laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Powers and Privileges of Parliament and the Constitution Amendment Bill [No 108—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Payment of Members of Parliament Amendment Bill [No 109—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).

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

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Second Finance Bill [No 99—85 (Ga)], as follows:

CH W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

4 June 1985.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Order! The hon member for Swellendam has asked me for an opportunity to make a personal explanation. Accordingly I now give him leave to do so.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you are affording me.

In the debate on the Defence Vote I referred to the hon member for Pinelands and said that he was faced with a crisis in his home because he had someone there who had in fact evaded national service and who was opposed to conscription. The reason I said that was that the person to whom I referred completed only a part of his national service in 1977. Since then I have ascertained that the person in question did not evade national service as I had suspected. Accordingly I withdraw my allegations in this regard. If I caused any inconvenience thereby then I apologize for that as well.

Mr Chairman, after the hon Mr Justice Diemont, Judge of Appeal, as a one-man commission, had investigated the desirability of converting the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court into a separate provincial division, he recommended inter alia that there should be a Deputy Judge President, permanently resident in Johannesburg, and permanently in control of the Johannesburg court. This recommendation was given thorough consideration and it was concluded at the time that there was a real need for a judge to be in control in Johannesburg, as recommended by the commission. In certain respects the volume of work in Johannesburg is even greater than in Pretoria. In the year 1983-84, for example, there were more than 23 000 motion court appearances in the Witwatersrand Local Division, compared with 19 000 in the Transvaal Provincial Division. During that year 28 753 processes were issued in the Johannesburg area, compared with 22 900 processes in the Transvaal Provincial Area, that is to say, in Pretoria.

On the other hand the volume of work in the TPD is of course far greater, and the area of jurisdiction of the TPD is also larger. All things considered, though, it would seem to me to be the ideal situation if there could be two Deputy Judges President in the Transvaal, which is the largest provincial division in the country, one in Pretoria and one in Johannesburg. Consequently it was decided, after widespread consultation, to take steps to make two such appointments possible, and the matter will be disposed of shortly. Further announcements will then follow.

†I want now to deal with a matter relating to the Republic of Bophuthatswana. To be admitted to practise as an attorney in South Africa, the minimum academic qualification required is a B Proc degree of a university in the Republic. The Attorneys Act of 1979, however, also makes acceptable the degree of a university in a country designated by the Minister of Justice, after consultation with the presidents of the law societies, if a South African university has certified that the syllabus and standard of training of that degree are equivalent or superior to those required for the B Proc degree at a South African university. The Admission of Advocates Act of 1964 contains similar provisions, but in that case the qualifying degree is an LL B and the country can be designated after consultation with the General Council of the Bar of South Africa.

It gives me great pleasure to announce that I have today signed the designation of Bophuthatswana under both Acts. I did so after both the law societies and the General Council of the Bar of South Africa had agreed to this step, and after the University of South Africa had issued certificates in respect of the B Proc and the LL B degrees of the University of Bophuthatswana. The designation will be published in the Gazette as soon as possible.

I now revert to the matter of small claims courts. On 1 March 1985 I announced that due to the financial circumstances and the curtailment of public expenditure, it was not possible at that stage to launch the pilot projects in respect of small claims courts, assisted by the State’s infrastructure, as originally planned. Accordingly I appointed an Implementation Committee under the chairmanship of Mr J J Noeth, Chief Director: Legal Services in the Department of Justice, and consisting of Mr L S van Zyl, Adv I W B de Villiers, SC, Proff F J Bosman, D W Morkel and J T Delport, Mr O A de Meyer, Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, and Messrs A M Brokenshaw and S W van der Merwe, Attorneys. I requested the Committee to investigate and report on the implementation of pilot projects at certain centers at the lowest possible cost to the State; to advise me on the financial implications of the recommendations; to draw up a suitable set of rules for the courts; and to advise me on the appointment of local advisory committees for each project.

The Implementation Committee reported back on 14 May 1985. The committee really deserves sincere acknowledgement for the performance of a comprehensive task carried out in a very short space of time.

*The Committee’s most important recommendation was that pilot projects could be launched in nine centers—Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, Rustenburg, Durban and Springs—at an estimated cost of R75 000 for a period of six months. This was made possible by an exceptionally favourable reaction from branches of the legal profession, the universities and bodies such as the Consumer Council. No fewer than 257 advocates, attorneys and law academics offered to make their services available free of charge as commissioners in the envisaged centers. In addition the law clinics of universities offered their co-operation at each of these nine centers. The estimated cost includes the remuneration of a recommended co-ordinator who will serve as a permanent clerk of the court, at each court, during the course of the pilot project. The appointment of these co-ordinators is of course subject to the approval of the posts in question by the Commission for Administration. An alternative would be to pay existing staff undertaking voluntary service overtime remuneration.

