Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the polite way in which he replied to my previous speech. I should like to tell him that I, and I am sure all my colleagues on this side of the House, have no personal quarrel with him. I have no reason to have a personal quarrel with him, because he was good to me. I am grateful for that and I should like it placed on record. I also want to tell him that it was the most difficult step in my entire life to go against him, not because I have any quarrel with him but because I believe unshakeably that the course he has adapted is the wrong one. The further we move away from 24 February 1982, the more convinced I become that we were right not to go with him. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to previous leaders to prove that the NP is still following the same course today. I should like to tell him that the thoughts, deeds and statements of previous leaders and their generation are part of history. That is what it culminates in.

I should like to draw attention to a few points from the historic course of political development of South Africa to try to illustrate the trends, and I shall do so from the time of Union when South Africa was governed by South Africans and, to a very large extent, by Afrikaners. With Union there were only Whites on the voters’ roll in the Transvaal and the Free State. In the Cape Province and Natal there was a common voters’ roll for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. This was political integration. Everyone was represented in the same Parliament.

The first major change came 26 years later, in 1936, when Blacks were removed from the common voters’ roll and placed on a separate voters’ roll and were represented by Whites in this Parliament. At the same time greater territorial content was given to the Black areas. The next change came in 1955, 19 years later, when a separate voters’ roll was introduced for Coloureds and they were removed from the common voters’ roll. The next change came four years later when Blacks were removed from the separate voters’ roll and were given their on representation in other institutions. Ten years after that there was another change when the Coloureds were also removed from the common voters’ roll, their representation in this House fell away and they were given a separate institution.

The political integration with which we began, which we inherited, was systematically dismantled from 1910 onwards, so that today we have one sovereign White Parliament and four sovereign Black Parliaments in the original South Africa.

I believe the time is now ripe for further change. However, we differ from the hon. the Prime Minister because he has turned back and is retracing the steps taken since 1910. The hon. the Prime Minister is now reverting to separate voters’ rolls within the same Parliament with three chambers. We differ with the hon. the Prime Minister because we do not want to turn back, we want to move forward. That is why we are telling him that we want to continue the development of the political history of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that his objective was peace and harmony. But surely that is the objective of the vast majority of people in South Africa, including the PFP. I assume that it is also the objective of the Rev. Hendrickse. It was also the objective of Mr. Ian Smith. However, Mr. Ian Smith did not achieve his objective. What do we find in Zimbabwe today? There is bloodshed and chaos. That is why I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I firmly believe that he cannot turn back from this course because he will end up with the same conditions that prevailed in 1910 and we shall then have integration. He will not achieve his objective in this way.

We in the CP have a very clear vision of where we are going. In 1910 there was one undivided South Africa with one political instrument in which everyone who had representation had to be represented. That was Parliament. However, today in South Africa we have one White State and ten separate Black States. We therefore have eleven States in the original single South African State. We believe that this process of political development has not been completed yet and will not be completed either until there are 13 States in South Africa, so that every nation in South Africa can have its own home, so that every nation’s children can have their own future and will enjoy the necessary security which is a prerequisite for the co-operation and harmony we all aspire to. We believe unshakeably that while we do not have this, we cannot continue with the peaceful development of South Africa, for then we shall always be faced with racial strife, conflict, power struggles and the inclination to dominate, which is proved by the history of South Africa and the rest of Africa.

Our neighbouring State is the best example of this. Today only Mr. Mugabe rules in Zimbabwe. Although he and Mr. Nkomo fought side by side to take over the Government, they could not maintain that Government for two years before it collapsed. Now Mr. Nkomo’s people are being wiped out in a gruesome and bloodthirsty way, and what is the cause? The desire for power and domination, and this cannot be otherwise when one combines various groups of people in one political dispensation. If Mr. Smith had adopted another course 10 years ago and said he was going to give the Matabeles their own government institution, and had said the same thing to the Mashonas, Mr. Mugabe would probably have been ruling in Mashonaland today, Mr. Nkomo in Matabeleland and Mr. Ian Smith in the rest of Rhodesia. Then there would have been peace and harmony, far more than there is today.

Where would Mr. Ian Smith have been? In Salisbury or where?

That is why we are telling the hon. the Prime Minister that we differ unshakeably from him. I therefore want to tell him: We are well aware that the course we want to adopt is a far more difficult course than that which he wants to adopt, but the course he wants to adopt is a retrogressive course and will take him back to 1910. Of course, it is easy to adopt the downhill course, the way of least resistance. However, it is difficult to adopt the other course, to want to continue the process. However, we are not afraid to accept that challenge. It is significant how many young people support the CP. The young people who support the CP are our greatest single element of support. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have the support of the young people, in spite of the fact that everything possible has been done to accuse us of racialism, intolerance and all kinds of other things. In spite of this, the young people are throwing their weight behind the CP. They are doing so because we stand for the continuation of an historic development of politics in South Africa, because what we support, represents the historic course of political development and because the young people instinctively want to go forward and do not want to turn back. We therefore want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister: We would like to accompany him, but we cannot turn back; we want to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lichtenburg must excuse me if I do not follow up his train of thought, except to say that the record he has described as progress has, I believe, been retrogression. The moment we took people who have the right to have the vote off the common voters’ roll, we went wrong, and I believe that if there is any suggestion, even for a moment, that there should be a return to that, we can only say to the hon. the Prime Minister: Go forward along the path forward for South Africa.

I do not believe that there is any possible future whatsoever for the views advanced by the CP. They are outdated. They are almost prehistoric. I have nothing personal against that hon. member. In fact, I think he is a very effective hon. member in this House, but I do believe that his views are outdated and outmoded and cannot survive in the modern South Africa of today.

I now want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister one matter, which has not been mentioned at all in this debate, before I come to the major themes of the debate. I should like to put a specific question to the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the pamphlet that was published in February of this year, a pamphlet entitled Campus News. It was distributed simultaneously at all the major universities in South Africa, or on many of the major campuses. It purported to come from Nusas and was clearly inciting and also aimed at embarrassing that student organization, which denies sending it out. Many suggestions have been made as to who was responsible, because it obviously took considerable organization to produce such a pamphlet and to distribute it simultaneously at so many different points. I have asked the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether the matter is being investigated and he has said it is. However, so far we have had no further news on that score. I have also asked the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information whether his department was responsible. I asked that because the hon. the Minister himself is on record as saying that his department, together with others, accepts responsibility for the distribution of anonymous pamphlets to counter the work of certain grass-roots organizations in the Cape. The answer from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information was in the negative.

I have received two telephone calls suggesting names and Government departments responsible for this. I told both callers—they were both anonymous—that I refused to accept their word until such time as they gave me their names and, if necessary, an affidavit. I want to try to clarify this issue once and for all, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether any Government department—I ask him this as the leader of the Government—is in any way involved with the writing, the printing or the distribution of the pamphlet Campus News, which was distributed very widely in February.

As far as the allegations against the hon. the Minister of Manpower are concerned, I want to say that the Government’s response so far has been totally inadequate. The allegation is a very serious one and I believe that, if the hon. the Minister of Manpower had been present, from what I know about him he would have been the very next speaker in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote and he would have challenged the hon. member concerned to withdraw and apologize or he would have demanded the appointment of a Select Committee. I want to say that I believe that speakers on that side of the House have let their colleague, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, down. This is a most serious allegation and I hope that, when the hon. the Prime Minister replies to the debate in a moment, he will tell the House that he himself is calling for a Select Committee in order to defend the honour of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, because the allegation is very far-reaching and very serious indeed. That is the only way in which I believe the matter can be satisfactorily dealt with.

The hon. the Prime Minister announced the possible appointment of a Select Committee to consider the repeal of certain sections of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Houghton, yesterday indicated that we of the official Opposition welcome such a move and are ready to participate and co-operate. I must, however, place on record that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s response to this matter, which has been raised time and time again in the House and outside, has been, in a word, quite pathetic. I can understand his concern to give every consideration to the views of the churches in South Africa. However, the moment the churches rule that there is no biblical base for this restriction, it comes out of the religious sphere and it becomes a matter on which a political decision must be taken. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s response has been both timid and inadequate. If such a Select Committee is appointed and certain major churches still have misgivings—they may say it is not a sin and it is not against the Bible, but it might not be desirable at this time—I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will have the courage to say: “Fine, we have heard your word. We have listened to you very carefully. Now the time has come for a political decision”. He has taken that attitude in regard to matters raised previously. There is, for example, a difference of opinion on whether the issuing of bonus bonds is gambling or not. He has acted—and not acted, sometimes—when the key Dutch Reformed Church has placed on record its abhorrence of the migratory labour system. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must rid South Africa of legislation that is distasteful and degrading. Let me say again, however, that in so far as we have persistently called for the total dismantling of apartheid legislation, we shall accept even the meagre crumbs from the miserly NP table and shall co-operate and participate. If this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s response to a matter that really affects very, very few people in South Africa, there is little hope for decisive action and the scrapping of laws which adversely affect and influence the majority of people who live in this country from the moment they wake up in the morning until they go to bed at night.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the timidity displayed by him with regard to the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act is symptomatic of his own performance and that of his colleagues not only during this debate, but also throughout the session so far. I also want to say that the Government’s performance is characterized by indecision, by hesitancy and by lack of direction. It further bears the hallmarks of a party that has come to the end of its reason for existence. The seeds of its final destruction are being planted now and foreshadow its decline and fall. The ship of State drifts dangerously in difficult and treacherous waters. Indeed, it often creates the impression that it is going around in circles. The hon. the Prime Minister, who is the captain of the ship, must accept full responsibility for the confusion and lack of direction. If the Government is strong, united and dynamic, the hon. the Prime Minister will be free to give the bold lead which South Africa needs and deserves. A confident, buoyant party would have enabled the hon. the Prime Minister to deal decisively with questions such as Indians being permitted to live in the Orange Free State. A party of renewal and reform would have dealt almost impatiently with matters like who can eat in the parliamentary dining-room and who can marry whom. Instead, every decision in the last month, whether it be economic, foreign affairs, race relations or a new constitution, the Government, with its eye fixed so securely on by-elections, has allowed that to determine its actions, it behaviour and its decisions instead of the best interest of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister must have profoundly disappointed his own supporters by his own performance during this last week. He certainly has disappointed the official Opposition in his absolute lack of vision and lack of ability to deal decisively with the so-called right-wing threat and the burning problems of the day.

I want to go further. He has disappointed South Africans because there are many hundreds and thousands of voters who may not vote for the hon. the Prime Minister but who are remarkably patient with him and who long for hope and vision. But the greatest disappointment of all is that the Government, and its Prime Minister, do not seem to be aware that the majority of the people in South Africa happen to be Black. They do not have a vote, but they look with growing anguish and anger at what is happening and at what is being said in the by-elections and the apparent unwillingness of the hon. the Prime Minister to cut through the double talk and to give to them and us all the hope that the possible change is not only viable but a number one priority on the Government’s agenda. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal, the hon. member for Geduld, the hon. member for Virginia, the hon. member for Umfolozi, the hon. member for East London City, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries for their exceptional contributions during the debate which took place yesterday. The hon. member for Barberton—I do not see him here …

He tendered his apologies.

He tendered his apologies. That hon. member spoke about the propaganda in Soutpansberg again. I want to inform the hon. member—and this is also for the information of his hon. colleagues—that I addressed two major conferences of prominent leaders in that constituency last year, within and also outside a party context, in which I repeated the speech which I had made before the federal congress of the NP. Consequently it is not as though I neglected to inform the opinion-shapers of Soutpansberg. I am going there again quite soon, and I shall once again deal with the matter frankly there. That is my reply to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Sea Point, in the spirit of a Cape Town Opposition newspaper, reacted very cynically to my reference to the drought. Besides the fact that I think this was unworthy of them both, I also find it shocking that, while this country is in the grip of one of the worst droughts of all times, they should publish cynical little cartoons, and that the hon. member should climb onto the same bandwagon, along with this despicable newspaper. What do they know about the magnitude of this drought, Mr. Chairman? [Interjections.]

Order!

What they know about it is dangerous. Now I see that Dr. Treurnicht has joined them on the same bandwagon. I believe it is a disgrace that a responsible standpoint which I adopted in this House, after the Government had taken drastic steps in an effort to tide over the farming population of South Africa, should have been greeted in such a cynical fashion. In fact, I sought an opportunity for this outside of party politics, namely the centenary agricultural show in Bloemfontein, to announce the offer of help there. I said there that day that we were all very deeply concerned about the drought, not only in the Republic, but also in South West Africa, because it had assumed unprecedented proportions, because it was causing starvation, and had even brought people, who had previously been independent, to their knees. During the past fifty years we have never before experienced a period in which a major industry of our country was so hard hit as has been the case during the past few months.

There are parts of this country which have not had any rain for four or five years. There are parts of this country where not only the Whites are suffering hardships, but where the non-Whites are also being sorely afflicted by the drought. The Government has to render assistance amounting to hundreds of millions of rands in an effort to alleviate the emergency.

When I said that I would act in a responsible way in regard to the date of the referendum—and I said this in a non-party political spirit; in fact the hon. the Leaders of the Opposition can attest to the fact that I handled this whole matter in a responsible way—that is the reaction which I received from a former leader of that party. He is a cynical wretch (vent). I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “wretch”.

You would not even allow us to have a special debate on the drought.

Mr. Chairman, the Agriculture Vote will come up for discussion soon. In any case, the hon. member for Groote Schuur knows nothing about drought, except that he is experiencing a political drought. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I say I find it despicable that the Leader of the CP and the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as this morning newspaper here in Cape Town, should behave in this way in regard to one of the greatest emergencies ever to afflict this country. I find it despicable.

What has happened during the past week?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am being constantly briefed in regard to the drought conditions and if there is one thing which causes the Government the most concern at present—more than all our other problems—it is this drought. I believe it will pass. I shall therefore bide my time, and I shall not ask the hon. member for Sea Point when I should act. He is the last person I would ask. His party and I agree on one thing at least, Mr. Chairman: He is not a leader. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton reacted to me in consequence of my reference to Australia. I find it very interesting that the hon. member is always very quick to come to the defence of something outside of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I am well informed about everything. I make a point of it.

The facts are that the Australian Racial Discrimination Act was past in 1975. The facts are, in addition, that a court judgement was passed in December 1982. Moreover, the facts are that that Act, as well as that court judgement, are not applicable to Queensland and Western Australia.

Nonsense!

Yes Sir. It is not applicable to them and the discrimination in respect of the land rights is still continuing as in the past.

It is invalid. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir, it is true. She must take her medicine now. [Interjections.] She is beginning to cackle again, Sir. She must take her medicine. Let us come to the question of discrimination. Suppose the hon. member is partially correct, then I want to tell her that I prefer open differentiation rather than hypocritical discrimination as it is applied throughout the West.

There is a third alternative.

I maintain, Sir, that that party, with its standpoint, wishes to apply the hypocrisy which is being applied in the West to South Africa as well. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton will be the ringleader. She will decry discrimination from the platforms and apply it in herself. I reject this with the contempt which it deserves.

That is a totally unfair statement. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. members for Yeoville, Mossel Bay, Sea Point and Durban Point raised the question of South West Africa here. I want to say a few words about this matter. The first point I wish to make is that the Republic of South Africa has consistently co-operated with the Five to help achieve a positive settlement in connection with South West Africa. We did this in spite of the fact that in UN circles a one-sidedness and a lack of impartiality towards South West Africa and its peace-loving people is being shown. As long as that one-sidedness and lack of impartiality is applied, there can be no progress. We shall always be prepared to co-operate on a basis of mutual respect—I want to emphasize this—but we shall not bow down to unfair demands in connection with South West Africa. It is not South Africa which is preventing a peaceful settlement in connection with and in South West Africa. I wish to emphasize this as well. It is the communist forces which, with Cubans in collusion with other communist leadership groups in Angola, are misusing Swapo to continue the terror campaign against the civilian population of South West Africa. They are the delayers of an agreement. If they should succeed, what awaits South West Africa and its people is economic chaos, famine and despair, just as they have already caused famine and despair in other parts of Africa.

In the fourth place the issue for the communists is not South West Africa and its people. They are not interested in them. Their target is the Republic of South Africa and they want to use the territory of South West Africa to encircle and ultimately to subjugate the Republic. That is part of the grand scheme which is being implemented. The security and prosperity of South West Africa is very closely linked to the security, stability and prosperity of the Republic of South Africa. This cannot be denied.

Moreover, although a relentless international campaign is being waged against the Republic of South Africa in connection with South West Africa, the Republic is the only country which bears the financial burden in respect of South West Africa. While this campaign against us is in progress, while we are being vilified by a large part of the international community, while a propaganda campaign is being waged against us—the Government is bearing the brunt of the financial burden in connection with South West Africa. Excluding military expenditure and excluding the enormous amounts spent on the Ruacana hydro-electrical water scheme—which amounted to hundreds of millions of rand—we have since 1977 made plus-minus R1 700 million available in loans and direct contributions to South West Africa and all its people. We have done this in the face of the vilification levelled at us by a part of the international community, which does not contribute a brass farthing to the welfare of the people of South West Africa. This is shameless hypocrisy which is being practised in a large part of the international world in respect of this territory.

As regards South West Africa’s internal relations policies, it is in the first place the right of the people there but it is at the same time their duty, to find a peaceful solution with one another. The Republic of South Africa does not prescribe to the internal parties what they should do, except that we have made a general appeal to them repeatedly to put their affairs in order. That we are doing. However, the solution to its internal problems must come from South West Africa itself. There will be no solution—I say this with emphasis—if regard is not had to the realities of the existence and ideals of minority groups. In this connection I wish to point out that plus-minus 50% of the population of South West Africa are members of various minority groups.

There is no one here in this House who has conducted more negotiations with each one of those groups than I have, no one, and not over a period of one day, but over a period extending over the past nine to ten years. This includes all the facets of political persuasion in South West Africa.

Unless provision is made for minority groups in South West Africa there will be no peace, and that country, if it is forced onto the course which the enemies of South West Africa and of South Africa want it to take, will end up in flames and ashes. I wish to sound a warning: A powerful message should emanate from this country, a unified message to the international community: Do not try to repeat your blunders in other parts of Africa in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

†Now, suddenly, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed out quite correctly, certain bishops came forward with a demand. Incidently, the discussion on my Vote started on the same day—very interesting. They demanded the withdrawal from South West Africa by South African forces. They wrote me a letter at the same time which was delivered to my office. All I wish to say at this stage is that we are not in South West Africa out of our own choice. I do not want to go into the long history of it. Far back in history, the party I belong to objected to it that South Africa should enter South West Africa by way of a military force. In that process the Afrikaner lost some of his most respected heroes in this country. Afrikaners shot one another on account of that fact. I do not want to go back into that history, but since then we have never felt the urge to dominate South West Africa. However, we had certain responsibilities placed on our shoulders, inter alia, by the international community. That is also part of history. Our security forces at present are there at the request of elected leaders. All the governments, existing governments and governments of the past few years, unanimously decided that we should stay in South West Africa and protect her.

