly said on some occasion which resulted in some reports in several newspapers. Immediately after I received an inquiry from a journalist in this regard, I asked the department to establish what exactly Gen. Coetzee had said. I will now set out how I dealt with that inquiry from that journalist. The question that was put to me, was as follows—

My reply was as follows—

Thereupon the journalist rephrased his question as follows—

Then I understood what he was actually referring to.

Come on.

I replied as follows—

I must say that certain newspapermen then actually did consult the Rabie Commission’s report and as a matter of fact referred to this particular recommendation, which immediately settled the matter.

It appeared in the Press for the first time this morning.

Yes. I shall come to that now. I want to quote this paragraph 9.3.10.3 from the Afrikaans text.

There is no English text to quote from.

At this stage. It is genuinely regretted.

*I quote—

This proposal is contained in paragraph 9.3.10.2., which reads as follows—

That is the court—

I also quote from paragraph 9.3.10.1—

This motivation was not in respect of the situation to which my hon. colleague the Minister of Law and Order referred during the discussion of his Vote. He said that the ANC were at present issuing a publication abroad entitled “In Combat”, which was drawn entirely from newspaper publications in this country and, I infer, reports of court cases. How did the Commission react to this proposal? I quote from paragraph 9.3.10.3—

In other words, this can only take place in the absolutely exceptional circumstances as already provided in section 153 as supplemented by section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I quote further—

In other words, the application itself is also being included here. Having just received the inquiry in this regard from the journalist, I felt it incumbent upon me to refer to this point in the Rabie report, which is all that has been tabled. Therefore there is nothing sinister about this aspect. I shall now come to the question of whether General Coetzee did in fact say this. If the idea has taken root in the Opposition sectors of the Press or abroad that consideration is being given to keeping political trials as such secret, I want to say here and now that I reject that. Secondly, I wholly reject the question of political trials in this country, because no one is charged on the basis of his faith, his political beliefs or the political opposition to the Government that he expresses:

They just get detained without trial.

I wish to deny categorically that secret trials—and it may be that the journalist expressed himself wrongly in this connection—of people who are to be or are being charged in terms of security legislation are being arranged or planned. All that has been tabled are the proposals contained in the report of the Rabie Commission. If this impression has been at all widely disseminated, I want to state categorically today that it is not so. If the hon. member for Sandton has already had a newspaper interview in this regard I want to give him the opportunity to rectify the matter. However, the fact remains that what I said in connection with the Rabie report has already appeared in this afternoon’s Argus. I think the hon. member could perhaps have given me credit for referring to it.

I did.

The hon. member made very passing reference to it.

I said you must say more than the single line which appeared in The Argus.

I also feel called upon to refer to what General Coetzee in fact said. If such an idea had been expressed by anyone else, it would probably have passed unnoticed. Because General Coetzee, who is in charge of security, is a very important police officer I asked last night, as I said, that a check be made as to whether he in fact said what has been imputed to him. He was asked for an explanation and immediately asked SAPA to rectify what had been said because he in fact denied that he had used those words. SAPA then reported as follows—

They then proceeded to quote me. This report was passed on to General Coetzee and I am authorized to say that he is unhappy with this rectification since it is not categorical enough, and he was quoted entirely wrongly. He will insist on an apology and if necessary, consider making use of the other instruments available in such a case to remedy the matter. I trust that this will be the end of the matter.

We are very relieved.

Are you relieved?

Yes.

I am convinced that the hon. member has never felt herself …

Threatened.

… in danger, but if so, we should like to hear a confession.

It would make you blush. It makes me blush. [Interjections.]

No, please not in this Chamber.

I am blushing now, thinking of it.

The hon. member for Sandton also took the opportunity of referring further to the handling of the habeas corpus rule and the rule of law. The hon. member for Mossel Bay furnished him with an appropriate reply. However, I believe that hon. members on both sides of the Committee are going to deal further with this matter and accordingly I do not wish to anticipate the discussion.

I think this is perhaps the appropriate time to discuss the staff situation in the department. It is a pity that the annual report, which is a very interesting document, has caused the Press to draw inferences which have not only created the impression but have stated that chaos or disorder prevails in the department or in some of its branches. The fact is that in the technical sphere, and I shall come to that shortly—virtually no staff problem is being experienced at present as far as the number of qualified lawyers is concerned. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Ermelo and other hon. members on this side of the Committee have perceived and pointed out that since this situation was reported on, inter alia, in the second Hoexter report of last year, we have succeeded in bringing about a dramatic change. As far as the administration of law is concerned, we have succeeded in manning the necessary posts. I want to say to the Committee that the degree of experience is perhaps not as great or as high as we might have wished, but after all, experience has to start somewhere. On the other hand, however, I do not wish to create the impression that this is the situation in the department. Our senior legal officers, the presidents and the magistrates of the regional courts, the chief magistrate, the other magistrates that assist him, the prosecutors and the Attorney General with his staff have once again succeeded in maintaining our administration of justice at a level which is greatly to the credit of the department, the people who occupy those posts and the administration of justice in general in South Africa. Those are the facts of the matter. In some centres where the supporting service has been insufficient, the magistrates in control of those centres have made a different plan. The message I wish to bring home to the Committee this afternoon is that while we have had to curtail certain services, and there have been critical problems at some points, we have made a real plan. We dealt with the situation by transferring staff and even by having members of staff perform functions other than those for which they were appointed. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to those unnamed members of staff that have enabled us to maintain the level of service, as was indeed pointed out by the Director-General in his report.