In view of this my colleague the hon the Minister of finance, generously agreed that a grant of R120 000 be appropriated for the pilot project for six months. Of significance is the fact that the departmental estimate for one year for these projects, if they had been organized entirely by the State on State premises, was put as high as R2 million.

Local advisory committees were established at all main centers, the members of which I shall announce soon. The committee found that there was great interest on the part of the public. An investigation by the Consumer Council in fact revealed that as many as 97,9% of the people questioned, welcomed the establishment of the court.

In view of the abovementioned factors and the committee’s recommendation I decided to amend and extend the directive for implementation so as to deal with the continuation and planning of the pilot project as well. The object will be to launch the pilot project at Springs, Rustenburg and possibly two in Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Port Elizabeth by 1 October 1985, that is to begin with the issuing of processes so that the hearing of cases can commence soon afterwards. At the other identified centers the courts will be launched as soon as those centers are ready.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister why he has excluded from his first pilot schemes the largest city in South Africa, namely Johannesburg.

Perhaps I can deal with this issue more comprehensively when I reply to the hon member later on.

Well, I am not going to deal with this point, so I am asking the hon the Minister now.

As a matter of fact, there are a number of ancillary matters that had to be co-ordinated. They relate to the building in which the court will be conducted. They also relate to various other matters, but mainly to the building, the personnel and so on. As I pointed out, however, I have budgeted for Johannesburg as well. We will conduct proceedings at Johannesburg. The hon member need not worry; I have excluded Bloemfontein also at this point in time, and it is my home town. [Interjections.] So the hon member must not think that his home town is being discriminated against in any way. After all, the Appellate Division is located in Bloemfontein as well. [Interjections.]

*As I have already said, the courts will be launched at the other identified centres as soon as they are ready.

The rules of court recommended by the Committee are at present being finalized and will be ready for promulgation by 30 June 1985. I want to emphasize that although I have mentioned centres such as Springs, Rustenburg and possibly Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Port Elizabeth as well, this does not exclude other centres. If they are ready by that time, they will also be launched. I want to emphasize very emphatically that they are not being excluded from also beginning on 1 October.

I cannot omit to express my appreciation for the rapid and effective handling of the situation by Mr Noeth and his Implementation Committee, as well as the unselfish attitude of the legal professions and universities. These small courts claims are regarded as a community project. I am therefore appealing to the communities, when the recommended local advisory committees approach them for assistance and co-operation in the course of the other projects, to follow the example of the aforesaid bodies. This does not mean that the Government wishes to reduce or evade State responsibility for effective adjudication. The Government is continuing to discharge the obligation of the State—on this level as well. In an effort to save on the costs and to expedite the administration of justice, the Government however supports informal means of settling disputes whenever this is possible without sacrificing quality, as is the case here and also in regard to our tried and trusted system of arbitration.

It was necessary for me to make this announcement. I want to add that I am grateful that there are so many members of the personnel of the Department of Justice and Prisons present. Hon members will permit me to refer to the Director-General, Mr Fanie van der Merwe. As far as I can remember, this is the first opportunity he has had since his appointment to be present at the discussion of this Vote in this House. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone when I wish him a very fruitful and interesting future career.

Mr Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

I should like to commence the PFP’s participation in this debate by thanking the Director-General Mr Van der Merwe and his staff for a year’s dedicated service. Much progress has been made by the department during the past year under the guidance of the Director-General and his executive members.

I have read with interest the annual report of the Director-General which contains a full exposition of the widespread activities of the department and its branches. It is a pity, however, that by the time this report is debated, its facts and statistics are already about one year old and thus one year out of date. Perhaps some thought should be given by the hon the Minister and the Director-General to providing a report which is more current in its information and thus more relevant to the annual debate on the Justice portfolio.

I do not intend this afternoon to deal with the Government’s tabled response to the final recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This will be done later in the debate by my colleagues the hon members for Berea and Durban Central. Similarly, the question of small claims courts will be dealt with by the hon member for Berea.

I would like to discuss briefly a few diverse but not unimportant matters. Firstly, I should like to say in response to the hon the Minister’s announcement relating to the Witwatersrand Local Division and the steps that he intends taking, that I will certainly lend my support to those steps. I think they are in the interests of the profession and of the public on the Witwatersrand. However, the Diemont Commission report regarding the status of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court was presented as long ago—the hon the Minister will concede this—as August 1980. Virtually all the recommendations in that report have been implemented by now with the exception of its first and main recommendation. That recommendation is now nearly five years old. The changes that Mr Justice Diemont recommended are as follows:

In this connection the hon the Minister is aware of at least two points: Firstly, that all the other recommendations were no more than ancillary to the main recommendation; and secondly, that both he, the Minister, and I have received serious representations from elements of the judiciary and also from senior members of the Johannesburg Bar urging the speedy implementation of this recommendation. No doubt the hon the Minister has had his problems—I think some of us are aware of those problems—but they are not insurmountable. The status of the Witwatersrand Local Division and the efficient functioning of that division are more important than any difficulties the hon the Minister may be experiencing.