On 25 and 26 February 1982 I, together with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, the hon. the Minister of Defence and senior officials, had discussions in Windhoek with all the political parties—and I stress “all the political parties”—taking a constitutional approach in South West Africa, the Agricultural Union, representing not only the White people, the commercial organizations, the mining organizations and all the churches.

Hon. members will remember that while I was busy there, some people tried to stab me in the back. To everyone of the delegations I met on 25 and 26 February—and I have the minutes available of all the discussions—I put a direct question, namely: “Do you want South Africa to withdraw from South West Africa militarily and/or otherwise?” And none of the delegations replied “yes” or “yes, on certain conditions.” I put this question in the most straightforward terms to the Council of Churches of South West Africa. I asked them: “Do you prefer the Republic of South Africa to stay in South West Africa or withdraw?” The reply came: It is not a matter for the church. Politicians should answer this question.

They know what we are doing to protect people in South West Africa. They know what we are doing to support the people of South West Africa with development. Yet, now a few bishops from the Republic of South Africa think it fit to demand our withdrawal from South West Africa. I want to put a few questions too in public today. They ran to the Press with their letter to me before I had received it. It was a political stunt. I am sorry to tell them straightforward in their faces: It was a political stunt.

I want to pose a few questions. Who will carry the annual loss of R70 million on the South West African Railways if we withdraw? The bishops? [Interjections.] Perhaps they will get Mr. McHenry and Mr. Colin Eglin to support them. Another question is: Who will provide the vast sums of money we are making available annually to South West Africa? Who will protect the civilian population against communist forces destroying their families and murdering innocent women and children? [Interjections.] Who in this wonderful international world which we are living in will provide the millions—we spent more than R60 million last year—for drought relief in South West Africa? These moneys came out of the funds of the Republic.

Are there no dividends from companies coming into South Africa?

Did the hon. member not listen to me when I said a few minutes ago that despite the fact that the South West African Account does have an income, we still have to spend hundreds of millions to keep them going? Does he really not understand that?

It is a two-way traffic.

It is not a two-way traffic. The figures I have furnished, are additional. Good heavens, is it possible for a man purporting to be intelligent to be guilty of such gross ignorance?

†In conclusion, there can be no free and fair election as demanded by all as long as Swapo keeps on with its merciless terrorism. These cannot be held before Swapo lays down its arms. As long as the United Nations follow a policy of giving preference to Swapo against the wishes of the majority of the people in South West Africa, there can be no free and fair election. Swapo is not representing the majority of the people in South West Africa. Furthermore, as long as the communist Cuban presence in Angola is creating the atmosphere for Swapo to perpetrate its acts of violence and murder, there can also be no free and fair election. As far as I know there is no responsible party in South West Africa wishing to move in the direction of a so-called UDI, of which the hon. member for Durban Point spoke yesterday. I do not know of any responsible party in the whole of South West Africa that is in any way inclined in that direction.

I know that. I am pointing out the danger.

Yes, but we should not take so much notice of gossip. The hon. member for Durban Point is a very fine person in many respects, but if a piece of gossip is doing the rounds somewhere, it reaches him. [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member like that? One need only accompany him on trips in the operational area. Everyone takes a hand in the great things happening there, but he picks up these bits of petty gossip. [Interjections.] Really, that is not the way for the hon. member to behave. [Interjections.]

†If the people wish to elect their own leaders, so as to be able to confer with each other anew—and lately they have not had the opportunity of choosing their own leaders—the South African Government will not stand in their way. We will certainly not stand in their way. As a matter of fact, we shall help them. It is for them, the present leaders, to advise the Administrator-General who is governing the Territory at present, as I announced towards the end of last year. My information is that he receives a large degree of co-operation from the various advisory committees that were instituted recently. I have nothing more to say about South West Africa at this stage, except that we certainly will never lose sight of the real threat against this country and South West Africa. I once again wish to call upon all hon. members to get their priorities straight.

*I think I have now taken the question of South West Africa as far as I am able to take it at this stage. Another two hon. members participated in the debate, and one of them was the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I have no fault to find with our personal relationship. After all, the hon. member knows that I told him in my letter to him—this is known—that I was terribly sorry that he left the Cabinet. Surely he knows that. He also knows that I have always had respect for his competence and for his personal relations with me. I am sorry I lost him. I am saying this to him candidly, not that he always subsequently behaved in such a way that he did not sometimes hurt me very much. I may as well say this in public too. However, I am prepared to forgive him. I am sorry I lost him. I think the hon. member was taken in tow. I do not think he acted of his own accord. He did not want to leave. However, the evening prior to the last Cabinet meeting, another meeting took place, a meeting which my hon. friend attended.

Where?

In Cape Town. On that occasion it was decided that they were going to leave. [Interjections.]

Give us more details of that meeting.

I am not talking to the hon. member for Rissik now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why is the hon. member for Rissik suddenly so concerned about this matter now? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Rissik has never had any time for me. I do not hold this against him. He has the right to feel that way. He was never loyal to me, and I am saying this to him again. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg was loyal to me, and I have appreciation for his loyalty. I also have appreciation for the work he did. However, I maintain that the hon. member for Lichtenburg did not leave of his own accord.

That is not correct.

Now the hon. member has to find reasons for his behaviour, and what it amounts to is that he has to prove that I am on the wrong course. Surely the course I have embarked upon had already been mapped out before he broke away. Then why did he wait such a long time? The hon. member has no reply to that. Now he says the young people are with them. But the young people of Stellenbosch ground them into the dust.

Not all the young people are there.

An opinion poll was carried out in the men’s hostels of the University of Pretoria. Has the hon. member seen the result? 72% of the young students at the men’s hostel of the University of Pretoria declared themselves to be in favour of this party.

I tell you it is untrue.

I say the hon. member should not allow himself to be told that the young people are with them. When the young people are given the facts, they are going to settle accounts with him, because they have to live in this country tomorrow and the day after.

The hon. member said that I was taking the country back in time. No, Sir, he is taking the country back in time, but the country will not go back with him. This country will go ahead economically. This country wants peace so that it can have stability and so that its economy can go ahead. If its economy makes progress, it will be able to armour itself against the forces that wish to appropriate it. Consequently the hon. member will lose this struggle and I should not like to see him end up on the scrap-heap. I want to tell him that he should reconsider. He is intelligent, he is a good South African, he has a pleasant personality, and he is on the wrong road.

He should not tell so many lies in Waterberg though.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member said he had great respect for me. I know that. I believe him without qualification. It cannot be otherwise if I think of the relationship which existed between us, but then he must do me a favour. In certain parts of this country a personal vendetta is being waged against me in an underhand way with gossip-mongering of which members of his party are guilty. I want to tell him that he must scotch this if he wants the relationship between us to continue. If he does not want that, he can carry on with what he was doing. I shall survive that as well.

I hope that he and the hon. member for Brakpan will hold an earnest discussion. I am not asking them to come over to this party. I am simply asking them to discuss earnestly with one another the course on which their party has embarked. I have nothing further to say to them on this point.

They can carry on with their vendetta against the hon. the Minister of Manpower. That Minister is competent. He has served this country under very difficult circumstances. He has helped to achieve labour peace in South Africa on an unprecedented scale, and that is in the interests of this country. He did so with great personal sacrifice. The hon. member for Brakpan accompanied him all the way until he preferred to break away. Then the hon. the Minister’s labour legislation was no longer good enough either. I want to warn those hon. members now. They can continue with their vendetta and inquiries—I am saying this with the utmost responsibility—they can begin to make public people’s public liabilities in respect of the State, but it is a two-edged sword.

I do not want this. Of course, if we have to institute investigations, we do so properly. Then we do so in respect of everyone who was implicated by name.

If there is an irregularity, you must investigate it.

If there is any neglect of obligations …

If there are irregularities they have to be investigated.

Order!

If there is any neglect of obligations, then we investigate that as well.

If you were aware of it, you should have investigated it long ago.

These events concerning the hon. the Minister of Manpower occurred 12 years ago, if my information is correct. At the time I was not the Prime Minister yet. For 12 years they have been sitting with him in the same party and in the same caucus and supporting him as Minister, but now suddenly, for the sake for the temporary advantage of a by-election, his private affairs are being disclosed.

No, these are State affairs.

If he had stolen something, they would perhaps have had a reason to do what they are doing. But what happened, happened openly with the approval of this Parliament. I am saying in advance now that I am not prepared to allow the hon. member for Brakpan to malign (vertrap) my colleague. I am going to Louis Trichardt to defend him. He can put that in his pipe and smoke it. [Interjections.] I shall go and defend him, whatever the consequences may be, because I shall not allow my colleagues to be slandered and denigrated in this way by a band of irresponsible politicians.

I come now to the hon. member for Pinelands. The two of us have just about nothing in common. He can do his snooping about into pamphlets himself. I am not here to rummage in his rubbish bins for him.

I can draw only one conclusion from that.

He can do that dirty work himself. If he takes pleasure in doing that, he can do it himself. I am not here to do his dirty work for him. In the second place, his attitude here this morning to my offer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a responsible person, on the question of the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act, aroused a suspicion in my mind. That hon. member, together with his morning newspaper, is paving the way in this regard for party political purposes. Now I say if you want it you can get it.

†So make your choice. Either you act responsibly or you act in the way you have started acting this morning and you take your medicine.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You have ruled on several occasions, especially as far as the CP is concerned, that when addressing other hon. members the member speaking must address other members as “hon. members”. Now the hon. the Prime Minister is using “you” and “jy”. Sir, I ask you to ask him to please address my hon. colleague correctly.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

We have now come to the end of this debate. I thank hon. members for their contributions. I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the high level on which he voiced his criticism. In fact, I thank most of the hon. members who participated in this debate for the way in which and the level on which they conducted it.

In conclusion I just want to make a few final remarks. I have arrived at the conclusion, after the debates on the budget and also after this debate, that the CP is a party with a grievance, under the leadership of a person who excels in carrying out political somersaults. His is a yo-yo policy. They can make no contribution to the concept of positive nationalism.

You will be surprised.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, as far as the NRP is concerned … I should like to have the attention of the hon. leader of the NRP, Mr. Chairman. As far as the NRP is concerned, it is clear to me that they are searching for a position to occupy, and are doing so in a spirit of patriotism. At present, however, their leader is chugging around on a tug-boat in a harbour. [Interjections.] He will not find that position by chugging around on a tug-boat. [Interjections.] He will simply have to do what his heart, his instinct and his mind tell him to do. My advice to him is that he and his party should take up their position on solid ground. The harbours are safe thanks to an NP Government. The hon. the leader of the NRP may as well disembark from the tugboat. [Interjections.] In any case we need a bigger tug to cope with the big ship that has to find moorings in the harbour.

Just remember one cannot bring a ship into the harbour without a tug. [Interjections.]

I now wish to say a few things about the PFP. The PFP offers South Africa no basis for peace, prosperity and security. There are too many discordant sounds in that party. There are too many discordant sounds in that party on the basic interests of this country. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants peace, and wants to help accomplish it, if he wants to help accomplish the great possible prosperity awaiting us, once circumstances over which he and I have no control or say have changed, and if he wishes to help ensure the security of this country, he will have to eliminate the discordant sounds emanating from his ranks. At the moment most of South Africa is not thinking in terms of his message. At the moment most of South Africa thinks there is something wrong with the PFP.

They do not trust the PFP with the security of the country, nor do they trust the PFP with the stability of the country. They do not trust the PFP with the international relations of this country. Nor do they trust the PFP with the preservation of civilized values in this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must dissociate himself from these discordant sounds, then we can talk again. Until then I shall leave him at that. I had wanted to discuss the issues which he raised at the beginning of his speech a little further with him, but we can do that on a subsequent occasion. There is still a lot of time left for that.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In accordance with section 6 of the Inquests Act, 1959, an inquest after a death at sea may only be instituted if it is alleged to have occurred on board a ship. During the inquest which is currently being conducted by the magistrate of Cape Town into the death of chief petty officer Donald Webb, a member of the crew of the frigate S.A.S. President Kruger, which sank in the early hours of the morning of 18 February 1982, evidence was led which indicated that it was possible that the deceased was no longer on board ship at the time of his death. It is in the public interest that it should be possible to institute an inquest in such circumstances. To put the matter beyond doubt and to prevent the conduct of the investigation in question from foundering as a result of complications with regard to jurisdiction, it is being spelt our clearly in clause 1 of the Bill where the inquest has to take place in such a case. It is also being provided that the Minister of Justice, or any person authorized thereto by him, can designate a place where the inquest must be held.

†Clause 2 provides, inter alia, that the Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 February 1982, that is to say, the beginning of the month during which the tragedy took place.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill through all its stages. As the hon. the Minister has said, the existing legislation does not cover all possible circumstances in the establishing of jurisdiction in regard to the hearing of inquests. The sad case of the sinking of the S.A.S. President Kruger and the resultant loss of life which necessitated an inquest, is very clearly a case in point where the person who died did not die “on board ship” nor succumb on land within the jurisdiction of any magistrate’s court.

Clearly a broader and more encompassing definition of “jurisdiction” is required, and in this case it is obviously required very urgently. It is this specific aspect that is dealt with by this Bill and, in our view, in an adequate and correct manner. Accordingly, Sir, we shall aid this Bill in its speedy passage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the official Opposition for their support of this Bill as expressed by the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member correctly pointed out the necessity for these provisions and I do not wish to elaborate on the matter except to say that I also wish to express the support of this side of the House for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the CP I want to say that we, too, support this Bill. The Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister was very clear. The Bill itself is also very clear and therefore needs no further comment. We will support all the stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the hon. member for Brakpan supports this Bill on behalf of his party. As has already been indicated by the hon. the Minister, this Bill refers in particular to the case of the collision between the S.A.S. President Kruger and the S.A.S. Tafelberg and in particular it is designed to cover the problem which arose as regards the question whether seaman Webb died on board or not on board.

However, I want to refer in particular to the proposed new paragraph (c), which goes further than that. It is aimed in particular at covering those cases where no bodies are found and where there is doubt as to where the death occurred. This happens quite frequently and there are a number of reported cases where the facts are of a similar nature. There, for example, the case In re: Darrol, 1976 (2) South African Law Reports, Eastern Cape Division, in respect of which evidence was led that the deceased jumped or fell from the Pendennis Castle while she was playing outside the Republic’s borders. The deceased’s body was never found and the court found that the magistrate had no jurisdiction. Moreover, in the case In re: Inquest into the death of Van Zyl and Another, 1978 (4) South African Law Reports, Cape Provincial Division, two survivors were last seen in a small boat which left Port Nolloth, but their bodies were never found. The inquest was held at Port Nolloth, but the Supreme Court found that the magistrate had no jurisdiction. The court did find that the Minister could indicate where the inquest may be held. I suggest, with great respect, that it was an incorrect decision, because there was no indication of where the deceased had died or whether they had in fact died in that district at all. Consequently a dispute could not arise as to which district the people had died in. There was no evidence as to where they had died. Neither of the two instances in which the Minister could decide where such an inquest could be held, applied. Therefore the hon. the Minister did not have the discretion.

In terms of the proposed section 6(c) of the Bill, the Minister is now being given discretion to decide where the inquest can be held. By implication this also means that he is given the discretion to decide that an inquest can be held. The result of this is that even if the President Kruger incident had taken place in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the hon. the Minister could nevertheless decide that an inquest be held.

As has already been said, the Minister is being granted the right to direct that an inquest be held even where deaths occur extraterritorially. It ought not to be possible for this to be abused by the Minister, because there is no point in ordering an inquest if the incident in question cannot in some way be brought under the jurisdiction of our courts.

The proposed section 6(c) in particular gives new meaning to the possible use of inquests. I gladly support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will support the legislation. We are of the opinion that the amendments which are sought will greatly facilitate the expedition of inquests held, particularly in cases regarding seafaring folk, whether they be fishermen, merchantmen or members of the Naval Forces, whose lives are lost either because of accident at sea or as a result of the might of natural elements. In this particular case one thinks particularly of the anguish of families and relations involved in the tragic collision between the President Kruger and the Tafelberg in respect of the long drawn-out cases which followed.

It is probably also possible that the particular provision can apply to ski-boatsmen and swimmers along the South African coast in particular circumstances because the provision has fairly wide-ranging applications in regard to matters concerning the sea.

I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate in his reply what the situation would be in respect of these particular circumstances when it comes to the coastlines of neighbouring States. Here I am thinking particularly of incidents which could arise when bodies are washed ashore in a national or independent State. At the moment there are two independent States which have coastlines along the South African coast and there is the possibility that a third may follow. I should like to know whether there is any involvement there.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister one question in respect of the proposed section 6(c) in terms of which, quite correctly, the Minister is given the power to designate the place where the inquest is to take place. The section as it now stands indicates that this should happen in case of doubt or dispute as to the district where this should take place. In other words, it indicates the circumstances in which the Minister may make use of this authority. I merely wish him to give the assurance that he will use the powers conferred upon him in paragraph (c) only in those instances where in fact it is not clear in which particular area the inquest is to take place, for example, when the death has occurred at sea or when there is doubt as to which district is involved. In other words, he should not make use of the power contained in the new paragraph (c) to hold inquests, which should quite clearly have been held in a specific area, in another place.

But that is obvious.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay suggests that it is obvious, but the hon. Minister has the power, if he wishes to, to direct, if he finds it expedient, that an inquest be held in an area other than the area in which the deceased died. That is the only point which I wish to raise. According to our security legislation, trials can be held anywhere at the direction of the Minister. These inquests, however, will be held in the districts where the deaths have occurred, unless that district cannot be defined or there is a dispute about that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for their support of this Bill. I am not going to reply to those hon. members who have given their support without qualification. However, I would like to kick off by replying to the hon. member, Mr. Schutte.

*The hon. nominated member Mr. Schutte referred to previous judgments. This was quite fitting, and I think it is appropriate that we should point out that those judgments are probably unique because they deal with very rare cases. In any case, incidents of this nature do not occur often. It is by no means my intention to say that the judgment referred to is correct or not or to state that it influenced this proposed amendment in any way. Indeed, I think that this amendment will also have the effect of clarifying future situations. I think this is the sum total.