Our annual report is a very useful document for the purposes of this discussion, due to the statistics it contains and the correct image of the department’s activities it reflects, and I think it is only right to ask the Committee to read the annual report in conjunction with the questions that are asked from time to time so that on the basis of the statistics therein contained we can view the situation in June 1981 in the correct perspective, in contrast to the situation that prevails at present. I wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. members who have pointed this out. The hon. member for King William’s Town and Ermelo and other hon. members have pointed out that we must take cognizance of the questions asked. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I think it would be appropriate for me to reply at this point to the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Sandton concerning the handling of problems. I do not wish to give him too little credit, but I do want to say to him that the eight points he raised are predominantly a matter of common sense. Therefore I think he will understand that whereas I should very much like to give him credit for common sense, I must also give it to those who thought about the same points and solutions, e.g. with regard to better employment benefits, before and at the same time as he did, and who acted accordingly. I shall come to that.

It is true that the Directorate is suffering from an acute shortage in some classes of staff. As a result it is difficult to provide effective service. However, this is part of a far wider problem, viz. the general shortage of trained manpower, and this is not the lot of the Directorate of Justice alone. Nor is this the first time that the Directorate of Justice has encountered staff problems. In the past, too, such problems have cropped up regularly, but fortunately it has always been possible to maintain the administration of justice, as is the case now too. My approach and that of the Director-General and his staff has always been that staff shortages are challenges for which solutions must be found. There is a striking example of this in the report, viz. the question of allowances for legally qualified staff. I have referred to this. The problem of shortages in the technical division has been eliminated entirely in this way. At the same time, steps are constantly being taken to find solutions to existing difficulties, and there are a few examples of this to which I want to refer.

Although an improved dispensation for the State Law Advisers’ division was created in April 1981 this did not, as had been expected, attract a sufficient number of staff of the required quality to be appointed as state law advisers. While I am on this point, I want to convey the thanks of the Government on behalf of the Committee to the Chief State Law Adviser, Mr. Fölscher, and his team. These people perform highly specialized work. During the discussion of this Vote last year the hon. member for Nelspruit referred to the art of drafting laws correctly. Being as I am, concerned with that at the moment, I can give the assurance that this is an architectonic task which demands planning, preparation and so on before the final result is achieved. Moreover, there is opportunity for consultation with other people—thus giving rise to so many opinions, so many recommendations. All this they have to process. The people in the Hendrik Verwoerd building, elsewhere in the country and in our provincial administrations to which we second our people, perform work which is of the utmost importance for us. It is the fuel of this factory, Parliament, which makes the laws. They provide that fuel. Accordingly I think we must convey to these people the thanks that is due to them. However, we are in danger of falling short in this respect and accordingly the Director General and I took the initiative some time ago of informing the Government about the position, and as far as I am concerned it appears that we may be able to deal with this matter in the foreseeable future, not in a dramatic way but responsibly. We trust that on this basis we shall again be able to attract people to those posts which are of such importance to us. However, I shall go further. There has been further investigation of the issue of professional differentiation in various divisions of the Directorate.

†This may be the hon. member’s knifepoint. If he had it in mind, I give him credit for it.

*Specific professional groups have been identified by way of occupational differentiation studies in the light of their post structure, their remuneration package and the task entrusted to them, and so on. In this regard we have given high priority to the Masters’ Division, which since 1 September has had an improved post structure and offers its officials an improved remuneration package. I can now report to the Committee that there are indications that the high resignation rate in that division has been averted due to these measures. It is hoped that as soon as the new measures are fully implemented, the staff position will stabilize.

However, that is not the only step that has been taken in this regard. The fact is that the number of estates is increasing as the population grows, and accordingly we must always be considering improved methods, apart from the good old computer. We must also consider legally prescribed procedures that we revise from time to time. Last year Parliament passed a Bill in terms of which we facilitated the administration of smaller estates, cut down on procedures and so on. We are at present determining the results achieved hereby. I can report to the Committee that this investigation in connection with the Estates Act with a view to rationalization and curtailment of procedures etc. is still proceeding. While I am on this point I should like to take the opportunity to say that Mr. Wattrus, the Chief Master, retired at the end of last month. I had the privilege of attending the farewell function in his honour. Since I became acquainted with him when he was an articled attorney’s clerk, I took the liberty of telling him that evening that he was still one of the old guard, that is to say, unapproachable, but correct. That is the best assurance of quality one can get in our Public Service. I gave him the assurance that I realized that apart from his inaccessibility, he also displayed piety to his fellow man by, for example, advising attorneys and other people now and again and being of assistance with problems relating to accounts they had difficulty dealing with. That man made legal history by refusing from time to time to approve estate accounts, refusals which ultimately led to court cases. However, in these cases—two or more of them— Mr. Wattrus was found to be correct. This stands as a monument to decisiveness on the part of the Chief Master. We should very much like to retain and attract people of that quality.

This brings me to another division, viz. the Registrar’s Division, in which the necessary investigation, in co-operation with the Commission for Administration, was tackled as an urgent emergency measure and has now almost been completed. One of the most disturbing problems that was attended to in the course of this investigation is the shortage of judges’ clerks. I can tell hon. members at this point that we have in the interim negotiated improved salary scales and amended conditions of service to the satisfaction of judges. I just wish to point out that the Commission for Administration gave each judge president a personal hearing and acquainted itself with his needs. In this way we were able to draw up a package which satisfied the judges and which, in our opinion, will enable us to attract a sufficient number of judges’ clerks. At one stage there was a shortage of 11 judges’ clerks in Transvaal alone. What did we do when it became evident to us that the situation was becoming unmanageable? We put our heads together and held discussions with the Judge-President in question. The department made available to the judges people from its corps of officials who were trained for that purpose to do the work of judges’ clerks in the interim. This was to everyone’s satisfaction and I think that that assistance will be available again if a problem arises once more. The hon. member asked me what we had done. I want to refer him to one small example of what we have done to deal with such situations. He referred to the shortage of typists. He knows that the Commission for Administration has already announced an improved dispensation for certain professional groups such as the staff panel and typists, whereas an investigation with regard to the accounting panel has almost been completed. These are two bottlenecks which are being encountered not only in our head office but also by the Attorney-General and so on, particularly in Johannesburg. At this point I wish to say that there is a good prospect of these steps affording relief in those areas.