A year ago the hon the Minister promised to make an appointment “Very soon”, and we are still waiting. The hon the Minister has now given us an undertaking, and he must make the necessary appointment and rectify the matters complained of in that report. I do hope that he will not delay in implementing the main recommendation of the report of that commission.

Also about a year ago my colleague the hon member for Yeoville raised the question of the escalating costs of litigation. In particular he raised the question of the contribution made to these high costs by the continuing division of the Bar and the Side-Bar. In his reply to the debate, the hon the Minister replied in somewhat vague and, in my opinion, inconclusive terms, preferring to leave the whole problem to the profession itself. Since then, however, nothing has been achieved, and the duplication of effort and legal representation continues to put legal redress far beyond the means of many thousands of South Africans. I would be grateful if the hon the Minister would give us the benefit of his 1985 thinking on this issue and tell us what positive steps he intends taking to relieve the position. In this connection the hon the Minister must remember one thing and that is that he does not only represent the legal profession. What is more important, he should also represent the broader interests of the public at large.

Mr Chairman, the Appeal Court judgment handed down last week in the case of Oscar Mpetha creates for the hon the Minister two rather unique opportunities for doing good, firstly, in regard to the person himself and secondly, in regard to the South African judicial system. I do not intend to summarize the Mpetha case this afternoon as I am quite sure that the facts of that case are completely within the knowledge of the hon the Minister. However, certain facts are relevant. Firstly, Mr Mpetha is 75 years old and is in illhealth. Secondly, Mr Mpetha has already served 34 months in custody during the course of his trial. Thirdly, in sentencing Mpetha to five years imprisonment the trial judge stated that had he not been obliged to impose a minimum sentence, he would totally have suspended whatever sentence was imposed. Fourthly, while reluctantly confirming the sentence, Appeal Court Judges Van Heerden and Hefer stated that the facts of the case served to underline the lack of wisdom of mandatory sentences, and expressed the hope that Mpetha’s sentence would be ameliorated by administrative action. Fifthly, Mr Justice Corbett in a separate judgment wrote of the injustice that could flow from a statutory enactment that laid down compulsory minimum sentences and took away from the trial judge the discretion he normally enjoyed in the imposition of a sentence. Mr Justice Galgut and Mr Justice Kotze echoed these sentiments in the Appeal Court judgment.

Mr Chairman, similar principles—not exactly the same but similar—are involved in two judgments delivered in Natal earlier this month. The first, handed down by a full Bench of the Natal Supreme Court in the bail application of various members of the UDF, was severely critical of the provision entitling the Attorney-General to block bail applications. According to the Natal Mercury of 25 April, Mr Justice Friedman went so far as to say:

In granting bail at a later hearing, Mr Justice Milne, the Judge President of Natal, said that he fully agreed with that judgement, and that the section involved made serious inroads into the role of the courts. Age, Mr Justice Milne said, was the section’s sole claim to respectability. He added, and I quote from the Sunday Times of 5 May 1985:

Mr Chairman, I mentioned that these two judgments have provided the hon the Minister with an opportunity of doing good for our country. Firstly, in regard to Mpetha: he is aged; he is sick; he has already spent 34 months in prison. Mr Justice Williamson of the Cape Provincial Division would have suspended his entire sentence had he the power to do so. The hon the Minister does, however, have the power to rectify matters and to show mercy. I appeal to the hon the Minister to take seriously the words of all the judges I have quoted and to leave Mr Mpetha be. If he does this he will invoke much goodwill here and abroad.

There is, however, a second opportunity available for doing our country good in the very near future. That is to take heed of the concerned comments of all the judges I have mentioned, and to announce an immediate investigation into all statutory provisions—whether they relate to bail applications, to minimum sentences or even to detentions or bannings without trial—which hinder the independent courts of our country in the exercise of their judicial discretion and which prevent them from being the final court of redress, where the rights and the liberty of individuals are at stake. What, I ask you, Mr Chairman, is the use of having an independent judiciary if that judiciary’s hands are tied? Sir, if the hon the Minister does this, if he accedes to this request, he will have struck a resounding blow for the cause of true justice in our country.

Mr Chairman, I now wish to turn to a somewhat delicate aspect. There are some facets…

Is the matter to which you have just referred not a delicate one too?

No, it is very straightforward! [Interjections.]

That was very straightforward indeed, Mr Chairman. It is of course just that little bit too subtle for the hon member for Mossel Bay. He should, however, listen and try hard—he might perhaps grasp something. [Interjections.]