Both that hon. member and the hon. member for Durban Central referred to paragraph (c), which deals with the discretion the Minister can exercise in this regard. The aim of this paragraph is to cover those areas where doubt can in fact exist. I cannot at this point foresee the number of possibilities that could crop up here when such doubts arise. I do not even want to try to expound them. However, for the sake of the hon. member for Durban Central I just want to add at once that I cannot give him the unqualified assurance that this will be the only application of this provision. I want to give the hon. member an example of a very practical consideration. In a particular district there are no suitable court facilities. It may be fitting and it may be in the particular interests of everybody that it be transferred to a court to which the public will have better access. Perhaps, for example, there is limited seating at a particular court. Perhaps there are traffic problems and it is a case which elicits tremendous interest. And surely everybody has the right to attend such a court session. Consequently I can give the hon. member the undertaking that the Minister, when he will have to exercise his discretion in any case, will do so in the best interests of justice and of the administration of justice. The whole question of accessibility of the hearing will certainly play a role. I can give the hon. member this undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised. In conclusion I want to say that the question of the hon. member for King William’s Town was not quite clear to me. I should like to know precisely what his problem is. It did not seem to be to be clearly defined.

The point I made was in respect to bodies being washed ashore in an independent country neighbouring South Africa. It could happen that a ski-boat leaves a South African port, has an accident at sea and that some time later the bodies are washed ashore on, say, the Transkei or the Ciskei coast.

Mr. Speaker, that aspect, of bodies being washed ashore, was not quite clear to me. There has to be a body to establish jurisdiction. Naturally we do not have jurisdiction over neighbouring shores. Hence, if a body, even if it has its origin from a vessel of the South African Navy or the merchant fleet, is washed ashore in a neighbouring country, we will not have jurisdiction. In order to establish jurisdiction we have to have a body. The magistrate’s court in the magisterial district where the body is washed ashore, will have jurisdiction in such a case.

In the case of a body found in Natal coming from a vessel registered in South Africa, I can visualize circumstances where it will be in the best interest of justice to hold to inquest in, say, Cape Town. In other words, that is not the situation that the hon. member visualizes. He does visualize the situation of a body coming ashore in a neighbouring country. The answer is that we shall not have jurisdiction. We can only establish jurisdiction over bodies found on our own shores.

Mr. Speaker, it is for the very reason which the hon. the Minister used in his reply to the hon. member for Durban Central. Let us take the situation of the President Kruger and the Tafelberg, which evoked widespread interest and involved a great number of families, departments and circumstances such as described by the hon. the Minister relating to facilities, parking an all the other matter he mentioned. That accident could have happened off the Transkei coast and the bodies could have been washed out there. The circumstances which we are trying to correct in this situation might in fact be equally as difficult in a neighbouring ex-South African territory, now independent States. That was the point.

I think the hon. member is visualizing a casus which is very involved. I think the principle which will pertain all the way is that our courts will have jurisdiction over bodies washed out on South African shores and not elsewhere. I visualize that if a body is washed out on the Transkei coast their laws will apply. In the case of a body coming from a ship which has its origin in South Africa, there will probably be some contingencies covering that situation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains amendments to several Acts dealing with criminal law. Because there is no connection between the amendments, they are explained separately.

The Trespass Act, 1959, provides for a fine not exceeding R50, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months, for an offence under the Act. In clause 1, the penalty is being increased to a fine not exceeding R2 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years. The present penalty was placed on the Statute Book in 1959 and is no longer adequate. In the State vs. Phillip Makhubela— an unreported case—Mr. Justice Curlewis of the Transvaal Provincial Divison of the Supreme Court of South Africa remarked in his ruling on review on 8 April 1982 that the case concerned was of a particularly serious nature, and that the prescribed penalty should be considerably increased. In the case, the accused gained access to the house of the complainant through an open door. According to the judge, he probably wanted to commit theft, but fled when someone arrived at the house. He could not be found guilty of housebreaking, because he had not removed any obstruction in order to gain access to the house. The conviction of trespassing was in order. However, the judge remarked as follows—

As a result of the judge’s remarks the matter was investigated, and I came to the conclusion that an increase, as proposed, was justified.

The Stock Theft Act, 1959, was placed on the Statute Book after members of Parliament and agricultural unions had advocated more stringent provisions with a view to combating stock theft. Stock theft has not been converted into a particular crime by the Act. It remains the common law crime of theft. As soon as stock is involved, a magistrate becomes legally competent, in terms of section 13, to impose a sentence beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. In addition, the Act contains stringent control measures in respect of stock.

Section 6 and 7 of the Act contain provisions which may create the impression that the preventive measures apply only in respect of people of colour. However, the problems in connection with stock theft occur among members of all population groups. Therefore it is being proposed that the control measures should apply to all persons.

†Due to the depreciation in the value of money, it is necessary to adapt the penalty provisions. Problems experienced in regard to removal certificates are also being eliminated. It sometimes happens that stock is conveyed or transported before the purchase price has been paid. In many cases it is a condition of the sale that ownership shall only change once the price has been paid. In such cases the buyer cannot act as owner.

Under section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, a magistrate’s court may award an injured person compensation for damages or loss of property not exceeding R1 500. In respect of stock, it is felt that the limit is too low. The Bill provides that a magistrate’s court shall have jurisdiction to award compensation not exceeding R10 000. Certain obsolete provisions are also being replaced and deleted.

*The Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, has now been in operation for almost six years. Several new procedural measures were introduced by the Act, which have since been tested in practice and have received the attention of our courts. As can readily be understood, some of the procedures have to be amended and adapted to meet the requirements. Among other things, the Bill further regulates the directions in connection the searching of premises and arrest by a private person, and provisions affecting our court procedures are amended and adapted. The amendment proposed in clause 17, for example, provides for the admissions made by an accused after a plea of guilty during proceedings in terms of section 119 to stand if the Attorney-General should decide to refer such an accused for trial instead of sentence. The proposed amendment eliminates the giving of evidence by the magistrate, prosecutor and interpreter. In clause 22, it is provided that suspended sentences, too, may go on review straight away, in order to eliminate any practical problems.

There are a few other amendments that merit further elucidation. An inquiry has brought to light that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal has a particularly heavy burden of work, and therefore provision is being made in clause 11 for the appointment of an Attorney-General for the Witwatersrand Local Division.

†Mr. Speaker, there are three amendments which will bring relief to accused persons.

In clause 14 provision is made to enable a periodical court which is situated in the same district as the court in which summons was issued, to inquire, under certain circumstances, into an accused’s failure to appear on the summons. This will prevent the accused having to travel long distances in order to settle the matter.

Secondly, in clause 15 provision is made that an accused who is released on bail on one case, but who is in custody on another, may apply for the cancellation of the bail of which under the circumstances he has no benefit.

Thirdly, clause 21 proposes an amendment which will, inter alia, enable a district magistrate to grant a postponement for the payment of a fine imposed by a regional court. It will, therefore, not be necessary to wait with such a postponement until the regional court is again in session at the particular place.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is really a bit of a mixture, containing as it does some things that are good and one or two items which we feel are very bad. Clauses 2 to 8, inclusive, deal with the Stock Theft Act and amend that Act in such a way as to improve the law. The main improvement contained in the Bill is basically the deletion of all references to the term “non-European”. This has the effect of effectively deracializing the Act and its implementation. These amendments are to be found in clauses 2, 3 and 4 and, when enacted, the result will be that Blacks, or non-Whites, will be in exactly the same position as Whites in regard to the formalities and the procedures to be followed and particularly in regard to the documentation which is required in so far as obtaining proof of passing of ownership of stock is concerned. The same will pertain for possession. The transactions of purchase and sale of stock will no longer carry rules and regulations which differ according to the race of the buyer or the seller. They will be uniform, as will be the documentation required. In other words, race will no longer play a part in these transactions which could give rise to charges under the Stock Theft Act. Obviously, we welcome this and will support it.

Clauses 6 and 7 change the punishments judicial officers can mete out upon convictions under the Stock Theft Act being obtained. The right to sentence a person in terms of the Stock Theft Act to solitary confinement in certain circumstances or to a spare diet is deleted. I want to say that we welcome this modernization. Fines are increased, but if one considers the inflation rate over the years and the value of the goods possibly stolen, we do not feel that these increases are excessive. As a result we will offer no objection to them.

I must express my disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to repeal the provisions of the Act relating to corporal punishment, i.e. to whipping. These provisions are unaltered by this Bill and remain in the Act. I feel a personal repugnance for punishment of this type.

You should live on a farm. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member wish to ask a question? I think he said: “You should live on a farm”. From that I can only construe that he believes that farmers should be allowed to mete out corporal punishment to their labourers. Is that what he is saying?

I will tell you what I mean.

The hon. member for King William’s Town is obviously in favour of whipping on farms. I feel a personal repugnance for corporal punishment, for whipping and for any form of punishment which abuses the body. I quite truly doubt whether this sort of retribution should play a role in modern society at all. Certainly I believe that corporal punishment should be phased out of our system of administration of justice.

I might ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in his possession, or whether his officials have in their possession, any knowledge of statistics relating to corporal punishment and whipping being utilized in terms of punishments offered after convictions have been obtained under this Act. I believe that corporal punishment probably does not in any way ensure that commissions of offences under this particular Act are either up or down. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us a little about that and also to tell us why he finds himself unable to amend and modernize the provisions relating to corporal punishment as he has done in relation to the abolition of solitary confinement and spare diet in one of the other amendments before us.

Clause 8 of this Bill brings the Stock Theft Act into line with the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, which enables compensatory damages to be awarded upon application of the injured party and grants jurisdiction to the magistrates’ courts to award such damages to the maximum extent of RIO 000. This is obviously a good provision because it does in certain circumstances ensure that an injured party, an aggrieved party, a person who has suffered a theft, can possibly save himself the cost of a further civil action after the criminal action has taken place. It saves costs, it enables the magistrate’s court to have sufficient power to award compensatory damages and it acts as well as a further deterrent for commissions of offences of this type.

Clause 11 of the Bill is an important clause in that it allows the establishment of a separate office of Attorney-General with its own jurisdiction and area of responsibility within the Witwatersrand Local Divsion. While this development, as has been clearly pointed out by the hon. the Minister, does not flow directly from the recommendations of the Diemont Commission or of the Hoexter Commission. I do believe that the step that is being taken here fits in broadly with the concept recommended by the Diemont Commission when Mr. Justice Diemont in his report recommended that greater jurisdiction and greater power be given to the Witwatersrand Local Division. This is a step in the right direction and should be supported. Certainly the volume of work in the office of the Attorney-General in Pretoria has increased over the years. As much of this work arises from cases occurring within the area of the Witwatersrand it is logical that it be handled from Johannesburg in a separate Attorney-General’s office in a properly constituted situation.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what, once this legislation is passed and becomes law, his plans are for the establishment of an office of Attorney-General in the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division. This is an empowering provision; so I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us a bit more about what actually he plans for opening an Attorney-General’s office within the jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand. When does the hon. the Minister envisage that such an office will be opened, and what does he envisage will be the size of the staff?

We had a report some years ago about enormous staff shortages within the professional ranks of the Department of Justice. Questions that have been raised in this House during this session have shown that those staff shortages, except in the case of the State law advisers, have largely been overcome, and that the situation has certainly vastly improved in comparison with what it was two years ago. I should like to know, however, whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient staff based in Johannesburg, with the proper qualifications to run an attorney-general’s office in that city. I hope he will reply to that when he replies to the debate.

Clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill relate largely to technical amendments aimed at improving the Criminal Procedure Act without causing, as we see it, any major new handicaps. I believe therefore that they can be supported. These clauses, and the latter clauses of the Bill, relating to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, will be dealt with slightly more fully by another hon. member of my party a little later. Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 119 of the Act. The hon. the Minister, I think, was not yet Minister when this measure was originally discussed in the House. However, if I recall it correctly, he also took part in the debate at the time. This stipulation caused considerable unhappiness when it was adopted in 1977. While no vote was taken on the particular clause—now section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Bill—amendments moved by the PFP at the time were not accepted during the Committee Stage debate.

The effect of the amendment proposed today is that the scope of the obligation which might be placed on an accused to plead immediately is broadened; not significantly—I admit that it is not a significant broading of that scope—but it is nonetheless broadened. We will accordingly not be able to support this clause when it comes up for debate during the Committee Stage.

I should like, however, to revert now to clause 1 of the Bill, a clause which amends the Trespass Act, 1959. The effect of the proposed amendment is that upon a conviction of this offence a person will become liable to be sentenced to a fine not exceeding R2 000; this sum being substituted for the existing maximum fine of R50. This constitutes an enormous increase. The second effect of the amendment is that a person now convicted shall be liable to a maximum prison sentence of two years, as opposed to the existing maximum prison sentence of three months—an increase of eight times the possible existing sentence applicable upon conviction.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this proposed amendment a person may now be sentenced to both the higher fine of R2 000 and to imprisonment for two years upon conviction. Both may be combined. I find this absolutely inexplicable, Mr. Speaker. I believe, and hon. members of my party believe, that these penalties are clearly excessive.

Hear, hear!

Trespassing in some Western countries is not even an offence, Mr. Speaker. In our country this offence derives from the old Roman Dutch Law, which described it as a civil delict on the basis of privacy of property occupation. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in no country is ordinary common law trespassing regarded as a major misdemeanour, and the existing laws, in 99,9% of all cases before the courts, have been perfectly adequate.

We would, no doubt, in these times of inflation, support an amendment to this Act which increased the penalty in proportion to that circumstance which I have just mentioned. However, we will not and can never be a party to placing trespass in the same category for purposes of sentence as such crimes as fraud, burglary, assault, robbery and the like. The only possible reason that we can think of for making such drastic proposals, regardless of what the hon. the Minister said in his opening speech, is that the Government intends using the Trespass Act for purposes other than dealing with ordinary common law trespassers. In this regard certain questions must be asked. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister directly across the floor of the House. Is it the intention that this Act be used to deal with squatters or the problems of squatting?

I shall reply to you.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is a very charming Minister, but I want to put this question to him across the floor of the House. Is it the intention that this Act will be used to deal with squatters or the problems of squatting?

You can make your speech and I will make mine. I shall reply to you.

Obviously, Sir, the hon. the Minister does not wish to answer that question at this stage. I say then that if the hon. the Minister’s answer is no, that it is not the intention of the Government to use these provisions to deal with squatters, if he says that…

You have squatting on your brain, man. Carry on with your speech. [Interjections.]

And that hon. member has water on the brain.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur says that the hon. member for Witbank has water on his brain. I must say I would rather have squatting than water on the brain any time! I say that if the hon. the Minister answers no then I ask, regardless of any assurance which the hon. the Minister may personally give to the House, whether the law as it is proposed to be amended will nonetheless be capable of being used to deal with squatters of squatting problems; in other words, are we putting on to the Statute Book a law, regardless of the assurances given by the hon. the Minister, that could be used to prosecute people who are homeless and who may perhaps be squatting on private property? I also want to ask: Is it the intention of this Government to make use of this law to protect national key-points? Is the Trespass Act going to be used to prosecute people who may perhaps cross boundaries abutting upon what the Government would describe as national keypoints?

Strategic areas.

Surely not, Sir, because there is a specific Act of Parliament dealing with such buildings and areas. However, if the hon. the Minister answers “no” to that, I want to ask him why then multiply by eight the prison time available to a judicial officer in passing sentence?

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of debate, may I ask the hon. member a question? Will he find fault with trespassers at keypoints and also trespassers at points which have not been defined as keypoints in terms of that particular legislation, falling within the ambit of this amendment? Will he find fault with that?

Mr. Speaker, I say that any person who without the permission of the owner of any property and, in the case of State property, of the State, trespasses upon private property and the owner or the State is offended by such trespass, then the owner or the State has the right to prosecute. I have told the hon. the Minister that we are prepared to support the Government in increasing the penalties in a reasonable manner. What we are not prepared to do is to allow an ordinary common law minimal offence to be used in the machinery for the security of the State. That we will not allow him to do.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, on some matters the Opposition and the Government do confer from time to time. After having spoken to the hon. the Minister during the lucheon recess on a particular aspect of the Bill, I should like to give notice that I shall move in the Committee State an amendment to clause 11 the effect of which will be to bring that clause in operation on a date to be determined either by the Minister or by the State President.

Did you have lunch with him?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member in relation to clause 1 whether he would support an amendment to prescribe a minimum penalty for trespassing on a very sensitive area which has not yet been declared a national key point but which is nevertheless of national interest? One should bear in mind that there could be as many as 400 such sensitive areas and key points. If he is prepared to accept a minimum penalty for such very important matters, what would he suggest?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is correct or proper for the hon. the Minister to ask a spokesman on the other side across the floor of the House to react immediately. [Interjections.]

Ask Helen; she is here now.

What do you want to know? [Interjections.]

Such a spokesman cannot be expected to react immediately on a proposed law the details of which are not disclosed. If the hon. the Minister should put before the House an amendment to the legislation on national keypoints which covers a problem about which he is worried, this party will obviously consider it on its merits. We are now asked to agree immediately to a situation where minimum penalties are going to be prescribed for trespassing on sensitive areas, as the hon. the Minister calls it, but which sensitive areas have never been proclaimed, are not part of any list anywhere and are probably not even beknown to the person who is trespassing. I think it is quite wrong to ask the Opposition to support such a law. [Interjections.] Such a sensitive area could be Crossroads, as one of my colleagues has just pointed out. It might be a squatter area, it might be a post office, it might be anywhere. I believe that one cannot ask the Opposition to give support to the amendment of a law without the Opposition being given the exact details of what is proposed in the amendment, what the ill is and what it is which one wishes to cure.

Before the luncheon adjourment we were debating this trespass provision of the Bill in which there are huge increases in the penalties applicable on conviction. In his Second Reading speech which the hon. the Minister delivered shortly before the luncheon adjournment he gave his reasons for the introduction of this particular provision. What was the only reason given by the hon. the Minister for these horrendous increases which he proposes? It is a reason which comes out of the case The State vs. Phillip Makhubela in which Mr. Justice Curlewis said that he thought that for that particular case the trespass law was inadequate to meet the charge which had been brought against the accused.

If this is the real reason, surely it is wrong to legislate in this way creating horrendous penalties for isolated, remote cases which very seldom come before the court. It is wrong to create sentences of the nature which are created in the Bill purely to cover the exception. The sentences which are now proposed for the offence of trespassing are greater or at least as much as those proposed for stock theft where cattle and other stock of great value can be stolen to cause great damage to farmers. Now we have sentences proposed, under the Trespass Act which are equivalent, and in some cases even stronger, than that.

Arising from the hon. the Minister’s question—I think he should be ashamed of himself—it is absolutely obvious to me now that the reason for the increase as proposed by the Government has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Justice Curlewis or the State vs. Makhubela case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The principle is: How do you deal with a serious trespass?

