Mr Chairman, to begin with I should just like to make a few remarks.

Hon members already know that Mr Fanie van der Merwe, the Director-General of Justice for the past four years, was appointed in January 1989 as head of the newly-founded Constitutional Development Service. It was with mixed feelings that the Department of Justice and I took leave of him after more than 30 years’ service with the Department of Justice. It is consequently a pleasure for me to announce that the hon the State President has awarded him the title of Senior Consultus, or senior advocate, on the grounds of his extensive legal knowledge and his practical contribution to the development of law in the Republic of South Africa. He is still applying this knowledge and this ability daily, and the aforementioned award is considered to be of practical importance for the application of the law in South Africa.

I might also mention that the hon the State President made similar awards in the past to the former Secretary of Justice, Adv Oberholzer, and the former Director-General of Justice, Adv Coetzer, SC. I wish to emphasise that this award to Mr Van der Merwe, as in the other cases as well, was based on the status he had attained in the eyes and experience of his contemporaries who have to do with the application of the law. It also gives me pleasure to announce that the hon the State President has awarded the title of Senior Consultus to two of South Africa’s best known and outstanding academics, Prof Johannes Christiaan de Wet—better known as J C de Wet—and Prof Ellison Kahn. As far as is known, this distinction has been awarded to only two other academics in the history of South Africa, namely George Wille and Eric Emmett, the last such award, that to Eric Emmett, having taken place between the years 1938 and 1945. I wish to place very strong emphasis on the fact that these awards were made on the basis of these two gentlemen’s proven knowledge of the law, their ability to apply their knowledge in practice, and their ability and achievements in conveying legal doctrines to others. Both gentlemen are renowned professors of law and have kept pace with the needs of the times. They are, of course, also admitted advocates.

In Mr Van der Merwe’s place I welcome today a well-known figure in Justice circles, Mr Jasper Noeth. Mr Noeth has been in the service of the Department of Justice for 31 years now. He was the chief researcher of the Hoexter Commission and also played a leading role in the implementation of the small claims courts. He is someone who strives for the accessibility of our courts and he is an eminent example of someone who concerns himself with the welfare of his officials. I have worked with him for many years and I look forward to a fruitful association with him.

I also welcome Mr J J du Plessis, better known as Hans du Plessis, as Deputy Director-General of Justice. At present he is in control of, inter alia, the Security Legislation Branch. He has been an attorney for approximately 30 years, in which time he has served for more than 20 years as a state attorney. During this period he was chief state attorney for three years. Due to his insight and experience he has already made his mark in our state administration and I bid him a hearty welcome.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has allocated the DP certain seating in this Chamber for this debate. Mr Chairman, as you will note we cannot seat our members as hon members of other political parties are sitting in the benches that were allocated to us. I would be very grateful if you could arrange that our seating is given to us.

Order! I do not think it behoves the Chairman of this Extended Public Committee to make the seating arrangements. This matter should be sorted out by the Whips and I leave it in their capable hands.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the words of congratulation conveyed by the hon the Minister to various people, and I wish to congratulate Mr Van der Merwe, Prof Kahn and Prof J C de Wet on the distinction they have attained. I am sure they will all be worthy of that distinction.

It is a particular pleasure for me to welcome Messrs Noeth and Du Plessis here. I can assure the hon the Minister that in those two people, he probably has some of the best material in the Public Service to assist him, and we are all proud of the fact that they are in the Department of Justice and that they have taken their places here.

I also wish to congratulate the honourable Mr Justice Corbett on his appointment as Chief Justice, and I also want to pay tribute on this occasion to Mr Justice Rabie who held that post for a long time.

I want to pay tribute to all judges, magistrates, officials, advocates, attorneys and law-abiding citizens who assisted in establishing a healthy administration of justice during the past year. When one praises hon members in this House, it would appear to me that one is holding a political funeral and for this reason the hon the Minister will forgive me, and will probably feel honoured if I do not praise him at this stage. We do not wish to get rid of him at this stage; we shall probably merely alter his portfolio to that of an ordinary member.

I want to say something about recess times in the Supreme Court. Confusion sometimes arises in that people think that when there is a recess in the Supreme Court, all work in the Supreme Court comes to a standstill. That is not so. Every judge performs at least a week or two of recess service regardless of how long the recess is. Another aspect is that when a recess arrives, there are always reserved judgments that first have to be finalised.

One must not lose sight of the great deal of reading which judges and magistrates have to do in their spare time, or of the reading in respect of the motions. In the TPD, for example, there were over 12 764 motions, and over 20 000 in the Witwatersrand. If one takes into account that that motion roll normally closes on a Friday afternoon and that those cases come up on Tuesday, this means that a judge has to prepare anything from 250 to 400 motions over a weekend. I can assure hon members that this means that he will seldom get out of the house.

Aside from this there are appeals and reviews. There are cases such as the Delmas case—if I may call it that—in which there were 23 000 pages of testimony and 20 000 pages of documentary evidence, and one can therefore imagine that a judge cannot do those enormous amounts of work if he is starting another case on the following day. In the Transvaal it works in such a way that the moment one case has been disposed of, the judge begins with the next case. He does not have time to prepare judgments. During the past year the regional magistrates spent 17 236 hours on the preparation of judgments alone.

It is a pleasure for me to repeat the same appeal I made last year. I am sorry that it has to be repeated. The appeal is for a better dispensation for registrars. According to the Hefer Report, approximately R23 000 is required to create a registrar’s post. Those people require expertise. They have to give rulings on valuations which can sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of rand. I really think they deserve a better deal in the Department of Justice.

A further aspect which I hope we shall not talk about next year either, apart from according it praise, is the Supreme Court Building in Pretoria. For a quite a number of years now we have been promised that a start is to be made on the building, and in the meantime it is costing the State a tremendous amount of money. The rental amounts to R687 336 per annum. Therefore, an amount in excess of R57 000 per month is at present being spent on the present Mutual & Federal Building.

Another aspect I should like to touch on, is the question of remission of sentences or convictions so that they will later no longer appear on a person’s record. As an example of this I am thinking of the young boy who has committed a theft of fruit or who, in his impetuosity, has committed a small offence, and 10 or 20 years later that same conviction still appears on his record of convictions. I should like to ask whether consideration could not be given to appointing a remission board of approximately three members. They could then investigate such cases and, in worthy cases, they could effect a total remission of such previous convictions.

This morning I also saw Commissioner Harms say on TV that we should not concern ourselves about corruption. I found this heartening and reassuring, just as heartening and reassuring as it would have been if a Std 8 girl had told her father: “Do not worry, Dad. I am only ever so slightly pregnant”.

I find it regrettable that a judge should have made a statement shortly before an election with regard to a subject which is apparently going to be a bone of contention in the political sphere during the election. The task of the commissioner was to investigate certain aspects of corruption. Many other commissions are investigating other aspects. We are grateful for the reports he has issued and for those he will yet issue. That completes his function. He may confidently leave the interpretation of his findings, insofar as they have political repercussions, to the public.

I think comparisons are odious and it is not fitting to compare a state of affairs in South Africa with one in Greece, for example, or the USA or other countries, as he did, because later we could come along and compare terrorism here with that in Northern Ireland or some South American states or Lebanon, for example, and say that it is not so bad here.

Next I should like to say something about the question of stock theft. In the South-Eastern Transvaal alone stock theft during the past year has been of such a nature that 3 510 cattle, 11 381 sheep and 1172 other stock were reported to the police at that unit as stolen. This entails damages of over R6 million. One must consider whether the penalties imposed for stock theft should not be reviewed, because apparently they do not form a deterrent to this particular crime, which is difficult to trace.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to explain to us whether it is policy, or when it is policy, and when it will be permissible for TV to make recordings in a court of law. In the years in which we have had experience of cases appearing in court, I have never come across an instance of an accused or prospective accused being shown, and of being able to look at how his parents react to this and to hear what he says. There is something I want to tell the hon the Minister—I am sure I shall not find him unsympathetic—and that is that this is not the type of thing we want in South Africa, because what applies to one today, could also apply to the other tomorrow, and I should not like to see us allow that type of cinema trial in South Africa.

I want to repeat what we asked for last year as well, namely that we should look at the extent to which Justice could be of assistance in the tracing mechanism in maintenance cases. Persons who evade their duty of maintenance towards their children are a burden to the State and are indeed not worthy of being called parents. I know we have spoken about the introduction of community service sentences. I am pleased that the hon the Minister has also made progress in this regard with the introduction of community service sentences, because it is no use sending such parents to jail and causing them to lose their jobs, or imposing fines on them, because in this way one still harms the child in the long run.

I am pleased to see that the question of surrogate motherhood is once again being investigated. I am also pleased that the statement which I made when that legislation was discussed, has now indeed been referred to the South African Law Commission. It is just fortunate that that legislation was not yet in operation, for otherwise those Tzaneen children would have been the legal children of their grandmother and grandfather and not of their biological father and mother. This must be looked into quickly before it is perhaps found later on that someone may marry his own child if it is his wife’s sister and the grandmother’s child.

Next I want to ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to the question of corruption in insolvent estates. I think he is aware of the fact that there are many complaints about this, in particular regarding the method which may be followed in respect of the realisation of the assets of an insolvent person. It is a fact that the curator or the liquidator may obtain a power of attorney to sell them by private treaty or to dispose of them in any other manner. I want to assure hon members of the fact that the public has a great number of complaints with regard to how the insolvent person’s assets are sold and what prices are paid when they are sold by private treaty, and even about tenders which are not brought to the attention of the public.

Something else which appeared in the newspapers during the past week, and particularly on Sunday—I am referring to the Sunday Tribune— is Mr Justice Didcott’s views on capital punishment. I would like to ask that we should not decide this aspect by way of newspaper reports. It is true that capital punishment is always a sensitive matter. However, if we were to do away with capital punishment, we would have to take great care not to have more “Screwdriver” Van der Merwe and Van der Westhuizen cases in society. I think the present system, namely that capital punishment is imposed for murder except in those instances in which the judge finds that the moral blameworthiness of the accused has been reduced, is a good system. This gives us legal certainty, a norm in accordance with which judges can work. Then we also still have the watchful eye of the Executive Council which can ensure that commutation or remission of the death sentence is extended in those instances in which they give the final decision after a thorough investigation and after considering facts which may not always come to light in a court case. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to take the opportunity in this debate to compliment the new Director-General of the Department of Justice and to welcome him. At the same time I want to pay tribute to the former Director-General, Mr S S van der Merwe, who rendered valuable services to the department. I also wish to compliment and congratulate the hon the Minister on the manner in which he runs this department. It is like a well-oiled machine which produces valuable results.

One of the important issues that the department has dealt with is the appointment of the Hoexter Commission which came up with some recommendations insofar as the Magistrates’ Courts Act is concerned. The Act was accordingly amended, which determined the monetary jurisdiction limits insofar as certain courses of action in the magistrates’ courts as well as punitive jurisdiction with regard to fines of lower courts are concerned. The hon the Minister did not merely leave it at that, but further reports followed and brought about further improvements to the magistrates’ courts. As a result, there is a Bill before the joint committee today, and I hope the Bill will come before Parliament for consideration.

The Bill that is before the joint committee protects members of the public from exploitation. It also makes provision for attorneys who are professionally qualified to attend to matters concerning collection. There are many firms that go about carrying out collections in respect of debtors’ matters and as a result it was found that quite a number of people lost money and were not professionally represented.

I also want to pay tribute to the chairman of the joint committee, Mr Schutte, and the members of his committee. This particular joint committee can be regarded as the engine-room of the Department of Justice. I think the valuable work done and particularly the guidance given by the chairman who is a highly qualified lawyer help considerably towards considering the various measures that come before the joint committee.

I also wish to pay tribute to some of the legal advisors who brief the committee on various measures that come before it. I make particular reference to Adv Rudman who has been rendering humane services as far as the department is concerned.

I also wish to refer to the small claims court which is a very important court as far as the poor and small man is concerned. I think the enactment of the legislation to initiate the small claims courts brought about immense relief to many people in the various communities. The people are satisfied.

I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to pay attention to the fact that there are a number of qualified Indian attorneys of long standing. I would be pleased if he would look into the question of appointing some of these attorneys as commissioners of the small claims courts.

The other point is that we have the Department of Justice in various districts. I want to refer to the particular district of Chatsworth where there are a number of Indians who are professionally employed. There are magistrates of long standing and who have been employed for a long time. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would look into the question of employing or upgrading some of the positions, particularly in regard to finding a senior magistrate for the district of Chatsworth.

I also want to compliment the hon the Minister on the manner in which he handled some of these commissions, particularly the Harms Commission. When a decision was made by the Attorney-General to withdraw charges against Ver-maas, his immediate action caused Vermaas to be put into the position where charges were preferred against him.

The other matter concerns the James Commission which sat in Durban and which did a valuable piece of work. The report was presented to Parliament on 15 January. The report is with the Attorney-General. I would like to see if there are any criminal proceedings in the matter and would like the hon the Minister to see that such proceedings are brought before the court at the earliest.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for his kind words.

*With reference to what the hon member for Bethal said in respect of Mr Justice Harms, I merely want to tell him that all Mr Justice Harms did was to issue a warning against overreacting in respect of corruption. That is in fact what the hon member for Bethal did today without referring to the merits. It is a sad day when a judge can no longer express a general opinion about offences. I shall address him later on my speech on the matter of corruption.

I also want to congratulate our new Director-General, Mr Noeth, very much and welcome him to his new post. I want to assure him of the co-operation of this side of the House in his new post. I cannot but follow the hon the Minister and express our thanks to the former Director-General, Mr Fanie van der Merwe. Mr Van der Merwe really left his mark in the department. He has a calm and unbiased thoroughness which cannot easily be equalled. As such he is a sought after person and we can understand that another department needs him. Unfortunately this was not a promotion, because I cannot see how a transfer from this department can be a promotion. We nevertheless wish him everything of the best in his new position.

†We have not only lost a director-general but we have also lost the former spokesman on justice for the PFP, the hon member for Sandton. I cannot but also thank him for his contribution. In this House we have disagreed more often than we have agreed but he certainly made a very substantial contribution—especially in the past few years—on a number of issues and we must thank him for that.

I would also like to welcome the new spokesman for the DP, the hon member for Berea, as well as the hon member for Bonteheuwel and the hon member Mr Thaver, who are also new spokesmen in this debate.

*What particularly struck me when I read through the annual report was the tremendous reform which has taken place in the legal sphere in recent years. This covers a very wide field, from the greater accessibility of the courts, cheaper litigation made possible by the increase in jurisdictional limits, the simplification of procedures by means of far-reaching reform in respect of the status of women, children and persons in general, right up to the law of evidence. These matters will be debated by the hon members for Umbilo, Sundays River and Vryburg, as will further amendments and reforms which must be accomplished.

The point I should like to make is that the South African Law Commission played a very big role in this reform. However, if it had not been for the initiative and the supervision of the hon the Minister in this connection, it would definitely not have got very far. I therefore want to submit that most of the recognition for this reform must go to the hon the Minister, and we must thank him for that.

This brings me to the Joint Committee on Justice, and I should also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of this joint committee for their contributions during the past year We frequently disagreed. I think we tried to keep politics out of the committee. We argued rationally and I believe we achieved better legislation. During the past three years we have dealt with no fewer than 28 pieces of legislation, and as such we must be one of the more productive joint committees in Parliament. For that reason I also want to thank Advocates Rudman and Nel most sincerely for the contributions they made to cause the business of this committee to function so smoothly.

Something else which strikes one in the annual report is that unlike past annual reports it does not only refer to the historic activities of the department. It also places emphasis on on-going, present and expected activities. This is to be welcomed, because it gives a more comprehensive and dynamic picture of the activities of the department.

Another matter which definitely draws attention is the major role which the department plays in respect of liaison with the TBVC states, the self-governing states and Swaziland. Apart from liaison in respect of legal professions which they support, there is also legal reform which is co-ordinated, but the biggest role they play is to provide these states with manpower and legal training. The hon member for Bloemfontein North will refer specifically to the staff aspect.

With regard to training I was particularly struck by the actions of the Attorney-General of Johannesburg and the Attorney-General of Natal, who are giving training to less experienced prosecutors. This must be encouraged, because it is an extremely efficient and practically orientated form of in-service training which is also economical because it takes place on the spot.

Another aspect which must be mentioned again, and with extreme gratitude, is the increase in productivity in the department. Proof of this is found in the fact that during the past year criminal cases increased by 5,5%, although the establishment did not increase. In the Masters’ Offices 46% more accounts were received in the year under review, whereas in this regard the establishment did not increase significantly either.

One member of the legal family one still misses in the annual report is the Deeds Office. The law of things remains a very important part of our legal system and I want to express the hope that this arm of our law will soon be incorporated in this department again. I believe that the staff of the Deeds Office would also like to return to this department.

Last year we took cognisance with great appreciation of the initiative of the General Council of the Bar to convene a big legal conference. Many matters were addressed, including high legal costs. I also feel that this Council must take cognisance of the contribution of the Bar in this connection. They act as pro Deo advocates for very low fees, they work for reduced fees in legal aid cases and free of charge at the request of the court. If one looks at the annual report there were almost 2 800 judges’ certificate cases and a large number of these were defended free of charge by advocates.

The one matter I have no doubt about is that the Bar will have to re-assess and rearrange its structure. I am disappointed that there are no signs of this yet. A few years ago the Smuts report made a few recommendations which could not be implemented owing to the unstructured nature of this profession. As far as I know the advocate’s profession is the only profession in the country for which there are two admission qualifications, as well as two codes of ethics which apply to it.

As regards qualifications, one can only practise as an advocate with an LL B, or if one joins a Bar, one must have an LL B, serve one’s articles and also write an examination. Only in the second case, when one is a member of a Bar, does one fall under its codes of ethics. In the other case, the advocate does not fall under that code of ethics. I submit that this is an unacceptable state of affairs. The Bar will have to put its house in order. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not want to discuss this with the Bar.

There should be only one qualification for admission, namely the academic qualification plus articles and an examination, as well as a possible period of practical experience with a recognised Bar. In addition there should only be one control body, and this should be the Bar Council or, if they do not want to do this, it should be a statutory body. However, if the people comply with this, they should be given reasonable freedom to practise in other places in our country too.

Our country is vast. We are not like England which manages with a few Bars. We have a tremendous manpower problem. For the sake of the profession I believe that this reregulating must take place.

†Two matters have dominated the judicial arena in the past few months. They have been the Law Commission’s report on human rights and the debate on corruption. The very important report of the Law Commission will be dealt with by the hon members for Roodeplaat and Sundays River. I wish to refer to the corruption allegations which I would submit are very pertinent to this debate, because they are basically an accusation that the State and the Government is unable to deal with criminal activity in its midst.

In the past few months there has been an unprecedented clamour about corruption. Time and again allegations were made that the Government was unable to deal with corruption and that it was not serious about its commitment to clean administration. The opposition parties thrived on the wildest allegations and scandalmongering. The last two of four reports dealing with this matter were tabled here a few weeks ago.

Since then there has been a marked silence from the opposition parties here and in the Press in dealing with the specific findings of the reports and the Government’s actions in dealing with the alleged corruption. There may have been one or two smear references, as we have seen here this morning, but there has been no attempt do deal with the findings or the Government’s actions on their merits. [Interjections.]

I would submit that this is very strange, because now we have all the facts on the table. Now is the time to deal in detail with these matters—here in Parliament—and yet this is not done. [Interjections.]

There can be only one inference from this, and that is that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegation that the Government is either corrupt or unable to deal with corruption. [Interjections.] The lack of criticism on the merits at this stage is proof that the Government and the hon the State President are sincerely committed to clean administration and the eradication of corruption; not only are they committed, but they have also done everything in their power to expose and deal with corruption. [Interjections.]

*What are the facts? As regards the Harms Commission, it has been found that no Minister or government official was guilty of corruption. The behaviour of the Reserve Bank, the Registrar of Banks and the Receiver of Revenue was criticised. It was found that there was negligence, and an investigation was ordered.

However, what must be said is that the behaviour of the Reserve Bank and the Registrar of Banks was disappointingly ineffective. Why did they have to wait until the hon the Minister of Justice had reacted to press reports before taking effective action?

As regards the report of the Advocate-General, it was found that the State had not been prejudiced; on the contrary, it had probably benefited, because the relevant building was leased for R8 per square metre and not R9,50 per square metre, which was Sanlam’s offer.

Nor was there any proof of corruption as regards the former Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs, Mr Du Plessis. Certain improper actions were identified, but the State was not prejudiced. For example, no diamond concessions were issued to the relevant company.

Recommendations were also made that the Guidelines for Ministers should be improved and a code of ethics should be drafted, as well as that there were shortcomings in the Commissions Act and the Banks Act. This was indicated and is receiving attention.

Now that the four reports have been submitted and the evidence is on the table, the bona fides of the Government must be tested. [Interjections.] The test is whether the Government recoiled from exposing this alleged corruption with all the instruments at its disposal. It could have done so. It could have done so by preventing investigations from being instituted or the findings from being made known, or criminal prosecutions from ensuing.

Precisely the opposite happened. [Interjections.] The Vermaas case is an example of this. In spite of the fact that Mr Vermaas has friends in high places, the hon the Minister of Justice initiated the investigation personally. In the other case the Advocate-General—an office created by this Government—took the initiative. The investigations were carried out as soon as possible. The Harms report was produced within approximately four months and the Advocate-General’s report within approximately six months. The relevant cases have already been referred to the Attorney-General for criminal proceedings to be instituted, and the Government has already reacted to several recommendations.

Not one of the relevant members of the NP is still in Parliament. These investigations were undertaken, the steps were taken and the information was published, with speed and urgency and, what is more, on the eve of an election. Is this the behaviour of a Government which wants to conceal something, or of an honest Government which does not hesitate to take action against alleged improprieties? [Interjections.] Of course this is the case.

The NP Press—that Press which is loyal to this Government—also played a big role in bringing this case out into the open and having it investigated. They must be thanked for this. Yet again, is this the behaviour or the actions of a party or its press which wants to cover something up? [Interjections.] Anything but!

After all this—if the facts on the table must be assessed—one thing is clear, namely that the hon the State President and this Government have kept their promise with regard to clean administration, as regards these case too. The Government must get credit for that.

If there are still people who doubt the bona fides of the Government after these reports, they must speak now while the evidence is on the table. They must indicate where the Government did not do its duty of bringing these cases out into the open. If they do not do so now and make the wildest allegations later on, everyone must know that this is only being done with a view to petty political gain and is without any merit.

Mr Chairman, we in South Africa are at a stage where racialism will have to go and should be a thing of the past. I am grateful for our Law Commission. It is a highly respected body and it is doing excellent work. This afternoon I would like to address the aspect of a bill of rights for our country.

There is a growing feeling that such a Bill is necessary for our country. It is a good idea to put the basic freedom rights of people in a new constitution for our country so that people will feel that South Africa is an upholder of freedom and democracy.

Presently, however, it is not a true democracy. South Africa is not a true democracy because the majority of South Africans are not represented in this Parliament. Basic human rights are being denied to the masses of our country.

I am not saying that a bill of rights will be a magic formula to solve our problems. However, it would be a good start because apartheid has taken away the rights of the Black individuals. These rights must be restored in a new constitution.

A bill of rights is only the top of a pyramid but it cannot be put there if the base of the pyramid is still rotten. [Interjections.] I am saying that I got here on a constitution that is not accepted by my party; this present Constitution is not even accepted by the NP, and therefore the hon the Minister is also talking about a new constitution. Hon members must be careful when they talk of how we got here. The present Constitution is not acceptable to the masses of South Africa and is no longer acceptable to the NP. [Interjections.] It is because this Constitution is no longer acceptable to the NP that they are asking for another constitition.

Order! I think the hon member for Dysselsdorp is shouting far too loudly in this Chamber. This is the last time he will be allowed to do so.

Mr Chairman, you must forgive him. He is a little hard of hearing and that is why he speaks loudly.

Order! I have already forgiven him. I will not do so next time.

Mr Chairman, that is where the problem lies in South Africa. The present Constitution is based on apartheid. The hon member says that it is not based on apartheid. It is based on apartheid because it is based on the colour of a person’s skin. This apartheid base will have to be removed as a priority or otherwise the Government will lose the nonviolent group in the South African Parliament. Thus, talk of a bill of rights when the masses do not have freedom is futile.

A bill of rights must be seen as a mark of victory for the freedom of the masses. It must be respected by most of the people. For the implementation of Project 58 of the Law Commission the Government would have to release Mandela and others so that the Government could initiate the process and invite a broad spectrum of political groups to make their contribution to a new constitution which has embodied in it a bill of rights. A National Convention is imperative for South Africa. A new bill of rights would mean nothing and would die a quick death if the Government itself were to propose one for South Africa. Hon members should think just what a bill of rights could do for South Africa—and not only for South Africa, but also for Africa, where 98% of its citizens do not have individual rights. We should become the leaders of freedom in Africa. This is where I say the NP could help and take a lead, because I do not believe that the Afrikaner group wants to keep rights away from individuals. This is why the Afrikaner group is saying: Let us look at a new South Africa … [Interjections.] Now we are saying to those hon members …

Order! There seems to be a conversation between the hon member for Addo and another hon member whom I cannot see clearly. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that hon members who wish to conduct a conversation can do so outside where they will not disrupt an hon member’s speech. I wish to tell hon members that we cannot continue in this way and I shall be obliged to request hon members who act in this fashion to leave the Chamber. I am not prepared to allow random conversations—if I may put it like that—to take place here. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, a bill of rights is important for South Africa because certain Whites in this country feel that they are superior because they are White. Some Whites cannot imagine themselves having the same rights as their so-called subjects, the Blacks. Respect for human rights is not only the individual’s responsibility, but also the responsibility of the Government. Human rights will have to be recognised, respected, protected and promoted for the sake of a new South Africa and for its survival. [Interjections.] If we want life, happiness, success and prosperity in South Africa, we should work for a new constitution which has embodied in it a bill of rights. A new constitution should ensure limitations on the Government and the State President so that the human rights of our country and its people are not raped.

I would like to mention another point or two. Other hon members might look at it, but I would like the hon the Minister to request the Law Commission to take another look at capital punishment in South Africa. It should also look at the national symbols of South Africa, namely its flag and national anthem. I believe that these things will be important in a new South Africa because I would like to be identified with a flag and I would like to identify myself with a national anthem which I feel is part of South Africa as a whole.

I would like to address one aspect which has caused an uproar in the House of Assembly, namely Mr Justice Jan Strydom. Information has it that this gentleman has six criminal records … [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member to discuss a judge in this Chamber without a special debate having been requested for that purpose. The hon member must go on to another point.

Mr Chairman, I will go on to another point, but I just want to say that it is important—and I am not naming any judge’s name right now—that the judges in our country have the respect of all the citizens of this country.

Therefore any judge, whoever he may be, should never be found guilty and be sentenced to six months’ hard labour for stealing a motorcar. Any judge, whoever that judge may be, must not be found guilty of breaking the emergency regulations and be put in prison for having an unlicensed firearm. Any judge, whoever that judge may be, must not have the right to sentence a White farmer, whoever that farmer may be, to a suspended sentence for murdering a Black farm worker.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member should obey your ruling.