The matter to which I want to refer now, Mr Chairman, is, as I have already indicated, somewhat delicate, namely, some facets of the role of the Department of Justice and of the courts in our evolving society, a society which is deeply divided on ideological, cultural, racial and other grounds. The Department of Justice, I submit, should never be seen as just another branch of law enforcement or just another instrument in the application of Government policy. The Department of Justice should be more than that. It should be a department geared primarily to the needs and the problems of the individual citizen, seeking justice above the demands of political expediency, for no matter what régime governs this country in the future, if an equitable system of justice for the individual can be maintained and even broadened, and can continue to enjoy public confidence, then that new society of the future need not spell disaster for individual aspirations. Allow me, Sir, to give but two examples of what can be done to promote both the substance and the image of justice in our country.

Firstly, I want to refer to commissions of inquiry, irrespective of whether they be into unrest, police activities, corruption or law reform. Far too little logistic back-up for commissions of inquiry is provided by the Department of Justice. Judges are not detectives neither are they inquisitors, and their findings are nearly always limited to the evidence submitted to them. The Kannemeyer Commission, which has not yet reported, is a case in point. It is quite wrong that nearly all the relevant evidence should be brought at the expense of the community. Whenever a commission of inquiry is appointed the Department of Justice should provide it with an investigative arm sufficiently staffed and independently oriented so as to ensure that all the facts of any given issue are uncovered and are aired. To second one junior advocate who sees it as his role to back up other Government persons and bodies is to destroy the credibility of the department in the eyes of the public, Black and White.

Secondly, in regard to legal aid, not nearly enough is being done in this field. Too much goes by default through lack of proper representation. The latest report of the Legal Aid Board, cash-strapped as it is, bears witness to this cavernous gap in our system. I have no time to quote its views, but suffice it to say that its activities are severely hampered by a lack of funds. Thousands of persons are denied legal representations by a paucity of knowledge of what is available to them and the board itself is frustrated by the lack of Government response to the task it is undertaking. A dramatic increase in the funds available to the Legal Aid Board should be considered as a matter of urgency.

Finally, it is essential not only that the courts be even-handed but that they be seen to be even-handed. It takes only a few really bad decisions to bring into public disrepute, both here and abroad, the high standing our courts should enjoy. For example, for magistrate S J Coetzee, whom I assume is no relative of the hon the Minister, to fine a White policeman the princely sum of R30 for a vicious and unprovoked assault which led to the death of a Coloured man in Johannesburg recently is to bring the racial fairness of the lower courts into doubt.

Have you studied that judgment?

I have looked at it in depth. Another example relates to magistrate M P Prinsloo, also of Johannesburg, who in March 1985, on the same day, heard three very similar cases, namely that of using a drink-can ring in a parking meter. A Mr Levy of Yeoville was fined R50, a Mr Steyn of Hillbrow was fined R50, while Mr Victor Thanjekwayo of Soweto was fined R200 or four months. There are many such cases. I have corresponded with the advocate who appeared in all three those cases and I have discussed these cases with him on the telephone, so I know the facts of these cases. There are many such cases which have occurred in past months.

I would now like to quote from the Financial Mail of 29 March 1985. Among these judgements are the following:

Appalling!

Yes, I regard that as being appalling. I do not have intimate knowledge of the judicial officers concerned and do not ascribe malice to them, but there is something drastically wrong in a system which allows these injustices to occur. The damage done to race relations and to the image of justice in South Africa is immense. I believe that the whole question of sentencing should come under ministerial scrutiny.

There is much that can be done. Retraining, specifically geared to this problem, should be embarked upon by the department throughout the country. Seminars for judicial officers can play a useful role. Perhaps even the use of computers might be considered.

Most important, however, is the comment of Advocate Jules Browde, SC, the chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council, who recently said:

I want to say that Mr Browde is not that far off the mark. 98% of all magistrates in South Africa are White, and all the judges without exception are White while the overwhelming majority of those who appear before them on criminal charges are Black.

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything; I am making a statement. The CP need not worry too much about it because I know that they are going to disagree with me anyway.

The time has come for the department to make a real effort to recruit, train, promote and advance Black, Coloured and Indian persons within the structure of the courts. They cannot be held back any longer. The face of justice should not be snow white in this country at the tip of Black Africa.

The same goes for the Bench. If we can have Coloured and Indian Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet Ministers, there is no reason why the Bench should not be non-racial. Indeed there are several suitable candidates whose elevation to the Bench would grace the South African judiciary.

In this way a start can be made to bring justice closer to the people and to create a climate in which the people identify more closely with the system of justice in our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton raised a number of unrelated matters, and the time at my disposal does not allow me to react to all the matters raised by him. No doubt he will in due course receive adequate replies from the hon the Minister.

I do wish to refer, however, to the last matter raised by the hon member and that is the appointment of persons of colour to the Bench. The hon member should know that all appointments to the Bench at present are strictly on merit.

Do you say at present or always have been?

At present and always have been.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that a former NP Minister of Justice admitted that when it came to appointments to the Supreme Court by him he took matters other than merit into consideration?

I am not aware of such an admission and I should like the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to substantiate his statement.

Mr F C Erasmus.