The situation in the Makhubela case was that a person walked into a private home through an open door and was seen as he ran away. The judge stated that he did not think that the fine of R50 was a sufficient sentence for that offence. That has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of question that the hon. the Minister is putting to us across the floor of the House. He is asking us about national key points and national security. If you take it down the line it could even relate to squatting. However, in particular he is now, having finished delivering his Second Reading speech, relating this legislation to the protection of national key points.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a straight question: Why did he not mention in his Second Reading speech the fact that this legislation was actually aimed at national key points? Why was this not disclosed? Why does the hon. the Minister have a hidden agenda in putting this legislation before us? Why try to legislate stating one reason for the legislation—which the hon. the Minister started in his Second Reading speech—but in fact having in the background, in the drawers of his desks another reason, which is actually his real reason for coming with this legislation? If he wishes to deal with national key points, why does he not propose a suitable amendment to that Act? Why create an all-embracing law in terms of ordinary common trespass which covers the security offender as well as the ordinary trespasser who walks onto somebody else’s property? I believe that passing the measure in this fasion will lead to abuse of this legislation. As innocuous as this legislation seems to be, if it can be used for key points, it can be used for squatters, to enforce the pass laws as well as for a million other offences for which the Government may feel it would like to prosecute. I predict that it will in fact be used for matters far in excess of the normal trespass. With all the legislation that we presently have on the Statute Book, surely it is wrong and unnecessary to use this legislation to deal with problems which are extraneous to the ordinary common law of trespass.

The hon. the Minister may give assurances in this regard, but we all know that Ministers, and even sometimes Governments, come and go. The police and the courts are not bound by assurances. They are bound by the letter of the law. That is what they are bound by. It is therefore quite wrong to place on the Statute Book a law which is intended for one purpose but which can be used for several other purposes. In other words, no matter how well meant, undertakings do not work. It is the law and the wording of the law which in effect work.

All in all, this amendment appears to us to be most ominous and provides for a serious escalation of the gravity of a conviction, under what should be a minor law, to protect property owners. Accordingly we cannot support this Bill. We will therefore divide on both the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. While the rest of the Bill is mainly unexceptional, I believe that this clause completely taints the law that is before us.

We shall therefore register our protest and emphasize our strong objection to this unwelcome amendment in the only way open to us, and that is by voting against the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, after the explanation of the Bill by the hon. the Minister, and after the lengthy discussion of the various provisions of the Bill by the hon. member for Sandton, I believe that hon. members will agree with me that it is not necessary to elucidate again all the provisions on which there is no difference of opinion. In addition, some of my colleagues on this side of the House will deal with certain clauses of this Bill in greater detail.

I should like to confine myself, therefore, to those two provisions that were questioned by the hon. member for Sandton, the two provisions to which the hon. member for Sandton indicated that they were opposed. Firstly, there is the question of corporal punishment for offenders under the Stock Theft Act. I shall merely say that it is quite clear that the hon. member for Sandton is under the thumb of the hon. member for Houghton.

Who wears the breeches?

Her philanthropic views in this connection are well known to this House.

Yes, by now you should know.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Sandton is now endorsing these views of hers. [Interjections.] The fact is that as far as the Stock Theft Act is concerned, there is a specific need for provision to be made for corporal punishment, because in the case of certain offences which can be committed under this legislation, corporal punishment is particularly appropriate—especially when those offences are committed by youths—when fines or imprisonment would not be appropriate or would not have the desired effect, and where corporal punishment is therefore the only appropriate form of punishment. Therefore I have no fault to find with the retention of corporal punishment as a suitable sentence in terms of this legislation.

I hasten to come to the criticism levelled by the hon. member at clause 1 of the Bill. When we first saw this Bill, one immediately anticipated that we would get this kind of objection from the side of the official Opposition…

Why?

… because we have grown accustomed over the years to the fact that the members of the official Opposition never range themselves on the side of law enforcement in this country, but are always sympathetic towards the offender. [Interjections.] They always find a reason why the law enforcement is not fair, according to them, or why the penalties are too heavy or why some loophole should be left in the legislation through which the offender can escape. In the nine years I have been sitting here, the hon. members of the official Opposition have never worried about the possibility that legislation may not be effective enough. Their concern has always been that the legislation is too effective.

You are so dictatorial in your attitude.

This case is no exception, there. The hon. member for Sandton is not concerned about the innocent people who are the victims of the offence. Oh no; he is concerned about the offender, he is afraid that the sentence may be too severe. I said to the hon. member for Pinetown on a previous occasion, and I now want to say to the hon. member for Sandton as well, that when we act as attorneys or advocates, it is our duty, our function and our task to try to do the best for our clients within the limits of the law. However, when we are sitting here as legslators, it is not our function to plead for our clients, the accused. Our function here is to place effective legislation on the Satute Book. I think it is basically this wrong approach which the hon. member is following here. He is approaching this legislation from the point of view of an attorney or advocate who has to defend an accused, and he is afraid that too heavy a sentence may be imposed on his client. I say to him that his function in this House is that of a legislator. His function is to protect the innocent victims against offences.

I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that we are not dealing here with a minimum sentence which is being laid down. All we are dealing with here is an authorized sentence. Within the limits of that sentence the court may impose any sentence it deems appropriate. Surely the hon. member knows that. The Viljoen Commission specifically recommended that the legislature should leave the courts greater scope as far the imposition of sentences is concerned, so that they may judge on the facts of a particular case what sentence would be suitable. That is why the measure we have before us does not lay down a minimum sentence. All it does is to authorize the court to go to the maximum in an appropriate case. The hon. the Minister pointed out, with reference to the Curlewis ruling, that the court had indicated in that case that it would have imposed a heavier sentence if it had been authorized to do so. It is not possiblie for the hon. the Minister or for me, the hon. member for Sandton, or anyone in this House to predict today what possible cases may come before the courts which may justify such a heavy sentence. However, it is quite conceivable, in the times and circumstances in which we live, that a case may come before the court which may justify such a heavy sentence or lengthy term of imprisonment. All the Bill is doing is to empower the courts to impose such a sentence in such a case.

The hon. member for Sandton also set up all kinds of straw dolls here about the possible application of this provision to squatters. It is easy to set up straw dolls and to make assumptions and then to argue against them. Let us just examine this assumption of the hon. member’s, for the sake of argument—and in doing so, I am by no means saying that this Bill is aimed against squatters. The relevant provision in the existing Act is ridiculously low if one would wish to apply it to squatters. It would indeed be possible, within the limits of the increased penalties, to impose a suitable sentence on squatters without going to the maximum provided for in the Bill.

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

You have plenty of time.

I do have time, but I do not want to answer any questions now. I am developing my argument. I shall answer a question by the hon. member later. The hon. member made great play of the fact that the hon. the Minister had advanced one reason for the measure, alleging that the true reason was quite different. Surely the hon. member for Sandton knows that the reason which an hon. Minister advances for legislation is worth nothing as evidence in court; in other words, the reason advanced by the hon. the Minister has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of the Bill. The reason furnished by the hon. the Minister is merely explanatory. It does not change the provisions of the Bill.

That is exactly what I said.

No. The hon. member’s argument was that the hon. the Minister had publicly advanced one reason for the Bill, while he actually wished to achieve something quite different with it, that he had a different purpose in mind. I am saying to the hon. member that it is not the hon. the Minster’s reasons that have to be judged. It is what the Bill says that has to be judged.

What is the point of giving the reason?

It is given by way of explaining the desirability of the Bill.

Is that relevant to this Bill?

It is relevant for the purposes of persuading this House to accept the Bill, but as far as the interpretation of the Bill is concerned, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Does it have anything to do with the Act?

Everything has to do with everything. With all due respect to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that is not a meaningful question. It is just a silly question. The fact is that everything has to do with everything. What I am trying to put across to the hon. member for Sandton is the fact that he has to judge the Bill in terms of what is says. What it says is that this is an enabling provision and that it will be possible to go to a maximum of R2 000. It is not a prescriptive provision, and the court may impose a suitable sentence within the limits of that provision. Hon. members of the official Opposition are always very eloquent on the prerogative of the courts to decide for themselves. All we want to do in this case is to leave the courts the prerogative of imposing a suitable sentence, so that we may avoid a recurrence of the situation where the courts have to find that they would have liked to impose a heavier penalty than is provided for in the Act. This is the essence of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, just in the mode of what the hon. member has said relating to squatters, I should like to know whether he will support the amendment standing in my name on page 242 of the Order Paper, increasing the fine from R50 to R200, but retaining the three months’ maximum prison sentence.

No, because I do not think it goes far enough.

Mr. Chairman, the CP supports this legislation in toto. The hon. member for Sandton will agree with me that the territorial imperative is one of the basic rights of man. This is a principle one respects for example in connection with one’s neighbours. For example, I do not enter the house of my neighbour unless I have been invited to do so or I am canvassing from house to house in a political situation. To prejudice a person’s territorial imperative, to interfere with it and to assail it, is probably one of the most serious transgressions against the rights of the individual. That is why the minimal fines for which provision was made in the 1959 Act have become untenable. A few years ago a Hollander came to this country and held a lecture for a group of parliamentarians regarding the conditions in the Netherlands which had arisen in connection with the so-called “krakers”. These people moved into residences before the owners who had purchased them could move in and once they had done so, it was impossible to get them to leave. On one occasion the Mayor of Amsterdam had to use tanks to remove those people from houses where they had absolutely no right to be.

That could never happen in South Africa.

In the time when Mr. Marais Steyn was still the Minister of Community Development, something similar happened near Johannesburg because people moved into houses that were not intended for them. Legislation had to be piloted through to get those people out of those houses. This is a very serious matter. A few weeks ago the CP’s head committee held a confidential meeting in Pretoria. A reporter from Rapport nevertheless succeeded in hiding behind the curtains and making notes on the meeting where we were making sensitive arrangements for the by-election. If it had not been for the calm behaviour of the hon. member for Lichtenburg that person would really have found himself in trouble. It is a very serious offence to encroach on a person’s private rights.

When we read through the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister we find that after the judge’s verdict the matter was investigated and the conclusion was reached that the increased penalties as proposed would be justified. We therefore support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly in this matter. The decrease in the value of money also applies here.

Then we also have amendments to the Stock Theft Act, technical amendments, and it would be time-consuming to consider every clause at this stage. For that reason I shall confine myself to a few remarks. At the same time I want to react to the remarks by the hon. member for Sandton on corporal punishment. The position is that the sort of crime for which corporal punishment is being imposed here, is a crime which is occurring with increasing frequency and the farmers are at their wits’ end. It is difficult to catch these people. That is why special steps, special criminal law measures are necessary. We maintain it is essential for corporal punishment to remain as one of the penalties which have to be imposed by the courts when a person is found guilty of stock theft. As far as stock theft is concerned we would even agree to the penalties being more severe than they are at the moment.

For example?

What about euthanasia? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we accept that the matter of solitary confinement and so on has to be deleted now. We accept it. We would not have done it, however.

Next I should just like to refer to clause 5. This clause effects an amendment to the existing section 8 of the Stock Theft Act, which will lead to the ownership of livestock now being defined in such a way that the practical implementation of measures and provisions pertaining to the furnishing of removal certificates will be facilitated. Clauses 6 and 7 can be dealt with together because they both concern the imposing of penalties by a magistrate for offences under the Stock Theft Act. The amendment contemplated in clause 6, is in the first place aimed at deleting a specific subsection which concerns the imposing of imprisonment with spare diet and solitary confinement. I have already voiced my opinion on this, and I should therefore merely like to add to this that it seems to me as if there is still a need among South African’s stock farmers for penalties for stock theft to be more severe than merely a fine and imprisonment.

In the second place, clauses 6 and 7 also have something else in common, namely that penalties are being adjusted owing to the depreciation of our currency. As far as clause 8 is concerned, the crux of the clause is the fact that a magistrate is being authorized to award compensation up to an amount of RIO 000 instead of R1 500. Mr. Speaker, we also support this change.

This brings me to clause 9. The repeal of section 13 of the General Law Amendment Act (Act No. 102 of 1972) merely brings the Stock Theft Act into line with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1956, in which the said section 13 has already been deleted.

With reference to clause 10 of the Bill, I should just like to say the following. The Stock Theft Amendment Act, 1973, is being repealed because the said Act was never put into operation.

I should also like to refer briefly to clauses 11 to 23, which entails amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act. These clauses deal with amendments to and additions to the Criminal Procedure Act, and in this regard the CP also supports these intended amendments and additions to the principal Act. Clause 11 amends section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in that a separate Attorney-General may now be appointed for the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court.

The hon. member for Sandton welcomed this new addition. We in the CP also do so. All we need do in this regard is to emphasize what the hon. member has already said in this connection. The increase in the population of the Witwatersrand, from east to west, has made it absolutely essential for there to be an office of the Attorney-General in Johannesburg. We also look forward with interest to the reply which the hon. the Minister will furnish in this connection.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, we in these benches would like to pledge our support for this legislation to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Brakpan. On behalf of the Government I want to thank him for the fact that he and his party support this Second Reading of the Bill.

To start with, I want to say that I should also like to refer in my speech to the stock theft matter, in which I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Brakpan. However, before I get round to that, I should like to refer in passing to the hon. member for Sandton. That hon. member wants to see something sinister in everything, and he would seem to be preoccupied with the squatter problem.

Earlier today I learned that the hon. member for Standerton has a new name for the hon. member for Sandton. In the past he was always referred to as the hon. member for Squatter Camps. However, I hear he now has a new name, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Standerton refers to him as a certain Mr. Gandhi. [Interjections.] I think the name suits him and I also think it suits his appearance.

I want to start by, in the first place, thanking the hon. the Minister of Justice most sincerely on behalf of the farmers of South Africa for the fact that he introduced this legislation in this House today. For several years now, strongly-worded representations have been received from organized agriculture for penalties for stock theft to be made more stringent. Last year during the NP congress in Pretoria my own constituency placed an item on the agenda to which the hon. the Minister reacted well and promised that he would submit this legislation to Parliament this year.

Stock theft is a practice which has been with us since Biblical times. At present stock thefts take place in a very well-organized manner. These thieves are well-equipped and use large trucks to steal the livestock and to commit these offences. Our farmers in the border areas are also troubled by poachers, which can lead to tremendous irritation. Despite the existing statutory measures, stock theft increased between 1958 and 1982, and I should like to mention a few figures in this connection. During 1958, 5 944 stock thefts were reported, and during 1982 there were 22 025. You can therefore see that the number of cases per year has risen considerably, which definitely justifies the stricter measures being proposed here. It is of no use to deal leniently with a man who is guilty of this offence. I believe the only way in which we shall be able to bring down the number of cases of stock theft is to introduce as many measures as possible to deter these people.

This Bill before us makes certain amendments to the Stock Theft Act of 1959. Certain penalties are being increased and certain groups of people who were previously excluded from certain of the provisions of the Act, are now included, which will make this Act more effective. The word “non-White” is being deleted because the term is no longer necessary and because everyone in the country has to be dealt with in the same way as far as this matter is concerned. In terms of the Stock Theft Act of 1959, a non-White who was not the registered owner of any piece of land was not compelled, when selling his or her livestock, to furnish the buyer with a document or a letter confirming that the livestock was in fact sold to that person. Anomalies arose which led to livestock being stolen, for example, and sold to persons without the seller being obliged to confirm this in writing. When the theft was therefore reported and the police found the livestock in the possession of the relevant person, he therefore had no proof that he had in fact purchased the livestock from a non-White and no action could therefore be taken against the latter. The Act is now being amended so that everyone, irrespective of race or status, will be obliged to give written evidence that the livestock was legally sold.

The Act also provides that any person of no fixed above selling livestock at an auction or a public market shall furnish written proof that the livestock or products belonged to him. In the Act certain persons are identified who may furnish such a document to a person. It has become necessary to propose this change because there are many persons who steal livestock in one district and then sell that livestock in another district. In that way many people have purchased stolen livestock in the past.

They also steal politics.

Yes. The hon. member for False Bay says they also steal politics. We have already had dealings with such people as well.

As for the more stringent penalties that are being proposed in the Bill, I want to say that I welcome them, but I should also like to add that I think they are still not stringent enough. However, I am grateful that in terms of the amendments proposed, the ordinary magistrates’ courts may award compensation in connection with livestock products up to a maximum of R10 000. The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to this. It is an existing principle which increases the authority of the local magistrate in connection with the awarding of compensation. As I have already mentioned, we shall have to educate these people who commit stock theft, and the only way in which we can do so is to punish them harshly enough.

Thrash (foeter) them.

The hon. member for Standerton says “thrash them”, but I do not think that is a parliamentary word and I shall therefore stick to what I said.

In view of this, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to adjust these fines and penalties regularly and, if possible, annually. I also want to ask that vehicles used to steal livestock be confiscated more frequently. If a man hunts game illegally and he is caught, both his weapons and his vehicle are confiscated. As I mentioned, modern stock thieves are well equipped with large trucks. I should like to see it happen more frequently that the vehicles with which offences are committed are confiscated. Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act makes provision for this and I would appreciate it if our courts would make more frequent use of this measure when imposing penalties in connection with stock theft.

There is another important matter I want to refer to. It concerns parole. There are many complaints from our farmers that a man is sentenced and is then released on parole shortly afterwards. I feel that parole should not be granted to stock theft offenders; only really deserving cases should be considered. If possible, I would appreciate it if the Advisory Release Board could give particular attention to the parole policy in connection with short-term prisoners.

Within the confines of the statutory measures which exist at present, our police are nevertheless achieving great success. I believe that the amendments which have been proposed will very definitely assist the police in their task. I want to refer to a few figures. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is in the House at the moment. I do not think it would be wrong for me to quote these figures. During 1980, 7 632 stock theft cases were solved involving a total of 21 414 head of livestock. During 1982, 6 750 stock theft cases were solved involving a total of 22 853 head of livestock. Under the prevailing circumstances these results are really a feather in the cap of our police. [Interjections.]

In this connection the State has a part to play. This afternoon we are playing our part by making certain amendments to the legislation. Our police also play a part. However, the farmer also has an important part to play in preventing this scourge, i.e. by being more careful. It is essential for our farmers to brand their livestock properly. In this connection I should like to know whether the time has not come for the Livestock Brands Act of 1962 to be applied more strictly. If a farmer brands his livestock properly, this will definitely help to solve stock theft cases.

I should like to conclude with the following: I believe that suitable legislation such as this, the capable way in which the police act and care on the part of livestock farmers will contribute a great deal to overcoming the scourge of stock theft. It gives me pleasure to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak after the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. He has a very good understanding of the problems experienced by the famers in connection with stock theft. Many of his standpoints correspond with mine.