Order! It has become very evident to whom the hon member is referring and he is circumventing my decision. If he wants to continue in that vein I will have to ask him to resume his seat. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, in the minute I have left before I take my seat I want to address the question of capital punishment.

I heard what the hon members said here earlier. One must realise, however, that we do not live in a fully democratic society in South Africa. The South African courts command the highest respect worldwide. Even the most radical of radical parties respects our courts. However, we need to look at the problem. While we are in the interim phase of looking at a new constitution we need to look at the legislation dealing with capital punishment. We have to do this because people, the so-called Black majority, feel they are put on trial by a court in terms of an Act into which they had no input. I want the hon the Minister to look into that.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to associate my party with the comments which have been made relating to the changes in the department, and I want to wish the officials concerned success and happiness in their future activities.

At this stage I would also like to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, for his kind comments regarding the fact that I am now the new spokesman on justice for the DP. I am grateful to him for those comments.

There are two main issues I want to deal with this afternoon. The first has been dealt with by the previous speaker to some extent. It is the Law Commission’s report and recommendation in respect of a bill of rights and I want to welcome this recommendation and commend it to all concerned.

I have noted the warning given by the hon the Minister recently at a public function that the recommendations of the Law Commission on this issue should not be politicised by political parties. While I agree with him that the concept of the protection of individual rights is a noble one which should be considered objectively on a high level, I must point out that it is not a matter which can be isolated from political discussion and debate.

That is something different.

The hon the Minister says it is something different. I am glad he concedes that. There are four reasons why I think it cannot be isolated from political discussion and political debate.

Firstly, it is in itself not a new concept. We in this party and its predecessors have advocated a bill of rights for South Africa for thirty years and more. It has been and is a cornerstone of our constitutional policy and so we do deal with it from political platforms and will continue to do so.

Many other organisations, conferences and in-dabas have also advocated bills of rights through the years, right up to the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba two years ago.

Internationally it is a widely accepted concept as an essential part of many constitutions of many countries. We know the USA has had a bill of rights for centuries, and most newer Western democracies have followed suit. Therefore it is clearly not a new concept and there are almost “standard models” of bills of rights available for study, research and adoption. The recommendations of the Law Commission are not much different from these models but they are nonetheless very welcome.

The second reason why one cannot isolate a bill of rights from political discussion is that these recommendations come from a law commission operating under a government which has been in power for over forty years and which during that period has made inroad upon inroad year after year upon the rights of individuals in this country to the extent that it has made us a pariah amongst the nations of the world. It has denied individuals their freedom of speech, it has denied them freedom of movement, it has denied them freedom of association, it has denied individuals freedom of access to the courts, and the principles of habeas corpus have been placed on a backburner or abandoned so often—as we see if we look at the history of South Africa over the past forty years.

All this has been done within the framework of a constitution which has given the individual no protection whatsoever against the power of the State and the zealots who have comprised its racist Government over the past four decades.

And so we must not be surprised if there is more than usual interest when the commission recommends the concept of a Bill of Human Rights to such a government with such a dark record in regard to matters affecting human rights.

The third reason why a bill of rights cannot be excluded from political discussion and debate is that this Government has through the years poured scorn on the notion of a bill of rights and its effectiveness in preserving and protecting the rights of individuals. Year after year in the sixties, the seventies and the eighties in debates in Parliament Nat spokesmen have scorned Bills of Rights saying that they were mere pieces of paper which could be torn up by the ruling party at any time and which could therefore afford no real protection to individuals. That is part of the history of the situation as far as the governing party is concerned.

We will wait anxiously and hopefully to see whether the Nat leopard can in fact change its spots on this vital issue for South Africa.

Do you agree with the report?

Yes, it is a standard bill of rights and not only do we welcome it but we also agree with it.

A fourth reason why these recommendations must be of more than usual interest and must attract political comment is that it is very difficult, of course, to see how a bill of rights can be reconciled with traditional and basic Nat policies which so often are themselves a denial of these very rights. Certainly a bill of rights in the classical sense is a mechanism which is introduced to protect individual rights per se and not group rights except where their transgression constitutes a transgression of individual rights.

One wonders, for example, how the Government will reconcile the operation of the Group Areas Act with the operation of a bill of rights. Every time an individual is evicted from an area or premises or denied access to an area or premises because of the colour of his skin it will be a denial of individual human rights.

One wonders also how they will administer the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Here too, every time an individual is denied access to a public park or a park bench because of the colour of his skin it will be a denial of basic human rights.

And so one can go on citing the effect of various racial measures which the Nats have placed on the Statute Book as those effects are seen against the protection of individual human rights. I believe there will have to be drastic changes in Government policy and Government thinking before the spirit of the operation of a classical bill of rights can be felt in South Africa and can be made effective in reality.

Certainly, so long as individuals are denied the right to voluntary association and are forced by legislation into groups and thereafter to suffer discrimination as between one group and another, one will have a situation which is irreconcilable with the real operation of a bill of rights within such a society.

And so while we welcome wholeheartedly the concept of a bill of individual human rights and while we believe it essential in our society, it must be pointed out that such a step will have to be preceded by fundamental changes in Government attitudes and Government thinking reflected by the abandonment of laws and concepts which have done so much to destroy individual rights in South Africa over the past forty years.

So I trust that the hon the Minister will see that while the concept of a bill of rights is to be welcomed, it cannot be discussed and considered without reference to the society in which it is going to operate, and this must inevitably mean that there will be political debate as to its merits and the consequences of its operation. We in the DP hope that changes will be brought about in the South African society which can make a bill of human rights a powerful mechanism in bringing to the individual the protection which is so necessary in a modern society.

The second issue I want to deal with is the question of capital punishment and the operation of the death penalty in this country. I know that the question of capital punishment has been the subject of intensive discussion and debate in many countries around the world over a number of years. I realise that there are strong views for and against the operation of the death penalty and its efficacy in operating not only as a punishment for capital crimes but also as a deterrent in respect of violent crimes being committed in the future by others.

I am aware that in South Africa capital punishment has been part of our legal system throughout our history. I believe, however, that apart from the moral principles involved, vitally important as they are, the circumstances in this country now and in the immediate future are such that the whole vexed question should be reviewed. It is time a judicial commission was appointed to look into the use of capital punishment in South Africa, and I would urge the hon the Minister to give consideration to the appointment of such a commission without delay.

It has been reported that in this country more than 1 000 people have been executed since 1980. This is a staggering figure in any circumstances. More than 1 000 people in this country have been executed since 1980! The annual average of executions in South Africa has risen sharply from 21 per annum during the period 1910 to 1947 to a situation where in 1987 it reached an all-time high of 164. As I have said, 1 000 executions have taken place since 1980. I want to submit that at a time when we are at pains to show our own community and the international community at large that we are intent upon upholding civilised standards in South Africa, the high incidence of executions is actually giving credence to the belief that we are in fact a very primitive society meting out primitive justice in our community. It serves no other purpose.

I know it is claimed by those who support capital punishment that we live in a violent society, and that those who commit crimes of violence have got to be violently punished. They have got to pay the extreme penalty in order to deter others from committing similar crimes of violence. This argument is frequently used. I want to submit that this argument is not in accordance with the facts. Evidence elsewhere has shown that in Western Europe and Canada, where capital punishment has been abolished, and the United States of America where it is restricted, there has been no significant increase in violent crimes as a result. No one in his right mind can condone violence of any kind, whether it is social or political violence. Of course it has to be punished. However, the incidence of violent crime in South Africa cannot be used to justify capital punishment as a deterrent.

Why do we have the high crime rate in this country? Is it just an abnormally high violence rate in an otherwise normal society? We know it is not so. That is not the answer. The real truth is that the abnormally high violence rate in South Africa indicates the prevalence of conditions in the country that cannot be cured by capital punishment. It is far too simplistic a view to think that it can be. The death penalty can never be considered to be the ultimate deterrent in South Africa because the violence it seeks to curb is, whether we like it or not, often the result of social conditions in this country. It is often the result of poverty, deprivation, frustration and feelings of oppression which are endemic in this abnormal society.

I believe that there is a very powerful case indeed to be made for the appointment of a judicial commission to review the whole situation and the whole operation of the death penalty in South Africa. I would urge the hon the Minister in this debate to respond to my appeal and appoint that commission without delay.

I think these matters are of vital concern to South Africa, and I shall look forward to the hon the Minister’s reply with interest.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations addressed to the new Director-General, Mr Noeth, as well as to other persons mentioned by the hon the Minister. I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the Director-General for creating a regional court at Vryburg in my constituency within the area of the Northern Cape regional division.

As a member of the joint committee I want to express my thanks to the chairman for the effective way in which he arranges the committee’s business, and that he was the one who was instrumental in ensuring that politics was not dragged into the business of this joint committee.

The previous speaker, the hon member for Berea, as well as the hon member for Bonte-heuwel, referred to the death penalty and appealed for it to be abolished. I want to say, in the first place, that as regards reform and the present, constitutional set-up in this country, the NP has committed itself to reform in all spheres. Reform is a process which will be continued. However, we cannot want to change the legal system simply because we are in the process of changing the present constitutional dispensation satisfactorily for all the population groups. Nor can we compare executions in 1910 with those in 1987, as the hon member for Berea sought to do. We cannot do so without also considering the population structure in 1910 and that in 1987.

It is also of no avail for the hon member for Berea to tell us that the death penalty has been abolished in certain countries, if he cannot explain to us why there is such a clamour in Britain for the reintroduction of the death penalty.

I do not think the death penalty should be politicised. I think it is a pity that this aspect has been broached today. This is a sensitive matter which must be approached with responsibility and realism. It cannot be handled in an emotional way. There have been appeals for its abolition, but there have also been appeals for the retention of the death penalty, and I want to make so bold as to say that the majority are in favour of it. I want to associate myself fully with the sentiment that the death penalty should be retained.

I should like to refer to a survey made by Mark-en Meningsopname which was published in Rapport, 11 December 1988. In this survey it was found that only 5,8% of the specific target group approached was in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, 73,8% was in favour of its being retained in its present form, and 19,6% was in favour of the death penalty only being imposed in special circumstances.

When serious cases of rape and murder have been committed, one finds, particularly when these cases have been reported in the media, that various people and organisations spontaneously appeal for the retention of the death penalty. People who appeal for the abolition of the death penalty are too inclined to see the condemned person in isolation without considering the nature and the circumstances of the crime.

However, there is well-meaning criticism and proposals in this connection, and I want to refer to a few cases. Hon members will recall that the former Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rabie, advocated a discretion in respect of the imposition of the death penalty after an accused had been convicted of murder. Hon members will also recall that Judge Van den Heever made an appeal as long ago as 1981 for a discretion for the judge in imposing the death penalty after an accused has been found guilty of murder. She asked whether the legislature could not trust the courts to exercise a discretion in this case in the same way that the courts are trusted by the legislature to exercise a discretion when passing sentence in other cases.

I am referring to these proposals and schools of thought merely to indicate that views can be exchanged on this matter in a positive way. There is also another school of thought, namely that there must be an automatic right of appeal to the Appeal Court when the death penalty is imposed.

However, I want to ask the hon the Minister that when he adopts a standpoint on this matter he should adopt a standpoint against the abolition of the death penalty and that he should rather consider adjusting it. The demands of the community in principle for its retention may not be ignored.

I want to refer to another matter, namely the handling of the child witness. It has always been the standpoint of the courts that they should protect the child witness during cross-examination. However, the fact remains that there are still certain problems which are not addressed by the courts, their rules or the statutory legislation, for example when a child appears in court and he must see the accused face to face again, this can result in his recalling the previous experience and his appearance in court can be as traumatic for the child as the incident itself.

Court proceedings are of a formal nature and frequently the child is not put at ease. The credibility of a child’s evidence is linked to the application of the cautionary rule. In view of this I am grateful that the hon the Minister has instructed the South African + Law Commission to investigate the giving of evidence by children in which allegations of indecent acts are at issue and that, in particular, consideration should be given to the following possible protective measures and procedures.

Firstly, a child who gives evidence at a hearing must be assisted by a representative. Secondly, the identification of a suspect by a child must not take place in open court, but from behind a one-way mirror. Thirdly, the evidence of a child must be heard in an informal atmosphere which includes the hearing of such evidence in a room other than a court of law and which also includes the possibility of hearing the evidence of the child while the child is screened by a one-way mirror or in the absence of the accused.

Fourthly, pre-trial questioning of the child must be undertaken by a psychiatrist appointed by the court who is entitled to convey his opinion on the child’s credibility to the court, and that such questioning must take place in consultation with the accused, the prosecution and the presiding officer. Fifthly, video recordings of interviews between the child and a social worker must be allowed in court during the examination stage of the case and must be made available to the accused prior to the hearing.

Lastly, I want to refer to certain factors in the present law of criminal procedure which leave room for abuse. The fact is that cases which are delayed, are mainly delayed owing to the following factors.

In the first place there is the calling of unnecessary witnesses in criminal cases. Frequently evidence is given in full and it then becomes apparent that what was actually presented by the witness or witnesses, was common cause between the parties. There is also a lengthy cross-examination of witnesses, and all too often when the questioner is asked about his cross-examination he replies that he is testing the credibility of the witness or that it will soon become apparent what the purpose of his cross-examination is. Then there is also the taking of all possible points in limine, which is not necessarily in the interests of the defence, but is rather aimed at discrediting the administration of justice as such.

There is also another factor, and this concerns the unnecessary attacks and arguments in connection with charge sheets, jurisdiction and other matters. Frequently such a case literally drags on for months before it begins to be heard on its own merits. The basis of the defence is not revealed during plea proceedings and matters in dispute are therefore not identified beforehand. When the ownership of stolen livestock is not at issue, for example, it is unnecessary for the owner of the livestock to travel hundreds of kilometres in some cases to give evidence, and then not be asked any questions during cross-examination. That element could have been admitted, as could medical evidence in cases of culpable homicide. The question arises why 10 witnesses must travel long distances to give evidence when only one witness is sufficient to settle the actual dispute between the parties.

Publicity on court cases is allowed before a party has been afforded an opportunity to reply to allegations made against him. Cases are frequently heard in which unfounded allegations or allegations which have not yet been tested in a court of law receive such publicity, and in which that party then suffers untold damage. What is more, appeals against findings or orders of lower courts are frequently noted merely in order to suspend the relevant sentence or order pending the disposal of the appeal.

If a court interferes in criminal proceedings in a justifiable attempt to speed up the course of the hearing, that court is accused of being impatient or of entering the arena. In view of this the question arises, as has rightly been remarked, whether cross-examination is not being elevated into a sacred cow, whether the courts should not be able to intervene under certain circumstances and whether the questioner cannot be requested to explain the relevance of his question even if this reveals the goal he wants to achieve, even if he must give the explanation in the absence of the witness.

The point I want to make is whether it should not be possible for the trial judge to be able to take action in good time and immediately to bring a lengthy and unnecessary cross-examination to a head. I think a very important issue in criminal cases is that there should be pre-trial discussions so that this can help to identify points at issue and the facts which are common cause. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give attention to this problem.

A similar problem also arises in civil cases, particularly in the magistrate’s court. What is or could be common cause, is placed at issue, simply to see whether the party cannot perhaps benefit from this. In the case of motor vehicle accidents expert witnesses must come to court at great expense to give evidence, and then it becomes apparent that their evidence is not disputed. Pre-trial discussions to identify points at issue in the presence of the presiding officer should be applied in all cases to shorten hearings.

In conclusion I want to remark that the magistrates in civil courts are able, with the thorough training they at present receive, to handle increased jurisdiction successfully and that on this basis they can eventually keep cases from the Supreme Court, by trying them themselves. I see on page 23 of the annual report that two courses for the training of magistrates are being presented so that they can hear civil cases. I think it would be a good thing if this training could be extended so that more magistrates would have the opportunity to undertake the hearing of civil cases.

As regards the law of civil procedure I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether there has been any progress or developments since the discussion at Jan Smuts Airport.

Mr Chairman, I want to pledge my strongest support to the aspect covered by the hon member for Vryburg concerning the protection of child witnesses, and express the hope that the South African Law Commission, to which this matter has been referred for investigation, report on it as soon as possible. I believe that in the times we are living in, where the whole phenomenon of child molestation has been exposed, it is extremely important for child witnesses to be granted the utmost protection.

I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed to the officials who have been promoted, and express the hope that they will have a very beneficial term of office.

†The spirit of my contribution is in line with the opening paragraph of the report of the department, namely:

It could not be more true. It is therefore very welcome that the Law Commission looks at adaptations from time to time in order to cater for such a rapidly changing society as ours. The most recent reports of the Law Commission bear testimony thereto.

I would now like to turn to a matter which I believe is responsible for the alienation of communities and peoples and here I wish to refer to prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act of 1966.

I realize that the group areas branch of the South African Police do the investigations and, having done the investigations, they present these to the prosecutors in the various centres. This is where the Department of Justice comes in. There was a lull as far as prosecutions were concerned for a considerable period. However, it would seem now that the storms have arrived. In this respect I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to realise that people of colour have not moved into White areas because there is a feeling within them to challenge the law. There are a number of factors which lead to the tendency of people to move into White areas.

Firstly, statistics will prove that there is an over-supply of housing for White people whilst there is a tremendous shortage of housing for communities of colour. In the past decade there has been a tendency for Whites to move out to newer suburbs from inner cores of cities and towns, and many foreigners have returned to their countries of origin, whilst we have also experienced a reasonable amount of emigration. The vacuum which was thus created was filled by people of colour who were desperately yearning for accommodation. In short, it was also a question of supply and demand and we maintain that market forces dictate this sort of behaviour which has nothing to do with colour, caste or creed.

*Recently there have been numerous prosecutions, especially in our metropolises. In this respect I want to address a serious, but courteous request to the department to handle this matter with the greatest circumspection and consideration. The perception among the general public is that the Act is unfair and that seeking a roof over a family’s head should not be regarded as a misdemeanour.

Hon members are aware of the emotions usually roused by this Act. In Johannesburg in particular there are numerous prosecutions at present. Since the Free Settlement Board is going to undertake a number of investigations in terms of the Act agreed to by the President’s Council last year, I want to request that the prosecutions be stopped and the problem rather be seriously addressed in order to find a lasting solution which will make everyone happy.

Immediately.

Immediately, yes. As a member of the Cabinet, the hon the Minister can take part in such solutions.

Prosecutions are going to lead to alienation and will make a farce of the Government’s so-called reform initiatives. Let us all become part of a process of uniting everyone in a common South Africanism, and let this unfetter a spirit of fairness. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to another matter that is also assuming serious proportions. That is the increase in drug traffic and, of course, child molestation. In my home town, where there is a drastic shortage of accommodation, which gives rise to all kinds of social problems, a survey was recently made among our school-going young people by one of Sanca’s social workers. The results were alarming.

In a random check of 116 Std 6 pupils, 30 used some or other form of liquor or drugs or sniffed glue. Out of 142 Std 7 pupils, 49 had had the same experience, and out of 125 Std 8 pupils, 43 had had this experience. When one comes to Std 9 pupils, the picture is shocking. Out of 165 pupils, no fewer than 92 had had experiences of this kind. What we have to contend with here is a whole generation of young people who could be drug addicts.

Although it is important to launch preventive campaigns, an aspect which may reside with other departments, it is equally important that no mercy be shown to drug pedlars who are caught. In my opinion the present punishments upon conviction do not have the necessary effect. They are not harsh enough. Fines imposed on such people are like pocket money to many of them. A R10 000 fine is like an evening in a restaurant to a drug smuggler. It means nothing to him.

Perhaps we should impose the death sentence.

In certain respects I do not think the death sentence is necessary. Nevertheless those people are slowly murdering children. If one shoots someone, that person has little suffering. Nevertheless, I believe that one could consider the death sentence as a punishment for such smugglers, given the kind of suffering they cause these young people. The hon the Minister must consider possibly increasing punishments. Perhaps long-term imprisonment is a possible solution. A fine is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, because these people make thousands and thousands of rands, and to pay a fine of a few thousand rands is nothing to them.

I should also like to refer to the commission which the hon member for Berea appealed for. Perhaps a commission could also be appointed to consider this serious matter. These smugglers are prepared to destroy our young people for the sake of financial gain. It is sad to see the young addicts, especially when they are under the influence of drugs. It is worse than murder, because this is a question of painful suffering. I want to thank those who work with such addicts for their dedicated work.

There is an organisation of this kind in my home town under the leadership of a Dr M E Ballah, who spends more time on these people than on his own practice. He and his people are to be complimented. They have a difficult task, and I believe that there are dedicated citizens in other parts of the country who are also waging this difficult struggle. For that reason I appeal for such smugglers to be given longer terms of imprisonment.

The same thing applies to child molesters. So far this phenomenon has emerged in the higher income groups, and in some cases has involved even well-known and prominent personalities. I suggest that a fine will not have the necessary effect in this case either. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to make a few comments on what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said. He said inter alia that the Government could have prevented a whole lot of things from happening with reference to corrupt practices.

If I understood and heard him correctly, he also said that the Government could have prevented criminal prosecution from taking place. If he said that, I should like to ask the hon the Minister how it is possible for the Government to have prevented criminal prosecutions from taking place or being instituted in this connection.

In the second place the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the Advocate-General’s report with reference to former Minister Pietie du Plessis. I want to make a few short comments about that. In the first place there is one thing we can be sure of in the midst of a great deal of uncertainty, and that is—I want to assure the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North of this—that we have not heard the last word on this matter.

In the last place I should like to refer to the press release issued by the hon the Minister of Justice with reference to the Advocate-General’s finding on former Minister Pietie du Plessis. I say the following with respect, because I respect the hon the Minister of Justice. I must tell him, however, that the statement he issued does not correspond with the essential findings of the Advocate-General. In fact, the statement issued by the hon the Minister could even be construed as misleading.

I want to refer to only one example in this connection. I could refer to five examples and make them available to the hon the Minister. One of the findings made by the Advocate-General to which the hon the Minister does not refer at all in his press release is the following one which I shall quote from paragraph 3.48 of the Advocate-General’s report. It reads:

That is the Advocate-General—

That is the lease of the Housing Building in Pretoria—

In the short time at my disposal I want to make a few comments about the South African Law Commission’s report with reference to human and group rights. Obviously this is such a comprehensive topic that all I can do is discuss a few cursory remarks. I adopted a more comprehensive standpoint when giving evidence before the South African Law Commission, at which stage I referred to certain of my own publications both here and abroad on human and group rights.

Secondly I should like to refer to a statement made by the commission on page 267, and I quote:

They were referring to the CP.

I should like to rectify the matter by saying that no official request was addressed to the leader-in-chief or the chief whip of the CP to state a point of view as was said by the commission in that particular passage. Factually this statement was incorrect.

Subsequently I should like to say that the standpoint adopted by the hon the Minister with reference to human rights at present is a complete reversal of the one he adopted in an article he wrote in the Tydskrif vir Regswetenskap of the University of the Orange Free State in 1984. He wrote that article under the heading: “Waarom nie ’n verklaring van menseregte nie?” I ask the hon the Minister—I need not refer him to his standpoint, because he knows the standpoint he held in that article—whether he now advocates the same standpoint as the one that is being adopted by the South African Law Commission.

Let me make a few comments on the South African Law Commission’s report. Despite the fact that it consists of almost 500 pages, I feel, after studying it in some depth, that it is a superficial report which consists of quotation after quotation, without any fundamental analysis of any of those quotations. Instead it looks as though the South African Law Commission, with all due respect, assumed a predetermined standpoint and then wrote around that standpoint. [Interjections.]

The commission gives attention to group rights in only two of its chapters, and without further ado it equates group rights with minority rights. Jurisprudentially group rights, or ethnic group rights, cannot simply be equated with minority rights.

I have specific proof for this. One of the internationally acknowledged exponents for ethnic group rights is Theodor Veiter, to whom reference is made in the South African Law Commission’s report only in a footnote, without any analysis or discussion, in connection with his well-known book, Nationalitätenkonflikt und Volksgruppenrecht, im 20. Jahrhundert, Munich, 1977.

As a result the human rights positions in Belgium and Switzerland are not analysed in any depth. The most important problems in the international literature on human rights are those with reference to the restrictions of human rights. [Interjections.] If hon members look at sections 1 up to and including 19 of the West German Constitution, they will find that every section contains a restriction with reference to human rights which is defined in three ways. I do not have the time to go into those three restrictions, but if hon members want to go and read them, they are welcome to do so. In fact, the German Constitution goes so far as to say the courts have no right to interfere in the use of electronic surveillance in the case of state security matters.

What is the crux of the commission’s recommendation on human and group rights? This can be found on page 391 of the report. The commission says very clearly that there is really no such thing as the protection of cultural, religious and language interests in a group context and that those rights—I want to emphasise this—cannot be protected in a bill of human rights, except by means of individual legal protection. This means that they cannot be protected as groups, but only by means of individual rights.

The commission then says something which is a very important message to the NP, viz that political minority rights cannot be protected in a bill of human rights, but only by means of the composition of the legislative or executive authority.

In my opinion that has important implications for the NP, because they are always telling the country and its people, and especially the CP, that minority rights can be protected. The South African Law Commission says clearly that minority rights, as far as cultural, religious and language rights are concerned, cannot be protected in group context, and can be protected only by means of individual rights.

When one looks at what the commission includes in its list of the individual rights a bill of human rights for South Africa should contain, one finds it has serious implications. This would mean that the Group Areas Act would be in conflict with such a bill of human rights and would have to be abolished. In terms of this South African Law Commission proposal, the Population Registration Act would have to be abolished. Even more important, separate schools in terms of the proposed clause 10 would be in conflict with a proposed bill of human rights and could therefore not exist. Hon members can take a look at clause 10 of the Law Commission’s recommendations. In fact, according to the South African Law Commission’s proposals, no group protection will be permissible if their proposed bill of human rights is accepted. They cannot sell the voters of South Africa either what the DP or the NP can sell them, as they are trying to do at present, by harnessing only the courts to accomplish those rights. We cannot politicise the courts in this way in terms of the commission’s proposals. I now want to quote what the hon the Minister said in that article he wrote: “Ons kan nie die howe op hierdie wyse verpolitiseer nie.”

This report proves that the NP’s protection of minorities in a unitary state is a complete myth. What the commission is proposing is nothing but a non-racial one man, one vote system, which is in fact the policy of the DP. We say that ethnic group rights can be protected only by means of partition, where every people can govern itself on the basis of the internationally acknowledged right of self-determination. [Interjections.] When each people governs itself, there will be a framework within which one can talk about human rights that can exist in a specific form.

I want to conclude and invite the hon the Minister to go and read the interesting judgement of the American court in the Tel Oren case.

Order! Unfortunately I am afraid the hon the Minister will have to go and read this judgement himself, because the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to speak about corruption, since I do not want to become involved in the political Boer War which is taking place here. Nor am I going to speak about partition. I would like to associate myself and my party with the congratulations conveyed to the administrative personnel, as well as to my friend Mr Pillay. I am glad to see that he has risen from the dead and is with us this afternoon.

Firstly I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on the development of the small claims courts since 1984. At present there are 57, scattered in 88 magisterial districts, of which there are currently 89 in sitting. One should be concerned by the fact that 80% of the people appearing in these criminal courts are not represented. On the one hand we are looking at the development on the civil side, but on the other hand we are not devoting enough attention to the criminal element. I think the hon the Minister should devote more attention to this in the coming year.