†The Department of Justice has already taken positive steps to counteract the shortage of clerical staff in magisterial divisions by making representations to the Commission for Administration to conduct an investigation into that field on the basis of profession differentiation and to award high priority to it. Once the proposed investigation has been completed, the position in regard to supporting clerical staff at magistrate’s courts should also improve.

*While I am dealing with this, permit me to say that many of the problems indicated in the annual report are localized, particularly in the Rand areas. I am very concerned about the situation, which is one that the Director-General reports on, not only in the annual report, but on an ongoing basis. Accordingly I have made inquiries in this regard on occasion and in recent times, too, specifically with a view to the debate, because I want to be able to look the hon. member in the eye when I tell him that the situation is critical but under control, that the newspaper that wrote such and such, is correct or that such a newspaper is wrong. I can now say that the evidence at my disposal confirms that the situation is under control and that staff are being allocated in such a way that technical work is receiving the necessary support so that we do not have to close a single court. That is the test. There may be other deficiencies, but I want hon. members please to accept that that situation, which has been described as chaotic or disorderly, is indeed under control. However, I wish to admit frankly to the Committee that we are experiencing critical bottlenecks.

†Special attention has also been given to the utilization of the services of people of other population groups on a larger scale as heretofore. I have taken a personal interest and have accepted responsibility in this regard. Recent indications are that by doing so it will be possible to release a number of White clerks for essential services elsewhere. The Director-General of Justice is constantly aware of the necessity to eliminate cumbersome work procedures and to ensure that effective control is exercised over inexperienced personnel. Special attention has been given to those sub-offices most severely affected by staff shortages, namely the office of the State Attorney of Johannesburg where necessary posts have been created in order to tighten control and supervision. Another example is the office of the magistrates court of Pretoria North where a simplified procedure regarding the collection and depositing of revenue was introduced.

*As regards the collection of debts by the Attorney-General, particularly provincial debts, we have made an arrangement which is beginning to work satisfactorily. What it amounts to is that in Transvaal in particular, that province will collect its own provincial debts, and this alleviates the pressure on the Attorney-General in Pretoria. The Director General stated clearly in his report that considerable staff problems were being experienced, and I do not wish to underestimate them. As I said, I have ascertained, inter alia, by way of ongoing contact with the main functionaries in the divisions in question, that consistent success has been achieved in providing reasonably effective services and that there is nowhere any question of disorder as could be inferred from certain reports. It must not be said at this point that “the lady doth protest too much’’. I admit that there are critical points, but the Director-General has also assured me that his report was certainly not written with the intention that such an inference should be made.

I want to refer briefly to the kind of service that has had to be suspended here and there, and this will give an indication that the image presented is not in accord with the facts. In Johannesburg, telephonic inquiry facilities in regard to the payment of maintenance have been suspended. We shall try to reintroduce that service as soon as we are in a position to do so. I have already referred to the fact that the Transvaal Provincial Administration is providing a person to enrol traffic cases in the register for criminal cases as far as provincial traffic cases are concerned. At traffic courts the public has to stand in long queues to pay fines. Mr. Chairman, I can give you the assurance that due to the large number of traffic cases in our courts no one is more concerned about that than I am. I am looking forward to the next Hoexter report, which may deal with the court situation where minor cases are involved. I do not wish to anticipate it, but I expect a great deal in this regard. Whether this will help the traffic courts as well is an open question, however. I noted recently that there has been interest on the part of the AHI, one of the directors of the CSIR and others as far as this matter is concerned, and I welcome this interest. However, the fact remains that we are seeking a solution to the congestion of our courts by traffic cases.

In Pretoria, marriages are only solemnized in the afternoons. However, that does not mean that no marriages are solemnized. In Germiston, maintenance complaints and civil processes are only dealt with in the morning, but they are dealt with. In Bethal, the settling of disputes is dealt with informally by the magistrate acting as a commissioner, and this works very well. In Randburg, technical staff assist with clerical work to prevent services from being suspended and curtailed. This is the worst we have been able to find, and I should like to report this to the Committee in detail and go on to other matters. However, I wish to express the hope that we do not gain the impression that the administration of justice in South Africa is in disorder. I hope that I have explained the situation fully.

†I would like to refer to a question put to me by the hon. member for King William’s Town.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will also deal with the recommendations of the Diemont Commission?

I will refer to that but I want to deal with the personnel situation first. The question was put to me by the hon. member for King William’s Town when I pointed out to him that the vacancies filled by unqualified people number approximately 111. I would like to emphasize the fact that those positions are filled by such people on a short-term basis. If and when the Hoexter Commission completes its investigation and files a report on this issue, we shall deal with that.