The fact is that appointments to the Bench are made strictly on merit and the hon member should know that. The present hon Minister is on record—and here I refer to the Hansard of the House of Representatives—as saying categorically on 19th April of this year:

When the hon member for Sandton pleads for the appointment of people of colour to the Bench, therefore the reply is simply that there is nothing whatsoever preventing that at present.

Why has that not happened once in 60 years?

We do not have a legal system functioning in abstracto in this country. The legal system is part of the social structure of the society and therefore the legal system also reflects the social situation appertaining in the country at a particular time. However, I do not propose devoting all my time to the hon member for Sandton. He is not all that important. I prefer making a positive contribution to this debate. After the denigrating statements made by the hon member for Sandton I believe that someone should speak up for the judiciary for a change. People should not always try to run to the judiciary down as the hon member for Sandton has been doing.

*During the past decade, the esteem for, the credibility and the integrity of, and the respect for, many institutions, offices and persons in South Africa have been seriously jeopardized. This applies not only to State institutions and Statesmen, but also to churches, ecclesiastical organizations and church leaders. It also applies to political institutions and politicians, as well as business undertakings and businessmen, government officials as well as members of professions, and cultural organizations and cultural leaders, as well as agricultural organizations and agricultural leaders. Virtually every facet of South African society is being questioned in some respect or other, and indeed to such an extent that it has already been alleged that there is ostensibly a crisis of confidence in the country.

In the midst of all this confusion and doubt the South African administration of justice and the judicature stand out as a symbol of hope and confidence. Even South Africa’s severest critics readily concede that the standard of the administration of justice in South Africa is of the highest order. In the recent television programme which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr Andrew Young took part in, Mr Young spontaneously and readily conceded that the South African administration of justice complied with the highest standards.

Harsh criticism is sometimes levelled against the South African administration of justice, as the hon member for Sandton has also just done, but on closer inspection it appears that this is motivated by ignorance or maliciousness, or both. The hon member for Sandton can decide for himself into which of these categories his criticism falls.

Usually it does not concern the administration of justice or the judicature as such, but the alleged absence or disregard of human rights or the “rule of law”, which are both political concepts and not legal concepts. It concerns matters such as discriminatory legislation, for which the courts are of course not responsible, or police action under and by virtue of legislation, for which the courts cannot be blamed either. Consequently the criticism levelled against our administration of justice …

Did you say the rule of law is not a legal concept?

Of course it is not and the hon member knows it, or should know it.

I know the contrary.

Well, we can debate that on another occasion if necessary.

*The criticism levelled against the South African administration of justice is therefore of a political nature and should be levelled against the Government or the legislature and not against the administration of justice as such.

There is no justification for questioning the administration of justice or for expecting judges and magistrates to make a stand against security legislation or at least speak out against it, as Prof Dugard said in an article in the Rand Daily Mail of 29 March of this year. If judges and magistrates were to comply with this request they would definitely not be doing the South African administration of justice a service, but they would immediately place it in the political arena, as the hon members of the Official Opposition would like to do. I shall get back to this matter later on in my speech.

One asks oneself what the high esteem and respect for the South African administration of justice is attributable to. I find the first reason for this in the independence of the South African courts of law. This was and still is above suspicion. [Interjections.] The Hoexter Commission pointed out that in South Africa recognition was given to the doctrine of the separation of State powers. South Africa adopts the standpoint that separation between the government organs which carry out the judicial and the executive state functions is a necessary outcome of this doctrine.

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

Mr Chairman, I stand up to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member may proceed.

I thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

*The Hoexter commission has made certain recommendations to promote the independence of the courts further. In a report by the US State Department which was quoted in The Star of 15 February 1984, it was specifically stated: “South Africa’s judiciary is independent.” This was said by the US State Department. The report by the US State Department than went on to criticize our security legislation, but it was stated categorically that “the judiciary is independent”. [Interjections.]

A second reason for the high esteem for the South African courts of law is their efficiency. The Hoexter Commission investigated the efficiency of the South African courts in depth and made a number of recommendations to increase the efficiency and eliminate bottle-necks. Several of these recommendations have already been implemented, with good results for the efficiency of the courts, while others are still receiving attention. The fact is that there is a constant endeavour to achieve even greater efficiency.

I find a third reason for the esteem for the South African courts in the adaptability to changing circumstances of the law applied by the courts. Along with other norms the law is one of the instruments of social control. Consequently it is essential for a legal system to be flexible enough to be able to adjust without unnecessary delay to changed circumstances.

According to the learned writers F J van Zyl and J D van der Vyver in their book Die Inleiding tot die Regswetenskap of 1982 our law certainly does have this characteristic. They point out that the South African Parliament is fairly diligent as regard its task of establishing new law, and in this way making provision for changed circumstances. The South African Law Commission also regularly recommends statutory amendments to the authorities after thorough investigation. Our present matrimonial property law was changed drastically only last year on the recommendation of the South African Law Commission. At the moment we have proposals before us in connection with the adjustment of the law of succession and the law in connection with women and sexual offences. This prevents the prevailing law from lagging behind social development, and it is ensured that the law will fill its important role as an instrument of social control effectively.