We have discussed the three-year degree course which certain people would be able to take in order to act as public defenders. The hon the Minister should definitely pay attention to that matter.

I would like to commit my party to the appeal for the death sentence to be abolished once and for all. We should look into that matter.

†We will have to support the inquiry so that the death sentence can be abolished. As an interim measure section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, must be amended. If we change the word “shall” to “may” then we will give effect to the call made by ex-Chief Justice Rabie made on 28 April 1989 in the Pretoria News where he stated that many more people would escape the death sentence if it was within the discretion of the judges. This sentiment is also expressed by a former Director-General of the Department of Justice, Phillip Coetzer, SC, who also in an article in Business Day, 4 April 1988, pleaded for exactly the same thing. As an interim measure by simply changing the word “shall” to “may” in section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act we can achieve that discretionary power which will vest in the judiciary. We have full confidence in our judiciary and we would therefore like the hon the Minister to have a look at that immediately.

I now want to come to the question of detainees. If one is convicted and is serving time one has the right to have access to a library; one has the right to take part in basic training; and one has the right to study and to write examinations and to better oneself. However, what about the detainees who have spent up to three years inside? They do not have these basic rights of convicted prisoners. They have not been found guilty of any offence, yet they are treated worse than people who have been convicted of offences. What is the hon the Minister going to do about these rights?

*It may perhaps be the portfolio of the hon the Minister, but when those people pass through the prison doors it becomes the responsibility of the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister should not shrink from his responsibility now.

†I would like to come back to the slice of the cake which was promised to us when we supported the Sheriffs Bill. Does the hon the Minister remember? I think we spent about 18 months arguing over that Bill because we felt that we were protecting White interests only. If one looks throughout this country one finds that sheriffs and messengers of the court have predominantly White skins.

*So when are we getting our slice of that cake? The Cape Flats is a vast area, and more than a year ago we have been promised our share of the inheritance—if I may put it like that—of the economy, but up till now nothing has come of it. Another aspect I should like to touch on, concerns a problem which is bearing down heavily on our poorer people.

†When some of our subeconomic tenants buy their dwellings they cannot afford to pay exorbitant transfer costs because they are among the poorest of the poor. They cannot still afford to pay these legal fees which they have to pay because they are now judged as if they are fully-fledged citizens of the country. They belong to the poor sector of our community. In the Black community one finds that a simple deed is issued by the housing officials, which deed is recognised by everybody. That deed confers a real right upon that person. Why cannot we instruct the Deeds Office to investigate the possibility of adopting a similar system when it comes to the subeconomic townships of this country, whereby a deed can be issued by the housing office, which deed confers upon that person a real right to that property? It will be cost-effective, it can be done administratively and it can be respected by each and every person in the country.

*Today I should also like to address the hon the Minister on the abuse of the legal process by certain municipalities. I have in my possession a letter which I have received quite by chance today. A certain man was asked to pull over in the vicinity of Grahamstown and he received a ticket. Unfortunately, he did not pay the fine on the due day or before the time, but he sent his money to the authorities in Grahamstown. He sent them his fine of R150—he did not have it before the time, that is why he sent it in late. Those people actually returned the money to the man and now he will be arrested. Usually they do it on a Friday so that he has to spend the whole weekend in prison and has to appear in court on Monday. He now has to be escorted to Grahamstown. While he is sitting there in prison, the hon the Minister has to feed him as well. Why cannot this money be accepted and town councils all over the country be ordered to inform the court in such cases that the man has paid the fine? Then enquiries can be made from the local court nearest to where the man is living as to why he has not appeared in court. Why this waste of manpower? Why should we punish an innocent driver and turn him into a criminal? When he is locked up, he is thrown into a cell together with hardened criminals. This traumatic experience of that law-abiding man is also something against which we should now protect him. We should clamp down on municipalities that exploit these traffic offences to fill their coffers. We should not allow the Department of Justice to be abused in the process.

This year I will not be speaking about the old story of Latin again. Enough has been said about that and I hope that the hon the Minister, when he gives his reply, will tell us once and for all that Latin is no longer necessary when one wants to practice as an attorney—that it will only be necessary if one wants to become an advocate. Really, the hon the Minister should please abolish it in this Chamber today.

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow on the hon member for Border. I do not want to react to his specific requests and inquiries to the hon the Minister.

Before possibly presenting hon members with something more substantial, however, I want to confine myself, to something he said at the end of his speech. I am referring to the question of Latin. In contrast to that hon member, who wanted to know something about Latin in regard to lawyers, I should like to present hon members with a few ideas about Latin as a requirement for an LL B degree. The whole question is a fairly focal issue after various court rulings which, as hon members know, did not go into the merits of the case in determining whether Latin ought to be a requirement, but which actually highlighted a problem of interpretation. In other words, the question before the court was what the Act meant when it referred to a course in Latin at university level.

In the debate involving the desirability of Latin two arguments, which in my view do merit attention, were highlighted, even if only to point out that they were devoid of any fundamental grounds. Firstly there are the proponents of the abolition of Latin who use the argument that Black students should be accommodated because they find Latin difficult. Firstly I do not think that a Black student from New Brighton in Port Elizabeth would find Latin more difficult than a White Afrikaans-speaking student from Kirkwood in the Eastern Cape. In any event, on the same basis one would then argue that the law of negotiable instruments, which is a very difficult section of the law to master, should be abolished to accommodate unintelligent students. We cannot meddle with standards in this way.

Then there is the argument for the retention of Latin which states that we would be dropping standards if we were to water down or abolish Latin. As someone who has stood in front of a class for almost 20 years, lecturing LL B students, let me say that it is late in the day for our South African universities to have to assess their LL B standards on the basis of whether they should include or exclude a trifling first-year BA subject in their curriculum.

No, Mr Chairman, when one draws up an LL B curriculum, a choice of priorities is what it is all about. One has a limited period of time for contact with a student, and he has a limited amount of time available to devote to his work. As it is universities must make use of optional subjects in the LL B curriculum because there simply is no room for all the subjects one would like to include. My view is unequivocally that the time taken up by Latin I is not justified in terms of its usefulness as a subject. There are many other subjects that could be presented much more profitably in that time.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to end the uncertainty and cut the Gordian knot. I respectfully suggest that Latin at matriculation level, or a beginners’ course in Latin, is the proper requirement that should be laid down.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

I will answer a question if I have time. I have another subject which I know the hon member would like me to deal with. I will come back to him if I have a minute left at the end.

*In my view it is a question of academic requirements. It is for the university to decide, within the ambit of its curriculum as a whole, whether it wants to give such historical emphasis to its tuition that it wants to include Latin I, II or III. It is therefore an academic question and not one that should be prescribed or answered from a legal point of view.

I now what to come to a matter that I want to put to hon members with the utmost seriousness. I want to exchange a few ideas with hon members about the role the law has to play in the reform process that lies ahead. Firstly it is probably true that constitutional reform is going to be embodied in and implemented by legislation. Apart from that, I want to tell hon members that the law—our whole legal system—is going to be one of the foundation-stones of the South Africa of the future. I should like to put it to hon members that just as the constitutional framework and the socio-economic and social positions of all our people in this country are going to be the building-blocks for the new South Africa, the legal system is likewise going to be such a building-block. I want to point to a few aspects.

It is essential for our legal system to have legitimacy in the eyes of all our people. No system can be a building-block if it does not have the confidence of society as a whole. Our law must be served and experienced as a system guaranteeing protection, as a mechanism for freedom and as a symbol and actual manifestation of justice. I want to state unequivocally today that the wonderful principles underlying our law, which crystallised into what is known as common law, will increasingly—by the day, in fact—have to be articulated in our legislation. We shall have to make a better job of ensuring that we maintain these basic principles in our legislation and in our quasi-judicial and administrative processes. We shall purposely have to strive towards developing our legal system in such a way that everyone in this country sees it and experiences it as a refuge, a safe harbour, for everyone.

We shall also have to give particular attention to the further development of the powers and independence of the Bench. In this regard I want to lodge a plea in regard to magistrates. I want to see the tangible administrative separation of the posts of magistrate and prosecutor. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the time has not come for us to have a council of justice or some other body which, inter alia, could deal with the appointment and promotion of magistrates.

Thirdly we shall have to give attention to the style of our legislation. Too easily and too frequently principles of fairness or the merits of the case are made subservient to formalism, and then we hear people saying that a case was won or lost on a so-called technical point. I want to lodge a plea for our legislation not to take the form of departmental manual or handbooks, but to contain the fundamental principles which then have to be implemented in practice, but under the auspices of our courts. This implies that the legislature will have exceptional confidence in our Bench.

Fourthly we must be careful when dealing with the administrative decisions and the testing rights of our courts. I want to state unequivocally that the ideal is to have the fairness and reason ableness of all administrative and quasi-judicial decisions tested by the courts.

There is a final point I want to raise about our legislation. I think the legislation should reflect a certain attitude, and I want to warn against so-called “overkill”. I should like to say that I believe that at all times our legislation should clearly reflect the principle of reasonableness ex facie the law itself.

I want to conclude by saying that the law is not patch work. It is not something one can carry around in one’s pocket to use when necessary. The law must reflect and articulate the endeavours and the living values of a society. What I have presented here today cannot become a reality in a society in which bombs are manufactured and atrocities are committed against human beings, for example burning people alive. No one who is being attacked by a knife can be expected to have recourse to the courts to obtain an interdict against his attacker. The law as such in South Africa is under attack. The attack must be warded off, and this frequently goes hand in hand with difficult and unpopular measures. We cannot permit the law as such to be destroyed. At the same time, in our eagerness to protect the law, we must not specifically allow ourselves to do violence to the legal system itself. This balance we must seek is perhaps one of the major challenges facing us on the road to reform in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton may now ask his question.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said that he asked the hon the Minister to abolish the Latin I course as a qualification for admission as advocates. What value does a matric qualification have to an advocate?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister answered that question when he dealt with a question asked by the hon member for Sandton on 7 March 1989. At that stage the hon the Minister indicated that Latin, to a certain extent, is of importance because many of our legal rules are expressed as Latin maxims and certain standard ideas are expressed in Latin. Latin expressions are part of everyday court language. I think we cannot escape from the fact that the basis and origin of our legal system lies in Roman law, and in order to understand the origins of our law, surely one must have at least a basic idea of the language and of the cultural background of that time.

What about attorneys?

Mr Chairman, I shall be dealing with some of the things the hon member for Riviersonderend said. I agree entirely …

Sundays River!

Oh, an hon member told me … [Interjections.] I was given the wrong information by a member of the party to which that hon member belongs! [Interjections.] It does not matter where the hon member comes from; what is of importance is what he says. I agree with a great deal of what he said about the necessity for holding our legal system in high regard, and for it being respected by all sections of the community. However, what I have to say later will be dealing with that.

Mr Chairman, I honour your ruling that one may not deal with cases involving judges in Parliament, unless one does it via a substantive motion. I am at present still striving to frame a motion of censure for the House to debate which will be acceptable to Mr Speaker regarding the notorious case of the State v Vorster and Leonard, in which a sentence handed down by the judge was described by the Johannesburg Bar Council as so inappropriate as to be a gross perversion of justice. I will wait until I can discuss that on a substantive motion.

Meantime, while I grapple with Mr Speaker, another shocking judgement has been handed down, this time by a magistrate in the Regional Court at Klerksdorp; the case of the State v Louis Johannes Venter and Pieter Marthinus Fouche.

On 16 March 1988 Venter and Fouche, two White farmers, suspected a Black man, Medupe Steven Mononye, of having stolen cattle. It was two cows, to be exact. They kidnapped Mononye, tied him up hand and foot, and brutally assaulted him later with a sjambok. Mononye subsequently died, the cause of death being recorded as brain haemorrhage supposedly as a result of Mononye having hit his head during the struggle against the windscreen of the bakkie in which they were transporting him. They were not on their way to the police station, as they should have been under the Stock Theft Act, but to a plot where the cows allegedly were and later on to a farm, when he was assaulted.

Fouche and Venter pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with the intent to commit grievous bodily harm, after the charge of culpable homicide had been changed and the change accepted by the prosecutor. There are many questions that should be asked such as why the prosecutor agreed to this lesser charge, and why she also did not pursue the charge of kidnapping at all. The magistrate, Mr P J L Venter, sentenced both the accused to a R600 fine …

Disgraceful.

Absolutely…. each of them, and four months imprisonment plus a further 6 months imprisonment suspended for five years. [Interjections.]

What circumstances could possibly have lead the magistrate to impose such a grossly inappropriate sentence for such brutal assault, even given the fact, of course, that stock-theft is almost the most heinous crime on the South African Statute Book? What sort of effect will this gross perversion of justice have on the concept of the Black community of the impartiality of the judiciary? What encouragement will it give to other White bully-boys to take the law into their own hands? What further damage to the reputation abroad of the South African judicial system will this case have, coming as it does hard on the heels of the Strydom judgement in the case of the State v Vorster and Leonard’! There has been a public outcry about that case and I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to do about it.

The hon the Minister is considered, and I hand it to him, to be one of the best Ministers of Justice South Africa has had since this Government came to power. Not that that is such a great compliment! [Interjections.] Well, just in passing! He has, nevertheless, championed the cause of prison reform and there I give him full credit. He has introduced considerable improvement into our marriage laws, particularly as far as the status of women is concerned, for example, the Matrimonial Property Act. I give him credit for that too. He has indeed improved the marrriage laws for the entire community both Black and White. He has even appointed some good judges, and recently a very good Chief Justice.

What I want to know, and it follows on the speech of the hon member who has just sat down—I would not dare to mention his constituency because I have forgotten it already!—is whether the hon the Minister is prepared to allow the deterioration in our judicial system to go unchecked, as I say exemplified by the case that I have mentioned and which will certainly be expanded on if I ever get a chance at the substantive motion on Judge Strydom. Will he at least order an in-depth investigation into the conduct of both the prosecutor in the Venter and Fouche case, and the magistrate in the Mononye case, and if not, why not? Is he prepared to enquire why the Attorney-General of the Wit-watersrand ignored for four or five months a judge’s instruction that the methods of interrogation of the Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad be investigated, because he, the Attorney-General, said he thought the judge’s comments were rhetorical? Did anybody ever hear such a feeble excuse!

Will he find out why the Attorney-General of the Transvaal took it upon himself to justify to an overseas person the appalling judgement in the State v Vorster and Leonard case? Is that the duty of an Attorney-General? I have a copy of the letter to the person oversees to prove this.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to agree with my colleague from Berea that a commission of enquiry into the death penalty is long overdue. I first asked for this in a private member’s motion way back in 1969. That was 20 years ago. I was then the only Prog in the House and of course I got no support from a single hon member in Parliament. Since then 1 839 people have been hanged in South Africa. We have the unenviable record of having hanged more people than the entire Western World put together, that is in those few countries which do retain the death penalty.

I believe that there are two factors which have been mentioned prior to this year’s debate by the hon member for Sandton, which are of special significance in the grizzly saga of death row. One is that the death sentence is mandatory for murder, unless extenuating circumstances are found, and that that should be done away with. The discretion should be left to the judges. We would have fewer people hanged in this country. The extenuating circumstances are only excepted in cases of accused under the age of 18 or women who are found guilty of murdering their newborn babies. I may add that this is a fact I only learned yesterday. Secondly, there is no automatic right of appeal against the death sentence and that too should be changed.

It is surely vitally necessary for us to have a commission of enquiry, which we have never really had in South Africa, into the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Therefore that is what we should do now, and then South Africa should consider joining the comity of nations which have abolished the death penalty.

Mr Chairman, before I join the debate I would like to convey a message to all hon members seated to the right of the Chair. In my mother tongue there is a dictum. I will give the interpretation afterwards. It goes as folows: “Hitaar koo hitter phalen”—it will be done unto you as you do to others. That erstwhile forefather of the NP, Gen Hertzog, was a firm believer in this dictum. He imparted that philosophy to many hon members of the NP. Hon members must remember that it will be done unto them as they do unto others.

Firstly, I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister of Justice on agreeing to meet a delegation from the KwaZulu Government to discuss the release of Mr Nelson Mandela. If ever a man had to pay whatever debt there is to society it is Mr Nelson Mandela. The hon the Minister knows from the practice in his own department that a life sentence never means literally for the rest of one’s life.

To the best of my knowledge— the hon the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—it never means more than 20 years. Mr Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964. It means that on that sentence he has served about 26 years now. The hon the State President has acknowledged the fact that he has served more than the traditional life sentence. For that reason alone he did not return him to jail but confined him to a house on prison property.

Whichever way one looks at the situation, however, effectively Mr Mandela is still confined to prison. Why does the Government not release him? That is a big question. It seems that the Government fear that if they release him subsequent events will compel them to arrest him and that such arrest might lead to an unstable situation developing in South Africa, namely riots, unrest and so on. I do not deny that that possibility does exist. However, I think that the probability will be that the release of Mr Mandela will on its own act as a stabilising factor in South Africa.

I remember what happened to the late Mr Sobukwe, the erstwhile leader and founder of the PAC. He was sentenced in 1960 to a term of 3 years’ imprisonment. It was his decision and that of the PAC to organise an anti-pass campaign that led to the tragedy of Sharpeville and the first proclamation of a state of emergency.

Just before completing his third year in jail the Government passed a special law allowing it to detain him in prison for further indefinite periods. Strictly speaking, he was not treated as an ordinary prisoner. He was held as a detainee for a few years on Robben Island.

In this instance, too, the Government feared the repercussions of Sobukwe’s release. Yet finally, when Sobukwe was released, nothing extraordinary happened.

Recently the Government released Zeph Motho-peng, the president of the ANC, and Govan Mbeki, who was sentenced with Mandela to life imprisonment in 1964. Mr Mbeki is not only a member of the ANC, but according to himself, also a member of the SACP. The Government also released Harry Gwala, who was also serving a life sentence. In each of these cases it was decided to release the prisoners on medical grounds. On their release the public peace was in each case hardly disturbed. Large welcoming meetings were held on behalf of Govan Mbeki, and when the Government felt—rightly or wrongly—that the situation might get out of hand, it took administrative measures to prevent such a thing happening. In other words, the Government has the capacity to maintain law and order should this become necessary.

I am of the opinion that the positive aspects far outweigh the negative aspects. The whole world will applaud such a decision when it adds the positive role South Africa has played in ending conflict in Namibia and Angola, and how South Africa is prepared to assist Mozambique. The whole world will look anew at the demand for sanctions against South Africa. The KwaZulu Government, under the leadership of Dr Man-gosutu Buthelezi, is to be complimented on the steps that have been taken on behalf of Mr Nelson Mandela. This House should also support the endeavours of the KwaZulu Government and Dr Buthulezi.

It is well known that Mr Mandela appreciates what is being done for him, as can be seen by the letter sent by him to the Chief Minister last month. I call upon the hon the Minister of Justice to release Mr Mandela. I repeat what I said earlier. This man has paid his debt to society and his release is justified.

Having said that, I wish to highlight certain problems parochial to the people of Chatsworth in Durban. The solution to these problems is within the purview of the hon the Minister of Justice. Chatsworth urgently needs a regional court. Presently cases are referred to Durban. This causes much inconvenience to all concerned. The accused, the witness and the attorneys have to travel up and down. In January this year 26 cases were referred to regional courts, 21 cases in February and 43 cases in March. I do not yet have the figure for April.

Chatsworth has a population of 450 000 people, and there is only one civil court. On this court’s roll there are between five and six cases daily. One day a week is set aside just to handle debtor enquiries and applications. Also in this respect an additional civil court has to be established.

The two criminal courts in Chatsworth are far too inadequate to handle the number of criminal cases, and the rolls of these courts are also overcrowded. Frequently attorneys and the accused have to wait for the entire day. Often at the end of the day the matters are remanded to another day.

The Chatsworth Legal Circle has started a much needed small claims court. The commissioners have been appointed, and a venue has been established, but the court is not functioning, all because the Department of Justice has not gazetted the authority establishing this court.

I would like the hon the Minister to tell us why it is being delayed and when his department will get round to these matters.

One more thing about Chatsworth is that a senior prosecutor there needs to be taught some manners. He must talk to people as human beings. He thinks he is lord and master and that he owns that court. He talks to people in a very rude and crude manner which I think is not befitting in this modern age.

What I would like to tell the hon the Minister is that the judiciary in South Africa are held in very high esteem. When we talk about a Bill of Rights we talk of the freedom of the judicial powers, but what is disturbing is that some judges seem to be biased. They are besmirching the dignity of the judiciary in this country. For instance, I read in the paper—I cannot recollect the judge’s name— that a judge sentenced …[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown has actually given the answer to the problem relating to Mr Nelson Mandela’s release. The situation has been stated over and over again that there is an easy way out for him and that is to denounce violence. The main consolation is that this matter is being considered by the Cabinet on a constant basis and in due time the necessary steps will obviously be taken, should there be co-operation from the relevant gentleman. The hon the Minister shall no doubt deal with this particular aspect in his speech.

*Mr Chairman, please allow me, on behalf of this side of the Committee, to add my congratulations to those of Mr Fanie van der Merwe en Profs Ellison Khan and J C de Wet on their newly acquired status as Senior Consulti. That is, of course, a well-deserved status they have acquired for their contribution to the administration of justice in South Africa.

I should also like to begin, on a personal note, by thanking the hon the Minister for his recent visit to Port Elizabeth, in particular to the staff of the courts and the Prisons Service. I want to assure him that that is sincerely appreciated by the community there. It was also a singular occasion that night when, unannounced, he attended a sitting of the small claims court.

Approximately a month ago, on 23 March, a report appeared on the front page of the Vrye Weekblad. This newspaper calls itself “die nuwe stem vir ’n nuwe Suid-Afrika.” The headline read: ‘Kobie wil koerant sluit voor hy oopmaak.” In the first paragraph of this newspaper one reads the following:

Further on in the relevant report it becomes apparent that the newspaper being referred to is the New African of Durban.

This is a very serious accusation, because it implies that the hon the Minister is prejudiced and does not, in point of fact, believe in freedom of the Press. I think that is a gross reflection on the integrity of our hon Minister of Justice.

This message presents the reading public with a picture of unfairness and they are left with a further distorted view of things. The reading public does not always have the time to ascertain or check what the actual position is. They read these news reports and sometimes believe them unconditionally. This report must, of course, be part of a technique of subtly brainwashing the reader in order to elicit his opposition to the government of the day.

What is the correct state of affairs with regard to newspapers? Newspapers are registered in terms of the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act of 1971. This Act is administered by the Minister of Home Affairs and his department. Section 15 (1) (b) of the Internal Security Act, however, makes provision for the fact that before that newspaper can be registered, two things must happen. Firstly a period of 21 days must lapse after the receipt of an application and, secondly, the applicant must pay an amount determined by the Minister of Justice in terms of section 15 (1) (b) of the Act.

The Minister of Justice’s function is therefore merely to determine the amount that has to be paid as a deposit, and that amount may not exceed R40 000. There is, however, a further provision in section 5 that has to be met. The deposit has to be collected if the Minister “is not satisfied that a prohibition under section 5 will not at any time become necessary in respect of such newspaper”. Thus a newspaper could either be banned for a certain period of time or completely if it aimed at promoting, or promoted, the objectives as set out in section 5 of the principal Act. These objectives are, amongst others, that of endangering the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order, or serving as a means of causing or encouraging hostility between the various population groups or parts of these population groups.

On making enquiries it became apparent that before the hon the Minister had determined the deposit in this case, he wrote a letter about this to the applicant. It is this letter to which reference was made in the report. In this letter the hon the Minister set out the reasons why he was not convinced of the fact that the newspaper would not be banned. The important aspect lies in the fact that on that occasion the hon the Minister also applied the audi alteram partem rule by giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations to him before he determined the deposit. From the report it is apparent that the editorial staff did respond to the hon the Minister’s invitation. That attention must have been given to the representations is also apparent from the fact that the hon the Minister did not determine the maximum amount of R40 000, but only half that amount, ie R20 000. An important point is that this amount was, in fact, paid and that the newspaper was registered. Nor must one lose sight of the fact that in these cases the deposits are a sword hanging over the publisher’s head and that they serve as a deterrent so that there are no contraventions of the provisions of section 5.

There is another matter I want to refer to, and that is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Desirability of Further Decentralisation of Services by the Supreme Court of South Africa, of which the honourable Mr Justice J J F Hefer was the only member and chairman. I was particularly impressed by this report. Although it only deals with one aspect of the administration of justice, it is completely comprehensive and, in a minor key, compares favourably with the quality and standard of Lord Benson’s report in England which, of course, dealt with a much broader spectrum of the administration of justice. In the Hefer Report all the criteria that have to be taken into account are properly set out, discussed and argued. For the foreseeable future this report will be the major source of reference for the establishment of further provincial or local divisions of the Supreme Court.

In the report he weighs up the interests of uniformity in the administration of justice, which could be achieved with only one provincial division in each province, against the public’s needs and the need for decentralised services that could crop up in a specific area. He comes to the conclusion that no matter how great the need for decentralisation may be, this should never outweigh the necessity for proper and effective administration of justice. This attitude is endorsed in the interests of the sound administration of justice in South Africa. An extremely important recommendation by the commission is that the local circuit divisions should also be made more functional, and for this purpose he suggests that the Rules Board could possibly amend the rules for circuit courts. In the light of this report some of the proposals, contained in the Galgut Report at the time, could possibly be re-examined to see whether some of the problems affecting the rural areas could not be resolved by these means.

At present the Southern Cape is developing at a tremendous rate, and as a result of the Mossgas Project it is clearly apparent that there will be a tremendous increase in the population there.

As the population in that area increases— the fact that they are far-removed from the other legal services also contributes to this— the need for a special service there will increase.

It would perhaps be possible to consider a permanent circuit court somewhere in the Southern Cape area. I think that a great deal can be learned from the experience in the Eastern Cape, where Port Elizabeth’s local circuit court has become a permanent institution, subsequently being formally established as the South-Eastern Cape Local Division— the only one since 1910, the report states.

There is also East London, which at present has a reasonably permanent circuit court which could in time, by a process of evolution, develop and obtain a different status.

I do, of course, also endorse the recommendation in this report. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to the aspect of legal training which is referred to on page 23 of the recently published report of the Department of Justice, and more particularly to the position with regard to the area in which I live, the Western Cape, and to the segment of the population to which I belong. I notice that last year 194 courses were conducted by the legal training branch of the Department of Justice. I would like to know from the hon the Minister how many persons who attended these courses were from the Western Cape and, more particularly, how many were members of the community of which I am a member?

I would also like to refer to legal education at university level. I made enquiries to the dean of the law faculty at the University of the Western Cape, an institution attended almost exclusively by members of my community. He tells me that, whereas an average of 500 students would be admitted to the law faculty in the first year of study, half of that number would be received in the second year of study and so forth until in the fifth year of study, the student numbers would only be in the twenties. This has in fact happened in this particular year.

I enquired whether any active recruitment was done by the Department of Justice at the universities and at this university in particular. I was told that no such active recruitment was done. If no advice and motivation is offered by the department, how can prospective legal practitioners be expected to look forward to eventually obtaining their legal qualifications?

I made further enquiries about bursaries allocated to law students at this particular university.