*The hon. member for Ermelo asked whether we could give an assurance as regards the head of such an office. The fact island hon. members are aware of this— that in all our offices, where it is justified by the legal work done there, we strive as far as possible to have those posts filled by persons with legal qualifications. With a few exceptions this is the case at present, but the hon. member will concede—and that is where he and the hon. member for Waterkloof perhaps differ—that in cases where only administrative services are involved and that agency work is carried out by the Department of Justice, those services must not be curtailed. However, we should consider whether we are utilizing the services of our legally qualified persons as well as we might if they are dealing with agency work. By saying that I certainly do not wish to intimate that these services will be withdrawn from the platteland in any way. On the contrary, I wish to confirm that it is my firm intention to ensure that we do not touch this situation, unless we have the absolute assurance that the platteland will be provided with its normal services. If we accept a system which will mean that legal officers will be centralized, that will certainly not detract from the quality of justice to which the platteland is also entitled. Having said that I wish to add that the Hoexter report is also being awaited in this regard and we shall consider that when the time comes.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has asked me about the Diemont report. This report was tabled some time ago. However, I decided not to deal with it at the time in view of the Hoexter report but I shall be tabling a Bill very shortly which will deal with increased appeal jurisdiction for the provincial divisions. I hope to give notice of that particular Bill within the next few days. Amongst other things the commission recommended that appeal jurisdiction should be given to the Witwatersrand Local Division. The Commission also recommended that a Deputy Judge-President be appointed for that court. It also recommended that Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark be incorporated into the jurisdiction of that local division. It also made some other recommendations which may perhaps not be so important at this stage. I have had discussions with the Judge-President on this issue and we are preparing a clause which will be incorporated in this Bill of which I intend giving notice shortly. I will also consult the other parties concerned on this issue. It seems to me, however, that the time has arrived to take cognizance of the fact that it is convenient for practitioners from Germiston etc. to have their work done in Johannesburg. I must emphasis, however, that the Diemont Report also saw fit to recommend that the Judge-President should prescribe what appeals—because they especially had lengthy appeals in mind—should be attended to by the local division. I do not intend to create a situation overnight where the appeal jurisdiction of a local division will be dealt with in such a manner that we have a completely new situation. I personally feel that this is a matter which should be left to the discretion of the Judge-President. However, at the same time I also feel that the Diemont Commission has gone into this matter thoroughly and that we should attend to this facet. Please therefore bear with me until I have introduced this Bill because I will negotiate with all parties concerned.

*As regards the incorporation of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark in the local division it is my intention to carry out an investigation to determine whether this is desirable, and accordingly I shall consult all the responsible and interested parties in this matter. As regards the appointment of a Deputy Judge-President in control of the court in Johannesburg I have conducted discussions with Judge-President Mr. Justice Boshoff and we have reached agreement on this point and it will be given the necessary attention. Then, too, there is the recommendation that consideration be given to giving the jurisdiction of a circuit court to the local division. This is a recommendation which will not take the matter much further in practice, because at present a centre is being provided for every circuit court which provides the necessary services. Our chief aim is, after all, to provide better service, and therefore I do not regard this recommendation as very urgent, and I wish to leave it at that. There is a further recommendation in the Diemont report to the effect that we should allocate an administrative clerk to the Judge-President due to his responsibilities, and we have already given the necessary effect to this. I therefore wish to propose to the hon. member for Sandton that if there is to be a debate about this, we must discuss these matters.

In conclusion, I wish to deal with a different matter. On 30 April this year the hon. the Minister of Community Development, his Deputy Minister and senior officials of that department, the Judge-President, the Director-General, senior officials on our side and I myself met at the Palace of Justice in Pretoria. Let me say here and now that I have often passed that building as a visitor and sometimes I have looked in, too. However, it was for me a very productive morning, because I came to the conclusion that this was one of our finest legacies, which should be given the necessary attention as regards maintenance and restoration. We then discussed a number of matters, for example the situation with regard to judges’ chambers, offices for judges’ clerks and a reception area for the Judge-President. After all, he is in our administrative capital and receives visitors from throughout the world. We also considered the inadequate number of courts available to dispose of the daily roll. We also gave attention to inadequate facilities for lawyers and the cells of the South African Police. We considered structural shortcomings such as a leaking roof and offices with an untidy appearance. We gave a great deal of attention to this building. We took cognizance of the fact that the Departments of Community Development and Justice have already succeeded in obtaining suitable and adequate accommodation for the Attorney-General and his staff in a new building that is being constructed. This will leave a great deal of space in the Palace of Justice, where the Attorney-General is at present accommodated, which can be used for the construction of additional courts and offices. However, the important aspect is that the indication is—and we have said this before—that by about September this year the Attorney-General and his staff will move to the new accommodation near the Palace of Justice. The architectural services of our sister department have explained to us how to go about restoring the Palace of Justice. The plans are as follows: Consideration will be given to the equipping of altogether 26 judges’ chambers and 12 courts in an effort to resolve the accommodation problem that is being experienced. Hon. members will also note that we are making provision for expected growth. These phases were explained to us by way of line drawings and I do not wish to dwell on that now except to say that they will be dealt with in five phases and that the first phase will begin as soon as possible after September this year—after the Attorney-General and his staff have been moved to other accommodation. Renovation of the outside of the building, which may begin at an earlier stage, will be launched in tandem with the abovementioned phases. I do not wish to burden hon. members with the phases that are involved but I shall give them insight into this very important project which is expected to cost us several millions of rands over the next three years. However, we regarded this as a matter which does not only affect the country; it affects all of us.

The hon. member also referred to the Training Division and I shall deal with that shortly. I should just like to say the following with regard to a new Justice complex to the north of the Palace of Justice that is being envisaged. It will be built on the corner of Paul Kruger and Vermeulen Streets. In this building we may be able to make provision for additional courts and additional office accommodation for the future. The following functionaries may be accommodated there: The Ministry, the head office, the Attorney-General, the Registrar, the Chief Master and the Attorney-General. We have decided that the Justice Directorate will take immediate steps to make the accommodation in this complex available to the sister department. We shall also negotiate with the Department of Community Development in an effort to expedite the construction of this complex as a matter of urgency.

This brings me to the legal training division. The hon. member referred to the fact—and this is also mentioned in the report—that these people are suffering from a lack of space. This is a great pity, because the branch in question is doing a tremendous task. In this regard we have decided not to make provision for this branch in the new Justice complex in view of the requirements of that branch. We have decided to institute further investigation in order to find a suitable site for the construction of such accommodation of the extent required, and we hope that we shall be able to report to the Committee in this regard in due course. I shall leave it at that for the time being and shall reply again later.