†In general the Bill brings penalties up to date and creates a far greater deterrent measure in respect of trespass and stock theft. Both these particular crimes have shown a tremendous increase to the extreme frustration of police, farmers, landowners and the like. The Bill also brings the penalties into line with the deterioration of the value of money and in other respects it streamlines certain procedures and removes certain anomalies.

It is interesting to note that in paragraph 1.6 of the most recent annual report of the Department of Justice mention is made of the procedures introduced into the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 having contributed greatly towards the better utilization of court time. The clauses in the Bill in respect of criminal procedure no doubt are aimed in that direction.

Another point which I noticed in the discussion on the principal Act was that there was some hefty debate at the time. Doubts were expressed about points concerning the new procedure. It is interesting to note that the spokesmen at the time, nearly of all whom are no longer in this House, contributed greatly to that debate. It was a debate of an extremely high standard. I think the only remaining hon. member who participated in that debate is the hon. member for Brakpan. Of course, that was in the days when there was a much better Opposition and a better standard of input.

Very briefly, the arguments at the time were on the merits and demerits of introducing elements of the inquisitorial system into the legislation and the possible tipping of the scales of justice by hybridising that system with our own accusatorial system and the traditional system whereby the presiding officer, judge or magistrate adopted a neutral attitude in a case brought against an accused by the State—the prosecutor or counsel for the State—on evidence produced by the police as a result of a complaint. On the other side of the scale was the impartial judicial officer, the accused and his defending lawyer—if he had one—to present his side of the case in the trial. It will be interesting to know from the hon. the Minister whether in fact after five years the fears expressed at the time have been realized and whether any undue tendencies have been introduced in our criminal procedure. It will also be interesting to know whether the statistics, namely that approximately four out of every 10 accused persons are set free immediately and two more on appeal—this was stated in an article by Mr. Justice Hiemstra in the Law Journal —have in any way altered or shown any tendency to do so. That was one of the main arguments surrounding this. The departmental reports, indicate that that piece of legislation brought about a great deal of streamlining of the procedure in the courts and that it has been of great assistance.

The Bill contains 22 clauses amending four different Acts and repeals one Act. There is one clause amending the Trespass Act, seven amending the Stock Theft Act and one amending the General Law Amendment Act. There are also 13 clauses amending the Criminal Procedure Act, while the Stock Theft Amendment Act of 1973 is repealed. As regards the Trespass Act, on which the official Opposition had much to say, we on these benches feel that the present penalties are quite ludicrous. Trespass has increased a great deal, leading to vandalism in some cases and malicious damage to property. There is of course a tremendous tie-up in the rural areas between trespass and stock theft. There is a tremendous tie-up between those two crimes. The deterrent to stock theft is in many cases very difficult to bring to bear. The requirements in terms of evidence are such that stock thieves will still manage to escape actual conviction in spite of the very high fines and the stiff sentences which are now being imposed. Not to use a deterrent in respect of trespass, will leave an enormous loophole in that regard.

I come now to the question of corporal punishment, which hon. members seem to find somewhat distasteful. I just wonder how many hon. members on those benches used it in bringing up their children.

None at all.

I wonder whether that form of chastisement has no place at all… [Interjections.]

Do you whip your children?

The hon. member for Hillbrow asks whether I whip my children. [Interjections.] What is relevant here are strokes with a light cane, and that has nothing to do with whipping.

Do you cane your children? [Interjections.]

Yes, they received a jolly good tanning if they needed it at the time … [Interjections.] … and I am very sure some of those hon. members have done the same thing.

If Marius’s father had done the same thing, he would have been a better man.

That is perhaps the problem with the hon. members in those benches. Perhaps the problem is that their parents did not do it to them.

Vause, of course, would put them up against the wall, so perhaps this is not so bad.

You cannot catch them; they get away! I think that the only hon. member in those benches who is really qualified to discuss stock-theft and trespass in regard to the rural areas is the hon. member for Albany, and I am quite certain that his opinion about stock-theft and trespass would be a very realistic one.

[Inaudible.]

In that respect the question of corporal punishment is a very interesting one, because in fact the parents of some youths who are caught on occasions—not by the police, but by local farmers or other people—actually come and ask one to take them to the police so that the police can give them a hiding. [Interjections.] The police have to turn the request down, of course, but the parents then return to the farmer or owner and ask him to give the children a hiding. Often one tells them: No, you do it, and I shall count for you. [Interjections.] The fact is, however, that the parents themselves …

Do you approve of all that?

Indeed I approve of it. Those parents are happy to have their children chastised. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member for Groote Schuur not approve of any discipline whatsoever? [Interjections.] He does not understand what discipline means, does he?

The point that they miss as well is that in many cases the magistrates are being kinder to the parents in recommending chastisement with light strokes of a cane—not whipping, as the PFP would have it, though maybe that is what they would like to have—than would be the case if they fined the poor parents who would then have to pay the fine.

This legislation also applies to grown-ups, of course, and not only to children.

There is moderation in all things, and this party stands for the normal use of such measures. [Interjections.] There seem to be so many people who would like to join in my speech. The fact of the matter is, however, that corporal punishment has a place, in many cases, and a beneficial place. In some cases it relieves the parents of the burden of paying an otherwise onerous fine which they cannot afford and does not leave, on the child, any form of scar at all. [Interjections.] If the hon. member’s children do wrong, hopefully he would apply this to his own children … [Interjections.] I am afraid the hon. members in those benches had better have a good discussion on corporal punishment, because there is something lacking in the attitude of some of their own members, perhaps, such as the young hon. member for Durban Central. Being an advocate, he might have a lot to say about this. There is no doubt, however, that to omit this form of punishment, in this context, in many cases really causes more hardship. Making a fine mandatory would certainly cause more hardships than making this form of punishment available to the magistrates. [Interjections.]

Many of the aspects of the stock-theft amendment have already been mentioned in detail by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. For years, at agricultural congresses, this matter has been raised over and over again. It has been said over and over again that the deterrents have been hopelessly inadequate. In fact, I have a note here from a farmers’ association to which I sent this legislation for comment. I shall not quote to the House what the members of that association suggested some of the penalties should be. I am not saying they are any worse, in type, but in severity they are in excess of the ones contained in the Bill, and I should just like to add that some of the members of that association vote for the hon. Opposition. The situation must be viewed realistically. It must be viewed in terms of the realities of the circumstances. Certainly, trespass can lead to an enormous number of crimes in the rural areas. There are all sorts of crimes it can lead to and the deterrent in this respect is an extremely good one.

It escapes those hon. members, of course, that it is a maximum fine. That has not been mentioned by them. It appears as if they all think that everybody is going to be fined R2 000.

The courts are influenced by that.

We hope they are slightly influenced away from £25 sterling, because that has caused a great deal of trouble.

The hon. member for Sandton mentioned that this may apply to squatters. Obviously, we also have grave misgivings about that, because if this legislation should be used for that in any way, it would only complicate that situation. I am quite certain that, if it were to be used for that, the effects would be entirely negative. I should like to say that in that regard I have an amendment on the Order Paper, which I will be debating in the Committee Stage, in order to bring about just the sort of thing the hon. member for Hillbrow raised by way of an interjection, namely that somewhere in the legislation there should appear, in print, an intermediate step so that one will not have the vast jump from zero to 2 000. This could perhaps apply to first offences.

A number of other points have already been raised by the hon. members who have spoken before me. The NRP will be supporting this Bill. Apart from the one doubt we have, viz. that of the penalties in the Trespass Act being applied to squatters, we have no problem whatsoever with the other clauses. The removal of the terminology relating to race is entirely beneficial. The new definition of “owner”, the rewording of some provisions in respect of those entitled to issue permits, and the further clauses in the Bill are all in our opinion beneficial to the affected legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon. member for King William’s Town. This afternoon he adopted a calm and peaceful approach which even had beneficial effect on me. He is a realistic man. We also have great appreciation for his positive standpoint in connection with this legislation.

I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks on behalf of the farmers in Natal and specifically in my constituency to the Hon. the Minister for the fact that he has introduced this Bill in this House. I do not think the hon. members of the official Opposition have any problems with stock theft. That explains their argument and the attitude they adopted while we were discussing this serious matter. For many years now the farmers have been facing this tremendous problem which has assumed tremendous proportions, as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke indicated. Stock theft, particularly in certain border areas of our country, has assumed gigantic proportions. What is of importance is that it is not only White farmers who have this problem, but that Blacks are also faced with the same problem. The hon. member for Sandton objected to the Trespass Act. In this case I am in total agreement with the hon. member for King William’s Town that this is in fact also linked to stock theft. It is important to note that stock theft endangers the lives of employees on the farm, because the stock thieves are armed and they endanger the lives of the people who are guarding the livestock.

It is also important to note that animals are maimed in the process, because snares are used. Many stock thieves steal the brake cables form S.A. Transport Services trucks and use these to catch cattle. As a result cattle, sheep and goats are often cruelly maimed in the process. Sometimes cattle are attacked with assegais or pangas and are skinned alive. And then the hon. member for Sandton objects to us wanting to impose corporal punishment. It is also important to note that property is damaged in the process. Boundary fences are removed in the process. Bearing these circumstances in mind, we now want to ask the hon. member for Sandton: If he takes these circumstances into consideration, does he still think that corporal punishment is not justified?

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I agree with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that the penalties should actually be even more stringent if one considers the magnitude of the problem. However, we are grateful for these amendments and we feel that the situation should be monitored to ascertain whether these amendments are going to serve as an adequate deterrent in future.

We greatly appreciate the dedicated and effective action by the S.A Police, particularly the stock theft units who frequently have to do their work under very difficult and dangerous conditions and track down stock thieves. In the past low penalties for stock theft caused the problem to increase, to escalate. Another problem we had was that the courts were inclined to deal very leniently with first offenders and not to take the magnitude of the problem into consideration. The S.A. Police, who sometimes succeeded only with great difficulty in locating these people, capturing them and bringing them to court, found this frustrating. It also led to farmers, in desperation and despondency, not only lying in wait for stock thieves, but also taking the law into their own hands. This has in turn led to serious problems.

Light penalties have also frequently led to stock theft not always being reported. The attitude is that it is of no use reporting in any case, because the people are not punished sufficiently when they are brought to court. In my constituency stock theft is a real problem, particularly in the areas of the Bayala, North Zululand and Hluhluwe farmers’ associations—these are in the Ubombo magisterial district—where it is not unusual for between 300 and 400 head to be stolen in a single year. The farmers there not only have problems with the border situation, with droughts and the elements, but also with stock theft. The hon. members of the official Opposition who can eat a piece of meat under protected circumstances in steak houses and hotels know nothing about such conditions. That meat is not going to be stolen from their plates. Hon. members sit there and enjoy their meal under protected circumstances in soft candle-light. In contrast the farmers who supply this product are facing serious problems. I therefore feel it is also our duty to support these measures wholeheartedly. Considering the magnitude of the problem we have great appreciation for the patience which farmers have nevertheless shown and for the responsible way in which most of them behave. In my constituency discussions are held regularly between the magistrates, the police, the farmers, the Parks Board and also the chiefs in the area, so that all their common problems can be discussed and solutions can be sought for these problems. The conclusion they have all arrived at is that the only solution to this problem is a better deterrent. For that reason it gives us pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into an argument with the hon. member for Umfolozi about the dangers of stock theft apart from saying that it is possible that there may be fewer incidents of stock theft if we had a better system of welfare.

How naïve can one be!

I am naïve enough to know that people steal when they are hungry and when their children need to be fed, and I am also naive enough to believe that in most civilized countries that is the attitude that is taken. That is why when there is widespread unemployment in countries like Britain or America, people are supported until they can find jobs. That I believe is the civilized attitude to take.

As far as the hon. member for King WilHam’s Town is concerned I want him to know that we are unequivocally against corporal punishment. It brutalizes and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent. In Britain there was an in-depth inquiry before corporal punishment was abolished altogether and no proof whatever could be produced that the use of the cane in any way prevented crime. When the hon. member talks about light strokes with a cane, I wonder whether he has ever seen the results of light strokes with a cane administered by the police? I have seen it after punishment has been administered by the police. It is not like the hon. member giving somebody a few stitches with a willow branch. Whipping with a light cane opens the skin and leaves bleeding wounds. I have seen photographs of such whippings that have been administered. [Interjections.] I am against cruelty in any form, but at the same time I say that to pay cruelty back with cruelty is not an answer either. The hon. member for King William’s Town talked about a light whipping. But this Bill makes no mention of that. It speaks only of “whippings”, and whippings can be strokes with a heavy cane, and it applies not only to juveniles where light cane punishment is administered. It also applies to adults. The hon. member’s argument is therefore not really relevant. But as we subscribe to different principles there is no point in arguing with him about that, nor is it relevant because that part of the legislation is not being amended. However, I do support what the hon. member for Sandton had to say and I would like to take the opportunity of registering our disapproval against this form of barbaric punishment, punishment which has been abolished in every civilized country in the world and I hope hon. members will not come along now and tell me that in Australia they still gave corporal punishment.

The hon. the Minister in introducing the Bill gave us only one cogent reason—not very cogent really but it was the only reason he advanced—for the introduction of clause 1 and this, as the hon. member for Sandton so ably explained, is the reason why we will oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. He talked about judgments that were given in which a judge—I think it was Judge Curlewis—asked for greater penalties to be imposed. Then, in the course of discussions in this House, it appeared that there was another reason, and why the hon. the Minister did not see fit to explain this to the House in his Second Reading speech, is difficult to understand because it is, from his point of view, a much stronger reason that the one he has advanced. That reason is that these stiffer penalties for trespassers are being introduced because of key point trespass. [Interjections.] Is it not true?

I said key points were covered by the legislation relevant to key points. There are 400 areas, possibly more, that are not covered by that Act.

Well, then you can extend that legislation and bring those areas which are not covered now into the ambit of the legislation relating to key points.

The hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the maximum sentence.

I did not refer specifically to it.

Well, then it was the hon. member for King William’s Town. I have to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that the maximum sentence is really very important. I know there is not a minimum sentence but the maximum sentence is very important because it acts as a guideline to the courts in establishing an appropriate sentence. It surely does. It means it is a reflection of the severity with which this legislature regards the crime for which a person is being tried. I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with that. I have always been given to understand that that is so. The very fact that there is now to be a very stiff maximum penalty makes it clear that the legislature considers trespass to be a very serious crime indeed. So, as I have said, the hon. member for Sandton will move an amendment trying to reduce the severity in order that the courts might have what we consider to be a more reasonable guideline as far as the crime of trespass is concerned.

Let me come back now to the crime itself, Sir. Why are we having these increased penalties? The hon. member for King William’s Town says trespassing can lead to all sorts of other crimes. I do not deny it could lead to all sorts of other crimes. One drink can lead to a man driving a car and killing somebody. Surely one cannot legislate for that sort of situation. Therefore we should think only of trespassing by itself, and not of what trespasing can lead to because, as I say, all sorts of things can lead to other things, and we cannot legislate in respect of them all. We cannot possibly legislate for all contingencies.

They will stop you kissing just now.

Yes. Well, I must say that the suspicion entered my mind immediately—and I have a suspicious mind …

Yes, that is very true.

Yes, anybody who has spent 30 years in this House would develop a terribly suspicious mind. The same will also happen to that hon. member, I am sure. Well, as I say, I have a suspicious mind and the suspicion that entered my mind was that this was perhaps a piecemeal way of introducing a Bill which had been put on ice: In other words, the famous Koornhof Orderly Movement of Blacks Bill. What a way of perhaps…

You are definitely terribly suspicious.

Yes, that is exactly what I thought. I am just telling the hon. member what thought entered my mind. I must say it has been superseded by other thoughts since then; some thoughts perhaps even more drastic. I did think it was possible …

You are serving on the Select Committee.

Yes, I am serving on the Select Committee. That Bill, however, has not come before the Select Committee yet. The Bill is still being kept on ice, as the hon. the Minister well knows.

But you can argue your case when that Bill is discussed in the Select Committee.

And when will that be?

Possibly after the drought. [Interjections.]

I do not think it is ever going to come before the Select Committee. Anyway, this is one way of introducing it—quietly bringing it in by way of other pieces of legislation. Believe me, however, I am going to keep a very watchful eye on matters to see that that does not happen. However, I subsequently decided that this was not so, and that the real reason for this was in fact the one which was advanced here in the House today by the hon. member for Sandton, namely, to deal with squatters.

You see, Mr. Speaker, not all squatters are illegals who come and squat in these areas on the Cape Flats, and the hon. member for Mossel Bay agrees with me. Among the many hundreds of people who have been harassed—and I use that word deliberately—night after night by police raids—either by the Administration Board officials or by the Police sent in by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order …

What are you talking about?

That hon. Minister is sitting there now looking so innocent. Does he not know that this is happening? I am mentioning that on the Cape Flats there are hundreds of people who are squatting there, and many of them are legally in the urban areas.

That is right, but they are not legally where they are squatting.

Yes, there is the rub. They are being raided night after night. I think there have been three raids in quick succession. Am I right? Yes. Their shelters have been torn down and they have been raided at 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning. Now they have been left sitting on the Cape Flats with no shelter at all.

Those people can be charged but with very low penalties under the existing legislation. They cannot be charged in terms of the Urban Areas Act because they are legally in the urban areas. They are homeless people. They are people who have nowhere to live because of the Government’s policy of not building any houses. In the Western Cape, for 10 solid years, not a single house was built.

Does the hon. member for Mossel Bay not know that? Throughout the whole of the seventies not one single house was built on a family basis for Black people in the Western Cape. That was because the Government maintains firstly, that this is a Coloured labour preference area, despite the fact that Blacks were coming in and that Coloureds did not want the jobs that were being reserved for them, and, secondly because the Government was in any case trying to stem the process of urbanization and did not agree that there were permanently urbanized Blacks. Thank heavens that at least that part of the policy has now been done away with. They now recognize the inevitable. They know that morning follows night, that there is urbanization and that these people are permanently urbanized Black people. Therefore, they have started very late to build houses. However, what about the thousands of people who are homeless because of the policy of the preceding 30 years? These are the people who are being harassed. They do not know where to go.

We are not harassing anybody. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the matter that the hon. member for Houghton is now discussing covered by the measure before the House? The hon. member is now discussing the principle of influx control.

The hon. member is entitled to a certain amount of latitude during the debate on the Second Reading. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. I shall try to narrow it down. What I am trying to do is to establish a reason for the introduction of this very wide and far-reaching measure. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has come clean with us. In fact, I am sure he has not. It is not the reason that he gave us during his Second Reading speech and it is not the reason advanced by the hon. member for Sandton as far as the keypoints are concerned. It is the third reason that bothers me. The existing law does not deal with those people. It does not even deal with the illegals. We have seen that it does not work. These people have been thrown out over the past two or three years not under the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act but under the Admission to the Republic Act. They have been pushed out but, of course, they have promptly come back on the next bus. This is going to go on happening inevitably.