*According to my information no bursaries have been allocated for law studies at the University of the Western Cape during the year 1989. Bursaries are allocated by the Commission of Administration in Pretoria. Upon enquiry I was informed by that institution that they had allocated no bursaries at all. The Administration: House of Representatives for the most part allocates bursaries to the University of the Western Cape and administers them. From them too I learnt that no bursaries had been allocated this year.

†The Administration: House of Representatives say that they grant bursaries only to students to whom they can offer employment. My own experience is that the only avenue open to them is that of going into private practice. That is a hard road to follow for any young person starting out on a career.

*During the last few years, when I came to live in the Western Cape, I practised as an attorney in the Boland for most of the time. I must say that I did not come across a single Coloured public prosecutor in the Boland towns of Stellenbosch, Wellington, Paarl, Wolseley, Ceres, Malmesbury or any other town. Who are for the most part, the criminals in these towns in the Boland? They are people with my skin colour. They are the people charged with various crimes, but, as I say, not a single Coloured public prosecutor has been appointed there. [Interjections.]

So why do we not get Brown public prosecutors or even Brown magistrates in the Boland? Only in the Peninsula will one sporadically find a Coloured person acting as public prosecutor or judicial officer. [Interjections.] If there were more appointments of this nature, our students would be motivated to accept service in the Public Service. Then we would perhaps see Coloured judges appointed to the Bench of the Supreme Court. [Interjections.]

We now come to the appointment of messengers of the court and deputy sheriffs I will once again use the Peninsula as an example. Which members of the population are mostly summonsed for debt? It is people of my skin colour. [Interjections.] It is not because these people do not want to pay their debt, but because they receive poor remuneration compared to the work they have to do. It is fully attributable to …

Poor remuneration?

Poor remuneration. It is because they are paid too little. It is not because they do not want to meet their financial obligations. [Interjections.] As they say, and I indeed believe, everything can be blamed on the policy of apartheid, where a man earns less because he has the wrong skin colour … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members should not become so excited.

Hundreds of summonses are served, and that means that they have to be served on the people in our Coloured residential areas. For this reason I ask why we cannot appoint a Coloured messenger of the court to do that job.

†Why are these plum jobs reserved for White appointees? I know of no Coloured Messenger of the Court who has been appointed in any district in the Western Cape area. [Interjections.]

*I would briefly like to touch on a matter which was discussed by several speakers, namely that of child molestation.

†It appears to be a new disease that has overtaken our community as a whole, irrespective of the race group of those involved—Coloured, White, or whatever. It occurs irrespective of their social standing, and it does not matter what prominent position they have in life. We have had occasions which we have read of in the Press where people whom one would expect to know better, are making themselves guilty of this type of practice. I am glad to see that the law is being absolutely hard and tough on them.

I also want to refer to the other very topical question of corruption. The courts and the Department of Justice are stepping down hard on people who are guilty of this particular malpractice. [ Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not comment on the remarks made by the previous speaker because my time is very limited.

Every time the justice budget is debated in this House I speak regarding the drug menace and I shall go on speaking on the same issue until some constructive and decisive steps are taken to stop the drug barons from turning our country into a zombie land.

It cannot be denied that the recent reports in the media regarding the uncovering of massive drug factories is cause for grave concern. I want to thank very sincerely the Narcotics Bureau and the SA Police for the great role they are playing in this hideous drug game. After four years as a member of this Parliament who has taken a keen interest in the drug issue, I have come to a sad conclusion—that due to the present weak law governing the entire drug issue, the criminals are protected more than the victims and the police today.

From December 1988 until 22 February 1989, I had members of the Narcotics Bureau and the SA Police raid just one street, namely Chiappini Street in Cape Town. The result was that 17 were arrested. Sadly, I must add, most of the arrested paid a R300 fine and they are now doing better business than before.

One can speak for hours and carry on on this subject and not get anywhere. I therefore submit that a judicial commission of inquiry be set up to review all the drug laws. If action is not taken to stop our country from being strangled by the drug barons the NP Government of South Africa will have to take full responsibility. The hon members of the two Houses must take full responsibility for the drug menace in our country. Somehow I get the feeling that the majority parties are afraid to table the necessary legislation to destroy the drug monster.

Which two Houses? What about the third House?

I am referring to the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The majority parties in all three Houses. The majority parties are afraid to table the necessary legislation to destroy the drug monster. I appeal to the hon the Minister of Justice to introduce the death penalty for drug importers and anybody who uses minor children to sell dangerous drugs. I have been witnessing the Narcotics Bureau fighting with little success against fancy speaking lawyers and advocates who defend the drug barons and drug importers who are dangerous to our children and our country.

What did the hon member say?

I want the death sentence for drug dealers.

Too many people today are unemployed in our country, especially members of the Brown community as well as members of the Indian community. We can save these people if we can pick them up off the streets and give them jobs or employment in the Department of Justice or the Department of Law and Order. We could give these people employment and even make them special constables to clean up our townships and our streets. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as a member of one of the Houses of Parliament I must deny … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should not converse so loudly. I cannot allow them to make so much noise.

Mr Chairman, I was just going to say that as a member of one of the Houses I must deny being responsible for any drug abuse, provided of course one does not include certain liquid refreshments in that category.

As the hon the Minister knows, law that is good law is the end-result of wholesome customs and mores. Law exists to regulate the coexistence of individuals. It exists to minimise the friction that is inevitable when human beings get together. It also exists to promote harmony even where amity is absent. Law, of course, is distinguishable from statute. True law is always good. It is societally functional and promotes cohesion. However, some statutes can be and sometimes are dysfunctional and divisive, even vicious and evil—for example, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act.

The hon the Minister of Justice is entrusted with the proper administration of the law and it is his duty to facilitate the holding of our courts in the highest respect by the general populace—even where, as in our country, the vast majority are voteless and politically voiceless in the central legislature.

If the people in general do not hold our courts in such high esteem that they will accept and abide by judgments of court even when they disagree with those judgments, such acceptance must be emanating not from mere submission or resignation, but from acceptance of the impartiality not only of the courts but also of all the organs involved in the administration of justice. Unless that prevails there inevitably will be frustration, restlessness and disrespect for the law. When that happens the whole judicial system as well as the rule of law breaks down. Then there can arise the kind of feuding that existed in Sicily and which unhappily is currently going on in parts of Natal. If the hon the Minister wants law to supervene and for legal institutions to retain not merely their authority but the essential public esteem, he must become aware of some of the factors that erode that esteem.

The case in which a certain White judicial officer in the Transvaal imposed a very mild slap on the wrist of a White man who killed a human being in such brutality that would shame even a scavenging hyena, did nothing to promote esteem for the law or for the judiciary. It is regrettable that that judicial officer did so much harm to the high esteem in which our superior courts have rightly been held. When a magistrate does that kind of thing it is bad enough, but when a superior judicial officer does so it is infinitely worse. However, once a judge is appointed to the Bench, the hon the Minister of course should not and dare not intervene. That kind of helplessness does not prevail, however, in respect of the performance or the non-performance or the under-performance of his duties by any Attorney-General. In a recent instance it was publicly clear, even if by inference, that the hon the Minister intervened to ensure prosecution of certain persons against whom charges had been withdrawn.

On 2 March 1989 a detailed letter—querying the conduct of a trial in Cape Town in which the killer of a 17-year-old schoolboy, namely Jayraj Naidoo, was allowed to get off with a ridiculously small fine—was sent by me to the hon the Minister. From the facts it appears that Jayraj Naidoo was involved in a minor altercation at school with the son of a rich and powerful Rylands businessman. On hearing of this altercation the businessman then illegally armed himself with a handgun which he put on half-cock and then proceeded by car to the school.

He told the court that he had been informed that gangsters had attacked his son. There was not a tittle of corroboration of this version. Nevertheless, when he got to or near the school, the businessman clearly saw that there was not a single gangster, but only schoolboys. With his gun in clear sight, he ordered several of the schoolboys into his car. His conduct in detaining those boys was illegal. The boys were identifiable and the police would have had no difficulty in locating them. Afraid because of the gun, the boys got into the car. While the car was moving, the man hit one boy with the gun. Thereafter he grabbed Jayraj Naidoo by his hair, pulled him forward and hit him on the head with the. gun. The trigger of the gun, already prepared for firing, was obviously pulled, and the boy was shot in the head, killing him. The killer clearly committed a number of illegal acts resulting in the taking of a human life— the life of a boy on the threshold of living.

The man was charged with murder but a plea of culpable homicide was accepted. Extraordinary exculpatory evidence was allowed to be given unchallenged, whereas the record shows that even a second-year articled clerk would have put most of that exculpatory evidence into issue. The State failed to produce evidence which, unless there was serious negligence by the State, must have been available and could have sustained a charge of murder or at least demonstrated the utter callousness of the killer, which ought to have resulted in a killer not escaping with a derisory fine of R1 000.

This case most definitely does not inculcate respect for the law and I fear it puts the administration of justice into disrepute.

The family of this boy and important sections of the public in Rylands are of the belief that the wealth and power of the killer and his friends in high places, coupled with the fact that young Jayraj Naidoo is what is called a political activist, influenced the result. Whether that is justified or not, that is the effect and the judicial system suffers as a result.

I realise the hon the Minister is a busy man. However, his department has had enough time to make the necessary enquiries and I trust the hon the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply.

Then again, the great esteem in which our judiciary ought to be held, is adversely affected by its Whiteness. Two years ago I had the honour of meeting several distinguished American judges. A month ago I was visited here in Parliament by a distinguished European judge. One question was common: “Why is it that all your judges are White? Do you not have Black or Brown barristers capable of being judges?” The answer I was compelled to give was that it was due to the history of racialism in our country.

Of course we have barristers with the ability and experience who ought to have been made judges years ago. One such is advocate Ismail Mohammed, a senior counsel who is internationally renowned. However, such is the result of racialism that a South African, who is provedly an excellent lawyer, is more honoured outside his country than within it. He is an appellate judge of two internationally recognised African states and has held judgeships in another. As one of our busiest lawyers he has given splendid service to the Bar. In the highest traditions of his profession an advocate like he almost has a duty to give greater service to his country by serving in the judiciary in his more mature years, when even good lawyers become mellower and certainly wiser. He can only do that, however, if invited by the hon the Minister.

By his failure to do so, the hon the Minister has not only missed the chance of acquiring the judicial services of an eminent lawyer who without doubt will be an ornament to our judiciary, but also seriously dents the judiciary and puts ashes upon the lustre which it richly deserves by letting the impression gain ground— as it has done—that race and colour are the factors.

Why does this sorry state of affairs exist? Recently, in the House of Representatives, the hon the Minister once again promised that the colour bar in the judiciary would be removed. He owes an explanation to Parliament and to the public for his failure to do so.

You are not doing him a service.

I am not doing the hon the Minister a service?

No, you are not doing him a service, I am warning you.

I do not intend to do any individual a service. I intend to do the judiciary a service. I am trying to do the country a service.

You are not a wise man!

I may be unwise but the country demands that we have judges without any colour bar. If the hon the Minister thinks that is unwise, let it be unwise. The country will see what the situation is. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he intends to perpetuate the racial discrimination of the past or whether he intends to do away with that kind of racial discrimination. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I had not intended reacting to the hon member for Reservoir Hills I only want to state briefly that the speech which he made here in no way enhanced the prestige of the legal system and harmed his own.

In the limited time at my disposal I would rather react to three previous speakers who broached a very important and topical subject, that is the report of our Law Commission on a bill of rights. I shall react to comments by the hon members for Bonteheuwel, Berea and Losberg. Obviously such comment will have to be fleeting because time is a factor.

Two years ago I adopted the standpoint in the discussion of this Vote that we would have to examine the position of the bench so that it could be elevated to act as an independent arbiter if a clash should arise between the interests of the State and those of a group, community or individual. I also said that, to be truly independent, the bench should be equal to the Government and, like the Government, subject only to the Constitution.

Hon members will therefore appreciate that I regard the document which has been published now as a positive one which in my opinion cannot be treated lightly. The Law Commission says in this piece of work that the adoption of a bill of rights should form part of a new constitution. It should not stand alone. It comprises an entire negotiating process and one cannot introduce the bill on its own. If one were to do this, one would be laying oneself open to the accusation that one was issuing a document which was not worth the paper on which it was printed. I agree with the opinion that it should form part of a new constitution and that a body other than Parliament should ultimately have testing rights when a conflict between various interests was to be considered. Then it would have to be generally acceptable, however, and, like the constitution, the bill would have to take our country’s unique circumstances into account. We differed with the former PFP on this particular aspect over the years and also differ with the DP arising from what the hon member for Berea said here.

The commission indicates that CP fears that, if the legislator were not sovereign, the security of the State could be adversely effected, is not a well-founded objection because the protection of rights in the bill is subject to legislation aimed at State security, public order, public interest, good morals, public health, the administration of law, the rights of others and the prevention of disorder and crime. The commission states all these provisos. The commission then adds that such legislation will have to be able to stand the test of what is acceptable in a democratic state.

The adoption of a bill of rights in a new constitution would therefore deprive the legislator of his supreme power because the legislature and judiciary would become equal partners in the State structure. Nevertheless it is a specific requirement in a multiethnic country like the RSA to task an independent bench with the function of protecting fundamental human rights and group interests like culture, language and religion.

The hon member for Loskop … [Interjections.] Losberg. I apologise. I did not do that deliberately.

The hon member for Losberg, who is a good colleague of mine, put the standpoint that, because group values like culture, language and religion will be protected as individual rights according to the recommendation of the South African Law Commission, this will actually provide no protection at all. The point is that the Law Commission says that a clear distinction should be drawn between group values and political group rights. This means that the composition of Parliament and subordinate legislative bodies has to be regulated elsewhere in the constitution. These group values therefore have to be distinguished from political group rights so there are political group rights which have to be protected in structures in the new constitution.

The Law Commission also leaves room for dealing with defined groups in the rest of the constitution and, although it says it is unnecessary to define groups in the bill, it is possible to work with defined groups where the protection of political group rights is the issue. It is also a misconception, as the hon member for Bonteheuwel argued in his speech, that the bill of rights will absolutise the individual because important group values will be protected in the document and any member of such a group can protect those rights by making use of recognised legal machinery.

It should also be emphasised that the Law Commission’s working paper does not conflict with declared NP policy and, by implication, the Law Commission confirms the possibility of various constitutional models which are calculated to eliminate the danger of domination and to protect minorities. This working paper suggests an interesting way of dealing with the protection of own communities.

The gigantic task carried out by the Law Commission gained it great credibility overseas as well as within the country. I do not agree with the hon member for Losberg either where he calls it a useless document or one of minor value. The Law Commission was accorded this extreme credibility because its members were so objective and fearless. We have to respect them for this. The Law Commission indicated fearlessly that the protection of individual rights and group values would have no credibility or legitimacy in a new constitutional structure if one of the basic human rights, that is universal and equal franchise, were not recognised.

It also indicated without qualification that enforced legal discrimination on the basis of race or colour would not be tolerated. But the Law Commission left room that, in the rest of the constitution where political rights were dealt with, there could be differentiation between groups. That is the important point.

To be legitimate the new constitution has to be the result of negotiation between representatives of all groups and it has to be legitimised by a general referendum. This method of operating makes compromise possible and, when the Law Commission’s final report is tabled—I still have hopes that this will be next year—it will have made a valuable contribution to the process of conciliation and compromise in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to the Romans from whom we derive an element of our principles of law, that is the Roman-Dutch law, justice was the goddess whose symbols were a throne that storms could not shake, a pulse that passion could not stir, eyes that were blind to any feeling of favour or ill-will and a sword that fell on offenders with equal certainty and with impartial strength.

We need to ask ourselves what we are doing to the stern features of that statue which symbolises the justice on which we have prided ourselves over the years. I am referring to the continuance of the state of emergency which has been in force for some time now because there seem to be no signs that it will be lifted. The question is whether this state of emergency is going to become a part of our permanent life-style or whether it will be lifted soon.

Is it our intention to devalue the judiciary as we have a habit of devaluing every other important institution? Instead of defending our judges against political pressures and threats, instead of jealously guarding their integrity and impartiality, we have permitted the executive to invoke the state of emergency to supersede our eminent judges of calibre. Our judges and courts are respected throughout the world which fact was amplified by the hon member for Bonteheuwel.

In as much as the symptoms of our malaise may lie in economics, industrial disputes, unrest and general civil disobedience, we cannot overlook the underlying symptoms of this disease. They are moral, political and constitutional and, in order to cure this disease, we must recognise them as such.

We have an imperishable heritage and that is the independence of the judiciary, and let us accord it the respect that it deserves. Let us avoid this conflict between the judiciary and the executive, and not arrogate to ourselves what they are eminently able to handle.

The tone of public life has reached an all-time low with the continuing state of emergency. Can we blame John Citizen for his cynical observation that if the allegations against politicians are to be investigated, we shall need to have ombudsmen the way Australia has rabbits.

The picture is not one of unrelieved gloom. We have, as I said earlier, a proud heritage. It is not too late to redeem ourselves. However, we cannot allow this law, the state of emergency, to be applied indefinitely because it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of individuals.

This is the other matter that I would like to touch upon. The situation prevailing in South Africa today is the same which prevailed in civilised democracies throughout the world. The law of habeas corpus has evolved to free the citizen from the issue of a warrant without a stated cause, from arrest without a legal warrant, from imprisonment without trial and from punishment without a conviction. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon the Minister to insist and ensure that we do not overlook this fundamental element of our legal system.

The other matter that I would like to dwell upon is the need to make our courts of law more accessible to the people. The hon member for Camperdown amplified the question of the congestion in courts and I would also endorse those comments made by him. I would also like to acknowledged the initiatives taken by the Ministry and the hon the Minister in particular in establishing the small claims courts legislation which I presume is being reviewed frequently in terms of creating more of the courts closest to the people who make most use of them. It is also gratifying to know that the criticisms of this court have been good and not adverse as anticipated in some quarters.

I would also like to acknowledge the implementation of the operation of community service. I am sure that this will definitely assist in rehabilitating convicted persons, particularly first-time offenders, thus creating a stable society and perhaps benefiting the community at large.

Finally, I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to open his department up to more people of colour. I am not pleading for affirmative action. However, the department is conspicuous by the prominence of one community group only.

Mr Chairman, I shall confine my remarks to Vote No 14—Justice. I would like to cover certain aspects with reference to the excellent work, particularly in an investigation done by the Law Commission. I am aware that constant investigation is being done regarding irrelevant and archaic laws which have become obsolete.

Let me refer to the Matrimonial Property Act, No 88 of 1984. The investigations and recommendations have completely reformed the law of matrimonial property. The reforms vastly improve the status and contractual capacity of wives, particularly in marriages contracted in community of property.

The system of joint administration of the estate now makes a wife an equal partner thereby protecting her against any form of abuse. It is praiseworthy to note that in terms of the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Act, No 3 of 1988, certain provisions are applicable to civil marriages of Black persons. A Black wife now enjoys the same privileges and protection as wives of other population groups. This is in line with the policy of the LP because equality is emphasised in respect of all women in marriage irrespective of colour.

I remain completely convinced that it is imperative that more money and sufficient funds be made available to the Department of Justice. The purchase of labour-saving equipment will upgrade the quality of the legal system in this country. The quality product of any legal system depends on the competency and reliability of recorded proceedings. Reliable recording machines would save the courts thousands of working hours spent on judicial work. The sophistication of our courts can only be judged by the prompt availability and quality of work.

It is important that factors leading to the resignation of trained personnel be addressed comprehensively. The department cannot afford the luxury of trained officers and well-equipped personnel being lured away by attractive positions in the private sector. This invariably places a heavy burden on senior staff taking into account that much precious time has been taken up by in-service training. The hon the Minister should resolutely militate against resignations and should encourage his officers by better remuneration. This matter must be addressed immediately.

The hon the Minister should—this is imperative—upgrade the working conditions of men in his department. We on this side of the House acknowledge with thankfulness that those officers who voluntarily work overtime keep the volume of work up to date.

We place on record our appreciation that magistrates’ offices, particularly in rural towns, provide the agency for other auxiliary services on behalf of Government departments. For this we are thankful.

Once more we express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the 11 men on death row who were reprieved. I, in particular, want to mention the names of Messrs Dajee and McDonald of Westbury, Johannesburg. Their family, friends and relatives are truly thankful for the most gracious gesture and mercy on the part of the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the State President.

I would appeal to the hon the Minister to look into the possibility of repealing capital punishment. This should be done in conjunction with the removal from the Statute Book of those Acts which were responsible for the commission of such crimes. We are quite aware of the anguish, frustration, appeals, petitions and applications and, coupled with this, the long drawn-out process that follows before capital punishments is imposed.

South Africa is a Christian and civilized country. Our greatest worry is the increasing number of cases which must be reviewed by the directorate each year. A judicial commission should be appointed to look into capital punishment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is hardly possible to do justice to every participant in the debate thus far, because if I were to attempt to give fair and balanced replies to all hon members, as could be expected, it would mean that with the time allocated to us we would have to spend approximately one minute on each subject. As far as I know approximately 90 subjects, if not more, have thus far been discussed.

Some hon members took the opportunity to discuss many more subjects. I do, of course, defend the right of every chief spokesman to obtain as much of the limelight as possible for his party at this time. I respect that right. What I do not respect, however, is the process of debating without expecting to receive an answer because a matter is debated in such a way that it does not matter what the Minister says or what the answer is, as long as one can, by way of publicity, capitalise on a situation, for example as the hon member for Reservoir Hills did.

We as a justice family are an extremely fortunate group, and in the joint committee have achieved a great deal of success. In the process I discussed matters, from a position of trust, with many hon members on both sides of the House, taking them into my confidence. This afternoon unfortunately—and I want to take the strongest exception to this—an hon member nevertheless attacked me in the House, despite an understanding that a specific matter was a sensitive issue, and this was done in spite of the fact that I had given him certain information. That is in the worst possible parliamentary tradition and, secondly, the worst possible tradition as far as justice is concerned.

It certainly is possible for me to attempt to react to high points of the debate, and if hon members find that I have overlooked them, I shall try to get round to them tomorrow. If not, I shall attempt to do justice to them by way of a personal reply.

There were two or three main themes that received a great deal of attention. I am referring to the question of the death penalty. I shall therefore discuss the matter now.

There is also the question of the South African Law Commission’s report. I have learned that there are still speakers on both sides of the House that may speak on this subject, and it will therefore perhaps be prudent of me to react to it tomorrow. I shall, however, try to do justice to specific speakers because they are the main spokesmen of their parties. Things change so rapidly, however, that it is not always possible to keep up either.

On this issue I am looking forward to my friend, the hon member for Sandton, entering this debate. I shall then also pay tribute to him as his party’s former spokesman. It seems to me as if it meets with everyone’s approval that the hon member for Berea is now the chief spokesman on justice. I take it there is a very good reason why this shift took place, and I take it that it is thought the hon member for Sandton will make a considerable contribution elsewhere. The fact remains—I want this placed on record—that as far as the Minister and the group was concerned, that hon member conducted himself in the very best traditions of Parliament. He leaves us as a most respected chief spokesman on justice. I merely want to make that point.

There are other hon members who also came to the fore this afternoon as chief spokesmen, and we shall identify them. Hon members will permit me to extend the NP’s sincere thanks to our chief spokesman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, for his well-considered approach to matters involving justice. This has cemented ties and served the administration of justice. I also want to give him the assurance that in this regard the high esteem in which he is held goes far beyond the confines of Parliament.

The hon member for Bethal asked me about the Supreme Court building in Pretoria. I merely want to say very briefly that as a good Free Stater I do not, of course, want the Transvaal to think that we are neglecting them. In this specific case we have very definitely placed the Supreme Court building in Pretoria as high on the priority list as possible. Having said that, however, I must also tell hon members that as an impatient man, when it comes to a matter about which I do not always know a great deal, for example construction work and the problems of architects and quantity surveyors, things are always too slow for my liking. I also join hon members in eagerly looking forward to our having, in the future, a total of 32 new court-rooms and a total of 46 new judges’ chambers.

The excavations are in the offing—contract 1, 23 June 1989—and we can therefore accept the fact that the construction of the building will probably commence in January 1990. The project as a whole costs upward of R45 million, and we know there is what is termed escalation. I look forward to evidence of real progress being made.

The hon member raised another important matter here, ie the question of the remission of previous sentences. Why that is so, I do not know, but there is a considerable increase in the number of requests reaching our desks for reprieves, in other words pardons for crimes, or to put it more precisely, the elimination of the facts of record.

We examined the matter and remembered that in terms of the previous Criminal Procedure Act, after a period of 10 years a person’s convictions in regard to certain crimes, excluding those listed in Schedule 1, automatically lapsed. In a decision the courts have previously stated that one should guard against the book of past sins always remaining open. The dark shadows of past guilt remain alive in our memories, regardless of the passage of time, etc, according to that ruling.

We get umpteen smaller or lesser offences that can crop up, and that is why I want to examine this aspect. There are those who, in their youth, have perhaps done nothing worse than stealing fruit, or perhaps the equivalent of stealing fruit. And who has not stolen fruit in his young days—I am now speaking literally, not figuratively. [Interjections.] In those cases the matter had to be looked into.

This brings me to the question of decriminalisa-tion which, at the insistence of Parliament, has been receiving our attention for some time now. By decriminalisation we do not mean the transfer from one court to another, but in fact no longer regarding something as a crime. That is the one course of action.

The other course is depenalisation with a view to removing certain criminal jurisdiction from the courts and rather dealing with the matter administratively in such a way that a person does, in fact, feel the pinch, but does not build up a criminal record. For example, we are aware of the fact that 75% of all traffic offences are stationary violations with which our courts are kept busy. We object to our system of magistrates’ courts being used as a mechanism for collecting money for the municipal accounts of our towns and cities. [Interjections.] I am therefore going to approach the Cabinet with specific proposals. I promised hon members that we would examine the matter. Recently I have received an indication from the Director-General that in the coming week or so he would submit a concrete report to me. There are very positive indications. The objective can be achieved by close co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Transport, and this will probably result in a statutory amendment. Very interesting proposals were made by a variety of interested parties, and we shall be examining this very interesting further development.

Hon members are aware of the fact that on several occasions, in the House of Representatives, I mentioned the appointment of their people as justices of the peace, because we intend to employ justices of the peace to a larger extent in the future. We are on the eve of involving justices of the peace to a greater extent in the adjudication of decriminalised and, to a larger extent, depenalised offences. This means that we shall involve the public to a greater extent in law enforcement.

The hon member for Bethal raised a very interesting matter. He asked me how we felt about court proceedings being televised. I want to take a very, very strong stand on this issue. It is common knowledge that even our administration of justice does not escape the actions of revolutionaries. Nor do radicals have any respect for our administration of justice, regardless of where in the political spectrum they find themselves. Examples of a show of force could include the singing of freedom songs and the use of gestures in court, but this could also include people in khaki uniforms with weapons at their hips. [Interjections.] I am not making a political issue out of this, and I know the hon member for Bethal is not doing so either. He is pre-eminently known for the tremendous respect he has for the administration of justice, and that is why he raised the matter.

He is a member of the AWB’s Grand Council. [Interjections.]

Let me tell that hon member that we are dealing with a very serious matter, and I must tell the hon member for Bethal that he has my respect. The hon member for Bethal is adopting the correct course.