†When the hon. member for Houghton was speaking I remembered a quotation from someone who criticised a judgment of a Supreme Court judge of the United States after handing down a judgment on the rights of women. The quotation is as follows—

I quote this with complete disapproval for the simple reason that the hon. member for Houghton has over many years succeeded in making her presence as a woman felt thoroughly, for which I commend her.

Mr. Chairman, I had listened with interest to the visit of the hon. Minister to Mr. Justice Boshoff and the Palace of Justice in Pretoria. I spent two years in that court before the same judge and it was a very pleasant time of my life. I support the plans of the hon. Minister of Justice to restore the Palace of Justice and I think it is an excellent idea. If he can now devote some enthusiasm to restoring the rule of law in the country we will be entirely satisfied.

Arising out of the public and government concern about our security laws, and at a time when the Biko inquest revealed an extremely disturbing number of facts about our security system, the Rabie Commission was appointed by the Government to look into the security laws. In my view it laboured mightily and it produced a scholarly and elaborate irrelevance. It made certain peripheral changes but it failed to do anything to reasure the public which is greatly disappointing.

Or the legal profession.

Or the legal profession. It left intact the detention power in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act.

What is your alternative?

Try them.

It also left intact the power and practice of banning people. It is called banning or restricting people. This power to ban appears to be used frequently at the moment. I do not want to deal with the question of detentions because that apparently falls under another hon. Minister while the question of bannings falls under this hon. Minister. This power is frequently used against absolutely innocent people and this is the same point that the hon. member for King William’s Town made. As far as I know it is a power given by law and used only in South Africa and behind the Iron Curtain in the civilized world. That the people are innocent, there is no doubt. They have not been charged in a court and they have not been found guilty. If they even remotely approached guilt under any of the myriad of legislative security laws or even the common law, they would have been charged. The South African Police gave evidence to the Rabie Commission and they said that section 6 of the Terrorism Act is a very good weapon and a very effective means of establishing the guilt of people who overstepped the boundaries of the security laws. Therefore they would quite clearly charge people against whom they had strong suspicions. It is a savage power, this power to ban people, and it is innocent people, as I have said. First of all, it makes those people their own prisoners. It makes them their own jailers and their own prisoners and they are victims of a system which does not have the courage to charge them in court in the clear, cold light of day where an objective and independent man, a judge, will give his verdict. It is an administrative act against people who are intelligent and articulate, often against prominent leaders in our society and it silences them. Does the hon. the Minister know what it does to an articulate human being to completely silence him, to remove him entirely from society and to make him a non-person in the State? Does the hon. the Minister of Justice know what it means to these men who often have to lose their livelihood, their means of supporting their wives and their children because they have been banned? I know that it has been said that we do not ban people from their jobs but I beg the hon. the Minister not to come with the contention that that does not happen because of banning orders, because it does. Does the hon. the Minister know what it means to a young man or a young woman in perhaps the most vital time of their lives to have this kind of vicious punishment—because it is a punishment—when he or she cannot meet other young people socially because of a banning order? It is also an act against ideas and in that respect it is always doomed to failure because one cannot destroy an idea. It is, in fact, a destruction of justice by injustice and it is done in the name of the State. Of course, Mr. Chairman, it is also quite ineffective because what it does is to give strength to those people who are banned and it gives force to their ideas. It strengthens others as well because ordinary citizens know that the very act of restricting a person is an injustice and that it offends against the standards of just and decent people. I really believe that this law is an affront to South Africa and I cannot defend this country on this aspect in any way and in any form, and I will not. In fact, I will attack the Government on this question at every opportunity because to be a proper patriot to South Africa one has to want one’s country returned to civilized standards. Banning is so vicious an action that about one quarter of all people banned in South Africa have left this country. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the result has simply been that many of those people have gone out of this country and fought this Government from other lands. There is really nothing to commend it. What administrative banning also does is that it turns illegitimate behaviour into legitimate behaviour because it allows officials legally to interfere with citizens’ rights in what would otherwise have been an illegal way. Therefore it turns an illegality into a legality. However, what is worse than that is that it turns legitimate behaviour into illegitimate behaviour. I have already quoted in the House the long treason trial in South Africa where the ANC was found by the court to have been an organization which stood for peaceful change until it was banned and then it became a violent organization.

That is not the correct quote.

It is correct.

That is exactly what Judge Kennedy said, not only in that trial but in a subsequent trial he reaffirmed that view and he said that is what he found in the case of the State vs. Adams. As far as banning is concerned the people will say to themselves: What is the point of acting within the law if you are punished as if you had contravened the law? It does not keep the peace and it stirs up hatred. It does not help the police, nor does it cut down their work. In fact, it creates work for the police. To give an example, in just one case, the case of Fatimah Meer, ten policemen hid in a garden at night for about 3 hours—this was the evidence—watching Mrs. Meer attending a dinner party. The intention was not to catch her at some dreadful crime, but merely to catch her breaking a restriction order in a completely innocuous way. Never have proper reasons been given to the public or to the restricted people for their excessive actions. Mr. B. J. Vorster once claimed over television in the United States that these people were always given reasons. However, when he was challenged, he backed away from that and he said that they were advancing the aims of communism or something equally fatuous. Once when we heard a reason from a Cabinet Minister, in the case of Mr. Ian Robertson, it was that he was banned because he had gone to a particular foreign country, but later it was proved that he had, in fact, never been there. That kind of false information about people will always occur if the person that is being accused is not told what he is being charged with or apprised of the accusations against him. These powers have been used before. They were used in Germany in the thirties against Jewish people. They were first restricted in their movements and then they were restricted in their homes as in the case of house arrest.

Now there is the Russian arrest cases.