How does the hon. member know that?

Well, I have seen it myself. I am not blind. Perhaps the hon. member for Durban North would like to come out with me one morning and see for himself.

I have already done so.

I say that when these people are pushed out they come back again.

Do they get help coming back?

The Government helps them. They gave money to the Government of Transkei which promptly gave everybody R60 and sent them back with a note saying: “Please help this person.”

They are also in the conspiracy!

Yes, they are also in the conspiracy. These people are ordinary human beings and they need to be able to earn a living for themselves and their children. Even if they are sent to gaol here there is still a better chance of their surviving than if they go back to Ciskei or Transkei. Therefore, that has also proved to be a failure and now they are trying something new. They are imposing very heavy penalties for illegal squatting, and this includes everybody. It takes in the people who are here legally under the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act and it also takes in the people who are here illegally who were pushed out in terms of the Admission to the Republic Act and have come back again. That is what we are doing now. We are now introducing these heavy penalties. I read in the newspaper either yesterday or today that there has been another raid at KTC. By the way, this does not only apply to KTC. It also applies to the East Rand and in Soweto where there are thousands of shack dwellers because of the lack of housing. Anyway, the point is that I read in the newspaper that once again hundreds of people have been arrested and, when asked under what law they were going to be charged, the official said he was not sure.

Where have the hundreds been arrested?

Here, at KTC. I think there were 271 people who were arrested.

No, you are wrong. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member whether she is questioning or doubting the court’s ability to impose a suitable sentence in each case?

What I am doubting is whether the penalty which we are providing for here today is not going to set a very unreasonable guideline for the courts to follow. That is really what I am questioning. I am also wondering whether this is not also an example of a growing tendency to use non-racial legislation—because that is what this is—to implement discriminatory laws. I say this because although the law is non-racial the people who fall foul of it are all going to be Black. Some of them may well be Coloureds or Indians occupying flats and houses in areas set aside for other groups and may be doing so perhaps without the landlord’s permission. Under those circumstances they can be charged under a trespass law as well and this can prove to be a very expensive procedure for these people. Therefore I think this is an example of using a non-racial law to implement discriminatory legislation. It may also be a way to try to remove from the unfortunate Department of Co-operation and Development the onus upon it to implement all these racial laws, because the provisions of the Bill will not be implemented by that department.

I have put these thoughts to the House. I fully support the views of the hon. member for Sandton in opposing this legislation. It is true that we have an objection in the main to one clause only while there are many clauses in the Bill. That, however, is not something unusual in the House. I can remember opposing many Bills in the past. Bills such as General Law Amendment Bills which perhaps contained 30 or 40 clauses of which only one or perhaps two were obnoxious and in respect of them I moved that they be read this day six months because of those obnoxious clauses. We are therefore not taking an unusual stand this afternoon. I support the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. members of the PFP are always obsessed with squatters. They always want to be seen as the protectors of these squatters as if squatters were not common law trespassers. I am sorry to have to deny them this pleasure by telling them that this legislation is not concerned with squatters. We had proof of this in this House this afternoon when the hon. the Minister put a question to the hon. member for Sandton. He asked the hon. member whether he would be satisfied if these penal provisions were restricted to certain sensitive areas or persons only. Apparently the implication was that the hon. the Minister wanted to make him that offer, but what was the reaction? The hon. member for Sandton was simply not interested. This proves that the hon. members came here to kick up a fuss; they did not come here to seek a fair solution.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question on this very point?

I am busy now. The hon. member may ask a question later.

The matter has been stated clearly. The objective of this legislation is on the one hand to introduce an alternative offence to which reasonable jurisdiction will be attached so that when a person is prosecuted for a serious offence which has an element of trespass and he cannot be found guilty of that offence, he can be found guilty of trespassing. I should like to refer to the ruling of Mr. Justice Curlewis in the case of Phillip Makhubela—

Take note—

He then referred to the facts. In this case a person was found in a house, but he ran away. It was quite obvious that he was there for an illegal purpose. The Judge said inter alia—

What better reasons do those hon. members want for increasing this jurisdiction?

It is quite clear that there can be far more serious circumstances than applied in this case. I want to refer the hon. member for Sandton to the fact that in the case under discussion a penal provision of R200 would definitely not have been sufficient. A person may for example enter a sensitive area without committing housebreaking. He cannot be found guilty of housebreaking, but it is quite clear that he was there for a very dangerous purpose. However, the hon. members of the official Opposition can see nothing but squatters.

What is more, this Act has not been amended since 1959. It is therefore very important that it be brought into line with inflation, and also with the prevailing circumstances.

What is at issue here is safety and security. Yesterday evening there was another explosion at the Supreme Court in Pietermaritzburg. This was the third explosion within a very short space of time. All three of these offences committed at the courts in Pietermaritzburg contained an element of trespass. Do those hon. members now want to tell this House that this does not justify a serious penalty? Should a person who is for example found inside the Supreme Court at night without his having broken in and without his being found guilty of any other offence, now receive a maximum penalty of R50? Is this justified in the light of these circumstances, in the light of the explosions which have taken place. No, those hon. members can only indulge in politics and cannot think of the security of the country. They can only think about squatters. As has already been pointed out, this is not a minimum penalty, but a maximum penalty. If the punishment does not fit the crime the offender is at liberty to appeal and put his case to the Appeal Court.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Schutte referred to the Supreme Court building in Pietermaritzburg where a bomb explosion took place and he suggested that a person who is found on such a property at night would commit a serious crime and that therefore he should be given a stiff penalty.

Yes, if he does not give a good reason.

That is what this Bill is aimed at achieving. He agrees, I am sure, that by increasing the penalties eightfold—I myself have not seen anything like this before—the court will say to itself that Parliament has decided that trespass is a very serious offence.

It can be serious.

Therefore, the court will say to itself that when considering a sentence of an accused the accused must inevitably get a higher penalty, comparatively speaking, than what the case had been up to now. The hon. member also said that this legislation is not about squatters. Trespass laws have been used for squatters and this law will be used to deal with squatters. The hon. member will know that the first squatter laws which we had in our country—in the Free State and Transvaal in the 1870s—were aimed directly at dealing with squatters and the movement of the Blacks towards the cities. That was one of the main intentions of the Trespass Act. This legislation will also be used for squatting because many squatters, as the hon. member for Houghton has pointed out, are not in a specific area illegally because of their right of residence but squat on property that belongs to someone else.

That is also illegal.

That could be illegal under the Trespass Act. The Government can now actually use this Bill to direct the population movement towards the cities. It can use this Bill, because of its harsh penalties, to deal with influx control problems and it can use it to deal with overpopulation in Black urban areas. No one can give me any reason, I submit, why this legislation should not and cannot be used for that purpose.

Are you against influx control?

That is not the question. The question is whether this sort of law, the Trespass Act, should be used for those purposes.

The point made by the hon. member for Houghton was that if the Trespass Act were used for influx control and for Black population removal that would sound much better in the eyes of the public than laws involving squatting or laws aimed directly at the Black population. It is much easier to indicate that a person is somewhere unlawfully if one says he is trespassing, because that contains no racial connotation. The hon. the Minister is shaking is head, but he omitted to give us an acceptable indication in his Second Reading speech of what precisely the motivation of the Government is for this Bill [Interjections.]

He told you.

As I understand it, the purpose of a Second Reading speech is to give the Government’s motivation as to why the main principles in a Bill should be approved of and accepted. He did not, however, attempt to indicate—the point made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte—that the key points are what they are trying to deal with. [Interjections.] That he did not deal with.

I shall reply to you in a moment.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte says that is what this Bill is aimed at. He says it aims at dealing with those problems. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister, however, has as yet not dealt with that. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that we in the PFP only argue in favour of those who have transgressed the law, never dealing with the victim. [Interjections.] He said that is why we have this attitude towards this particular Bill. [Interjections.] We are interested in having decent and good legislation passed through this Parliament, and by good I mean “good in law”. We are not prepared to deal with provisions, such as the one in clause 1 of the Bill, which adopt a shotgun approach towards offences, which are bad in law and which, in my view, are an abortion as far as the purpose of the Trespass Act is concerned. That is what we are doing. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is always one of the first ones to argue in favour of restricting the rights of individuals. He is always one of the first to trample on the rights of individuals or to argue in favour of it.

No, of giving certain powers to the courts.

He is always one of the first to argue in favour of harsh penalties and he is always one of the first to argue in favour of the removal of protection by the court.

No, I want to give the power to the courts.

That is the approach we often have from him and the Government side as a whole. Clause 1 of this Bill is again an indication of the roughshod approach towards a subject which has, until now, been adequately dealt with, although I agree that inflation has caught up with us, which is why we agree to an increase in the penalties to some extent, as reflected in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is not here now. I think he was moving on dangerous ground when he thought he could pass on nicknames for the hon. member for Sandton. Because that hon. member is not here, I shall not go any further, but with his background in February last year, he is the sort of person for whom we have many nicknames. However, I will not go into that any further.

The hon. member for Houghton has indicated that the squatters on the Cape Flats can and will be dealt with by this Act. One of the reasons why we are concerned about clause 1 is that it might be so used. I am not saying this hon. Minister will do so, but at a later stage it might be used to control population flow, to deal with squatters on a large scale and so on. If so, it could have and would have significant political consequences. It might sound dramatic but it is a fact that the formation of the ANC in 1912 was, to a large extent, motivated or caused by the laws depriving those people of owning property, laws which had harsh provisions as far as trespass was concerned. Then the Native Land Act was passed in 1913 in order to take away property rights, to tighten up the trespass provision and provide procedures whereby people could be moved off farms without too much difficulty. That was the biggest motivation for the ANC to become a recognized body for Black South Africans. That is a factual situation. I merely mention this because, if this clause is used to achieve that purpose—the hon. member for Houghton expressed her suspicions about this—we must not delude ourselves as to what the backlash could be like if an apparently innocent Act is used for a harsh purpose.

The provisions which deal with stock theft we do not oppose. I do not know why the hon. member for Umfolozi made such a noise about our attitude towards stock theft. We do not oppose those provisions. The hon. member for Sandton merely criticized corporal punishment, or whipping, which the hon. member for King William’s Town finds quite acceptable and which seems to be normal practice on his farm and in that area. We do not agree with that. We have our reservations about that, and that is what he wanted to express.

All the other clauses relating to the Attorney-General’s office on the Reef we approve of, but the trespass provisions and the sentence in that connection we cannot approve. For that reason, as has already been indicated, we will call for a division on the whole Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central in due course. I shall receive my reply to the debate in respect of clause 1 until the very end and deal firstly with the other points the hon. member raised. In this way, we can keep the heated part of the debate until last.

The hon. member for Sandton referred, inter alia, to the whole question of corporal punishment. He expressed his disappointment that the provision relating to corporal punishment is not being repealed. I wish to point out to him that the proposed amendments to the Stock Theft Act do not have a bearing on penalties as such, but that they deal with jurisdiction. Nor do they prescribe penalties for a crime which is being created now or which has been created in terms of a law. Theft is theft in terms of common law. All that is being envisaged as regards section 13 of the Act, which is now being amended, is to extend the jurisdiction of the magistrate so that we can obtain jurisdiction on that particular level in a particular district.

Since I am dealing with this, I wish to reply simultaneously to the request of the members for Schweizer-Reneke and Umfolozi that we should consider taking somewhat more stringent action against the people involved. The fact is that the Attorney-General assesses the seriousness of the crime when he receives the dossier. If, under certain circumstances, he is of the opinion that the scope of the crime of stock theft justifies the case being referred to a regional court, he refers it to the regional court, and the jurisdiction of the regional court is restricted to a fine of RI0 000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, which is an appropriate penalty in a serious case of stock theft. In still more serious cases the Attorney-General may decide to take it to the Supreme Court. There the penalty is unrestricted, since it is part of the Supreme Court’s inherent power and jurisdiction to be able to impose the maximum sentence in respect of a common law crime for which there are no provisions as far as penalties are concerned—I am speaking about the maximum period of imprisonment, which could be for the rest of the criminal’s life. That is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Hon. members can therefore rest assured that our courts have sufficient jurisdiction, but that we were of the opinion that in view of the effect of inflation on the value of stock and so on, it was necessary to extend the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court considerably, as well as its power to grant damages, or to impose a compensatory fine. Consequently, as far as corporal punishment is concerned, we have not created specific penalties, which at present apply to specific statutory crimes. In any case, the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of corporal punishment specifically apply to juvenile offenders.

The hon. member for Houghton is an ardent supporter of the report of the Viljoen Commission concerning the investigation with regard to the penal system, and so on. Since we virtually rewrote the Criminal Procedure Act on the basis of that report, I am referring specifically to the findings and the recommendations we accepted at that time. I shall just quote briefly—

These limitations are being applied. Therefore it is not a question which is in dispute at the moment, nor do we wish to make it a matter of dispute at present, and for very sound reasons, viz. that the court will impose this form of penalty at its discretion from time to time, and when it regards it as necessary.

The hon. member for Sandton put a very reasonable question to me concerning the future development of the office of the Attorney-General which we envisage in the Wit-watersrand Local Division. I think this justifies a comprehensive explanation of that matter, because it is of historic value as well. The clause concerned provides that the Attorney-General can be appointed to the Wit-watersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court. From data contained in a work study report of the department, it appears that at present the Attorney-General of the Transvaal has a work load which is completely disproportionate to that of the other Attorneys-General. As a result of the large volume of work he has to deal with, he often, of necessity, has to delegate important management duties. The report indicates that extraordinarily heavy demands are at present being made on the occupant of this office. At the moment, 37% of the population of 8 350 500 in the Transvaal falls under the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court.

There is therefore a tremendous concentration of people in a relatively small area. As hon. members are aware, serious crimes are committed there. Deeds of terror and terrorism occur regularly and it is therefore in the interests of internal security that an Attorney-General, who can speed up the process of justice should be present in that area. Wide-ranging talks have been held with various people, including State law advisers, concerning the question whether the appointment of an Attorney-General for that area of jurisdiction could give rise to functional and/or organizational problems, and the unanimous opinion has been that the functioning of the provincial division would not be adversely affected. It would, in fact, be in the public interest. It is repeatedly recommended in the report that an Attorney-General be appointed for the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division.

There is an important point which the hon. member for Sandton did not raise, but which is relevant in my opinion. It is perhaps also relevant to his question, as well as to his statement that to a certain extent, this fits in with the whole question of the report of the Hoexter Commission, viz. the report which gave rise to the Appeals Act. As far as the handling of appeals is concerned, the Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court will, to a large extent, be in the same position as other Attorneys-General who have to argue appeals in the Appellate Division in that, depending on the case, he will have to conduct the appeal before the full bench of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, unless the Judge-President directs otherwise in any specific case. In that instance, the case has to be argued in the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. The Attorney-General in Pretoria does not foresee any insurmountable practical problems with regard to this matter. This is also to a large extent related to the number of appeals of magistrates, courts, which in turn will depend on the number of districts the Judge-President will determine in terms of section 6 of the Appeals Amendment Act in the Gazette from time to time. Therefore it is not possible at this stage to make a relatively reliable estimate of the number of appeals which will be heard in Johannesburg. However, if our planning progresses as we expect, it will be a considerable number, in any case. At present we foresee that unless, for example, we succeed in getting courts to function during the holiday period in the Transvaal, there will be almost 500 appeals pending by August. However, as I have already said, if they sit during the recess, the courts which are being envisaged will mean that the number of appeals will be reduced considerably.

The fact that the Judge-President involved will consult with two Attorneys-General, could be regarded as a disadvantage. However, this ought not to stand in the way of the appointment of an Attorney-General to the area of jurisdiction mentioned.

The hon. member also put questions to me with regard to the staff department. The theoretical establishment of that office on the Witwatersrand will be as follows. As far as professional staff is concerned, there will be one Attorney-General, four deputy Attorneys-General, nine senior State Advocates and 10 State Advocates. There will therefore be 24 members of staff altogether. At present there are 20 professional officers employed in the Johannesburg office. We are therefore envisaging an extension of four. To reassure the hon. member, I therefore wish to point out that we will be able to provide the infrastructure by way of a small supplement of staff.

However, the hon. member also assisted us by way of the amendment of which he has given notice. This will enable us to prepare this matter calmly, but also promptly and efficiently, to come into operation on a set date in the future. Consequently, when the hon. member moves his amendment during the Committee Stage, I shall accept it. I shall leave it at that as far as the member for Sandton is concerned.

As far as his traditional opposition to the provisions of clause 16 is concerned, I do not think we should debate that in too great detail now. We can reconsider the matter during the Committee Stage, if the hon. member so wishes. However, our time is limited and we still have a considerable number of other Bills that have to be discussed.

However, the hon. member’s opposition to this results from their having reached a certain conclusion at a later stage, after the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 had been accepted. Last year the hon. member for Parktown let the cat out of the bag by intimating here that he thought that prejudice of an accused was being engineered here in that he could get himself into a corner and he would consequently not be able to get away from what he had said during the defence proceedings. However, the hon. member—and I shall point this out to him as well—should know that the principle that an accused has the right to remain silent, still applies in our courts. He may remain silent if he wishes. He is not being denied that right. Not one of these defence proceedings deprives him of that right. He could not therefore be prejudiced. If it should become apparent that the rights of the accused have not been explained to him by a trial official, it would amount to an irregularity which could be rectified by way of a further process; in the interests of the accused and on his initiative. When we come to this once again in the Committee Stage, I shall address the hon. member further on this matter if he will allow me to do so. Mr. Speaker, that is as far as the hon. member for Sandton is concerned. I think he was relatively constructive in other repects.