Against this background let me say that I would have no sympathy if Parliament wanted us to take action against extremists. Inevitably, owing to the sensationalism involved, such conduct on the part of the accused or sympathisers receives wide media coverage, and the danger inherent in this is that in future other extremists may be induced to adopt a similar attitude. Against this background, for example, I examined the so-called Strydom incident and the television coverage in court. From the investigation it appeared that the mechanisms contained in existing legislation were possibly adequate to control the conduct of all individuals inside court buildings, including the taking of photographs and TV coverage. From the legislation it is clearly apparent that the presiding officer must be granted unrestricted discretion, and for a variety of reasons his conduct must be such that his authority can be imposed, in absolute terms, on photographers, newspapermen and sympathisers, regardless of who and what they are. I think all hon members endorse this. I therefore want to make it clear that we place a very high premium on the dignity and decorum of our courts—both higher courts and lower courts. Good order is dependent on this image and perception of our courts. I therefore want to state unequivocally that any possible restriction on the taking of photographs or television coverage is not aimed at curtailing accessibility to our courts in any way, but primarily at protecting the parties concerned, and also placing the dignity of the courts beyond all doubt. [Interjections.]

If the need were to manifest itself, in terms of the Demonstrations In Or Near Court Buildings Prohibition Act, and in consultation with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, I envisage having certain amendments to this Act investigated, the object being to reserve, for myself and my colleagues, further powers for the control of conduct of all persons in court buildings. The relevant Act was specifically placed on the Statute Book to ensure that court proceedings took place in an atmosphere of peace and calm, free from outside intimidation, etc.

The hon member for Bethal asked me about the question of maintenance. The report is virtually ready. Hon members on my side of the House have, on various occasions—in our group discussions too—spoken about this matter, and there is a new dispensation in the offing.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, to whom I have already paid tribute and conveyed my respect, asked me—apart from other matters he raised—about the regulation of the advocates’ profession. Let me tell him that he is correct if he is saying that at this stage we must obtain a uniform approach as far as that profession is concerned, specifically since we have heard that bodies such as lawyers and others are knocking on the door asking to be allowed to appear in our courts and to be given other appointments.

There are also academics who are knocking at the door. I am knocking at the door, because the source from which advocates are drawn, for appointment to the Bench, is becoming depleted.

On occasion I have stated that the Bar is the most important source for appointments to the Bench. Today this is still the policy, and I want to reiterate it. It can never be the exclusive or one and only source, however. There are deserving practitioners, academics and people in the Public Service who have already proved themselves, for example the late Chief Justice Steyn, and who can qualify for appointment. I still, however, subscribe to the idea that the Bar, by way of the specialised attributes involved, its cultural background and the opportunity it presents for shaping an independent attitude—more so than would be possible elsewhere, it could be argued—is still the proper source. Specifically for that reason, and since we hold this profession in such high regard, the Bar ought to put its house in order.

The hon member speaks about a criterion for admission which lays down a greater or lesser requirement for participation in Bar proceedings and wardship. It is also possible for a person to appear in the Supreme Court, however, without having been through his wardship. This De Jager incident in the Smuts Report specifically highlighted the need for proper control and uniformity by way of identification.

What solution must we find first? First we must find a solution for the academic who also wants to practise and is also equipped to practise. What is the attitude of our Bar to such persons? If we can find a solution for this, if we can get a solution from the central Bar Council, I am prepared, with great circumspection, to examine all the recommendations of the Smuts Report which could lead to our obtaining one controlling body with a view to ensuring a certain degree of uniformity.

In that case I foresee greater clarity about the admission of advocates, and I think the academics would like to co-operate if they knew that it would, in fact, be possible for them to practise, through associated membership or some or other mechanism. [Interjections.]

†The hon member Mr Thaver asked me about the small claims courts. He is correct when he says that this is a very popular institution. At present we have 1 200 commissioners. We serve 11,5 million people, which is almost 70% of our country’s population. These courts function with a minimum of governmental financial support. They receive and deal with 80 000 enquiries per year. They are already disposing of 50 000 cases per year, without actually detracting from the number of cases that are being heard in the magistrates’ courts. This means that previously there was a need for the ordinary man to have his day in court. Now he has his day in court.

I really wish to pay tribute to the advocates, the attorneys and the academics for their contribution in this connection. They serve as commissioners and I believe they actually compete to serve there. At present there is a need for more commissioners to come forward, and I should like to invoke the assistance of all and sundry to encourage more and more commissioners to render this service.

I shall look into the hon member’s specific problem and I shall respond to him by letter.

*Both the hon member for Vryburg and the hon member for Berea, and I think the hon member for Tongaat, but definitely also the hon member for Houghton, addressed us on the question of the death penalty.

†I am not going to argue that in the course of less than an hour a diversity of opinions has emerged on this issue, because that is the situation. There were different emphases. One hon member proposed complete abolition of the death sentence, while another proposed adjustments. Still another hon member proposed certain reforms. [Interjections.]

That is why we need a commission.

There is also the suggestion of a commission, but then there are also hon members who are now asking us to extend the death penalty to other offences, such as drug offences and child molesting. Therefore there definitely are various views and opinions on the same topic. [Interjections.]

In terms of the South African law at present the death sentence can only be imposed by a superior court. I think hon members will bear with me as I would like to deal with this issue rather comprehensively.

In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act the death sentence may only be imposed upon a person who has been convicted of murder, treason, kidnapping, child-stealing or rape. The sentence may also be imposed upon a person who has been convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, or any offence—whether under common law or under any statute—of housebreaking or attempted housebreaking with the intent to commit an offence, if the courts find that aggravating circumstances were present. The superior court is compelled to impose the death sentence in only one case, and that is when any person is convicted of murder and none of the following circumstances are present: The accused is under the age of 18; the accused is a woman who has been convicted of the murder of a newly-born child, and thirdly, the court is of the opinion that there are extenuating circumstances.

The onus of proof—that is important—rests on the accused. The court is not otherwise compelled to impose the death sentence but has a discretion to impose any sentence other than the death sentence. In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System, the so-called Viljoen Commission, reference is made to the introduction of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Responsibility of Mentally Deranged Persons, which latter commission expressed its viewpoint as follows:

It is a concept which one would like to leave at that. Nevertheless we are of the opinion that society accepts the following as inherent in punishment: The protection of society; the deterrence of others, the deterrence of a person who is punished from repetition of his conduct; the reform of the criminal; and, as said, retribution.

As far as the protection of the community is concerned the question arises whether the death penalty is the only effective protective measure for society against a special category of hardened criminals, for example murderers, saboteurs and murderers already serving sentences of imprisonment. Those in favour of abolition argue that a term of life imprisonment in maximum security with the exclusion of parole can be imposed instead of the death sentence.

However, in contrast to this it must be pointed out that the protection of the community is not the only aim of punishment. As far as the deterrent aspect of a punishment is concerned it has been argued that there has been no increase in the number of capital cases in our country or in other countries in which the death penalty has been abolished. I refer to countries where abolition has already taken place.

This is however, with due respect, not a criterion according to which the deterrence of the death penalty can be determined. The possibility always exists that particularly in countries where the death penalty has been abolished fairly recently, the communities were in such a state of development and education when the death penalty still applied, that it still had a substantial effect on them by restraining them from committing serious crimes.

Statistics can also never reflect how many potential offenders have been deterred by the death penalty from murdering others. A New York judge expressed himself as follows:

The death penalty also gives effect to one of the principles of punishment, namely retribution, but as I say, this is very low on my personal list. The death penalty is not imposed lightly by our courts. It is imposed in cases of brutal, inhuman and heartless murders, and also in respect of other crimes which fill the community with a sense of horror. Should the death penalty as a form of punishment be abolished for this type of crime, it could in the light of there being no alternative form of punishment, give rise to the situation where the community loses confidence in our penal system and then takes the law into its own hands. This of course will seriously impede the maintenance of law and order.

It would therefore appear that imprisonment as alternative to the death penalty does not have the desired effect. In South Africa it has happened on several occasions that criminals convicted for capital offences who have had their sentences commuted or reprieved, after their release still commit further capital offences. A recent example of this phenomenon is the notorious screwdriver case, Mr W F van der Merwe. In some instances prisoners have even murdered their fellow-prisoners.

According to statistics it would appear as if 17 persons in the period 1966-71, and four persons in the period 1985-88, have been sentenced for a second time for a capital offence. It would appear that after a period of time all these persons committed the same kind of crime that they had previously been punished for despite the fact that they had undergone a stiff term of imprisonment for the first capital offence.

In the case of Van der Merwe hon members have read the correspondence columns in our newspapers. Hon members have also received letters from people crying out in despair for stiffer sentences for the people who commit rape of the innocent.

We ourselves received so many more letters asking us to avoid a repetition of the Van der Merwe case, suggesting that the Appellate Division had erred by allowing his appeal. It ought to be pointed out that in several countries the death sentence is still imposed for a number of crimes; among others 36 states in the United States, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Taiwan, Japan and China. During 1987, 25 people were executed in the USA and on 31 December 1987, 1 982 persons were awaiting execution. I am supplying hon members with this information to tell them that we are not insensitive to the issue of this penalty, and that are nevertheless receptive to ideas for reform. Our law has to question itself every so often and our systems have to take account every so often of the changing needs and circumstances of our time. These cannot be ignored.

The community has a very important role to play as public opinion could be decisive in matters of this nature. Nevertheless it ought to be mentioned that in recent opinion polls it was shown that the community for the most part is in favour of the retention of the death penalty. It was pointed out that in countries where the death penalty had been abolished tremendous pressure was being exerted for the re-introduction of the death penalty even in respect of certain political crimes.

Over the years there has been a continuing debate on the death sentence. I have also taken cognisance of the various recent proposals to amend existing legal provisions in this regard and I shall mention a few of the options. A proposal that the compulsory death penalty in the case of murder without extenuating circumstances be abolished is actually almost offering itself. I want to repeat that a proposal that the compulsory death penalty in the case of murder without extenuating circumstances be abolished, is almost offering itself. Arguments in favour of this option are based on the fact that the prescribing of a compulsory punishment places a restriction on the discretion of the courts, which necessarily has the effect that more death sentences are imposed than would be the case if the courts had the discretion. It is also suggested in this regard that a sentencing judge be empowered but not obliged to pass a death sentence only where aggravating circumstances, the nature and scope of which the courts must determine, are found to be present, the State to bear the onus of proving such circumstances beyond reasonable doubt as part of its case.

Furthermore a second option is that the present appeal procedure be replaced with an automatic right of appeal to the Appellate Division in all cases where the death sentence is imposed; furthermore, that on appeal the Appellate Division be empowered to adjudge the question of extenuating circumstances freely and without in any way being fettered by the finding of the trial court. This was another option offered, that in relation to housebreaking and robbery with aggravating circumstances the present statutory definition of aggravating circumstances be eliminated and it be left to the courts to place their own interpretation upon this term in much the same way as the term “extenuating circumstances” has been interpreted over the years.

A last option offered to us is that the Appellate Division be empowered to a adjudge on the same grounds as the Executive would consider commutation. Therefore this is a matter which has to be approached free from emotion and with great circumspection and sensitivity. In this regard I also make a serious request to hon members as politicians that this issue should not be politicised.

*The death penalty is one of the available common law punishments in the case of serious offences. Up to now even those making serious representations—I do not want to mention their names—have not asked for its abolition, but rather to have it reformed or amended. Whilst I therefore cannot be a party to a campaign aimed at abolishing the death penalty, I am receptive— as I have said—to ideas concerning its reform. The fact that the law must continually adapt to changing needs is something no one can ignore.

Reform, if it comes, will have to take place in such a way, however, that it is gradually phased in so that we avoid situations which would be untenable in practice. Thus far the bodies to which I have referred, and which have made representations for amendments and reform, have shown a great sense of responsibility, and I want to ask them to continue to do so.

The adjustments must therefore take place by a process of evolution. This issue must be kept out of the political arena and left in the hands of those who are really the experts and those who are involved in the practical implementation of the law, ie the Chief Justice, the Judge President and the Bench, and also the Department of Justice.

In conclusion I can give hon members the assurance that the hon the State President himself is very sensitive to this issue. That is all, as far as that subject is concerned, and I trust that hon members will accept it as such.

This brings me to another matter raised by the hon member for Losberg, ie the question of the Advocate-General’s report about Messrs Du Plessis. I see that the hon member for Bethal gave an indication in his newspaper—and this was taken up by other newspapers—that he thought that I had quoted the Advocate-General incorrectly. By implication I deduced that he expected me to say that the Mr P T C du Plessis case was also referred to the Attorney-General.

If hon members were to examine my statement, they would see that it gave an indication of what we were doing with the recommendations. The idea was not to restate the Advocate-General’s recommendations, because after all hon members had those recommendations. The intention was, as a Government, to take every concrete recommendation, deal with it and say what we were going to do.

At ten o’clock hon members obtained the report, and at ten o’clock they heard what the Government was going to do with this report. That was the sequence of events. Nowhere did the Advocate-General say that the P T C du Plessis case should be referred to the Attorney-General. What the Advocate-General did say was that the J P L du Plessis case should be referred to the Attorney-General. That is what I said on page 2 of the statement that was released.

In regard to Mr P T C du Plessis, however, the Advocate-General’s findings indicated certain improprieties—and we referred to that—in the sense that he indicated that the fact that he made no recommendation with regard to Mr Du Plessis was, however “… subject to any possible recommendations in regard to gratuity and/or pension benefits and other privileges that Parliament would wish to make.” He therefore made no recommendation, and he said so. I then said in my statement that that aspect would be referred to the joint committee entrusted with the pension benefits of members of Parliament and political office-bearers.

There is a big difference between a finding indicating improper conduct and a finding indicating that a crime has been committed. Hon members in that corner of the Chamber who are legal men will concede the point. I am shocked at their lack of objectivity in this regard. I am shocked at the attempt to make political capital of the steps taken by the Government in response to the Advocate-General’s report. That was the last thing we envisaged. We have said clearly and precisely what we are going to do in regard to each of the Advocate-General’s recommendations.

If the Advocate-General does not recommend that the case of Mr P T C du Plessis be referred to the Attorney-General, however, on what grounds must I do so? The Attorney-General receives this report and carries out his own investigation. The report is not binding, and my statement does not prescribe to him against whom he must institute legal proceedings. Even if the J P L du Plessis case were referred to the Attorney-General, it would still not mean that he would institute legal proceedings against him. He can use his discretion. I therefore did not commit the Attorney-General to any course of action. In the course of his investigation he can involve any other person, even one not mentioned in this report. We were only responding to what the Advocate-General recommended should be done. We said whether, how and when we were doing so. It was therefore extremely regrettable that the hon members for Bethal and Losberg tried to take this gap.

†The hon member Mr Thaver referred to certain prosecutions which he thinks should be proceeded with with the least possible delay. That issue is in the hands of the Attorney-General of Natal. He does report progress on all cases to the department when we ask him for it. I will ask him for a report on this particular issue.

This brings me to the hon member for Houghton. I find it strange that the hon member judges a decision in a magistrate’s court simply on newspaper reports.

Oh no, quite wrong. I have an enormous list of faxed evidence.

Time and again she assumes the position of a superior court reviewing decisions and reacts to the emotion which she perceives has been generated by a particular court case.

It is outrageous!

In regard to this particular case at Klerksdorp I would grant her one thing. We would have been happier if a perception had not arisen that justice was not done. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the prosecutor, in deciding the way in which he was going to conduct the case, was also guided by the fact that he could have failed on a charge of culpable homicide. That was his decision.

Hers.

It was her decision. [Interjections.] We are not discriminating. Whether it was his or hers, what difference does that make?

Law of interpretation I suppose.

According to her interpretation there was no casual link between the death and the assault.

Now the hon member wants me to appoint a commission to investigate this issue. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member if her party will support me if we introduce the right of appeal on the part of the Attorney-General. If he has this right, he can approach the Supreme Court and may ask for a stiffer sentence if he is of the opinion that a sentence has been inadequate. Grant the Attorney-General the same right of privilege as the ordinary convicted person has. If a person feels aggrieved by a heavy sentence, he may appeal. Can we not arrange for the Attorney-General to have a similar right of appeal if he is dissatisfied and thinks that a sentence is too light? I will believe that the hon member is serious about the application of justice if she supports me. Justice is not only done when the hon member thinks it is. Thousands of people feel that sentences in other cases are too light.

Every day I am confronted by farmers who think that the sentences for stock theft are too light. [Interjections.] Would the hon member support a right of appeal?

What do you think?

I am asking the hon member. Now she does not want to reply.

I have replied. I say it is a ridiculous argument. Obviously this is an outrageous case.

But it is so simple and so easy. If the Attorney-General has a right to appeal, he can put this matter right. He can go to court and ask for a stiffer sentence.

It is absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is so logical. [Interjections.] If the Attorney-General has the power to take the magistrate on review under given circumstances because he is not satisfied that he has applied his mind to all factors …

Had it been culpable homicide it would have gone on review. Right?

The hon member has shown herself up. She definitely lacks logic in this regard. She must please accept that we are as sensitive as she is. We are looking for solutions. However, we do not read anything sinister in what has transpired there. We are as concerned as that hon member about the image of our courts. We are looking for avenues to find solutions. [Interjections.] However, the hon member must also support us then. The logical thing would perhaps be to grant the Attorney-General the right to appeal. Personally I do not think I will get the support of the practitioners. [Interjections.] The spokesman on our side is smiling and shaking his head. He would not like his clients to be exposed to an appeal on the part of the Attorney-General when he is dissatisfied with a sentence. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not questioning the hon member’s approach because she is not a lawyer. I actually expect of her not to understand these finer points.

I do understand.

I expect the hon member to react to emotion. However, I do not question her bona fides. She must therefore not question what has transpired in the courts unless she is absolutely certain of her facts. Let us not judge on mere perceptions.

I want to tell the hon member that we are looking for solutions. There may be this single case. Here and there we have a single case among thousands of cases adjudicated and disposed of in our courts of law.

Here and there we have a single case amongst thousands and thousands of cases adjudicated and disposed of in our courts of law. We have thousands of cases but there might be a single one here and there creating the impression that justice might not have been done.

How objective can we be or are we? We have introduced community service sentences. The newspapers welcome it whenever a sentence of community service is imposed. In terms of the approaches of past years and if we were to apply old standards, it would be considered to be too light a sentence and inadequate. Therefore we must be objective.

A little while ago a judge imposed a community service sentence in a case in which people were convicted of unrest related offences. He was applauded in certain newspapers but having been approached by people on the other side of the political fence, I am aware of grave concern about too light sentences. Let us be objective and understand the position in which we find ourselves. The law is not an instrument to be used by politicians to further their own views. I am not saying that the hon member is doing so but let me sound a warning that that is not the purpose of the law.

*The hon member for Port Elizabeth North asked me where we stood and what we were going to do about the Heever Report. Let me tell the hon member that as a start we are including the Joubertina magisterial district in the area of jurisdiction of the South-Eastern Cape local division. We are going to do that. In regard to the question about whether there will be a local division at Pietersburg and George, in spite of the fact that the commission’s findings were opposed to it, I do not want the hon member to interpret this as a green light for people to start moving to Pietersburg and George. We support the recommendation that there should be no additional local division, but the establishment of a local division at Pietersburg and George may prove to be desirable in the future, however, in the light of the continual increase in the workload and the pressure of work experienced in these areas.

The creation of a local division at Pietersburg will also bring the Supreme Court closer to most of the self-governing territories. As a prerequisite for the establishment of these two local divisions, attorneys-generals’ offices will first be established. And then if the establishment of local circuit divisions in places where a need exists also seems to be desirable, this will be dealt with accordingly.

The recommendation that powers of appeal and review be granted to the local division, Durban and coast, on the same basis as the Wit-watersrand local division, is not supported by the Judge President of Natal, and the Government consequently does not intend to promote this.

In conclusion let me put it to hon members that there are several hon members who are still awaiting a reply. I think the hon member for Border is still waiting for a reply. He made a very valuable contribution in regard to a number of matters. With regard to emergency detainees, the fact is, of course, that we try to treat the prisoners in the same way as awaiting-trial prisoners, and in fact succeed in doing so. We provide them with medical treatment, food and clothing, and facilities for study, exercise, sport, legal visits, family visits and correspondence. If they are not satisfied, they are free to approach us, and they can also have recourse to the courts under given circumstances.

Then there is the whole question of deputy sheriffs. I have not yet implemented the Act. I have asked the respective organisations representing the deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court to advise me on the identification of magisterial districts in which large concentrations of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are living and which could possibly be divided up further with a view to appointing more than one sheriff to a specific area. This includes the identification of the magisterial districts which, owing to their size, expansion and the consequent scope of the duties of deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court, could possibly be divided up further with a view to appointing more than one incumbent per magisterial district. These two associations have worked hard on this project in recent months and have indicated to me that they are now ready to furnish me with a report with a view to giving expression to the joint committee’s recommendation that as far as possible there be a redistribution of work to make it possible for members of other communities to obtain appointments too. Great strides have therefore been made with this, and before the end of June I shall probably be in a position to make more definite announcements about delimitation.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a very great privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate today, because in my full-time portfolio manpower and labour also play a very important role.

In the short time it has been my privilege to be associated with the Department of Manpower I have been impressed by the important work being done by this department, both in the economic sphere and in the social life of people.

I listened very attentively to the speeches made here, and arrived at the conclusion that they endorsed the contents of the annual report of this department, namely that things were going very well in that department. In this connection I should not only like to congratulate the Director-General, Adv Joel Fourie, on his appointment as Director-General of the department, but also thank him very sincerely, together with his personnel and his management, in the first place for the way in which they accepted me in that department, and in the second for the assistance they gave me.

In addition I do not think it is inappropriate to congratulate the former Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe, on his important appointment as chairman of the Commission for Administration. Nor do I think it inappropriate for me to express a few words of sincere appreciation here to the former hon Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.] I think that hon Minister managed this department, as he did his previous portfolios, with great competence.

Where is he now?

Let us withhold the questions, because the hon members sitting here all live in glass houses. [Interjections.] Beware of stones! Beware of stones! [Interjections.]

All?

Yes, all. That hon member is also sitting in a glass house. [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Minister will be remembered in particular, together with Dr Van der Merwe, for the positive contributions they made to job creation in this country. [Interjections.]

The issues of training and job creation echoed like a refrain throughout the debate. The hon members for Rust Ter Vaal, Chatsworth Central, Heideveld, Alberton, Bayview, Kuruman, Newcastle and Belhar all, to a greater or lesser extent, referred to training. Consequently it is a great pleasure for me to inform this Committee that we intend introducing a bursary scheme for the training of technicians, and particularly for technical training, because that is what prosperity is concerned with. [Interjections.]

I want to inform hon members about this briefly. The launching of a scheme with an annual intake of 200 pupil technicians is being envisaged. This means that there will be between 600 and 700 bursary holders in training as soon as the schemes is in full operation in three to four years’ time. Particular attention will be given to the training of technicians who are required for the processing of our country’s minerals. In that way we will place the accent on the creation of further job opportunities.

Talks have already been held with a representative of the technikons, who gave us the assurance that the technikons are able to accommodate these additional students. To this end the Department of Manpower will co-operate closely with the technikons and with the Department of Trade and Industry. The first intake will be made as soon as it is feasible to do so.

†A very important question on the minds of hon members is no doubt the monetary value of the bursaries and the conditions applicable thereto. The monetary value of the bursaries awarded by the Commission for Administration served as a guideline in the Department of Manpower’s recommendation that bursaries to the value of R5 000 per annum should be made available. This amount will enable pupil technicians to pay for their class fees, books, instruments, board and lodging and other miscellaneous expenses that go hand in hand with full-time studies.

This means that the cost to the State will amount to approximately R10 million over four years. Hon members will know that the training of technicians is done on a semester basis which means that the theoretical studies, lasting one semester per annum, are followed by practical training under the guidance of approved foster employers and the technikons concerned. Employers offering facilities to bursary holders have much to gain.

Not only will they get the benefit of the students’ services, but they are afforded an opportunity to recruit technicians at no cost whatsoever. I sincerely trust that the Departments of Manpower and of Trade and Industry will make this venture worthwhile. Needless to say, bursary holders will not be bound in any way, except to repay the bursary moneys paid out should they fail to complete their studies.

*Mr Chairman, it was a great pleasure for me to be able to make this announcement.

I shall try to refer briefly to all the speakers. In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein very sincerely for his contribution here. I received very valuable assistance from him in his capacity as chairman of the study group, and I was also able to draw on his experience. I should like to thank him very much for that.

The hon member was in fact reacting to the hon member for Brakpan. He asked what the White workers had to be protected against.

The CP!

I shall come to that later.

I have known the hon member for Brakpan for 12 years. The two of us co-operated very closely when he became a member of Parliament. He is a person who has the ability to argue well. He was able to argue logically—at least he was able to do that when he was a Nationalist of course.

Today I want to ask the hon member whether he really believes in his heart of hearts that we should ever consider nullifying the trade union rights we have given to Black people. I am pleased the hon member prefers to keep quiet.

You know what is stated in our policy document!

Does the hon member really believe that we should go back and reintroduce job reservation—even if it is stated in the documents? [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out that when questions of this nature are put, it does not imply that hon members must reply to them immediately. As a matter of fact, that is not allowed under the Rules. However there are probably hon members of the hon member for Brakpan’s party who are going to reply to that in due course if they think it necessary. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

I ask in the form of a rhetorical question whether there is any person here who believes that we can ever turn back the clock to a time when we said to a certain section of the workers that they were not entitled to a trade union, and that they were not entitled to do certain work?

No one need reply to the question. It is clear that that phase in our history is gone forever. The hon member for Brakpan in truth said that we had had a successful year behind us. He referred to our annual report, and in that report all facets of the department’s activities are dealt with. These aspects, too, contributed in part to that successful year. Should we ever exchange success for conflict again? No, I am convinced that any reasonable person, in that party too, will agree with me. I give them the benefit of the doubt. They will agree with me that it is not feasible. I do not know of any fear-stricken worker. I do not know such a person! [Interjections.]

Let us consider the history of the White worker. He has behind him a history of training, expertise and reliability. Now those hon members must tell me why the White worker should be fear-stricken, except of course if they make him fearful. That, too, serves no purpose.

The hon member referred to the low percentage of incidents that were investigated in connection with occupational safety. I can tell that hon member—he also referred to it—that there is a shortage of manpower as far as these inspectors are concerned.

I can give the hon member the assurance, however, that all fatal cases were investigated and that in reality 238 prosecutions resulted from these investigations. The hon member is correct when he says that we should employ more people for that purpose. As hon members know we have a considerable number of vacancies in this connection.

While I am talking to the hon member for Brakpan, let me also refer to the hon member for Carletonville. That hon member advanced through the ranks of labour to where he is today, and I have respect for such a person even though I do not agree with him and even though I think he is unfair.

This is the first debate in which I had a chance to listen to his specialised knowledge, but I was very disappointed because the contribution he should have made he hid, as it were, under a bushel of petty politics. He devoted his entire speech to holidays, almost as though the White workers—whom he professed to be protecting— saw the future of this country in terms of having a holiday.