At present, as I said, in Russia. It dehumanized the people against whom it was used but, as well as that, it dehumanized those who imposed those restrictions. We have in South Africa at the moment approximately 140 to 150 such restricted people. I want to ask this finally: Would South Africa collapse if these people were not banned? Would our security system crash into ruins if we abolish this caricature of a civilized standard? Does our system of justice have to rest on this kind of standard? If we do, then we have a crippled and sick society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown made a speech which was absolutely destructive in respect of every subject he could think of. He revelled in metaphorical exaggeration here. I do not hold it against the hon. member if he frequently defends these detainees in court, but when he states his sentiments in this way in this House where they can be blazoned abroad, I must accuse him of playing to the audience outside and not to the audience here. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that his sense of justice leaves much to be desired and that his view of what is in the interests of the State is so compromised that he does not try to think objectively.

I think the hon. member for Pinetown is compromised and that there are other hon. members on that side of the House who are also compromised. The hon. member for Green Point with his magnificent moustache who is pointing a long finger at me is also compromised. I just want to tell those hon. members that they merely support the theories of human rights and of the security of the individual and the State but that they will never be able to apply those theories in practice. They live in a realm of theory and are not of this world where there are rogues, terrorists and underminers. They do not believe that such people really exist. In that regard we differ with each other and I think we must accept that we are going to differ with each other. If the hon. member for Pinetown were to perform an operation on a cat he would fare better than he does when discussing the rule of law, about which he knows nothing at all.

I think hon. members opposite must accept that there are underminers. If there are underminers, what must be done with them, not in theory but in practice? If hon. members had read the Commission report signed by a future Chief Justice of this country they would not have made such ridiculous statements. He made it quite clear why certain steps are some times necessary, but those hon. members do not want to understand. I cannot argue with people who refuse to think. I cannot argue with people who think in generalizations and whose thoughts are bogged down by liberalism so that they live in the clouds and not on the earth. We on this side of the House believe implicitly what is stated on page 166 of the Commission report on Security Legislation, and I quote—

We agree wholeheartedly with this—

That is how it is applied. Who must decide when the general security of the public is seriously endangered? This is stated in the report. The Commission’s point of departure is that the final decision regarding actions taken for the security of the State rests with the executive.

That is internationally accepted.

Yes, it is internationally accepted, yet those hon. members do not want to accept it. Those hon. members are prepared to live theoretically, but are not prepared to apply the theory. They cannot do so, because they believe that all people are good and do not accept that they can also be rogues or terrorists.

What I have said thus far is not the speech I prepared.

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

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

No, I am sorry. I just do not have the time.

*I have not even come to my speech yet. I shall now have to deal very briefly with the point I wanted to make in my speech.

We in this House realize that the judiciary, together with the executive and the legislature is a very important pillar of the security of the State. In this connection I should like to underline the importance of the judiciary. The fair judgments we get are absolutely essential for law and order and the peaceful existence of the community. The handling and securing of the rights of entrepreneurs by means of fair judgments is of importance to the economic progress of the country. That is why it is essential for our judicial officers to have received a thorough grounding. Our judicial officers start with the justice of the peace and end with the judge. When we come to the judge we must realize that he is the person forming the apex of this pyramid. I want to make it quite clear that as long as there are judges and as long as there is an automatic right of appeal the judges will be the people who exercise control over the quality of our administration of justice. Of course it is a good thing if our inferior courts acquit themselves well of their task. I should like to quote a passage dealing with the remuneration of judges. I should like to place this matter in its correct perspective. The quote reads—

I feel it is very important that we bear this aspect in mind. We must have able people on the Bench. Why is this so important? Once a ruling has been given, whether or not that ruling is absolutely correct, subsequent rulings are based on it, and this could lead to absurdities. The entire matter will then have to be rectified. But in the meantime an injustice has occurred and people may have suffered a change in status, or a change in their relationships in regard to property, or may even have lost their freedom.

I therefore think that we must hold the judiciary in at least as high a regard as the legislature and the executive. It is therefore very important for the infrastructure within which the judge exercises his authority to be appropriate so that he can exercise his authority properly in the interests of the community as such. When I consider the infrastructure judges have, I am most grateful for what the hon. the Minister said at the Palace of Justice. I should like to talk about the position in Pretoria because I know more about it.

We have a problem at the Palace of Justice. The hon. the Minister said that chambers were going to be provided for 26 judges. The fact of the matter is that at the moment we have approximately 39 judges in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. In addition the Transvaal Division is responsible for slightly more than half of all administration of justice in the country. In the Department’s annual report one finds on page 70 that for the entire country the number of times process was issued and applications received was approximately 62 000. The figure for the Transvaal is 34 000, which is therefore more than half of the total. The Transvaal Division has 39 judges, while there are 60 judges in the rest of the country. One can therefore see that judges in the Transvaal work extremely hard and are overloaded with work in comparison with judges elsewhere in the country. I am basing this statement on the annual report’s statistics.

A judge does not have the manpower or the infrastructure to get someone to do his research for him. A judge does not even have a dictaphone on which to dictate his judgments. The problem in the Transvaal is that the infrastructure had not been created to enable judges to speed up their work rate. There are problems in this connection.

To illustrate this point, I feel it is essential for judges to keep a set of statute books and law reports at their homes. Nowadays a set of law reports could easily cost R5 000 or R6 000. I do not know the exact price because I bought my set many years ago. These people work late into the night. Judges do not have set hours. It is high time we considered supplying all judges with a set of statute books to keep at home. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly touch on one or two points which the hon. member for Pretoria West made. However, I must make it very clear that we on these benches agree very much with the sentiments that are expressed against the whole concept of banning and detention without trial. For anybody who has travelled outside this country it is clear that we have many allies and supporters, not only in the Western world, but in the so called non-aligned countries as well. The one thing they will not stomach and the one commodity we cannot sell, no matter how good an ambassador and how loyal you may be to the country, is, shall we say, this despicable piece of legislation which applies in this country with regard to banning and detention without trial. We have no answer to it.

I am quite proud of my MP.

I wish I could say the same for my constituent.