I find a fourth reason for the esteem for the courts of law in the unimpeachable honesty, impartiality and professional competence of judges and adjudicating magistrates. I am specifically including adjudicating magistrates in this too. These qualities are assured, inter alia, by the high standard of the legal training of the universities and the Department of Justice. They are also assured by the thorough experience which advocates, prosecutors and other legal officers gain in practice, as well as by the responsible way in which appointments to the Bench take place, ie after thorough consultation and strictly on merit.

The status and esteem enjoyed by judges and adjudicating magistrates is apparent, inter alia, from the recent announcement that in future hon Ministers of the Cabinet will no longer be entitled to use the title “The Honourable”, but judges will. I believe that these are all factors which help to keep the esteem for our courts of law so high.

But the most important reason for the high esteem and respect for our courts of law is the political non-involvement of the courts of law and the judicial officers. Traditionally the South African courts of law are apolitical. Appointments to the Bench do not take place for political considerations and judges and adjudicating magistrates avoid political rulings or political involvement. Even if the South African courts of law were to have all the virtues I have mentioned this afternoon, they would nevertheless jeopardize their esteem, credibility and integrity if they were to land up in the stormy waters of politics.

I am not merely arguing for good administration of justice, but for far more when I make this appeal: Let us keep our courts of law out of party politics, and party politics out of our courts of law. Then we will be able to continue to be proud of the high standard of the administration of justice in South Africa. The very last thing we need in this connection is speeches like the one the hon member for Sandton made here this afternoon, when he made an issue of and questioned the courts of law. [Interjections.]

Mnr Chairman, I want to associate myself immediately with the hon member for Mossel Bay by expressing my strongest misgivings at the deplorable remark which the hon member for Sandton made with reference to the “Snow Whites” who preside over judicial proceedings in the supreme courts and magistrate’s courts. This cannot be interpreted in any other way than a direct insult to those persons. [Interjections.]

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

Sir, I am not prepared to reply to any questions. [Interjections.] Such a statement is in line with the obsession of that hon member and his party to try to compel integration on all levels.

The Department of Justice has the knack of literally inundating us with reports a few days before the discussion of the Vote. I hasten to add, though that they are excellent reports. If we look at the annual report of the department and the Twelfth Report of the South African Law Commission, as well as the memorandum to which reference was made this afternoon, and even at the report on Project 45 on the woman and sex-orientated crimes in South Africa, which has just been made available to us, we see that these are all very important reports and documents which we shall go through in due course. If I look at this report on the person going under the alias of Adv De Jager, which we received this afternoon, together with its supplementary report, and I read in annexure A of all the successes he achieved in the cases in which he acted, I think that if he had been here, he would also have been able to take up the cudgels very successfully for us in dealing with all these very good reports.

As regards the annual report, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Sandton by saying that it was a very complete and excellent report which gave us a very good picture of all the activities of the Justice Directorate as well as the Prisons Service Directorate. Unfortunately we cannot pause for very long on the report, except to say that the CP wishes to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation to the Director-General, Adv Fanie van der Merwe, whom we welcome officially here today, after having welcomed him in the old Senate Chamber last year, and to General Willemse, and also in particular to the parliamentary staff for their service to us which is always willing and excellent when we approach them with problems and queries in connection with the matters and activities of their directorates.

We also have a memorandum on the Hoexter Report in our possession. We have studied it and we shall probably study it further in depth as we devote attention to all the matters mentioned in it. The findings and recommendations which we read, as well as the Government’s standpoints and decisions concerning these recommendations, are important. Many of those recommendations have already been incorporated into legislation and we take cognisance with gratitude of this memorandum which has been submitted to us. I should also like to give attention today to the various reports of the South African Law Commission, including the twelfth report. Over the past decade and longer, this commission has submitted important reports to this House. Very important legislation has already been placed on the Statute Book arising from the reports and investigations of this commission. If we were to glance at annexures B, C and D to the twelfth report, we would find a list of numerous projects and investigations already disposed of by the commission or which they are still dealing with. In one of its previous reports the commission emphasized that all developing and dynamic communities are constantly making new demands on the law.

It is not only desirable but also essential that the law should constantly be reviewed, adjusted and supplemented. In fact, we are all aware that the Act under which the commission came into existence imposed an obligation on the commission to undertake research into many branches of the law of the Republic of South Africa for the sake of the development, modernization and the improvement of our law and legislation. Thus the commission points out in one of its reports that in respect of the privacy, the rights of personality and other rights of the individual, there is a constant need for new and better precautions to protect such rights of the individual.