That hon member referred to Workers’ Day. Hon members will recall that we laid down that Workers’ Day would be the first Friday in May. After we had received further representations and applications in this connection we decided to make it the first Monday in May. The reason for this is that we should like to give recognition to the workers of South Africa and we do not begrudge them a long weekend.

If there are workers who in fact want the first day of May as Workers’ Day, they are free to negotiate the matter with their employers. Surely any reasonable person will say that it is to the greater convenience of our workers if we give them a day which also offers them a long weekend.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central also referred to this. May Day had its origin in Western industrialised countries as a form of protest against long working hours. The Russian revolution gave it the ideological meaning of a triumph of communism over capitalism. I do not think that we must politicise this issue any further, especially on account of the fact that even in communist Russia they are busy rethinking their economic ideologies.

*It worries me that the hon member for Carletonville does not have the interests of the worker at heart. If I consider what is happening in his constituency and bear in mind that approximately 380 people have already lost their work, including White workers …

After the election he will also be unemployed! [Interjections.]

… I have reason to be worried, not about the hon member, even though he may be unemployed after the election, but about those workers. Not only am I worried about the White workers, I am worried about all the workers, because all the workers of this country are necessary to make it a great country. Imagine the hon member saying that a firm which is dependent on Black support will simply have to move to the Black areas! Hon members of the CP support that view, because it fits in with their political ideology that Black people should disappear. The issue is in other words the presence of Black people.

Now I want to ask those hon members the following question. They say that the persons who are dependent on Blacks in order to do business should move out to the Black areas. I now ask the hon member as well as the party: Does that also apply to businesses that make use of Black labour? There is no reply. There cannot be a reply because what that party is supporting is an ill-considered thing. It is an ill-considered thing, because one cannot get away from the presence of Black people, no matter what one does.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister a question. I accept that the hon the Minister has finished replying to me now. Can he also reply to our question which I put to him? Is Workers’ Day going to fall on the first Monday in May next year and the year after?

The hon member knows precisely what the Government has decided.

†The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development referred to trade unions in agriculture. Allow me to say first of all that the reports that are brought out by the National Manpower Commission mostly serve as advice to the Minister and to the Government and are therefore not necessarily published. The question of labour unions in agriculture is an extremely delicate issue which must be handled with great circumspection if we are not going to dislocate agriculture and reduce its capacity to supply work to thousands of people.

Mindful of the fact that all hon members of all three Houses of Parliament are concerned about this matter—I include myself in their number— we set up a working group consisting of organised agriculture on the one hand and interested MPs from the Houses concerned on the other, with the Department of Manpower as an honest broker. I invite any hon member wanting to make a contribution to do so before this particular working group. In this regard I can say that there is a lot of goodwill and that steady progress has already been made.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central wisely sounded a word of warning. He warned us to be careful because although unions may be viable in the case of a big agricultural concern, however, in other cases they may prove to be impracticable.

*It is a complicated matter, because it is an enormous industry which extends over a large geographic area and is tremendously divergent. In this industry we are dealing with grain, vegetables, livestock, timber and many other products, and that makes it complicated. [Interjections.] In addition some units are large and others small. In addition, as a result of natural conditions there is great instability in that industry, which makes it very difficult to act prescrip-tively. A further point—in my opinion it is economically the most important one—is that agriculture is the most unremunerative industry in which one can invest. That is why I am still poor today.

Tell that to the workers.

Politically poor?

Fortunately not politically. This is an important point and organised agriculture realises and recognises this. I tried to read widely on this subject, and I could find no country in the world which could serve as a good example of trade unions in agriculture. If any hon member has any knowledge which I do not have, I invite him to participate again in this debate so that I can hear about it.

Someone here said that Cosatu was organising it. I must honestly say that Cosatu does in fact have the right to do so, but I predict that they are going to have many problems with it. It is in fact possible—such organisations already exist—to establish an employees’ organisation in certain large farming enterprises in which thousands of people are employed. A large farming enterprise, in terms of South Africa, would be a person with 500 to 1 000 people in his employ. But what does a trade union with only 500 members mean? It is therefore not such an easy problem. If it was merely a question of changing a law, we would have been able to do so.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that it was not fair to associate farm labour with slavery because there are farmers among the White, Coloured, Indian and Black people, of whom the vast majority take good care of their workers in agriculture. I concede that there are of course exceptions to the rule. He referred inter alia to a farmer who had assaulted his employee. [Interjections.] Of course that is wrong. Since our labour laws do not make provision for that, our ordinary laws make provision for it. I find that our courts are willing to take action in those cases.

†The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to the technical college in Bellville and to Sastri College. That however is not a matter for the Department of Manpower as these are educational matters which are own affairs. However, the department would have no problem whatsoever if one technical college made an arrangement with another. We have no problem as far as that is concerned.

I have already referred to—the hon member for Springfield mentioned this matter—workers in the agricultural sector. He also referred to conflicting rulings of the Industrial Court. I cannot really comment on that as these are administrative courts and are not bound by their decisions. The Department of Manpower did, during 1988, amend the Labour Relations Act by defining an unfair labour practice more widely, making it easier for courts to give a decision in line with previous decisions. Another very important factor in the uniformity of decisions is the fact that from now on people have the right of appeal. A decision can now be appealed against.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central, to whom I have already referred, sounded a word of caution on trade unions in the agricultural sector.

*Then there is the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal. He said South Africa was a country of hope, with a bright future. I am pleased that he is so optimistic—he is not a Louw for nothing! [Interjections.] He also referred to forestry and to workers in the forestry industry, who only receive their wages every five weeks. This is a matter which he would do well to take up with the Department of Forestry as the employer in that connection.

Then he also referred to the position that employers and employees were now negotiating with one another and were bargaining as it were, which is different to what is stated in the Labour Relations Act. The hon member for Durban Central also referred to that point. Now I want to tell the hon members that our labour legislation is based on collective bargaining and negotiation. Consequently it is no problem to us if parties were to negotiate and say that they did not want the provisions of the laws to be applicable to them. I have no problem whatsoever with that, and the parties may do so.

The hon member also referred to discrimination in employment, so too did the hon member for Alberton and the hon member for Stilfontein. As far as the department is concerned, there is no discrimination whatsoever as far as placement services are concerned. The definition of an unfair labour practice—hon members will also know this—was expanded to include unfair discrimination by employers.

†The hon member for Durban Central pleaded that under section 17(11)(a) we must revert to the norm for that court as being “unlawfulness” and not “unfairness.” The Industrial Court is a court of equity and it must ask itself what is fair and what is unfair. That is the reason why the norm of unlawfulness has been left out. I will, however, say that this is the beginning of a phase and the hon member and anybody else can of course make recommendations from time to time to the department. We will see how this works.

The hon member also asked that the onus of proof be placed on the person alleging. In this particular instance the onus of proof is only passed on when it is an unlawful action. I think if we do not place this onus on the person accused of unlawfulness, it will be a technical impossibility to prove a case. The hon member also referred to the second generation agreements. I have already dealt with that.

*The hon member for Alberton referred to productivity and management. These are two very important matters which are very closely interrelated. I want to concede that the hon member is correct that productivity is a cold, measurable element as far as the achievements of workers are concerned. That is why it is very important to promote productivity by means of good management.

Good management takes the position of the worker as a human being into consideration. The worker is a human being who also has other needs besides that of a job. I think that if we can bring home this message and can effect an improvement in this regard we shall make great and rapid progress as far as the productivity of labour is concerned.

The hon member for Newcastle said that our labour force should not be politicised. I am in full agreement with him. Even in Cosatu, where they are trying to do this, there is polarisation between groups, namely the “workerists” and the “charterists”, because they are politicising labour.

The hon member for Sasolburg made a plea for small employers. I agree with him completely. It is important that these people’s interests should be well looked after, because they will in future be the large job creators. If we are to have labour peace it is important for us to look after the interests of those people, that they should know precisely what they must do in connection with their employees and that they must be well informed.

The hon member for Springbok asked me to tell him how many people of colour were working in this department in the administrative personnel. There are 99 of them, and most of them are in reality members of the administrative personnel. He also referred to the remuneration payable to training groups.

In connection with the remuneration with which these people who are receiving training are provided, I just want to say that no subsidies are paid to them, but they receive rebates which make provision for them to pay less income tax. I shall write the hon member a letter in connection with the Coloured apprentices in Alexander Bay.

The hon member for Belhar asked for greater involvement on the part of the Government in the disputes between employers and employees. I want to tell the hon member that that is not our policy. The policy of the Government is the reverse, namely to have as little involvement as possible in the disputes between employers and employees.

†The hon member for Bayview referred to an oversupply of people educated in non-vocational areas. He referred to people with university degrees which they have attained after many years of study who cannot do anything with those qualifications. I agree that education and training must be purposeful. This reminds me of the words of Shakespeare who wrote: “You have been to a feast of learning and you have stolen the scraps.” I thank the hon member for his contribution.

*Last but not least, I come to the hon member for Heideveld. The hon member had a few words to say about his church leader, Dr Alan Boesak. I am in full agreement with him that a person who makes the kind of statements Dr Boesak makes is not a friend of the South African worker.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister devoted a great deal of attention to the question of the farmworkers. I think the hon the Minister said at one point that there were large farms on which there were up to as many as 500 workers, but that one could not base a union on 500 people. I agree with him that one cannot base a union on only 500 people, but there are, in fact, cases in which it is difficult for one to distinguish the farm from the industry. I am thinking, for example, of tea plantations and large forestry industries. I think that it is natural for the trade unions to consider the cost advantages. They cannot go and organise a farm of 20 or 30 people, one of the reasons being that they cannot afford to send people out. Nevertheless I want to say that even if there is no example of this being done on an organised basis anywhere in the world, or no appropriate legislation exists, I still think one should allow this to take its natural course. I am referring very specifically to a tea plantation in Natal which Cosatu did, in fact, organise well. Unfortunately, if there are problems when one is in a negotiating situation …

Order! The hon member may not stand there talking.

If one is in a negotiating situation, those employers hide behind the legislation and say that the employees themselves may not organise themselves. They even make use of the security mechanisms, call in the Police etc. And there have been fairly ugly incidents of people being summarily kicked out of their homes and having to stand out in the street. I think one must allow the situation to take its natural course and see what develops.

I should like to touch on two other matters. The one involves labour relations in the public sector and the other relates more generally to the utilisation of manpower. About three or four years ago, when the large trade unions came into existence, employees in the private sector were generally quite keen to retain their privileged position. And a not involuntary alliance arose between the State and the private sector so that they could do a spot of union-bashing.

I was involved in one such union-bashing war in Howick, about four years ago, which, it so happens, ultimately contributed to the entire unrest situation in Natal. Eventually about 800 people lost their jobs and at that stage it was merely a question of union-bashing.

I am glad to say that by and large the war is now over in the private sector and that both management and the large trade unions are evidencing much more restraint. I think that they are also acting with much more maturity after the learning process of the past few years. I am afraid one cannot say the same of the public sector. There is still a reluctance which is mainly hidden behind so-called strategic considerations. One would have expected the awareness amongst workers, which has increased in the private sector to spill over naturally into the public sector, because the workers live together in the same areas and do, after all, communicate with one another. There is also a fair amount of cross-pollination, because people work in the public sector and then move to the private sector.

During the past few years I have also been involved, on quite a number of occasions, in cases of the large trade unions having moved into the private sector. I think the public sector does not have anywhere near the level of experience the private sector has in dealing with this. I am referring, for example, to the whole question of the Pelonomi Hospital at Bloemfontein. I think that in this case the SATS learned a few lessons very quickly.

Quite recently in the Natal Provincial Administration there was a strike by workers who belonged to a trade union connected with Cosatu. When a dispute arose, the Provincial Administration urged that they were not allowed to talk to the trade unions, because they had their own staff associations, which use completely different methods.

The problem, of course, is that existing staff relations in the Provincial Administrations—I am only familiar with the situation in Natal, but I do not think it would be much better in the other provinces—are based on the fact that they can negotiate with small committees about matters that take place in the work-place itself, but there is no way that collective bargaining can take place with regard to such matters as permanent posts, pension benefits, discharge procedures, etc.

What happened there was that certain workplaces were very well-organised. For example, one found that at hospitals there was complete affiliation to a union. Since only a percentage of the total work-force of the Administration belonged to the union, they said that we were not allowed to talk to the union. They would not recognise us, since the majority of the workers did not belong to the union. This resulted in quite a nasty business. Eventually one Sunday afternoon I had to intervene and it was possible to defuse the situation. After it had been defused, it was very clear that no procedures existed for the Administration itself to co-operate with the people at the various work-places.

I therefore want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what the department is doing to ensure that the public sector’s personnel officers are also taught something about labour relations procedures. I do not think we will be able to prevent what happened in the private sector from taking place in the public sector as well.

†The second point has to do with manpower utilisation. The way in which we normally deal with the question of unemployment of a structural nature is by saying that more jobs should be created. I would suggest that the normal way in which one deals with unemployment as simply a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, is not really job creation, but manipulation. There is nothing creative about it. One just pulls the levers this way and there is inflation, and then one pulls the lever the other way and there is more employment. I therefore do not think that this falls within the area of job creation.

Every time that our economy gets going, skills always reach a ceiling and then inefficiency sets in, inflation gets pushed up and this obviously reduces competitiveness. If workers are not able to work smarter because of lack of training or the ratio of skilled to unskilled people, perhaps we should start looking at working a bit harder in South Africa. That implies that we must reduce the ratio of capital costs to labour, and that of management to labour. In other words, what we have—be it capital or management—will have to be utilised in a better way in order to employ more labour.

Unfortunately the whole taxation structure makes this difficult, because it always favours the person who wants to add to his factory or who wants to duplicate rather than share jobs. I think we should begin to look more at double shifts and the potential that lies therein. We have to make better use of capital and also managerial skills. One could have one managerial staff overseeing two shifts of workers at virtually no increase in managerial costs. By the same token one could have two workers using the same lathe instead of two lathes. There is no incentive whatsoever for a person who wants a double shift system. I think one should carefully look at the taxation policies with a view to making better use of our capital infrastructure as already invested. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I first want to thank the hon the Acting Minister for the announcement which he made this afternoon about this scheme and especially about training for technicians. It is encouraging that the purse will cover other costs too.

When manpower is the subject for discussion, one is speaking about people. That is why I want to start by congratulating the hon the Acting Minister on his appointment to this very important post. I also want to thank the Director-General and his staff for their service to the Republic of South Africa. These people are in the service of the entire country and not only in that of certain White people.

I cannot omit to thank the former Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe, for the service which he furnished South Africa during his term at the Department of Manpower. In the four years that I was involved in that joint committee, I got to know Dr Piet van der Merwe as a person who was intensely concerned about the interests of the worker.

This brings me to the former hon Minister of Manpower. The hon member for Carletonville asked yesterday where the hon Minister was who had run away. I want to tell him that I served on the joint committee with that hon Minister for four years and he is a man of whom South Africa may be proud for what he meant to the workers of South Africa.

I want to make something very clear to the hon member for Carletonville right now. He made a great fuss here yesterday as if he were the great White hope of White workers. He would do better immediately to shed that arrogance with which he stood here and insulted Brown and Black workers of South Africa. The type of attitude which he exhibited here bodes no good for the people of South Africa.

He said that trade unions should not be politicised. I want to tell the hon member that he and his White Mineworkers’ Union are the very ones who have politicised the working people of this country. As a result of his political activities among miners, he is a member of this Parliament today. He used politics to enter Parliament and then he has the audacity to say that other people should not do this. The very people who were trampled underfoot years ago by him, together with his White mine-workers, are the people who are coming to the fore today. They are the people with whom we intend co-operating today. They are the people with whom South Africa will co-operate. I want to tell that hon member today that, in consequence of what he is doing to South Africa, the very people whom he supposedly protects—which he makes such a fuss about here—will kick him out of this very Parliament.

Much has been said here and I want to quote a short passage from a speech by the hon member for Stilfontein (Hansard, 7 August 1987, col 3278):

But now comes the crux of what he said and, coming from a Nationalist, it is proof that he is aware of the situation in the country:

This is the status quo which those people want to restore. The hon member for Carletonville and his people want to return to the days when Black and Brown trade unions were unregistered. The hon member can forget about that because it is no longer the case. I shall quote further:

I want to say that much has been said about farmworkers over the past two days. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that there are many problems on farms. I want to request, however, that we hold back on this point a little at this stage. I know why I am requesting this. We are in the process of tackling this very sensitive point about farmworkers in South Africa within the cadre of manpower and agriculture, together with the SA Agricultural Union and other people. A meeting is soon to be held at which we as a working group can discuss the position of farmworkers again.

I want to say that I was the first person to discuss the position of farmworkers in this Parliament. That day the hon the State President stayed to the end while I was making my speech and he told me afterwards that I had raised a very important point. He also said that there was one matter I had not mentioned, that is the position of the Rural Foundation on farms. Since that day I have taken the trouble to contact the Rural Foundation and to be informed on what they are doing for farmworkers.

A great deal of fuss is made here by people like the hon member for Carletonville, who rose yesterday afternoon for instance and quite arrogantly said that it was the second time that he had said that other people still had to learn what he had forgotten about trade unionism. I want to tell the hon member that what he knows about trade unionism is only what he learnt on the mines. Today there are hon members of the House sitting here who know more about trade unionism and other facets of working conditions than that hon member does. He should therefore not come to insult people here by saying that other people still have to learn what he has forgotten.

I can offer myself as an example. When I was a young apprentice, I became involved in trade unionism. The hon member is welcome to sit and look at me but I am telling him that he knows nothing about the building industry. He still has to learn the same amount about the building industry as I have already forgotten. I do not know much about the mining industry but the hon member does not know much about the building industry either.

What do you say to that, Arrie?

I am speechless! [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member spoke about holidays and he more or less insulted the other race groups by saying that, because people of colour had already decided that Workers’ Day should always fall on the same specific day, White people had to fall in with that. I want to ask the hon member what they did regarding all the other days? As a minority in the Mineworkers’ Union, they took all the decisions over the years and the Black and Brown workers were trodden underfoot. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I consider it a privilege to be able to participate in the debate on the Manpower Vote this afternoon. Permit me at this stage, however, as various hon members on both sides of the House have already expressed congratulations and thanks to senior officials of the department, also to convey the congratulations and thanks of the CP to all officials of the Department of Manpower who were promoted over the past year.

It frequently happens that thanks and congratulations are confined to senior officials and that the general run of officials, those who do not rate a mention in annual reports, are overlooked. Our sincere thanks to them for the great task which they carry out quietly.

If one looks at the department’s excellent annual report, one is immediately struck by the broad field covered by this department. The department is responsible for the administration of eight Acts, that is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Wage Act, the Labour Relations Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Manpower Training Act, the Guidance and Placement Act, the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

One has to add the practical activities of various statutory institutions, such as inter alia the Industrial Court, the National Manpower Commission, the Unemployment Insurance Board, the Wage Board, exemption boards, the Religious Objection Board, the Office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner and numerous others.

Nearly all these institutions went to great lengths to report on the activities of the past year. I find it a great pity that all these activities are discussed here within the limits of a few hours in an extended public committee by only a portion of Parliament. I accept that it may be more convenient for the hon the Minister to have only one debate regarding his Vote and not to deal with it separately in the three Houses. I believe that at the end of the day the activities of the Department of Manpower definitely suffer as a result of this. This is the case because Parliament is divided into three extended public committees every day, which discuss different Votes only once. Yesterday, for instance, the Department of Manpower, the Bureau for Information and the SABC, and the Department of Education and Development Aid were discussed simultaneously.

In the first case, we are left at the end of the day with an uninformed Parliament because numerous hon members of Parliament and of this Committee would have liked to be informed of events and activities in the other Committees and vice versa.

Secondly, it is considerably more difficult for the media to report fully to the public regarding such a comprehensive department as Manpower, for example. On the same day an account also has to be given of the activities of other departments which are discussed in extended public committees. The eventual consequence of this is also a less informed public and public opinion regarding the activities of the Department of Manpower, which can only have an adverse effect on the department.

In its Programme of Principles and Policy, the CP states its standpoint regarding the labour sphere very clearly in point 11:

In last year’s debate, arising from this, I put forward the standpoint that the CP was not ashamed, neither did it hesitate to say that in its approach to labour it considered the interests of the White worker first. This approach should obviously be seen in the light of the CP’s broader social and constitutional approach to the problems of South Africa—a broader approach which is in direct contrast to the NP approach to, and obsession with, an undivided unitary state in which responsibility is accepted for everybody, and their obsession with the idea of integration.

The hon the Minister came up with the standpoint here this afternoon that the White worker in the NP’s unitary state did not need any protection because he had skill as a result of training to back him up and to protect him. When the Government gets to its constitutional solutions, however, the skill which is to back up the White is apparently inadequate to protect and support him in the Government’s unitary state. Constitutional ploys and tricks also have to be used then, ostensibly to protect the White.

Last year, when I advocated this standpoint as the CP point of departure, the hon member for Benoni reacted to this by saying that it was a racist approach. There was a time, not too long ago, when the NP was known inter alia as a party which stood for the interests of the White worker and was the ally of the White worker. The NP has obviously become too sophisticated, however, to safeguard the interests of the White worker and the struggle of the White worker has apparently become an embarrassment to it now. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Brak-pan pleaded the cause of the White worker here yesterday, the hon member for Kuruman—an NP frontbencher—burst out laughing. The NP obviously assumes that it can manage without the support of the White worker.

The chief spokesman on Manpower for the NP, the hon member for Stilfontein, is unfortunately not in the House at present. I request that they let him know because he is possibly not here. In his speech yesterday he confirmed this NP approach. He referred in a superior, derogatory and sarcastic way to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler, in which White workers explained their desperate position. He stated that in a recent report on the price of bread the following was said:

[Interjections.]

The hon member for Stilfontein then said the following in an exceptionally sarcastic way:

This contemptuous and unsympathetic attitude toward the White worker comes as a shock. After these sarcastic and unsympathetic statements, the hon member for Stilfontein challenged people like a gladiator of old to stand against him in Stilfontein. If one takes into account that the majority of voters in Stilfontein are ordinary White workers, I must tell hon members in all honesty that the hon member for Stilfontein is an exceptionally brave man. He is an exceptionally brave man! [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should like to dwell for a moment on the matter of strikes and work stoppages. It is true that there has been a decrease of 12% regarding strikes and work stoppages over the past year. We are grateful for this but it should be borne in mind that the most important reason is that no strike of the magnitude of the 1987 miners’ strike occurred during 1988. In spite of this, however, there is still an increase of 914,8% regarding strikes and work stoppages compared with the position in 1979, before the Government started using this approach.

Cosatu’s objectives and approach are clear, that is a strategy to draw as many trade unions as possible under the Cosatu umbrella. It strikes one that registered trade unions increased from 173 to 209 from 1976 to 1988, an increase of 20,8%. Nevertheless it is more striking that the membership of registered trade unions increased from 673 000 to 2 084 000 over the same period—a rise of 309%. While radicals denigrate the Government’s reform plans as cosmetic in general and want no part of them, it is remarkable that they welcome this reform in the sphere of labour with open arms and participate in it. This is the reason for their standpoint that they have obtained an instrument of power through this to realise their long-term political objectives as well by being able to cripple the South African economy if necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have very little time, but I just want to comment on what the hon member for Randfontein said in respect of job reservation. I want to give the hon the Minister my full support here, because this must now come to an end. We cannot carry on with this kind of thing. This protection the hon member is asking for, has already saddled this country with many problems. And that hon member is honestly asking for job reservation at this time, in this day and age.

I wonder where that hon member was in 1980 when the former Minister, Mr Fanie Botha, started this programme Workers 2000 campaign. Where was he? It is just a pity that this campaign came too late. It should have started ten years earlier, while the matter was still on the boil. A start was made on this campaign in 1980. If this campaign had not been launched by Mr Fanie Botha at the time, I am sure that South Africa would have had greater problems today.

The hon member mentioned strikes. He himself said they had definitely decreased.

Yesterday the hon member again asked for protection for the Whites. Who suffered throughout the years when there was job reservation wherever one went? At that stage, irrespective of one’s qualifications, colour was the criterion. This was where the saying “My only sin is the colour of my skin” came from. The hon member, coming along as he does with his job reservation, wants us to sing even louder: “The only sin is the colour of my skin.” When one applied for a post, and they saw the colour of one’s skin, they said: “Sorry, there is no job for you.”

Here I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister with regard to the White worker. He used the opportunity to provide training, and in this way was able to get a head start. This is why I want to give my full support to other hon members who have asked for training here. It is absolutely vital when it comes to bringing peace to the workers in South Africa.

†I want to turn to one point with regard to Cosatu. What really caused this to happen? I want to follow the hon member for Belhar, who pointed out that Blacks are using the union movement as a political weapon. They are using this as a political weapon, because Blacks have no other platform. As a result, one finds that they will use these organisations to mobilise and motivate the people. Let us look back over the years at what happened when we had Fosatu. Fosatu disappeared because it became too soft and did not actually want to take a hard line. After Fosatu came Cosatu. First there was the federation, and then came Cosatu. As a result, Cosatu mobilised the workers and also requested total disinvestment. That is all because of job reservation and the apartheid structures which came about. That is why Black workers are aiding and abetting disinvestment. Even those people who are perhaps not so inclined to support it do so, because otherwise they are branded allies of Pik Botha and Margaret Thatcher and they stand to lose their credibility.

The Government must be complimented for introducing the structures we have now—the reconciliation board, the labour relations court, etc. All these things have contributed to bringing peace to the worker. However, the hon the Acting Minister should not be soft on the things for which the hon members for Carletonville and Randfontein are asking, such as job reservation. I am glad the hon the Minister has put his foot down. It is goodbye. It is a forgotten chapter. It is buried. Never will we go back to job reservation. We go forward to march towards a new South Africa.

I appeal to the White voters to think twice if they intend to follow the CP and ask for job reservation. I return to Mr Arrie Paulus.

Order! The hon member must refer to other hon members by their constituencies.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. I still remember the time years ago when the hon member for Carletonville was one of the fighters for the mineworkers. However, I was surprised yesterday. He is no longer the same person because all these structures have pulled the carpet from under his feet. He has become merely a glorified complaints officer. Where are the days when he used to stand up and keep the Black mineworkers underfoot? Gone are those days! Even his objection to blasting certificates is a thing of the past. [Interjections.]

Irrespective of whether they are going to make a dispute of the sharing of ablution facilities, pension facilities or medical aid, the CP will have to accept the fact that South Africa is moving in a different direction and that they cannot cling to the old order or put the clock back. [Interjections.]

If the CP should ever cling to the concept of job reservation, I am glad the hon member for Carletonville said the following in Daily Dispatch:

These are job opportunities. This improves the workers’ situation and even provides promotion opportunities for those people that were kept at that level for all those years.

I want to ask the CP—I think it is useless asking them because their minds are bent on what they intend to do—to rethink this matter and to realise that it is more important for us to include the Blacks in a new dispensation in order at least to ensure peace as far as that is concerned.

I want to turn to the National Occupational Safety Association, Nosa. I am aware of the fact that Nosa is doing very valuable work as far as the protection of the safety and health of people at their work-place is concerned. However, there are places where this particular practice is not being carried out as it ought to be, and they are hostels and other Government institutions. Quite a large complement of people work at these places and in my opinion they should also be given the opportunity to listen to lectures by Nosa officials. More people should be appointed to work in the hostels.