I do wish to touch on an a aspect which the hon. member for Ermelo mentioned, namely the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the structure and functioning of the courts. He and the hon. member for King William’s Town made a very important point when they emphasized the important role that magistrates play in a distant and outlying rural community. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious attention to this particular aspect when the report is made available to him. I feel that there may be cases where the separation of the judicial and administrative functions are practical, but there are other factors involved than the functioning of the particular office. There are status symbols which are vital to rural community. These are in many ways carried in the form of the responsible position a magistrate holds in such a community. It is vital that one has at the head of a community a man of stature in the form of a magistrate.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a somewhat mundane aspect in relation to the tone of the debate that has taken place up to now. I want to deal with a specific matter which is causing a considerable amount of trouble and problems in my own constituency. This not only affects my own constituency, but it can be applied to any rural constituency in the country. I refer to the question of stock theft. We know that this is an old established practice. History relates that stock theft has, in the past, been punishable by death. We know that countries have been settled with those who have been guilty of this somewhat infamous crime. But coming to more serious aspects of it, I think it is with considerable concern that the farming community view the increase of stock theft. Without doubt there is a need for heavier penalties, because the present penalities are quite inadequate. I think we have to deal with the trends that have taken place and the manner in which stock theft is now carried out. We are finding that sophisticated methods are being utilized to commit stock theft, particularly with regard to smaller stock. Special vehicles are being used.

It is quite clear that within a matter of hours, as a result of the concept of mobile transport, animals can be moved over long distances within a relatively short time. Areas in the country where small livestock farming is taking place are seriously affected. There are many areas where, due to inadequate penalties being applied, the escalation of stock theft has been of such dimension that people have no alternative but to give up sheep farming. A recent report indicated that Natal alone can accommodate an additional one million sheep. I can assure this Committee that stock theft has played a very vital part in the fact that sheep numbers in Natal particularly are dwindling. There is a considerable sense of frustration being experienced. At this stage I do want to express appreciation to the stock theft squads who with tremendous enthusiasm and under most difficult conditions carry out their duties in a very dedicated manner. It is quite apparent that unless more stringent penalties are applied this whole question of stock theft will become intolerable in many areas of the country. Increased livestock values justify greater risk. Consequently greater action must be taken against the culprits involved. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to aspects of the Stock Theft Act which require review. I must draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that motor vehicles involved in stock theft may only be confiscated if they are the actual property of those found guilty. In other words, if a culprit borrows a car or if he has a rented or a hired car, that vehicle cannot be confiscated. In view of the sophisticated methods, to which I have referred, being used I would like to suggest that the confiscation of vehicles related to stock theft should be made mandatory as is the case with illegal hunting.

Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to an anomaly in regard to theft. This covers petty theft. The anomaly is that the theft of a chicken from a supermarket is viewed in a very different light to the theft of a chicken from a farm-yard fowl-run.

Mr. Chairman, stock theft is a little beyond my province and I should prefer not to react to that aspect of the hon. member for Mooi River’s speech. Before the hon. member dealt with that subject, he associated himself completely with the point made by the hon. member for Pinetown concerning restrictions. I should like to give both these hon. members the assurance that this side of the House is fully aware of the negative effect this method has on South Africa’s political image abroad. We are fully aware of this. The fact that we continue to use this method in spite of this disadvantage is proof of our belief that it is absolutely essential to do so. South Africa is not the first, nor the only Western democratic State using this system to a greater or lesser extent. It is not a system we invented. There are many other examples …

Name them.

… of this sort of behaviour in democratic States. But I do not want to defend it. I merely want to point out that we are aware that there is a great necessity for it.

Give me some examples, give me a for instance.

I should like to refer back to another aspect which in a certain sense is directly linked to the point the hon. member for Sandton made regarding Gen. Coetzee. The administration of justice is one of the central aspects of a State’s entire set-up. Hearings or court cases the most visible and central aspect of a Government. If something goes wrong during the course of a court case, a hearing, we run the risk of the entire legal system collapsing, we run the risk of the entire legal order collapsing. That is why it is so tremendously important to ensure that there are no problems in connection with this aspect of the hearing.

A hearing can be attacked from various quarters. The first and possibly most classical quarter is the case of the powerful State prejudicing the hearing by means of some action or other. Special steps have been taken in this regard to prevent abuses by the State, namely rules like habeas corpus, the rule of law, public trials, etc. However, the hearing may also be abused by the accused. What was involved in the case in regard to which the hon. member for Sandton attacked the General was in fact the abuse of the hearing process by the accused. The hearing is abused to make political propaganda on a large scale. There are other abuses as well, such as when the persons representing the accused drag out and delay the legal process in order to prejudice the administration of justice in the country. I admit that in the vast majority of cases this behaviour is within the limits set down by the law, but as an outsider sometimes one cannot help feeling that the protective measures are being abused.

However, that is not the point I wanted to discuss, I simply mentioned it in passing. The point I want to return to is that trials are frequently abused as political demonstrations, as platforms for propaganda. This was the point Gen. Coetzee objected to and the matter against which he suggested countermeasures should possibly be taken. Now the hon. member for Sandton has attacked the general most dramatically because he made this suggestion.

No, it was not a dramatic attack at all.

But it was an attack on a suggestion which was made by an office-bearer. He made out a strong case against this idea. I take it amiss of him for talking about secret political trials whereas the most that was at issue here was in camera trials in terms of security legislation. These are two different things. Just as solitary confinement is quite different from “aanhouding sonder toegang”. They are two completely different matters.

Yes, one is Afrikaans and the other is English.