I now wish to come to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He argued strictly on the basis of principle. Therefore, when we come to clause 1, we are once again back with the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member for Brakpan also supported this legislation on the basis of principle. He also motivated his party’s support of clause 1 on the basis of principle.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. However, there is still one aspect of his speech to which I should like to react. As far as granting parole to stock thieves is concerned, this principle will not apply. The hon. member requested that I refer this matter to the Advisory Release Board. I am able to tell him that we have already done so and the Advisory Release Board came forward with a very important and interesting point. They argue that if the incidence of a crime has to determine whether or not a person is entitled to parole, where is one to draw the line? A few days ago, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Law and Order, revealed the extent of the incidence of the car theft. It seems to me as if the incidence of car theft is serious. It also seems to me as if a case could be made in that regard as well. What about shop-lifting? That, too, is an offence in respect of which a relatively lighter sentence could possibly imposed in the case of a first offence, and such a person could then be described as a short-term criminal. In view of this principle as pointed out by the Advisory Release Board, we prefer to link this to an area where the incidence of stock theft justifies our considering the case on an ad hoc basis at this stage. The hon. member for Vryheid would be able to tell hon. members that last year, at his insistence and after we had considered the incidence of stock theft in that area, we arranged that short-term offenders in that area would not be entitled to parole. There are other districts as well where we deal with such cases in the same way. However, the fact remains that this only applies to short-term cases. It is possible that in view of the new punitive jurisdiction a magistrate has, we will no longer have such a serious incidence of short-term offenders as far as stock theft is concerned, although they could all perhaps land themselves in a different situation at a later stage. After having listened to the hon. member’s representations—and the magistrate could perhaps be of the same opinion—it is not impossible, but I do not wish to bind any magistrate whatsoever in this regard. I cannot do that.

The hon. member for King William’s Town put certain questions to me with regard to the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Act. Unfortunately I do not have the statistics with which to reply to his questions. However, the fact remains that one’s officials, one’s legal officials, one’s prosecutors and so on, all agree that this streamlined process saves us a considerable amount of time and everyone is intent on improving it still more. That is why, over the past two or three years, we have come forward regularly with adjustments and amendments of the sections concerned. I hope hon. members accept this. The hon. member made an extremely valuable contribution with regard to clause I, as well as with regard to the question of stock theft, on which we all agree. I have already replied to the hon. member for Umfolozi.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, she dealt mainly with clause 1. The hon. member, Mr. Schutte, also dealt with clause 1 and it seems to me that the time has come to discuss that clause, since it was also the main theme of the speech by the hon. member for Durban Central. If we introduce legislation in this Parliament and we deal with the general incidence of an offence, it is very clear that one can have various sub-categories under the general incidence of that offence. Consequently, we could still be debating on these possibilities tomorrow or the next day. I put a question to the hon. member for Sandton with regard to certain sensitive points. In fact, I tried to illustrate to him that the national key points are also covered under one Act. Although I introduced that legislation in this House at that time, my memory has faded a little in that regard. However, I think that legislation did prescribe a maximum penalty of something like R5 000 or a relatively long term of imprisonment. This demonstrates the attitude of the legislator with regard to that matter. I also told the hon. member that apart from the national key points which were declared as such in terms of that Act—and he could obtain this information from, for example, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who know about this—there are also particularly sensitive areas which are not covered by the legislation dealing with national key points. I do not wish to argue about what these areas could be now. They could be public buildings, the headquarters of certain organizations; there is a tremendous variety. That is only one category, and I raised this matter with him by way of argument. Initially, the hon. member argued as though he realized the seriousness of the matter. That is why I asked him whether he would accept a minimum penalty. He did not react to that question, and I can quite understand that, since it would immediately imply that he accepts a minimum penalty for squatting. However, that is not our intention at all, and I wanted to illustrate that very point.

I did respond to it.

But he did not accept it, for if he did accept it, he would have agreed at the outset to a minimum penalty for squatting. That is the implication, but that is not what we envisage. In fact, it illustrates our standpoint.

Another category is trespassing on farms. The idea of feedlots is becoming increasingly popular in the farming context. Vast numbers of stock are being herded together in this way. Consequently, we have a large variety of sub-categories which fall under the general category “trespassing” and which could be punishable.

I do not wish to say that squatting in its most extreme form cannot be such a phenomenon. In any case, the Attorney-General will decide whether there are no other measures which are specifically aimed at one category or another. In this regard I refer once again to the position with regard to national key points. There is no possibility that he would try and use the implementation of this legislation in that case, since there is another Act for that purpose. One could also point out other categories.

Therefore, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Sandton: “Is it the intention to deal with squatters as such?” I wish to say the following.

†The answer is no, it is not the objective to deal with squatters as such. He also asked whether the law is capable of dealing with squatters and in answer to that question I say that it is possible, but I have already indicated that we have numerous categories.

I have a lurking suspicion that the Opposition have failed to come clean with us because they realize that there are so many more categories which may be covered by this amendment and which may possibly fall within the ambit of this amendment. There is, for instance, the category of stock thieves. The hon. member for Houghton revealed to us that she has no sympathy with the stock farmer.

No, that is not true.

She has no sympathy whatsoever with him. She is not interested in the prevention of stock theft. We have a lurking suspicion that these hon. members know that there are many categories which may be covered. There are also certain sensitive areas.

*What are the principles we are trying to outline? I wish to refer to the verdict of Mr. Justice Curlewis—

We are dealing with principles. The principle we are dealing with is that the legislator has to make it possible for our courts to impose a serious penalty for a serious form of offence. That is the principle. It is also the principle which applies to each one of these possible categories. Hon. members are also aware that our courts are to be trusted with the imposition of sentences. We have already had truly leading verdicts in this regard. In the case Rex vs. Zinn, Chief Justice Rumpff and a full Bench of Appeal submitted that the triad of sentence imposition was the crime, the criminal and the community. These are the three interests which are assessed. Those hon. members are aware that a sentencing officer has to consider each of these. If he fails to do so, and extenuating evidence in respect of the criminal himself should be found, the case could be taken on appeal. Is it not true that nowadays when a case comes before a particular judicial officer and it is pointed out to him that a reprieve should be granted, our courts are criticized at times for sentences that are too light? Those hon. members are aware of this. The Opposition is arguing now as though our courts do not exercise their discretion correctly in imposing penalties which are not compulsory, but for which only maximum penalties are prescribed.

I think I have now dealt with the principles which are relevant here. I think I have dealt with the principles raised by each of the hon. members. I am referring to the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Durban Central. I have also replied to the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member Mr. Schutte, as well as the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member for Brakpan also made an important point—and with this I shall conclude—viz. that the right to privacy has to be protected. Under certain circumstances it is a serious offence to intrude on a person’s right of privacy. If a person’s territory, land or building is entered without his permission, it should be possible for the sentencing officer to consider a serious penalty. If there are other aspects which have not been dealt with, we can discuss them during the Committee Stage.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the execution of their duties messengers of the court collect money on behalf of creditors. Although they are obliged in terms of their conditions of appointment to keep separate books of account for all revenue obtained from, and expenditure incurred in connection with, their official activities, they are not obliged to keep a separate trust account, as is the case with attorneys and estate agents.

Litigants, on whose behalf messengers of the court receive and hold money, do not seem to enjoy sufficient protection because such money is, for example, not exempt from attachment because of personal debts incurred by the messenger of the court. In clause 1 of the Bill it is therefore proposed that messengers of the court be obliged to keep a separate trust account in which such money is deposited, as well as to keep separate books of account in connection with their official activities. Provision is also made for money in such a trust account not to be considered part of the assets of the messenger of the court.

†The position regarding deputy-sheriffs is similar to that of messengers of the court. Clause 3, therefore, provides the same as clause 1 with regard to deputy-sherrifs.

In terms of section 65J(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, an emoluments attachment order is served by registered letter on the garnishee by the messenger of the court. Numerous problems regarding this mode of service often result in costly delays in effecting proper service. Clause 2 makes provision that the emoluments attachment order be served as any other court process by the messenger of the court.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has briefly explained the reasons for and the effect of this Bill. The Bill contains insertions to both the Magistrates’ Courts Act and the Supreme Court Act. Basically, all it proposes is that where messengers of the court or deputy-sheriffs are appointed who are not full-time officers of the Public Service, proper procedures be enshrined in the law to ensure that the moneys they handle in the course of their duties are handled properly and correctly and that their actions in this regard do not prejudice the public or the State. Provision is made for the keeping of separate trust accounts and rules relating to accountability are established. When one realizes that one of the main functions of these officers relates to the collecting and payment of moneys, the steps envisaged are to be welcomed. I think these amendments are designed to protect the public interest.

I would like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with an underlying aspect of this Bill. Could the hon. the Minister give us an indication whether it is his intention in the future to appoint on a far greater scale messengers of the court and/or deputy-sheriffs who are not full-time officers of the Public Service? I, in fact, do not hold strong views on the matter and I think that in some instances, depending on the merits, a development in that direction could be to the advantage of the State, but I think that the hon. the Minister should give us some sort of indication of the direction in which he is thinking. However, whatever the answer is on that point, I should like to say that we are going to support this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to make provision for the keeping of trust accounts and books of account by messengers of the court and deputy-sheriffs. The objective of this amending Bill is to ensure that the assets and interests of people which are placed in the hands of messengers of the court and deputy-sheriffs are protected. Such money constitute trust assets and may under no circumstances be considered to be part of the personal estate of a messenger of the court or a deputy-sheriff, whether it be a deceased estate or an insolvent estate. The legislation therefore seeks to bring the position of messengers of the court and deputy-sheriffs into line with that of attorneys and estate agents. In section 78 of the Attorneys Act, Act No. 53 of 1979, that legal profession is required to keep similar trust accounts. In section 2 of the Estate Agent’s Act, estate agents are obliged to keep separate trust accounts. The crux of the matter—this has been accepted in legislation pertaining to the attorneys’ and the estate agents’ profession—is that trust assets must be protected. No one can disagree on this score, and for this reason we support this legislation in all its stages.

If these steps are not taken, the assets of person’s whose money is in the hands of a messenger of the court or a deputy-sheriff would, if such messenger of court or deputy-sheriff were to die, form part of the estate of the deceased messenger of the court or deputy-sheriff and persons entitled to it would have to institute claims against the deceased estate. It goes without saying that this is a time-consuming process. It would mean that many months would pass before such a person could recover his assets or his money. If the estate of that messenger of the court or deputy-sheriff were to be sequestrated, the position would be even worse because then the claimant would not even have a preferent claim against the insolvent estate of the messenger of the court or deputy-sheriff.

The introduction of trust accounts, as contemplated in the Bill, eliminates that risk, for in subsection (6) of the proposed section 18A in clause 1, and in subsection (6) of the proposed section 34A in clause 3, steps are clearly indicated to protect the public’s interests in this connection.

With these words the CP takes pleasure in supporting the Second Reading and any other stages of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his support of the Bill. This Bill provides, on the one hand, for the amendment of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, first of all by laying down the requirement that all messengers of the court other than those who are officers in the Public Service should have separate trust accounts. This is clearly to protect the public in that a messenger of the court will not confuse the public’s money with his own estate. If that happens, there could be problems for the public if he were to become insolvent or die. It also provides for the proper control of trust accounts.

Clause 2 is also an amendment of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and provides for the serving of an emoluments attachment order, whereas at present this can only be done by registered letter because it was first considered a speedier and safer method. It is now also provided that it can be served in any way sanctioned by the rules. This also means that it can be served on someone personally at his business or place of work by a responsible person.

†Clause 3 makes provision for the amendment of the Supreme Court Act. It also prescribes trust accounts for deputy sheriffs in exactly the same terms as for messengers of the court.

In referring to the Supreme Court I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a person who has served the Supreme Court over many years as a judge of the Supreme Court and who has retired recently. I am referring to the hon. Mr. Justice Neville James who retired in September last year. Mr. Justice James served the Natal Bench for 27 years. For 12 years of that period he served as Judge-President of the Natal Provincial Division. In his last year of service he was Acting Judge-President. In 1981 the Declaration for Meritorius Service was awarded to Mr. Justice James. As a young, budding advocate of the Natal Bar, Mr. Justice James made the deepest impression on me. He was always courteous and friendly towards everybody. Whether it be the most senior or the most junior counsel, he was always the same. He was always very hard working and conscientious, thereby setting an example to the judges. This could not but cause the productivity of the Natal Bench to be of a very high standard during his term of office. As a judge he always demanded respect for his calm and human actions. The practical but always just and fair application of the law by Mr. Justice James drew respect from the most unsophisticated person to the most sophisticated person who came before him. In the curriculum vitae read on the occasion of the award of the DMS to Mr. Justice James, the following was said of him, with which I agree fully—

I cannot but thank Mr. Justice James for his long and outstanding service to the jurisprudence in Natal and in South Africa. I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow on the hon. member Mr. Schutte. I want to congratulate him on the fine tribute he paid to a fine judge of the Supreme Court, who has gone into retirement. Although I do not know the hon. gentleman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte. I also do so on behalf of my party.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good Bill. It is a measure which will quite obviously prevent certain malpractices. Along with the other Opposition parties in this House the NRP will also be supporting it. Clause 1 and clause 3, which seek to amend the Magistrate’s Court Act and the Supreme Court Act, impose a duty upon officers who are not Public Servants to open a trust account into which they will have to deposit all moneys received or held by them. This is obviously a very much better way of doing things than has been the case in the past.

The measure also gives the Minister the authority to inquire into such trust accounts, and also empowers the magistrate or the sheriff to take possession of such accounts and records in the event of the cessation of the incumbant’s term of office.

The stipulation in respect of the registered letter now being able to be processed by the Messenger of the Court, and other matters relating to this, all amount to a streamlining of the whole process, and we accordingly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of this measure. I should like to add that I find myself in complete agreement with the tribute which the hon. member Mr. Schutte so appropriately paid to Mr. Justice James. I believe we are all convinced that Mr. Justice James has made a fine contribution and that he has impressed South Africa with his judgments. As a person he has impressed people even more. He is a well-balanced person and an amiable judge, who, with his very fine personality, is today gracing, although in an acting capacity, the Bench of the Appeal Court.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The last time the penal provision in the Performing Animals Protection Act, 1935, was adjusted, was in 1972, whereas that in the Animals Protection Act, 1962 has remained unchanged since the promulgation of the Act. Because of the drop in the value of money, the prescribed maximum fines have become inadequate. In addition, the animal protection societies have made representations for increasing the penalties. In clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill it is proposed that the prescribed maximum penalties be increased throughout to the maximum penalty which can be imposed by a magistrate; i.e. a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for 12 months.

†In addition, Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the difference between the penalty prescribed by section 8(1) of the first-mentioned Act in respect of a first and subsequent offence, is proposed by clause 2 of the Bill.

Newspapers and magazines often focus attention on the plight of animals that suffer at the hands of barbarians—I can call them nothing less. The Farmers Weekly recently carried articles under the captions “They Are Man’s Victims” and “They Suffer in Silence”, respectively. I found these articles most informative on the commendable service rendered by various animal welfare organizations. However, these articles also illustrated the magnitude of the problem of cruelty to and neglect of animals and emphasized the value of and need for greater involvement on the part of the public.

*In Die Volksblad the evergreen Johan van Wyk of “Stop van Myne” fame writes: “’n Dier weet wat Dankbaarheid is”. I wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, it is the same Johan van Wyk who caused me to hurry to introduce this Bill. Of course, it does not quite conform to his proposals, because he also writes in another issue of “Stop van Myne” in Die Volksblad—

This Bill does not go quite that far! However, it illustrates the more severe approach of the legislator to the question of the maltreatment of animals. No law enforcement can succeed if there are no complainants. People must be prepared to lodge complaints and to give evidence. But better still: Our educational processes should be aimed at instilling the idea that the proper treatment of animals is a civilized norm. In the first place, therefore, the solution lies in the correct attitude towards, and understanding for, the animal and its needs. And only in the second instance does the solution lie in penalties. As regards the second aspect, and insofar as it lies within our authority, we shall do everything possible to protect animals against cruel or negligent acts.

Mr. Speaker, nearly all the major debates in this House revolve around human rights, the security of the State, constitutional dispensations, land allocation, trespassing, as well as other weighty matters of human concern. Far too often the welfare of animals escapes attention, and seldom are these matters discussed in this place. However, we should remember that any society that is a caring society is one that should find time to ensure that the nonhuman population of that country or society enjoy proper protection. For every 50 animal lovers there is one that cares not a fig for their welfare. Every year thousands of animals are starved and maltreated. Every year at holiday time hundreds of animals are left untended and without food or shelter while their owners go away for their annual relaxation. Every day there are animals that are overworked and uncared for. Animal abuse is far more prevalent than child abuse and far more prevalent even than wife-beating. That does not mean to say that our whole society is barbarous. Of course it is not. For every animal that lives a life of hunger and of deprivation there are hundreds of animals that enjoy full lives with families or organizations that love them and treat them properly.

There exists in South Africa a number of organizations whose work is dedicated to the protection of animals. The Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Anti-Cruelty League and other voluntary groupings play a valued role in both animal protection and in public education on that subject. These organizations, which transcend political considerations, are widely supported by local authorities and by the public and are in some instances assisted by the provincial administrations and even by the central Government. Their work is highly appreciated in every quarter, more particularly because nearly all of what is done, is done for the love of doing, without financial reward and very often without public recognition or thanks for their services. It is therefore fitting that in supporting this Bill, a word of tribute and thanks should be spoken in respect of those who devote voluntarily many of their hours to the welfare and to the protection of animals. [Interjections.]

In so far as the specific provisions of the Bill are concerned, they relate, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, to the increasing of penalties available to judicial officers upon conviction of offences under the Act or under the regulations which are framed in terms of the Act. These offences concern the improper housing of animals, the improper usage of animals and a variety of aspects relating to cruelty to animals.

The hon. the Minister will be delighted to know that we do not always go against the increase of penalties. In our view the increased penalties evisaged in this Bill are reasonable and bring to the notice of the public that the wanton abuse of animals is regarded by Parliament and hopefully by the courts as being a serious offence. Hopefully these new penalties will act as a further discouragement to those who care not for animals that they own.

Before closing I should like to mention another facet of this legislation. An increase in the penalties for offences under the Act is not, I believe, the only answer to the problems which give rise to this legislation.

Be nice and say that you agree with the Minister.

The hon. the Minister must not worry; I have already said that we shall support him in this legislation, and we shall do it in a charming fashion. I think the hon. the Minister will probably find that things will return to normality a little later.

An increase in the penalties is not the only answer to the problems which arise out of animal abuse. While the Acts themselves are reasonably adequate, the regulations framed in terms of the Acts need revision. Representations have been made over a number of years by the various animal protection societies to the hon. the Minister and to his predecessor in this regard. The growth in the guard-dog security industry, for instance, has created new problems and concomitant abuses, to quote but one example. I believe the time is ripe that the hon. the Minister and his senior staff in consultation with the organizations that I have mentioned look afresh at the laws and regulations which apply to animals and their protection against cruelty, to see whether the laws and regulations cannot be improved upon to the advantage of all animals in this country.

With these words we should like to support the Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Sandton for his interesting contribution and his support for the Bill.

The Bill seeks to amend the penal provisions in the Performing Animals Protection Act, 1935, and the Animals Protection Act, 1962. The penal provisions of the former Act were last amended in 1972—11 years ago—and those of the latter Act have not been amended since 1962, which is 21 years ago. It is therefore essential that they be adjusted to keep pace with inflation and other changing circumstances.