We are aware that the commission always welcomes proposals or requests for specific aspects of the law to be investigated. Today I want to avail myself of this opportunity to raise a matter which, it is to be hoped, can be included by the SA Law Commission in the commission’s project No 44, a project which envisages a comprehensive and a comparative investigation into the protection of all rights of personality. When the commission made a few remarks on the aforesaid Project No 44, they said:

A year or so ago, while we were conducting a debate on the Rabie Report, voices were constantly being heard raised in protest that the rights and liberties of the individual were being shifted further and further into the background when it came to security legislation. In conjunction with this protest that individuals were increasingly being deprived of their freedom, we find that in recent times strong protest is also being made against what is called an “invasion of the rights of the privacy of the individual”. In this connection I am referring to the entire question of the so-called illegal tapping of private telephone conversations by the SA Police. I am raising this matter here today because, as I said, I should like to use it as an example, and because I should like to bring it to the attention of the SA Law Commission.

We are all aware that in section 118A of the Post Office Act, No 44 of 1958, provision is made for certain Government bodies to be authorized to intercept telephone conversations, if such interception is essential for the preservation of the security of South Africa.

Recently there have been quite a number of Press reports to the effect that investigating officers of the Police, in their investigations of ordinary criminal cases, are making illegal…

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

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to say that I am prepared to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member Mr Theunissen may proceed.

I thank the hon Whip for the opportunity.

Recently there have been quite a number of Press reports to the effect that investigating officers of the Police, in their investigations of ordinary criminal cases, have intercepted telephone conversations in an illegal manner.

Order! The hon member refer red a moment ago to the participation of the Police, as well as to the Post Office Act. Neither of those matters has any bearing on this department. To say in a roundabout way that the matter should be referred to the SA Law Commission is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification either to discuss the matter under this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I want, if I may, to address you on your ruling. I used it as an example of a matter affecting what I call the invasion of the privacy of the individual and rights of personality. In this way I want to bring the matter to the attention of the SA Law Commission. I feel it is entirely relevant in respect of the matter which I should like to present under this Vote. This Committee is after all the correct platform for this matter, because the SA Law Commission itself says that they listen to and take cognizance of what happens in debates in this House, and therefore they will in this way, too, take cognizance of this submission which I am making precisely in order to point out what I call an invasion of privacy in these spheres. Therefore I really cannot understand why you wish to deprive me of that opportunity in the discussion of this important Vote.

Order! It would seem to me that under that pretext any aspect of other Votes could be discussed under this Vote. I therefore think it is a little far-fetched. Nevertheless I shall give the hon member an opportunity to refer briefly to this matter again, but I would appreciate it if he would then return to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, when Mr Justice Piet van der Walt, in his capacity of Advocate-General, instituted an investigation in 1980 on the basis of a complaint which was made that dealt with what I have just mentioned to you now, he said inter alia that one of the most important rights of personality of a citizen of a democratic state was the right to privacy. Of equally great importance to the community of South Africa, however, is the security of the State. It is clear that the interests of the individual and the interests of the community are constantly coming into conflict.

The Rabie Commission, too, said in regard to the question of the illegal monitoring of telephone conversations that although it was inevitable that cognizance would have to be taken of the demands made by the reality of the internal security situation of the RSA, it was at the same time necessary to strive to maintain a proper equilibrium when the interests of the State on the one hand were weighed up against those of the individual on the other.

It is a fact that a recognized principle of our legal system is that the individual may not be deprived of the rights which he normally enjoys as citizen of the State through the actions of executive and administrative officials unless such actions are properly authorized by legislation. Moreover, the Rabie Commission found that the interception of telephone conversations, for example, was an essential means of ensuring the security of the State, but since the use of this means was a serious invasion of the privacy of the individual, it had to be applied with great care and responsibility.

That is why we say that there is indeed a very fine dividing line between the privacy of the individual and the security of the State. No one will deny that this question of monitoring is a very delicate matter. Because there are increasing numbers of enquiries as to the desirability and legality of Government bodies intercepting private telephone conversations, and because feelings are constantly being stirred up in regard to the actions of the Police, I think it would be very desirable if the SA Law Commission included this alleged invasion of the privacy of the individual and of his rights of personality in its Project 44. There is a very strong feeling that the Police may in fact have the right to tap telephone conversations in their task of combating crime, subject of course to specific restricting conditions. It may be necessary to extend such monitoring rights to cases of serious crime. We know, too, that in other states, such as in the state of Israel, such provision has in fact been made.

Similarly it may be pointed out that no body may in an irregular and illegal way commit such an invasion of the privacy of the individual, because if that happens, it would be a gross violation of the personal rights of the individual.

We therefore wish to suggest that the SA Law Commission should submit to a very serious investigation the right of the individual to privacy and his personal rights on the basis of the use of these methods.

The SA Law Commission is there to help ensure legal certainty. We make the laws, and frequently the assistance of the SA Law Commission has to be called in to help ensure that justice is done to the community as well as to the individual.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for his very interesting contribution. I shall follow him by referring to one of the reports by the SA Law Commission dealing with women and sexual offences.