Mr Chairman …

Another one who will not be coming back! [Interjections.]

Order! This is not prediction time. The hon member for Maraisburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I do not not take much notice of those predictions. I have been hearing them election after election and not one of them has come true. I should like an opportunity of hazarding a prediction myself, however. Perhaps I had better do it now. I bid farewell to the hon member for Krugersdorp.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I also bid farewell to the hon member for Carletonville. I want to tell the hon member for Randfontein that he is skating on thin ice too.

He is even bidding his own colleagues farewell!

I take pleasure in following on the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I shall link up with the hon member in the course of my speech in the sense that I also want to discuss training. I want to tell the hon member for Carletonville that I am referring to training for all the inhabitants of South Africa. This includes the Whites.

In the first place, I want to congratulate Adv Fourie on his appointment as Director-General of the Department of Manpower. As I know him, I do not have the least doubt in my mind that he will fill this very important post with dignity. I also congratulate the staff of the department on a very successful year and a very well-compiled annual report in which the activities of the department for the year ending 31 December are reported.

The annual report of the National Manpower Commission is also praiseworthy. I should like to emphasise what the hon member for Kuruman quoted from the report yesterday. He said:

This is a splendid achievement. It indicates that the training programmes which were introduced when unemployment was at its peak in this country are starting to bear fruit.

In spite of this improvement, the long-term productivity performance of South Africa is not capable of favourable comparison with that of its most important trading partners. It also remains disturbing that improvement in productivity in the RSA is not keeping pace with wage rises and that the unit labour costs in manufacturing in the RSA are still rising appreciably faster than in the USA, West Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan. In all these countries the unit labour costs have levelled off since 1982 whereas they have risen sharply in South Africa since the beginning of the eighties.

Training remains the most important weapon in the fight against declining productivity. South Africa will not be able to remain competitive in African markets if there is not a marked improvement in the unit labour costs of its manufacturing industry.

In terms of the Manpower Training Act of 1981 the Department of Manpower is responsible for the promotion of training and the maintenance of training standards. During 1987-88 the Department of Manpower spent approximately 50% of its budget on training and related actions. This is certainly an achievement.

During 1985 the HSRC and the NTB published the findings of an inquiry into the training of artisans in the RSA. The Government accepted the majority of recommendations which were made. Arising from the inquiry and the recommendations of the HSRC, draft legislation on manpower training was published in the Gazette of 26 February 1988 for general information and comment. The amendments which are envisaged particularly affect the existing administrative functions which the Department of Manpower carries out in respect of training. Administrative functions which have been carried out by the Department of Manpower in respect of training will be transferred to industrial training boards in future which will control and manage their own training.

A system of competency-based modular training and evaluation by accredited training institutions is envisaged to replace the present norm-based evaluation system. Competency-based modular training may be regarded as tuition technology which strives to evaluate human achievement in the light of specific criteria or standards which therefore deviate from the norm-based evaluation system which evaluates human achievement in the light of a distribution curve. Competencybased modular training programmes make it possible for all learners who are selected for the course to pass it as the results are based on the number of competency objectives which are mastered.

Industrial training boards are being put into operation at present and quite a number of constitutions have already been approved. The development in this sphere may be regarded as an important step in the deregulation of training in the RSA. Every industry will now be able to develop a training system which will supply the needs of that industry.

Since 1984 there has been a declining tendency in applications from apprentices and, coinciding with the moderate upswing in the economy which took place in 1988, there was a surmise that the declining tendency would be stemmed. This did not occur, however, and the number of new applications has decreased from 8 185 in 1987 to 7 919 in 1988, as the hon member for Kuruman has already said. This decrease in the number of apprentices will have an adverse effect on the availability of artisans in future. Obviously fewer people will attain the artisan status.

In 1988 the number of people who attained artisan status was almost 20% lower than in 1987 and 34% lower than in 1985. Because the training of apprentices takes place in a cycle of a few years, the influence of the decrease in new applications or in the attainment of artisan status will continue for some years yet, even if there were to be an immediate increase in the number of applications. This new approach to the training of artisans will result in an apprentice no longer attaining artisan status automatically on the expiry of a study contract.

Against this, the newly proposed system of competency-based modular training holds other exciting prospects. I believe that everyone who has to do with the training of artisans looks forward to the Manpower Training Amendment Bill. I believe that the envisaged system of competency-based modular training will be a great improvement on the existing system of training for apprentices.

At present there are various undertakings which specialise in the repair of components, especially in the motor vehicle industry. In this way there is specialisation in the repair to brakes, exhaust systems, cooling systems, gearboxes, equalisers and even engines. In fact, these undertakings concentrate on competency-based modular repairs. All indications are that there will be still more specialisation in the industry in future.

The problem which I see is that no provision is made for the attainment of a qualification for the largely self-trained employees in this industry. I want to ask the Manpower Commission to examine this aspect and, if possible, also provide within the new system of training and evaluation that such workers may attain a specific meaningful qualification. Currently only the trade of motor mechanic is recognised, whereas there are many capable workers in the motor repair industry who are actually specialists in their own right but who cannot attain any recognised qualification in acknowledgement of their competence.

I believe that many young men, who could become artisans in their own right, are lost to the motor industry because they do not have the ability or the opportunity to be trained as mechanics while they are completely capable, for instance, of learning to repair automatic gearboxes, equalisers and brake systems in a competency-based modular tuition programme. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with earlier speakers in welcoming the hon the Acting Minister and Advocate Fourie to this portfolio. We wish them well in their new positions. I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity of commending the outgoing Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe. He was a man reputed to have great skills and talents and who was also a very skilful negotiator.

I would like to express some concern about the high rate of unemployment in South Africa. The dole queues of not only the unskilled but also the skilled and semi-skilled workforce continue to grow longer. I am tempted to allude to a Tory election campaign poster of some years ago which proclaimed against a background of a dole queue that “Labour is not working”. I wonder if that should not apply here as well.

To create a massive boost to the alleviation of poverty, I believe the department should focus on the labour-intensive programmes of potentially employable jobless people, especially in the skilled and semi-skilled categories. In Natal, for instance, there is a reservoir of skilled labour in the townships of Chatsworth and Phoenix where a survey by Sanlam many years ago revealed the gravity of the unemployment problem there.

There is a dearth of industrial activity in the neighbouring areas of Phoenix, places like Ver-ulam and Tongaat, which besides Durban are the two major towns abutting Phoenix. The reluctance of businessmen to establish industries in this area is due to attractive offers in other areas. An area which is well endowed with railway sidings, road networks and access to the biggest and busiest harbour in Africa has been sadly neglected, all because there is no Government incentive for the private sector to establish a growth point in the axis between Verulam and Tongaat.

The Ministry’s propensity for short-term planning overlooks the long-term effects of its growth policies. Because of the shift in the emphasis of growth from areas like Verulam, Tongaat and New Germany, where I gather industrial activity is showing no growth because of a gravitation of business to Pietermaritzburg, a vacuum has been created which nobody wants to fill. I would like to urge the hon the Acting Minister to give priority to the creation of growth points which the hon the State President initiated with his Carlton and Good Hope conferences. Furthermore I would like to appeal to him to prevail upon local authorities to intensify their deregulation programmes in order to encourage cottage industries to function with much less hinderance. I believe that the people in the informal sector are playing a valuable role in improving the overall well-being of the deprived communities and that they should be encouraged to do so.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon the Minister and the Director-General who have retired. They did valuable work for us and we are pleased that we could have had them in these positions at certain times. It is also a pleasure for me to convey my sincere congratulations to the people appointed to these positions, not only Adv Fourie, but also the others who succeeded him, on the fine task they have to do and which we know they will perform thoroughly and diligently. I also wish to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower on the period during which he has acted as Minister and to thank him for the things he has done. I also want to convey my thanks for these bursaries that he has established. In the past it was always the employers who had to provide these bursaries, and who then bound these people to them for certain periods. The employers could allow only a certain number, but these additional bursaries will provide great relief in our country.

Today I want to talk about the work done by the Chief Directorate Manpower Planning. In 1988 they had R108 million which they spent very productively on training in various disciplines. They established the manpower training committees, inter alia, consisting of a chairman and an equal number of members of employers and employees. These committees are appointed by the National Training Board. The activities of the committee include the designation and definition of trades, prescribing conditions of apprenticeship, dealing with applications for apprenticeship and to some extent also selection in this regard. They supervise the training of apprentices with regard to practical and theoretical training and also consider the suspension of apprentices when they do not comply with the requirements. They investigate and settle disputes between employers and apprentices. They consider apprentices’ contracts as well as transfers to other apprenticeships and reduced periods of apprenticeship.

This committee does a lot of good work, but I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is some possibility of giving them an additional task as well, viz to increase an artisan’s productivity in the work situation once he has been trained.

I want to ask whether one cannot consider the possibility of upgrading artisans’ work. When numbers decrease, they will also be able to do high-level work in that people who can perform certain tasks which require less training and fewer skills can serve as supports for them. We want to request that the artisans’ work be assigned in such a way that the support personnel can assist them.

I should like to give hon members the example of the workshops of the Pretoria City Council where support persons were given to the motor mechanics. The support personnel do certain work, such as taking out the vehicle’s engine, so that the artisan can immediately begin doing the kind of work he has to do with regard to the engine. This also had an influence on the size of the fleet of vehicles that Pretoria needed. The machinery they have to take care of is very expensive. This also resulted in significantly reducing the period in which the machine was off the road.

There are other cases too, for example that of the engineer who has engineering assistants, technicians and technologists who assist him. Since they have had that assistance, the engineers have become much more productive.

I should like to request, therefore, that we consider giving these tasks either to the Manpower Training Committee or to another committee in the department which can do such work so as to enhance the artisans’ productivity and usefulness.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Koedoespoort. The hon member proved here this afternoon that he is very interested in the workers of South Africa and especially in productivity. I agree with the hon member.

Years ago when I entered the building industry, we also had the operator system. The artisan, the bricklayer, the carpenter and the plumber were saved a great deal of time with regard to that kind of manual. I should like to agree with the hon member for Koedoespoort that we should consider that kind of assistance again.

I do not want to say anything more to the hon member for Carletonville today. I think we have said enough about the matter already. I merely want to say that I am convinced—I think the vast majority of Whites in South Africa are also convinced of this—that there is no room for a conservative government in this country. It is essential that all of us in South Africa put our shoulders to the wheel, whether we are Coloured, White, Black or Asian.

There is no room for a Conservative Party government.

No, definitely not, not in this country. Every worker in South Africa has a duty to put South Africa first and that is why it is very important to me that I agree with the hon member for Kuruman. He said that for too long people had been hiding behind various pieces of legislation that excluded professional Asians, Coloureds and Blacks from work that was traditionally done by Whites. What happened? Hon members know the whole story. I was an artisan myself. One is prevented from doing certain work so that one cannot receive payment for it. While other people do the work, the Whites sit on the other side drinking coffee in the little shed on the site. We call it the shed. The Coloured man has to do the work, but the White man gets the money because he is protected by law.

One may not hold a hammer in one’s hand, because if the building inspector or someone who knows the building industry exceptionally well arrives, the Coloured man has to climb off the scaffold. He is suddenly sent away. That is nonsense. Who erected this building that hon members are sitting in today? I am sure that the majority of the artisans who worked here were Coloured people. The hands that erected this building were Coloured hands. We therefore want to tell the Whites in South Africa that we are prepared to compete with them on every platform. We do not want favours.

The hon the Acting Minister spoke about training this afternoon. I want to see Coloured people receiving that training. It must not be said that a Coloured or a Black man must receive a watered-down qualification so that they can also be given an opportunity. No, the entrance qualifications must be absolutely the same. I therefore want to ask the hon the Acting Minister to treat everyone—even if it is an hon member of Parliament—equally. If anyone is just a little under-qualified, one must say “no” to him, because Piet Meyer said in Parliament that equal artisans must be trained for South Africa. Then the CP will not be able to tell the hon the Acting Minister tomorrow that he has to take these young men out of the Coloured or Black areas, because they can simply be trained “by the way”. We want people who can give their best for South Africa. Men and women in South Africa must be given an opportunity to receive professional training so that they can give their best for our country.

I now come to sanctions and disinvestment. The party I belong to is completely opposed to any form of sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. The hon member for Springbok and I, as well as other hon members of the House of Assembly, had the opportunity to undertake a parliamentary tour of the German-speaking parts of Europe last year. On every occasion people asked us what the CP was doing to South Africa. That party’s policy is to the disadvantage of the whole of South Africa.

The ambassador in Bonn, Mr Retief, gave us very important information. It is not necessary for me to repeat that information in Parliament, but what we heard there was that progress must be made in South Africa with regard to doing away with discrimination. Discrimination must be wiped out of South Africa’s existence completely. If South Africa wants to be acknowledged by the international world, only one thing remains, and that is to do away with those things that hurt other people. That is why I am always proud on such occasions to be able to rise and say that what we are doing is proof of what we are capable of. I am convinced that we can resolve our own problems in South Africa.

I want to express my party’s support for the esteemed Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Thatcher, for her strong standpoint against disinvestment and sanctions against the RSA. I am convinced, however, that South Africa will come out tops again as we did in the case of the arms embargo in the seventies, and that once again we shall be able to supply the world with what will be manufactured in South Africa.

It is also essential that we be able to compete in the sphere of manpower in the outside world. The RSA has most natural resources which are needed and used in the world. We have to exploit those minerals and process them into secondary products. Those products must then be exported. South Africa must change from a country that sends out raw materials to a country that manufactures. We cannot send our iron ore and all this raw material out and then buy it from countries abroad at great expense. Even if we move slowly, we shall have to move in that direction. I am sure that we shall be able to do so.

I should like to say something about trade unions. I want to address a friendly request to Cosatu and its affiliates not to do the work they are involved in in such a way that the members of those organisations suffer at the end of the day. I have no objection to any trade union which also takes care of its members’ social needs, because only when it does that and when it can prove that it also takes care of its members with regard to that aspect, will it recruit more members.

I said I had a little knowledge of trade unionism; it is not only other people who have that knowledge. I am not saying that other people do not have or never will have that knowledge. We must complement one another. What I know I must share with others, and what I do not know, I will get from others. That is why it is important that we put our heads together and see what will be best for us in the sphere of manpower. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to say something here again.

Mr Chairman, I cannot really follow up on the speech made by the hon member for Vredendal. Certainly I do not find any fault with his dislike for the CP, but what I do find rather surprising is that when he is making appeals for the removal of discrimination and for the return of our country to international acceptance, he directs his attack at the CP. I would think that as regards the actions that take place in this country which relate to discrimination and which affect our position internationally, the Government of the day is possibly even more to blame than the CP, not necessarily in attitudes but certainly in actions.

As regards things which place us in a bad light internationally and bedevil race relations in this country, I think the NP has to take full responsibility for where we stand today. Perhaps we would be 100 times worse off under a CP government, but that does not exonerate this Government, and I would have preferred it if the hon member for Vredendal had seen that quite a lot of the blame lies with those people. Do not make life too easy for them; that is all I am asking him.

You are just as white as any member of the NP. [Interjections.]

Yes, I am very white; I hand the hon member that, and I am fully aware of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Vredendal takes that as an attack upon him, so be it. That was not intended. I merely wanted to indicate that I think that he should look to the gentlemen sitting on the Government side—unless he regards them as his allies, and as part and parcel … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Vredendal must not carry on in that way.

I would like to appeal to the Government, now that I have established where …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member where he was when the referendum took place?

Where was I? I was here.

What did the hon member vote? Yes or no?

Hon members know exactly how I voted. I voted no. [Interjections.] That has absolutely nothing to do with this attitude or that attitude. All a no-vote said was exactly what those hon members are saying today. They are saying that the tricameral system is a farce. It is not working! [Interjections.]

Those hon members’ own leader says we need a new constitution. So why do we need a new constitution if the present one is working? We said it would not work and those hon members are now saying that it has not worked. Who is right? [Interjections.]

We never said it was working!

Order!

Mr Chairman, if I may continue, I would like to appeal to the hon the Acting Minister and to the Government, in regard to labour relations, to adopt a less confrontationalist approach toward the labour force. I do not know whether they are aware of this but it stands out very clearly in a lot of things that are done that the Government appears to regard the labour force of this country—I am referring specifically to the Black labour force— as an adversary, as a group of people that are on the opposite side to Government. This does appear to be the position.

I will tell hon members why I say this. The hon members, specifically the hon member for Carletonville, dealt with the question of Workers’ Day, May Day. Some hon members say they want to give them a long weekend. Those hon members themselves know the history, as was pointed out by the hon member for Carletonville, of this particular Workers’ Day since 1987. There has been no consistent pattern other than that the Government has tried to place that day on or as close to 1 May as possible without admitting it. They continually say they are not going to give them 1 May as a holiday. They are not going to acknowledge their desire to have a Workers’ Day on the same day as other workers’ organisations throughout the world. They do not want to admit that these people are allowed to identify with the workers of the world, but at the same time, when it comes to practice, they allow these people to have the day on 1 May. Last year it was on 2 May because 1 May was a Sunday. All I am asking the Government is why are they scared to give in to a reasonable request. They can give them a long weekend if they like. [Interjections.]

The hon the Acting Minister says he does not want to politicise this thing any further. He is not politicising it by conceding, but he is politicising it by being confrontational. Then one is being political. Then one is putting them in a confrontational position vis-à-vis Government.

All I am saying on this May Day question is that we should get it right once and for all. Let us say to the workers that we think their request is perfectly reasonable. If they want to identify with the workers of the world, if they want to have a holiday on the same day as they do and even if they want to call it May Day by all means let them do so. It is not going to hurt us. But instead the Government cannot admit that people have legitimate demands. As soon as people make some demand which is not totally in kilter with what the Government wants then there has to be a confrontational situation. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the labour relations legislation which we passed last year, the hon member for Stilfontein will remember all the debate that went on not only within that committee but in all sections of the communities that had anything to do with labour relations. There was enormous unhappiness about the provisions and we warned at that stage that certain of the provisions of the Bill, which was then going to become the Act, were going to cause problems. The hon members will be aware of the problems which have already been caused by section 79(2). Hon members will have read in the paper about the happenings at Haggie Rand about two weeks ago.

Because of the provisions of section 79(2)—and for no other reason—and because of the presumption that a trade union is involved and is responsible for delictual acts, trade unions are refusing to become involved in negotiating whenever an illegal strike occurs. In the Haggie Rand case it is common cause—hon members can speak to anybody about it—that it was a minor dispute. It related to a small section of the work force. However, the trade union was not prepared to become involved and negotiate on behalf of the workers until such time as the employers said they would give them an indemnity against any kind of civil action.

What happened then? The dispute, which should have been resolved within two hours, turned into something which continued for eight days and in the end it cost not only the employer, but the employees and the relationship between those two parties an enormous amount—not just in financial terms, but in terms of goodwill.

We warned against it last year when this legislation was introduced. We said that if they are going to put in this kind of provision which is aimed at keeping the unions in their place; which is aimed at curtailing legitimate union activity; which is aimed at making things tough for the unions, then they are going to run into trouble. Every single lawyer and every single legal organisation—including the Industrial Court—which gave evidence before the committee on this Bill, warned against this sort of thing happening.

The lawyers who gave evidence said that all they were doing for them by passing this piece of legislation was creating the opportunity for more litigation, for more disputes, and that they were becoming richer in the process. This has proved to be true. There are far more litigations, disputes and uncertainty since the amending legislation than before it—far more.

You are sucking it out of your thumb!

No, I am not sucking it out of my thumb. Hon members can speak to anyone in the labour field, to anybody who goes to the Industrial Court and they will see.

There is one other aspect which is certainly not of the magnitude of section 79(2), but if one looks at section 35(3) of the Act, I would like the hon the Acting Minister—or possibly members of the department—to clarify what the intention of the legislator is here.

Section 35(3) stipulates that when one is making an application to a conciliation board, the application has to be lodged within a period of 21 days from the date on which a party to the dispute has notified every other party of the dispute by registered post that a deadlock has been reached.

What is happening in practice is that right at the outset in a lot of these disputes, the employee who has been fired will through his legal adviser or through whoever represents him, advise the employer that there has been an unfair labour practice. He usually states that unless the matter is resolved within a certain period of time, it must be assumed that a deadlock has been reached.

Negotiations will then proceed and there will be further letters to say that a deadlock has been reached in order to try and lay down ultimatums. Those notices by registered post about deadlocks being reached, repeat themselves and it seems that the parties feel at liberty to completely ignore this 21-day clause.

I want the department to clarify whether the 21-day period has to be reckoned from the first such communication by registered post which says that a deadlock has been reached. Unless we can clarify that, this section becomes absolutely meaningless.

I know of instances where applications have been lodged well after the 21-day period, and the department has said that they are not quite sure how to interpret this section. As far as they are concerned, they are appointing a conciliation board.

A further interesting point is that there is no discretion—although there is a discretion for the Director-General to allow an extension of the 90-day period, which is referred to in the subsection. The 21-day period has no such discretion applicable to it. I would like to hear from the hon the Acting Minister what his views are on the interpretation of that section.

I do seem to recall that last year, when we discussed this Bill and when many complaints were made about it, it was indicated that the legislation would be amended from time to time. It was indicated that as soon as areas of difficulty arose further amending legislation would be placed on the Statute Book. Unfortunately I was not here during the earlier part of this debate and therefore I do not know whether any reference has been made to this. I would like to know from the hon the Acting Minister whether any amending legislation is in the offing and I would particularly like to know whether note is being taken of the various areas of difficulty, such as section 79(2).

When the amending legislation is introduced I sincerely hope that the Government will adopt an approach in which they will treat the labour force as if they are on the same side and in which they will recognise the aspirations of the labour force. I hope they design the legislation and the processes which fall under the legislation to work in such a way as to try and accommodate legitimate demands, rather than to try and contain or curtail trade union activities. I think that if we cannot get away from this confronta-tionalist approach, we are just going to find that any law that we make with that philosophy in mind is going to be negative rather than positive.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Groote Schuur, who is also a member of our joint committee.

I would firstly like to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower and welcome him to this very difficult and challenging portfolio. At the same time I would like to wish him well.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the former Minister for his untiring and unselfish contribution to this department. We welcome our new Director-General, Adv J D Fourie. I think we have acquired a man who is very learned in this field and we are certainly proud of him. I would also like to thank the chairman of the joint committee, who acted very wisely and calmly at all times, with the result that this committee was able to produce some very good legislation.

I do not want to get caught up in the tug of war which is taking place between the CP and the NP and thereby lose the essence of this vitally important Vote that has been presented to us and ignore the role the department has been playing in our country.

In my opinion the Department of Manpower is a very important department because it administers eight important Parliamentary Acts. Maybe I should mention these because I do not know how many people are aware that these Acts directly involve and perhaps have a day-to-day effect on the people of the working class— practically all our people in this country. These Acts are: The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941; the Labour Relations Act, 1956; the Wage Act, 1957; the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1966; the Manpower Training Act, 1981; the Guidance and Placement Act, 1981; the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, 1983; and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1983. With these Acts the department covers a very wide spectrum in so far as the handling of human beings in this country is concerned.

These Acts provide the necessary machinery in an endeavour to provide all the people in this country at their places of work with some measure of goodwill, understanding, co-operation and consensus at all levels where such human power is utilised. The big question is whether we are really achieving this goal successfully. This department’s joint committee spent something like 18 months over the past few years trying to bring about suitable labour legislation which would be acceptable to the employers and the employees. I do not, however, want to elaborate, moralise or philosophise on the achievements of those labour Acts. I do, however, want to mention that we have not included the domestic workers and farm workers in the Act.

I want to state categorically that when we in the joint committee looked at this Act, we did not intentionally forget farm workers and domestic servants: we took them into consideration. All I want to say is that I wish to record that they are not forgotten, but that much is being done in this direction. I want to say that we are at present unobtrusively doing some very good work, and praise has to go to the people who are involved in this work. Very shortly, perhaps before this Parliament goes into recess, I hope we may be able to announce something.

I want to sound a word of warning to this Government that our labour force is a very important cog in the entire political, economical and social spectrum, because it is the key to the survival of our economic structures in our country. It requires a carefully planned and well-advanced programme which utilises our human resources to afford this country the growth it so desperately needs in the years to come. This can only be achieved by making use of all its people, irrespective of their colour. It is no use having all the political power without economic power. It is no use making great speeches with beautiful phrases, and passing Bill after Bill which seem to get constipated in the corridors and passages of Parliament.

The trouble with the people of South Africa is that they think that we are living in a First World situation, but in actual fact this is the Third World. In every respect this is very true, because in a country with a population of more or less 30 million people, 6 million live above the breadline. I will leave the rest for hon members to analyse.

The hon the Acting Minister referred to Russia and mentioned that Russia is now rethinking its popular military power and other ways of maintaining the country. I want to associate myself with the hon the Acting Minister and perhaps tell him the reason why Russia is thinking along these lines. One’s military power and one’s political power, without economic power and without food, is useless. It is like raising arms against the troubled waters of the sea. This is what has brought Russia to its knees. That is why Russia is now looking in another direction. Let us therefore learn from the mistakes other countries have made and let us not make them as well.

What is also of concern to me is that the training programme seems to have been reduced over the years. However, at the same time I am quite concerned that the unemployment situation among all the race groups in South Africa has not decreased. I believe these are two elements that have to be put on the scale so that we can weigh them up evenly. I have some figures here and they reveal that in 1986 we trained 10 311 persons, in 1987, 17 100 and in 1988, 14 766. I am concerned about this decrease when there is a need for artisans and trained people in this country to fill the many vacuums that exist for trained and skilled manpower. Therefore one finds that we have not achieved the growth of 2,2% per annum that this country needs. If that growth does not take place, I am afraid that we may be taking two steps backward and one step forward, and we will not be able to catch up the backlog and the increase in the population will soon catch up with us.

Finally, I also just want to touch on privatisation. Someone did mention earlier about this being done at grassroots level. As far as privatisation is concerned this is a monster that seems to be coming up very fast and we can lose sight of this if we are not careful. I do not believe that we should change merely for the sake of change. The programme of privatisation should take place in an orderly fashion. The Government of this country must not pass on an ailing situation and then later say: “Well, we privatised it and that is the result.”

The country must be very aware of this and the Government must retain responsibility for a certain amount of its capital development in this country. To pass everything on to the private sector will not be in the best interests of all concerned and in my opinion a certain amount of privatisation is taking place for reasons best known to the people that are doing this.

I want to know what benefit the ordinary taxpayer will derive from privatisation at the end of the day. That is the answer we all want. How will our people that are in need of employment, shelter and ordinary, basic day-to-day requirements ultimately benefit from this privatisation? We also have to be mindful of the fact that it is of no use to sell all the facilities that we have to the private sector when we ourselves have failed to bring about some kind of relief for our people in this regard.

I would also like the hon the Acting Minister to indicate to me in his reply whether our personnel training programme has stopped or whether it is continuing very slowly. I would like to know what the case is in that regard. If there are any reasons I would also like to know what they are. In my opinion there are many people that are looking for jobs and that are still unemployed. The reasons for this are well-known to us and to the department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Mariannhill. He is also a member of the joint committee. We have sat together there in the past and I hope that we shall also sit together in that particular committee in future. He always makes valuable contributions.