No. [Interjections.] It would seem to me there is uncertainty among hon. members of the Opposition on this point and it would therefore be appropriate for us to give the hon. members of the Opposition a little information on this specific point at a later stage so that they can discover what the difference is between solitary confinement and detention without access. By their use of these terms they are distorting the truth. When they speak of banning instead of restriction, when they speak of solitary confinement instead of detention without access, when they speak of secret political trials instead of hearings in camera on the basis of security legislation they are distorting the truth. In this way they are giving ammunition to our enemies, because if South Africa’s position in the world were to be analysed in future it would be a case of the destructive power of half-truth. That would be the case of South Africa abroad. For this reason I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Sandton. If one listens to the hon. member’s speech in which he makes an appeal for detainees and for accused persons and condemns the measures taken by the State, and one is not aware how patriotic this hon. member actually is, one could get the wrong impression about his patriotism.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof also discussed the report of the South African Law Commission on the law of matrimonial property and I understand that there are hon. members on this side, too, who are going to discuss it but I think it is perhaps appropriate that I should say to both the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Houghton at this stage that we are dealing with various recommendations with regard to the accrual facet.

If you are without sin …

If the hon. member for Brakpan would only help me, I could perhaps tell him what he should tell his bench mate. We are dealing here with a majority and a minority report with regard to certain chapters of the recommended legislation. This places me in the situation that we must deliberate about this matter and do so in such a way that we further this cause rather than detract from it. We have had a great deal of good publicity in regard to this report over the past few days. I am convinced that academics, lawyers and so on will take full cognizance of this. I do not wish to anticipate the final decision in this regard, but I can reply to the questions of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member asked me whether I would be introducing legislation during this session and what I intended doing with this report. My intention is to listen to hon. members while the matter is being debated. I listened to the hon. member for Waterkloof and I just want to say to him in passing that reference is indeed made in this report to aspects of the law of succession and that recommendations are made which are being implemented in the meantime, particularly with regard to the law of intestate succession relating to a husband or wife. How are we to deal with a matter which has already been considered by a very experienced and highly qualified commission? I think hon. members will agree with me that the members of the commission had the benefit of extensive deliberation, submissions to them and so forth. It may be, therefore, that for purposes of possible legislation we can reduce discussion to the points of dispute between the two recommendations with regard to the facet of accrual, for example. Therefore I wish to put it to the Committee that other hon. members who are still going to take part in the debate must give me an indication of how they feel about the possibility of a Select Committee of this House investigating this matter. However, the Select Committee must not have the right to take evidence because the Commission has already had that advantage. Nevertheless, the Select Committee must consider the report and investigate points of dispute, and on the basis of its findings a decision will be taken as to whether legislation should be submitted or not, I am thinking along these lines. This is a very important matter, with profound implications for the law of matrimonial property in particular and the law of persons in general and we must give it due consideration and not take over-hasty decisions. In the meantime, however, I am thinking along these lines and I have not yet reached a final decision. I know that other hon. members of the NP are going to discuss this matter tomorrow and accordingly I place the matter in the Committee’s midst for consideration so that hon. members can give me their views.

Mr. Chairman, we must adjourn shortly but I want to say that I shall furnish suitable replies to other hon. members tomorrow. It has been a very interesting debate thus far, but before we adjourn there is something I want to say to the hon. member for Pine-town. It is a pity that the leader of the PFP is not present at the moment, but perhaps I should have shown the courtesy of notifying him that I should be discussing this matter. However, I did not notice that he had left the Committee, and I apologize for that. However, I believe that this will be conveyed to him.

We did not know you were going to speak now.

We did not know either.

I apologize, but the arrangement is that the debate will only adjourn in five minutes’ time.

You were due to reply tomorrow, not today, and you know that perfectly well.

I wish to show the hon. member for Groote Schuur every courtesy but I want to point out to the hon. member that a debating point has been raised that we can debate again tomorrow, but we cannot leave it at that. The hon. member can react to it again tomorrow, and accordingly I shall not deal fully with this point at this stage. I do just want to request the hon. member at this stage to come back to the Committee tomorrow and confirm that his hon. Leader accepts security legislation in principle. In an editorial in The Argus of 20 January reference is made to a speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition—I did not read the speech myself—and I quote—

Those are his words and style, and Mathews in his work Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa is of the same opinion.

I accept that too. [Interjections.]

I want to make sure that Hansard reports the fact that you accept it. In other words, if the hon. member accepts the necessity for security legislation in principle, on what grounds do the PFP differ with us? Do they differ on the control measures?

Sure, you have taken it away from the courts, that is why. It is perfectly simple. [Interjections.]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition used jargon which was also used by Mathews, and that meant only one thing, namely exceptional measures which would not necessarily lead to charges in a court of law.

Oh, no!

Yes, quite definitely. I will tell the hon. member why. I want to quote from Mathews to prove the point, and the hon. member must then please admit that he is wrong. We must finish this very important point. I am saying that the hon. Leader of the Opposition used jargon also used by Mathews.

[Inaudible.]

No, do not talk nonsense. Prof. Mathews is one of the most well-known lawyers in this country. Let me just remind hon. members what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said. He said that we need such special security measures to cope with a difficult period of transition. In his statement last night he added that these laws should be seen to fair and just. I want to give that to his credit, and we do not differ from him. We can debate that point further tomorrow morning. I maintain the hon. Leader of the Opposition used jargon also used by Prof. Mathews. Mathews was quoted by Mr. Justice Rabie as having said that security legislation is a lamentable necessity. I now quote from Mathews, page 310—

That is exactly what we are doing.

He is referring to punishment in the courts.

May I compliment the hon. member, he is also an author of books. Does one not mean what one writes when one writes a book? He actually puts in juxtaposition criminal laws for the punishment of certain acts and a measure to outlaw parties which, in effect, is an effective emergency powers law. I quote further from Mathews—

Does the hon. member accept that?

No, I do not accept that.

I put it to the hon. member that his hon. Leader had exactly this in mind.

No, that is not the case.

Before we proceed tomorrow morning …

We will tell you tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.