Ill-treatment of animals is usually associated with direct physical ill-treatment. Poor conditions under which animals are kept and left uncared for, particularly during holiday seasons, are frequently overlooked. At present, however, this is the major form of ill-treatment of animals. The figures prove this. During the past financial year one institution in the Cape Peninsula alone, the Animal Hospital of the Animal Care Association, had to put down more than 27 000 pets because they were left uncared for. It is estimated that in the Cape Peninsula alone approximately 60 000 animals are put down annually. Most of these animals are healthy, but have no one to look after them. This also has certain financial implications for the institutions that take care of these animals. It is therefore necessary for the penalties applying to ill-treatment of animals to be increased in order to serve as a deterrent. People must simply ensure that when they keep pets they accept the responsibilities that go with it. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the CP also supports the legislation. It is interesting that a man like Toynbee wrote that one of the greatest achievements of man was the fact that he had tamed animals. However, man subsequently became dependent on animals to a large extent. That is why it is only right for us to give constant attention to what we as a civilized community are doing to protect our animals. Under these circumstances it is clear that there can be no objection to this legislation and we therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his support for the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to refer briefly to the fact that this Bill proposes certain amendments to the Performing Animals Protection Act of 1935, that deals with the showing and training of performing animals. In the clauses relating to this Act certain increased penalties are being proposed.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the amending Bill refer to the Animal Protection Act of 1962, which deals with the prevention of ill-treatment of animals. The relevant clauses in the amending Bill also make provision for certain increases in penalties because this has become necessary. These increased penalties have become necessary owing to depreciation of the currency. It has also become necessary to adjust the penalties in both these Acts to the same extent because this will be conducive to greater effectiveness. The adjustments have also been made in such a way as to be in line with the legal penal jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court. I believe these amendments will contribute to greater control over the ill-treatment of animals in our community. I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the points made by hon. members preceding me are valid. I am sure the whole of the animal kingdom will be glad to know that politicians can agree on matters concerning animals and that we can all bark together about matters concerning them. I think it is a truism to say that man’s civilized state is measurable by the way he handles animals and by his attitude towards animals. There is a horse monument in Port Elizabeth with an inscription on it to the effect that man’s civilization is measured in terms of his compassion for animals.

The NRP will be supporting this legislation. There are one or two points which I should like to make, following on those made by the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member Mr. Schutte in respect of the regulation aspect, as mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton. There are some other areas which could be looked into as well. There are one or two other points: one embodied in a clause contained in this Bill, relating to the procedure adopted by a person arresting and charging someone with an offence. This gives rise to quite a difficult situation, because it is sometimes necessary to take an animal to a veterinary surgeon for treatment at the outset, but the law states that it must be first taken to a magistrate. This conjures up quite a picture of having to get an injured horse to a magistrate and then taking the process further. I think that aspect must be looked at. It is contained in clause 2 of the Bill. That could certainly be sharpened up a bit.

Then there is the provision in regard to veterinary expenses. The maximum provided for is an amount of only R400, but in our present-day financial situation I think the amount is inadequate, especially if one considers veterinary fees, the cost of drugs, food, accommodation and transport. Those are just one or two additional points I should like to mention in regard to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contributions and their support. This brings me to the hon. member for Sandton’s representations in connection with the regulations. At present we are considering the possible amendment of regulations to bring them up to date, etc. We shall therefore give attention to this in due course. I want to thank the hon. member for his support. He has been accusing me of being “charming” all afternoon. One of my collegues who is well-versed in Latin thereupon sent me a note. I assume he is quoting from Virgil, and I also assume that he is quoting Virgil correctly. Perhaps the hon. member for Groote Schuur could be of assistance to the hon. member for Sandton in this connection. The note reads—

This means: For heaven’s sake, fear the Progs when they bring you presents.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister about clause 3 of this legislation. I just want to ask him whether he thinks that the whipping prescribed there is fair in the circumstances, in view of what the hon. member of the PFP indicated in the debate on the previous Bill. They have said that they are totally against corporal punishment, but here we have a total reversal of their point of view.

That is why Helen went out.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would like to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is merely a case of what is sauce for the goose not being sauce for the gander.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order no. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply in response to the speech of the hon. member for King William’s Town. I must confess to the fact that I missed the point he has mentioned when I read this Bill. That is the first point. Secondly, I must say that I disagree with whipping in this Bill, just as I disagreed with whipping in the previous Bill. I must also point out to the hon. member that as in the previous Bill that we discussed, in the question of whipping, the Opposition was in no way empowered to move an amendment because those provisions had not been amended at all. It was only within the power of the Opposition to mention the fact that the corporal punishment procedure had not been dropped. My thanks therefore to the hon. member for King William’s Town for pointing out my omission. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I am disappointed that he has not deleted, from this Bill, the provisions relating to corporal punishment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The office of Advocate-General has now been in existence for more than three years. Mr. Justice P. J. van der Walt was appointed as acting Advocate-General on 27 August 1979 and on 1 November 1979 Adv. J. C. Ferreira was appointed assistant to the Advocate-General.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express the appreciation of the Government, and I am convinced also that of Parliament, to Mr. Justice van der Walt and Adv. Ferreira, who have been performing their task in an extremely efficient and impartial manner since their appointment. These two gentlemen gave real content to the office concerned, and it is in this light that the acting Advocate-General, having been concerned for more than a year with the application of the Act in practice, sub mitted a memorandum to the State President in which he proposed a number of amendments to the Act.

A number of complaints had been lodged with the Advocate-General in respect of the handling of the funds of establishments and bodies, the accounts of which are subject to auditing by the Auditor-General, but which cannot be examined by the Advocate-General since the funds of these establishments and bodies fall outside the definition of “State moneys” as contained in section 1 of the Act. Since we are in point of fact dealing with public monies in the case of funds of this nature, i.e. moneys in which the general public has an interest, it was felt that the powers of investigation of the Advocate-General should be extended so as to include these funds as well. Consequently provision is being made in clause 1 for the deletion of the definition of “State money” and for the substitution therefor of the definition of “public money”. The existing categories of “State moneys” are included in the latter definition and the funds of local authorities and the statutory boards are being added. The amendments contained in clause 3(a) and (b) of the Bill are of a consequential nature.

†It has to date not been found necessary to prescribe conditions pertaining to the Advocate-General’s office. Section 2(3) of the Act, however, appears to make the prescribing of such conditions compulsory. To put the matter beyond any doubt, provision is, therefore, made in clause 2(b) that the conditions pertaining to the Advocate-General’s office may, if necessary, be prescribed. Due to the fact that the Advocate-General holds office on a part-time basis and the fact that it is presently not justified to appoint some body to hold office on a full-time basis, clause 2(a) makes provision for the appointment of an acting Advocate-General if it is deemed advisable that he only holds the office part-time.

Clause 3(c) makes provision for the deletion in section 4(2)(b) of the words “in so far as they are known to him”. It is felt that these words are unnecessary because the suspicion of an irregularity must be that of the deponent and the grounds on which the suspicion is based must of necessity be known to him.

*In clause 4 of the Bill provision is being made for the deletion of the requirement that a subpoena issued by the Advocate-General should be in the prescribed form. The requirement appears to be unnecessary as section 7(2) of the Act already makes pro vision for the particulars to be included in the subpoena.

When, in terms of section 8 of the Act, the Advocate-General summarily imposes a penalty upon a person for contempt of the proceedings at an inquiry, such a penalty is subject to review by the Supreme Court. Since the present Advocate-General is a judge and since it is likely that the Advocate-General will also be a judge in the fore seeable future, it is undesirable that a penalty imposed by him should be subject to automatic review by another judge. Consequently clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for the deletion of section 8(4) of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amending Bill which, in sharp contrast to the principal Act and the debate on the principal Act, should arouse little controversy. There are three clauses worth mentioning. Clause 1 broadens the definition of the term “public money” and, in doing this, brings a greater investigative jurisdiction to the office of the Advocate-General. This is to be welcomed. Clause 2 contains an enabling amendment making formally possible the appointment of Advocate-General in either a full-time or a part-time capacity. As we know, the Advocate-General at the present time in fact acts in a part-time capacity. However, I think it is correct that this be properly prescribed in the law.

Also, this is a very wise provision taking into account the very limited activities of the Advocate-General over the past three years. The reports of the Advocate-General—I have the most recent one in front of me—reflect almost nothing of a substantial nature which has been investigated and reported upon since the inception of that office. Most of the matters that have featured have been of a trivial nature, such as complaints regarding employees using State equipment for private purposes, whether it be a lawn mower or a motor vehicle. No doubt these matters must be dealt with, but the reports of the Advocate-General are a far cry from the high drama of the Information scandal that gave rise to this legislation in the first instance.

Are you not thankful for that?

Yes, I would say that I am thankful for that and I think all hon. members are thankful for that fact. What I have said does not necessarily mean that corruption does not exist in our country. Of course corruption exists. It exists in virtually every country in the world where there is a public administration. What I do query, however, is whether the office of the Advocate-General is in fact the best mechanism to deal with corruption. Even the reports of the Advocate-General that we have before us are often so skimpy, so lacking in detail, that they are quite frankly of little value to those who read them. Also, reading the reports, one comes to the conclusion that the investigative methods utilized by the office of the Advocate-General are, to put it mildly, less than imaginative and hardly likely to give rise to any major discovery being made.

Be that as it may, this legislation gives no offence. In fact, I think it improves the current situation and we shall support it through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the official Opposition for their support of this Bill through the hon. member for Sandton. Nevertheless it reminded me of the stormy debates we had when the principal Act was introduced in this House, and of the dreadful bogies the hon. members of the official Opposition conjured up of the Draconian powers which were supposedly to be granted to the Advocate-General. In view of that it seemed a little odd that this time the hon. member for Sandton has at this point seen fit to dismiss the office of the Advocate-General as being a relatively unimportant post. However, we shall leave it at that. We do not wish to have unnecessary arguments about this. I shall therefore conclude by stating that it goes without saying that we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the CP also supports this legislation. We should like to associate ourselves with the kind words the hon. the Minister addressed to the Honourable Mr. Justice van der Walt and Mr. Ferreira, words of appreciation for the exceptionally competent and efficient way in which they carry out their task in this regard. I believe that for a judge it requires almost superhuman effort to carry out this important task in addition to the functions he has to perform as a judge. Therefore it is also fitting and right that we should pay special tribute to these people for the hard and thorough work they are doing for South Africa in this regard.

I should just like to refer to clause 4 of the Bill in particular, and to focus attention on the fact that it is undesirable to include the words “in the prescribed form” in this legislation, since it is simply providing people with loopholes through which they can escape on technical grounds. Justice cannot be done in such a way; not if prescribed forms have to be followed slavishly.

The CP will support all the stages of the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I welcome the support the CP has given the present legislation through the hon. member for Brakpan. I agree with him and with other spokesmen, particularly with the hon. member for Sandton, that the office of the Advocate-General has become an institution in the public interest. It is clear that although initially there were doubts and prejudices from certain sources against establishing this office, today it is accepted as an office which is in the public interest. I think the fact that so few charges have been brought before the Advocate-General must be seen as a compliment to what is taking place in general in public life in South Africa.

I am completely convinced that corruption in public life in South Africa really plays an extremely small role. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to say that I cannot understand why the hon. member for Brakpan has recently raised so many complaints against an hon. member of this House and yet he did not avail himself of the authority and powers of the Advocate-General; if, in fact, he was able to put forward a substantial case. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the responsible Opposition in this House will also be supporting this legislation. [Interjections.]

I have only one point to add to those points already made here in connection with this measure. In the latest report of the Advocate-General mention is made of several complaints which were not accepted as falling within the provisions of the Advocate-General Act, 1979. I do not have the report with me, Mr. Speaker, but it states that a certain number of complaints were rejected on the grounds that they did not qualify to be investigated by the Advocate-General.

I have just been wondering whether the amendments effected by this legislation now before the House would not cause the sort of complaints to which I have just referred now to be brought into the sphere of jurisdiction of the Advocate-General as well. In other words, is this not one of the reasons for the broadening of the scope of the existing Act? Should this indeed be the case, the question then arises whether such claims should now be resubmitted to the Advocate-General for investigation, or whether they will automatically be taken up by the Advocate-General. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been said. We in the NRP support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to put forward a few thoughts with regard to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. I also just wish to point out that the legislation with regard to the Advocate-General has a particular background and history. At that time, hon. members of this party were part of the Select Committee which investigated the desirability of instituting the office of Advocate-General, and which drew up the final Bill.

At the time we very strongly supported the principle of instituting this office. Indeed, we do so again today. Of course, we have also considered the amendments to the principal Act that are envisaged, and we approve of them. I believe that the office of the Advocate-General is a sound institution in our community.

However, I wish to put it to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that there are many other methods of exposing certain alleged irregularities. I want the hon. member to realize that we in this party will deal with matters brought to our attention to the best of our ability. Therefore I really do not think that the attempt made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North at this late stage to attack the hon. member for Brakpan about a particular matter he raised here, was in accordance with the spirit of this debate. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I just wish to put it to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that when the hon. member for Brakpan states a specific case in this House he is always well prepared, and does so with a great deal of circumspection and wisdom. In fact, he will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the rules of courtesy compel me to react to the hon. member for Rissik. However, without going into detail. I believe it is fitting that I state the principle here that the office of Advocate-General was created by this Parliament. It is a post the occupant of which must fulfil certain responsibilities. He also has to report to Parliament concerning his activities. Therefore, when certain complaints are submitted, complaints which fall under the jurisdiction of the Advocate-General, it is indeed our duty as well to see to it that such complaints are in fact, brought to the attention of the Advocate-General. However, I shall leave it at that. I am merely stating the principle without going into detail.

The hon. member for King William’s Town asked me about certain matters which were not investigated and which can now be investigated in view of the new amendments. I have stated the principle that the Advocate-General is a person appointed by this Parliament. His post was created by this Parliament and as a member of the executive. I would be the last person to say that he is going to investigate certain specific charges. I think we should establish a tradition here of showing the holder of that office the respect to which he is entitled and as a mark of that respect, I should prefer not to make any statement in that regard. I think the hon. member will take cognizance of the fact that that is my standpoint, but I am convinced that the Advocate-General will read the record of this debate, precisely because his post was created by this Parliament. I wish to leave the matter at that and I wish to thank all hon. members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In clause 1 it is being proposed that the amount of R1,50 payable to a law society for the issue of a certificate to an articled clerk enabling him to appear in court on behalf of his principal be increased to R10. This is being done at the request of the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa. The increase appears to be a realistic one.

Clause 2 and 4 further regulate the manner in which exemption from the passing of the examination for the B.Proc. degree is granted to an attorney of an approved country. In terms of the present statutory provisions, such a candidate for admission shall, if necessary, be required to pass a supplementary examination which is to be conducted by the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law. The board no longer conducts examinations and for that reason it is being proposed that an attorney of an approved country seeking admission be exempted from the passing of the B.Proc. degree, if a university in South Africa with a law faculty has-certified that an examination passed by him, in so far as it relates to the syllabus of instruction and the standard of training, is equivalent to or superior to the examination which is required for the said degree. The university concerned will determine the value of such a person’s qualifications on the basis of the requirements for the degree recognized by the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law. If his qualifications are inadequate, the person may supplement them to the satisfaction of the university by passing the examinations in particular courses of the university, whereupon the certificate may be issued.

†In clause 3 the provisions of section 46 of the Attorneys Act, 1979, are extended to enable the Board of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund to make grants for the purposes of education or research in the science of law or in legal practice or in any related science or practice at a university. The cause appears to be commendable, regard being had to the existing powers of the board relating to grants.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill need not delay the House very long. The provisions contained in it are the product of consultation and, I believe, of consensus between the Department and both the profession and the university authorities. The Bill amends quite acceptably the mechanisms to be adopted in granting exempt on to already qualified persons, people who have passed examinations, who enter this country with qualifications and experience that has been gained elsewhere. Under certain circumstances they are exempted as laid down in this amending Bill from rewriting equivalent South African examinations. While the rules are slightly changed, the decisions to be taken will nonetheless remain in the hands of the profession in consultation with the universities. With this we can find no fault at all.

Another clause broadens very slightly the powers of the profession to make grants in regard to legal education, legal science research and matters such as those. We find no fault with that. Finally, the Bill amends slightly the procedures to be adopted in drawing up regulations. Again we find no fault with that. Accordingly we fortunately have no alternative but to support the Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, we were grateful to take note of the fact that the hon. member for Sandton supports this Bill on behalf of the PFP.

I wish to refer very briefly to one of the principles in this legislation. It has a bearing on the Fidelity Guarantee Fund for Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers. The fact that we can recommend to this House today that the powers of the board of control of the fund be extended speaks volumes for the thoroughness and insight with which the Law Society has handled this fund. The fund was initially established after problems and arisen in the legal profession in the ’thirties in order to protect the public against the possibility of losses resulting from malpractices. It is important that we realize today that the Law Society, through its own initiative and with the assistance of the board, has in terms of section 25 of the Attorneys Act created the means whereby to establish and extend the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. In terms of clause 3 of the Bill, section 46 of the principal Act is being amended to grant the board of control broader and greater power to enable it to make donations in respect of related matters, an in order to extend its powers in other respects as well.

It should be noted that the Law Society, through its board of control, has already been able to grant 287 bursaries amounting to R373 000 from this fund over the past 10 years to further legal studies. It has also been able to donate R2,7 million to university law faculties. It is also notable that no member of the public can say today that he has incurred a loss due to malpractices in respect of trust moneys entrusted to a lawyer. In this society and in this ordered country we live in, where the attorney’s practice is truly the foundation which assists in ordering this society further, it attests to a tremendous achievement that we have been able to establish that institution in order to protect the public from malpractices at all times. Therefore, I regard it as a great privilege to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the CP, too, supports this legislation. I think the motivation for this was explained in full by the hon. the Minister and in the comments of other hon. members. In my opinion, it is not necessary to comment any further.

Mr. Speaker, in order to remove any misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Rissik, I am rising to thank the hon. member for Brakpan on behalf of this side of the House. For the second time this afternoon this proves that we are good friends.

One of these days you will join me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this Bill. Certainly we agree with the procedure contained in clause 2 which streamlines what used to be a most involved way of determining the same thing. The scope of clause 3 in which the amendment broadens the purposes for which a grant could formerly be applied, must be a good thing because the science of law, legal practice and related matters are obviously growing. Virtually all we had previously was research into Roman Dutch Law and Dutch Law. Obviously today related sciences or practices would include medico-legal practices and a host of others. There is a far broader interpretation than there used to be in regard to the use of this grant. We will therefore be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.