Before turning to my speech, I would like to refer to what the hon member for Groote Schuur said here today. In my opinion we can expect a kind of alliance between the DP and the CP in order to destroy the NP, regardless of what it is going to cost. However, if one should go by what the hon member for Groote Schuur said, another factor is that the DP still regards the hon members of the other Houses as political infants. His whole speech was characterised by an old colonial, British, imperialistic, paternalistic attitude. I would like to state clearly that his patronising speech was an insult to the dignity of hon members of the other Houses.

*I want to associate myself with what was said by other hon members about the hon the Acting Minister, the new Director-General and the personnel of the Department of Manpower. It is a privilege to serve on that joint committee. I give hon members the assurance that it is certainly one of the most pleasant committees on which to serve. It is one committee where all the components truly—and I say it with great frankness—co-operate to the advantage of South Africa and where party political profits disappear into thin air.

Before I refer to the industrial court as disputesettling machinery, I also wish to react to what hon members of the CP said here today. I should like to refer to what the hon member for Randfontein said here. One of the things the hon member said by implication was that the CP would protect the White worker by means of laws. He spoke about the NP’s training schemes with a degree of contempt.

That is not true either!

Of course it is true. That hon member said that the NP wanted to train people as if it was the only method. The contribution of the hon member for Randfontein was nothing less than an insult to the White worker. He underestimates their ability to compete with people of colour. They—he and his party—want to protect the White worker by means of laws, which is a total insult to the abilities of the White worker.

The hon member for Randfontein had a lot to say here today about the politicising of trade unions. He says that we have recently been dominated by politically inspired Black trade unions. The hon member should listen to this because I think they have a division problem in their ranks again. He says that the trade unions tell the Government: Look we have come to where we are now. We are not going to listen to you any further. We are now going all out to try to obtain political rights for our members. He went on to elaborate on the politicisation of trade unions.

That was the hon member for Carletonville.

I beg your pardon! It is not that hon member whom I am referring to but the hon member for Carletonville. I am sorry about that. In any event the hon member for Carletonville did speak negatively about the political rights of unions. Am I right? It seems so. [Interjections.] He did speak negatively. He said that trade unions must not be given political rights.

Black trade unions! [Interjections.]

Yes, Black trade unions. He says that Black trade unions must not be given political rights. However, what does his kindred spirit say? The hon member for Carletonville might be part of the one faction in the CP, but there is another faction in the CP. I am going to point out to hon members who the other faction in the CP is. I have already said it, and I have been waiting since last year for a reply and have not received it yet.

How many factions are there in the NP?

The hon member for Carletonville must keep quiet and listen to what I tell him. Last year—on 11 February 1988—the hon member for Ermelo said the following about political rights and trade unions. Listen to what he had to say! He continued with his argument and said:

Now this is when the Black finds himself in a White area. In the CP state they are visualising, the Blacks are not going to have the franchise. He went on to say:

That is the Black man—

Now I do not know. The hon member for Lichtenburg says that the CP policy is crystal clear. Yet I do not understand it. The hon member for Ermelo wants to give Blacks political rights by means of trade unions, while the hon member for Carletonville refuses to give Black trade unions any political rights. Now I do not know. I want to leave them at that and turn to the industrial court in the few minutes still available.

Since its inception in its present form in 1979, the industrial court has become an increasingly acceptable forum for the settling of disputes in the labour sphere. The increasing popularity of this court is clearly apparent from the number of cases already heard before the court. I am not going to announce figures and numbers at this stage, but before I say more about that matter I just want to say that this new labour policy of the Government, which included the establishment of the industrial court and an absolutely new labour policy, is truly indicative of reform. The industrial court is one of these elements by means of which important reforms have been brought about in South Africa.

Interpersonal relationships in the place of work were characterised in the past by old and obsolete colonial paternalism. That is what we shall experience again if the DP or the CP ever come to power. By the establishment of the industrial court, and especially the recent amendment to the Labour Relations Act, this paternalism has finally been destroyed. The Government has now given recognition to the human dignity of people in the work places among the various races in various ways. This harmony in the work-place has rippled outwards to bring harmony to numerous other relationships. The basis of these improved attitudes is to be found in the Government’s reform initiatives.

The hon member for Groote Schuur also asked what the Government was doing. He was a member of that joint committee. It is a positive move of the Government to create an instrument to improve interpersonal relations in the workplace. The hon member sat on that committee and made a valuable contribution. However, the minute he stands up here, he tries to make political capital out of the situation. That is the dilemma of those people. [Interjections.]

The amendment of the Labour Relations Act is remarkable in that it is a positive attempt by the Government to improve relations, to eliminate racial discrimination and to provide support for a balanced society. As a result of the Government establishing the Labour Relations Act, and due to the fact that the Industrial Court is functioning effectively, the Government has reacted positively with legislation which compels people to treat one another decently in the work-place.

With respect to the Industrial Court, there were almost 4 000 cases in 1988 compared with the 3 500 of the previous year. Of these cases that were before the Industrial Court, 3 500 were there for restitution orders. Of these 1 400 were settled in various stages, 700 were withdrawn and 1 200 were either granted or refused. With respect to alleged unfair labour practices, there were 1 600 such cases. Of these 400 were settled in various stages, 650 are in the process of completion and 200 have been withdrawn.

This Government has done more than any Government before it, and also more than any Government after it will ever be able to dream of doing, to bring about industrial peace in this country.

Mr Chairman, I would first of all like to refer to what I consider to have been an uncalled-for and unwarranted reference earlier this afternoon by the hon member for Groote Schuur to my colleague the hon member for Vredendal.

*I am pleased to see that the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, one of the three leaders of the DP, is here this afternoon. I want to start off by saying that these leaders should talk to their colleagues. They should realise that we have the same right as anyone else to be in this Parliament. We have the same right to express our feelings. We do not need anyone to lead us by the nose and to dictate to us what we have to say to whom, where and when. [Interjections.]

It has been recorded that my hon leader welcomed their formation. We welcome them as part of what is necessary to move to the new South Africa. After all this has been said, I want to say that something is worrying us. When one works with people who have no previous experience of the Parliamentary system in South Africa, one is inclined to be paternalistic. It is something that has to stop if we want good order and if we want to get to where we want to be. I repeat that the hon leader concerned should talk to his people. Perhaps it was done unwittingly, but for that very reason one does not expect it. [Interjections.]

†Our party was established in June, 1969. We have therefore been around for some twenty years. We may not have been in Parliament but we have established ourselves along the road. We know when and where to attack whoever or whatever.

*We shall address the CP, because we feel that, to a certain extent, they are trying to live in the past. It is a past that South Africa can no longer afford. On the other hand we shall also try to address those who want to put words in our mouths. We shall also address the NP in due course if we believe that they are not moving fast enough. This is what we have been doing for the past few days. My colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development did it excellently as far as the farming community is concerned.

†We believe that South Africa can only get to where it wants to be, both on the factory floor and in all other facets of life, if people learn to accept each other as equals. We notice that there is a tremendous increase in the number of Black scholars who will be entering the job market pretty soon. Jobs will have to be provided for them. Possibly more that anything else, the hon the Minister’s big dilemma will be to encourage new entrepreneurs on the one hand, and on the other to use the facilities of his department to get industry going on a tremendous scale in this country.

The department that the hon the Minister has now taken charge of has been a forerunner of change in South Africa in the past, but my party has said that the changes that have come are not enough. We understand why Black trade unions have a dual role to play. We cannot side with them when they seem to be propagating, either directly or indirectly, acts which could lead to violence. We do know that they find themselves in a situation where the communities that they represent have no realistic political machinery in the highest form of government, therefore they have no alternative but to make use of their trade unions to get where they want to be.

*We already find … [Interjections.] On my right I heard the same thing being said about Britain and what the trade unions do there. We have a totally different situation in South Africa; there has never been a group of people in Britain who have been politically denied the right to vote. We shall simply have to accept the fact that the trade unions in South Africa are also going to play a political role.

They are still politicised there.

I said so the other day and I shall say so again: We can enforce the laws of this country but we shall never be able to stop people from using any instrument to attain their rightful position in the country. [Interjections.]

†We already find that more than 70% of our factories are occupied by Black workers. I want to urge the hon the Minister to get his department to urge employers to increase the number of people of colour in supervisory and managerial positions. I know a lot of progress has been made in the last couple of years but it is still not enough. In the first place, until people are seen to be in senior positions we will have trouble on the factory floor and in the second place, these people are needed to be able to communicate effectively with others.

While I am making this appeal, I would also like to appeal to the mining houses not to begin large scale retrenchments in the industry. We understand quite well that a drop of about R1 000 per kilogram in the price of gold has occurred in the past few months and we understand that the industry is faced with the choice of either mining profitably or not mining at all. We understand all that but we became concerned when a mining house, namely Gencor, announced last week that 5 000 of its employees at various mines are going to be retrenched. We are concerned about the spiralling effect this will have on the industry as a whole and the country as a whole. We must not do anything in the marketplace which will increase the conflict situation in South Africa any further. Like I have said, while we understand the whole question of profitability in the mining industry we believe that at the end of the day it also has a very definite social responsibility because if the social situation deteriorates to such an extent that the mines cannot operate, then the mining houses will be the losers in any case.

I welcome the new incentives in the clothing industry that were announced recently. While I say that we welcome the new national policy of the rag trade and especially the effect it will have on the creation of new jobs, there are certain things which are worrying.

We believe that, while on the one hand creating jobs, it will also inflate the prices of non-fashion garments and the cost structures of smaller manufacturers who do not export and cannot benefit from export incentives. However, we also believe that this new policy must be welcomed.

If at all possible the hon the Acting Minister must urge his colleagues in the other departments that are concerned with industry incentives to extend this to as many industries as possible. Especially in our situation where we have so many people who need so many jobs we have to get this going as soon as possible if we want stability.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Diamant. Even if we do not always agree, I am very thankful that we have this forum where we can speak to one another.

On the issue of farmers and trade unions, concern is being voiced from different quarters regarding the position of farm workers. The farmer himself gets sniped at by trade unions, their tentacles slowly but surely reaching into his matters as well, especially via the industrial involvement of the trade unions. It is entirely wrong to paint the farmers into a corner. They, more than many others, have faced up to their social responsibility for decades, often beyond the call of duty.

What is the position today? The Wage Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act do not apply to agriculture. The Natal Agricultural Union encourages farmers to pay fair wages to their workers, within the limits of affordability, and to enter into a service agreement with their workers which provides for reasonable basic conditions of employment. Those conditions of employment that are important are the number of working hours, overtime, working on holidays and Sundays, leave arrangements and sick leave.

Considering the type of agriculture that is being practised in Natal, it is true to say that a great deal of work has been done here. This is especially true in the sugar and timber industries. Regular courses in manpower management are being offered by these industries, as well as by consultants in the field. Brilliant psychologists, such as Dr Arnold Moll, and others have been used to great advantage to train the farmer himself so that he can apply motivation and more incremental job opportunities for his workers. There is still a need for farmers to make better use of these courses and also that the knowledge obtained through these courses be put into practice.

The SAAU is presently negotiating with the Government for a more significant assistance scheme for labour housing. The SAAU is also investigating the possibility that funds could be made available through the SA Housing Trust for this purpose, and this has already been partially initiated by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development.

A serious problem has always been that farm workers who have reached pensionable age are often left without a livelihood except to the extent to which a State pension is available to them. With this in mind the SAAU has recently developed a retirement scheme for farm workers which will ensure the retired farm worker an adequate pension. Of course, many individual groups have had group pension schemes in operation for many years.

On the matter of education I want to mention the following. Approximately 47% of all Black scholars receive their primary education in farm schools. These farm schools are generally erected on land that farmers made available for that purpose, free of charge. Normally the school buildings are also erected by the farmer himself.

Organised agriculture has welcomed the report by the Department of Education and Training concerning the provision of education for rural Black children. We look forward to the speedy implementation of the recommendations contained in this report which has been accepted by the Government.

Let us look at the role of agriculture in the provision of employment. According to the Economic Advisory Council of the State President, commercial agriculture provides work to approximately 15% of the economically active population of the RSA.

In other words, 1,3 million people are employed there. If one considers their dependents, one is looking at providing a livelihood to between 5 and 6 million people. What does this mean to the individual farmer?

On average every farmer provides a living for 100 people. In 1980, 47% or approximately 11 million people were resident on the platteland. If one considers that in most rural areas agriculture is the single largest generator of income, then a large part of the population is directly or indirectly supported by agriculture. The total wage bill constitutes approximately 30% of total current expenditure on farms. We are therefore looking at a bill of approximately R3 billion.

Over the past years there have been several investigations into the position of agriculture in the RSA. It is significant that in each of these investigations the importance of practising good labour relations and good manpower management on farms is emphasised. A well-motivated and well-cared for labourer is an asset to a farm. Such a worker is not only more productive, but contributes greatly to the day to day management of the farm.

The first action on the part of agriculture to provide for a better equipped and more stable labour force, was to establish training facilities. We have a number of these, such as Kromme Place, Mount Edgecombe, Timms, Boskop and the Midlands Centre. After consultation and deliberation, a document with guidelines on the conditions of service for farm employees was published to provide the Natal farmer with a standardised guide for basic conditions on farms. The document is in line with common law principles and makes provision for a service agreement which includes the previously mentioned conditions of employment.

Another important recommendation which it includes is the establishment of management committees on the farm. These management committees will enable employers and employees to communicate in a more formal way. They will not only facilitate the solving of disputes that may arise between employer and employee, but could play a major role in the day to day manpower management on the farm. Hon members have spoken about a working group consisting of the Department of Manpower, the SAAU and …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member if it would not be better to have a management committee appointed by the farmers’ association or union, rather than an individual farmer? Would the hon member support such a management or workshop committee?

On the farm?

On the farm.

That is what I am talking about.

Yes, but these committees should be appointed by organised agriculture, rather than the individual farmer.

Mr Chairman, the answer is at hand. The task of this working group was to look at the working conditions of these people. I have just been addressing the fact that these people are now in a position where they can constitute committees on the farms so that they can regulate their own conditions of employment in negotiation with the employer.

But that is victimisation!

That is not victimisation. So far meetings between the Department of Manpower, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have been held. They have been successful in the sense that organised agriculture could present its case and inform those present about the positive work being done, thereby removing many misconceptions.

Every now and again someone makes a fuss about one or other aspect of farm labour. With the aforegoing facts that I have raised, surely there is enough evidence of the responsible manner in which the agricultural sector is dealing with the whole question. Agriculture is far more complex than commerce and industry, with each sector having particular labour requirements, as well as a varied ability to pay good wages. The Government will have to be extremely cautious when it comes to legislation. I believe that Government has been very shrewd not to regulate that situation up till now.

Mr Chairman, we have now reached the end of this debate, and it is a pleasure for me to thank hon members for their participation. Let me say at once that if I cannot properly reply to any of the direct questions put to me by hon members, I shall gladly furnish them with written replies in due course.

The hon member for Greytown also referred to farm workers. What he advocated was that we should not be over-hasty, but that the whole matter should take its natural course within the context of agriculture. On that score I cannot disagree with him at all. I also think—as the hon member Mr Redinger mentioned here—that when there are natural developments emanating from this working group, composed of organised agriculture and interested hon members of this Parliament, we can ultimately reach a point, by way of negotiation, which will not only give the worker in agriculture, but also the agriculturist himself, a better dispensation.

I also want to refer the hon member for Greytown to the fact that in agriculture we already have situations in which there are associations of employees who, in terms of agreements with their employers, negotiate all their rights which are on the Statute Book in accordance with the labour legislation of which they are not a part. They do participate in those rights in terms of agreements. This already exists in South Africa and can be taken further.

The hon member referred to the question of trade unions in the public sector. In this regard negotiations are being conducted between Public Servants and the Commission for Administration. I do think, however, that the best example of the organisation of labour within the public sector is perhaps to be found most specifically in the SA Transport Services, with its recent establishment of a labour board. Other public sector bodies are also looking with great interest at this specific body, particularly its functioning, and at the legislation we have introduced in that regard. †The hon member also referred to the utilisation of manpower in our fight against inflation. I agree with him entirely, not only with regard to our manpower, but also as regards our capital, machinery and all other resources. They must all be utilised to their full potential in this country.

*The hon member for Randfontein also took part in this debate, but I must say that the hon member did not speak with any great conviction today. He gave me the impression, to some extent, that spiritually he was not quite in tune with the party of which he is a member. [Interjections.]

As a result of the fact that we deal with this Committee’s functions in the way we do, there is no need for us to have uninformed members of Parliament. All the documents we make available to this Committee, we also make available to all the hon members of the other Committees.

Besides, we have a method in accordance with which everyone is supplied with information by our study groups. I do not think it is possible to inform every member of Parliament every day about everything that is going on in Parliament. It is not possible. It is therefore important for us to make certain documents available to hon members so that they can make a study of them and, in a short space of time, state their problems here. I must say that I think it works well, because there are very few problems, which came to light in this debate, which cannot easily be solved, and here I am also referring to the administrative aspects. In this debate we are addressing policy aspects, and I think there is enough time for that.

The hon member said that his party was confining itself, in particular, to the rights of the White worker. There we are diametrically opposed. The NP believes that if one wants to develop this country to its full potential, and it must indeed develop to its full potential, one must treat all the requests of all the workers in this country on a just and compassionate basis. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said that the NP was obsessed with integration. Today I want to ask him whether he can deny that the South African economy is totally integrated. [Interjections.] Totally integrated. That is not an obsession! It is a fact! The South African economy is totally integrated. If the hon member therefore wants those who are dependent on the Blacks for their business, to be kicked out, then nothing would be left!

Only he would be left! [Interjections.]

The hon member is now saying the NP must make use of all kinds of gimmicks in its constitutional set-up. Let me tell the hon member what, in reality, a gimmick is.

The CP! [Interjections.]

The CP’s linking policy involving the homelands and Black people living in the Republic.

Which the NP believed in all these years!

No, if the hon member remembers correctly, he will know that we agreed, when he was still one of us, that it could not work. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member who it is who also says it cannot work. Read what is said by the two hon members for Ermelo and Bethal. They say the linking policy is a gimmick. They say that thinking one could have people here who would exercise their political rights elsewhere is a gimmick. [Interjections.]

We therefore have no choice. The political rights of Black people must be addressed. [Interjections.]

On what basis?

Surely we have made that clear, and hon members would do well to read the NP’s policy on Black people and Black political rights. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Acting Minister must not allow himself to be provoked into moving beyond the ambit of the Vote. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the political rights of the Black labour force is an important aspect which this Government will vigorously yet circumspectly address in conjunction with those people.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates expressed concern about the high rate of unemployment and he pleaded for labour-intensive undertakings. The employment schemes which the department has put forward indicate that that is exactly what we have in mind. We have also used those employment schemes to build low-cost housing—which is labour-intensive—dams, roads and clinics.

We can never stop in our endeavours and the point is that in a country with high Third World potential, I am afraid that we will have to live with a certain degree of unemployment for a rather long time. We must, however, never stop in our endeavours.

*The hon members for Maraisburg and Kuru-man also referred to the decrease in the number of apprentices. The hon member for Kuruman referred to the fact that there were a large number of matriculants—people who are being trained. I briefly examined the figures, and there were by far more Black matriculants who completed their studies last year than all the other groups put together. There is consequently a vast manpower potential that can be developed.

There is an interesting aspect of this, however, as far as young Black people are concerned. These young people who have been trained are not yet as readily available for the so-called “blue collar” jobs. Proof of this is to be found at the George Thabor Technical College in Soweto where we have not yet achieved the desired success with the training of technicians and artisans from the Black community. There is gradual progress, but not the degree of progress we should like to see.

I also want to tell the hon member for Maraisburg that in the amending legislation on training, which we hope to pilot through Parliament during the next session, attention will be given to the question of modular training. The subject, as such, will be divided up into modules, and a person can qualify for the specific modular level he has reached.

We could also deal with the point the hon member for Koedoespoort made by saying that the artisan could be more of a specialist and that that person who has been trained on a modular basis could play a supportive role.

That is a fragmentation of the work of an artisan! [Interjections.]

I think that modular training will specifically promote the productive employment of labour.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to equal opportunities as a method of achieving labour peace. I thank the hon member for his contribution. He also referred to security in hostels, and I can tell him that our laws apply to hostels too. The body he referred to, ie Nosa, is a private body, however, and I would advise him perhaps to refer the hostels he had in mind to them.

I referred to the hon member for Koedoespoort’s proposals in connection with modular training. That is precisely what he asked for, ie that workers acting in a supportive role should be introduced to allow artisans, who are in short supply, more scope.

The hon member for Groote Schuur also made a contribution. Perhaps he regretted the “support” he tried to give other hon members, because they approved the background of the party from which he came and of which he is still a member. The hon member said a strange thing here. He said that we recognised that the tricameral Parliament was a failure. The hon member was dreaming! [Interjections.] He was dreaming! [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many comments being made. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

The fact of the matter is that to this day there has not been a single proposal to prove that this tricameral Parliament is not the only starting point for political reform. Those hon members use all kinds of fine words and expressions. One of the three leaders said yesterday that they also still had to work out how political rights should be granted. [Interjections.] We acknowledge the fact that this tricameral Parliament is not by any means perfect. All of us would concede as much, but we say there is no other starting point. People of colour have participated in this Parliament and have now achieved the political expertise they would not otherwise have achieved. [Interjections.] We have accepted one another here, and from this point we can move forward. I am telling hon members that negotiation within the system is, in point of fact, effective negotiation. [Interjections.]

†The hon member referred to the shifting of onus of proof under section 79 in cases in the industrial court. It is important to understand section 79. It gives protection to all the parties— to the unions, the employer organisations and their members—following the legal route. It is only when people act unlawfully that the presumption clause comes into operation. If this section were to be removed, it would be possible for organisations to get away with unlawful practices, purely on technical grounds. Unions and other organisations should therefore only fear this section if they act unlawfully. It is evident what the lawful way is. Why not follow it?

The hon member referred to section 35(3) and asked me for a decision. It is evidently something that needs some consideration and I will certainly go into it and let the hon member have a reply.

Amending legislation is not being considered at this very moment. We have not received any representations from the unions, from management or from the Industrial Court in that connection, but should we receive any, we will of course consider them.

The hon member for Mariannhill wished me well. I thank him very much. He also sounded a word of warning that the way we handle our labour force is one of the most important ingredients for growth in South Africa. I agree entirely with him and we will certainly go forward in strength, bettering labour relations in this country and coming to an understanding with our work force. That is important.

As far as training is concerned—that is why I am glad I could make the announcement today—it is indeed a high priority. I add again that we need purposeful training, training of people which will qualify them to step into jobs.

*The hon member for Vredendal referred to the good work done by the Rural Foundation. I want to thank him very sincerely for that. I also want to endorse those sentiments of his. When we speak about our work force in agriculture, progress is important, as far as those communities are concerned too, in order to allow people to make a decent living. The hon member made an appeal to every worker in South Africa to put South Africa first. He advocated equal opportunities by means of equal training. I want to give the hon member the assurance that with the bursary scheme we have announced, selection will be solely on merit. I thank the hon member for the standpoint he adopted in opposition to sanctions and disinvestment, and I endorse that. The hon member for Diamant really put the hon member for Groote Schuur in his place. The time for paternalism is past. It is humiliating, and the hon member has now heard it from the horse’s mouth. The Black man is now telling hon members of the DP: “Get off my back.”

What does he say to you?

The Great Indaba is in progress!

The hon member for Diamant said that the Department of Manpower was leading the way in the process of reform. We are not shying away from that. In the labour field the NP is also the exponent of reform, because it is no use hon members using fine words and becoming euphoric in what they want to do or say and in the advice they give people, if they cannot come to light with anything in practice. [Interjections.] That is the NP’s function, and it does not shy away from doing this in a responsible fashion.

The hon member also referred to a trade union as a political mechanism. The Government acknowledges the fact that Black people’s political rights must receive urgent attention. That is precisely what will be involved in most of the politics of the future. For that reason we are inviting Black people to the negotiating table, and for the same reason we cannot hold discussions with the ANC, because they advocate violence.

†The hon member referred to the retrenchment of workers in the mining industry and to the profitability of mines. That underlines the responsibility that trade unions and employers have to keep the cost factor as low as possible in their negotiations and to keep those mines in operation.

*The hon member referred to the incentive measures implemented in the clothing export industry. I am glad that is possible, because it also acts as a stimulus for the smaller trader. When the other traders’ products are exported, there is a greater demand for the smaller traders’ products which are not a part of the export market.

I should like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North for his contribution. He referred, in particular, to the importance of the Industrial Court. In my opinion we can safely say today that the Industrial Court has, in fact, played a major role in bringing about peace in the labour field and in acting as a safety valve which allows people to press for their rights. That is a very important element of labour reform. The hon member also referred to human dignity and interpersonal relations as contributing factors to labour peace. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†The hon member Mr Redinger referred to the position of the farm worker. I thank him for his contribution. He referred to the important role of agriculture as an employer and mentioned that there are 1,3 million workers in that industry. That underlines the fact which I mentioned earlier that when we deal with the rights of agricultural workers and when unions are formed, it must be done with great circumspection so as not to unduly disturb this industry. I agree that a well trained work force is a big asset for agriculture and I will endeavour to make just that possible.

*Hon members referred to the question of job creation and training. I want to refer to the job-creation and training programmes administered by this department and say that since the scheme was introduced, a total of 99 million man-days have been worked. Not only has this scheme brought relief, by way of temporary job opportunities, to large numbers of unemployed, but it has also established permanent social assets. As in the past, the Department of Manpower has again made use of the services of training contractors in the private sector to provide the training. For this purpose approximately 450 training contracts have been negotiated, with training contractors offering courses in approximately 700 different job categories throughout the length and breadth of the country. During the past financial year 235 000 unemployed have received some or other form of training in terms of this scheme.

In conclusion I should like …

Hear, hear!

That hon member can say “hear, hear!” because he has learnt something today. [Interjections.] In the past 10 years—if one looks back on developments in the labour field—one sees that there has, in fact, been phenomenal development as far as our labour force is concerned. As far as the basic rights of workers are concerned, we find this in the form of free association, in the formation of trade unions and in collective bargaining. In this process the Government has taken a back seat, merely providing the ground rules in terms of which this can be done. This is a sound basic philosophy in terms of which this important sector in our national economy can develop.

If we look back even further, we also see that we have, actually in an unconventional manner, made a major contribution to the creation of jobs, firstly by way of deregulation which has, secondly, created jobs in all fields by way of the training of those who are unemployed. That is a singular milestone, if one looks back over the past 10 years. Finally, it is with great pride and compassion that we can view the worker as a human being.

Productivity is actually a small component of what goes to make up an efficient and loyal worker. This brings me back to what we said to one another this afternoon, and that is that productivity should be linked to management. A competent manager knows that a worker is not an emotionless machine that simply produces. He knows that a worker is someone who is entitled to human dignity. He knows that a worker lives in a certain milieu, for example within a certain family context, and that he is a man with children whom he wants to see making progress at school.

In looking back, we say that there is a great deal we still have to do. We say that there are probably many mistakes we have made, but we are also saying that there is a great deal we can be thankful for.