†The speech of the hon member for Sandton should be mentioned. The first part of his speech was quite balanced. He expressed certain criticisms but I believe that they were constructive criticisms that one could debate. I believe, however, that when he attacked certain sentences of courts and gave examples, he did South Africa and our jurisprudence a great disservice. The facts he quoted were just so blatantly unreasonable that they could not possibly have been a reasonable reflection of what happened. To suggest that a man was fined only R50 for murder and rape is just so far-fetched that it could not possibly be true. I believe he did our jurisprudence a great disservice in this regard.

*I should like to associate myself with the congratulations extended to the Director-General, Adv Van der Merwe, on an excellent first annual report. It is more comprehensive than last year’s report and gives a very good broad insight into the department’s activities.

I should like to take one figure from this annual report. It is contained in chapter 5, paragraph 2 on page 29, namely that the Master dealt with only 775 accounts of appraisers during the year under review. When this figure is compared with the 14 931 dealt with during the previous year, it is ample proof of the tremendous success that has been achieved in regard to the simplification of the administration of estates.

This must have given rise to great improvement as far as the utilization of the staff of the Master’s office is concerned. Over the past few years we have systematically simplified the administration process, and I hope that this simplification process will continue in the same way. Ultimately, the executor should accept full responsibility for the administration of the estate concerned, and the Master of the Supreme Court should only have to decide in cases where a dispute develops.

In its report on women and sexual offences in South Africa, the SA Law Commission did our system of justice a very great service. It remains a fact that rape has become one of the most controversial offences of our time. The reason for this is to be found in the emergence of certain activist groups in the ranks of women’s organizations which consider this crime to be a reflection of the view that women in society occupy an inferior position. Throughout the world these women’s organizations are agitating for a review of the approach to this crime. The particular demands they are making in this connection include, inter alia, amendment of the definition of rape; the emphasizing of the violent rather than the sexual nature of the crime; the fact that, furthermore, rape be regarded as legally possible within marriage; and that the irrefutable presumption that a boy of 14 years of age is unable to commit rape be changed in law. There are various other aspects as well, including the contribution of district surgeons regarding the after-care of rape victims.

It is clear that the abovementioned demands and the insistence upon reform with regard to the legal approach to rape, cover the whole spectrum. It is not only a question of substantive law but also of the law of evidence, of procedures and of the practical aspect of after-care. It is also clear that there is strong insistence upon an inquiry in this connection; in fact, that such an inquiry has become essential. Actually, I believe the report of the Law Commission in this respect meets this need and this necessity fully. The inquiry was started in 1982 after the hon the Minister had requested that such an inquiry be undertaken, and the scope of this inquiry was also extended at a later stage.

A serious problem with regard to such an inquiry is that it is an emotional matter, that people who are not lawyers are involved in it and that they feel very strongly about this matter. I believe that in this enquiry the Law Commission obviated this particular problem to a large extent by holding a seminar and affording those who felt so strongly about this matter the opportunity to put their case.

This report consists of more than 200 pages. It is fully founded in theory. It deals with the background and the historical course and refinement of the process involved in the crime of rape. It also indicates that should the emphasis again be placed on the violent aspect of this crime, it would in fact amount to a return to Roman law in terms of which violence was the decisive factor in a crime of rape. The great value of this report lies in the fact that it is directly practice-orientated. In fact, the basis of the report is the relief of the trauma suffered by rape victims. I believe, too, that the report contains important proposals regarding the relief of the trauma caused by the so-called second victimization of rape victims.

Important recommendations that were mentioned in this connection, which unfortunately one cannot deal with thoroughly now, include the fact that the commission has asked for legislation that will rule out all possible identification of rape victims and will also provide that evidence in rape cases must automatically be heard in camera.

As far as the treatment of rape victims is concerned, the commission recommends, inter alia, that greater publicity be given to the procedures followed by the SA Police, that aid centres be extended, and that district surgeons also address the problem of resultant pregnancies and venereal diseases, as well as the fact that the medical treatment of such victims will be at State expense. The commission also recommends that prosecutors be instructed to hold more extensive and more intensive pretrial consultations with the complainants.

As far as the substantive law is concerned, there have also been proposals regarding the irrefutable presumption with reference to a 14-year-old boy, and it has also been proposed that rape should be possible within marriage but that only the Attorney-General may institute such legal proceedings. I have problems with this aspect, even if one were to accept the arguments that have been advanced; and strong arguments have been advanced. For example, it has been asked whether we had a rule of law in terms of which rape could not take place within marriage. Our law also includes the rule that reasons can be given within a marriage for the refusal of intercourse. The fiction that a woman by her marriage contract has irrevocably consented to sexual intercourse can simply no longer be accepted. On the other hand, rape is a very serious crime which simply does not belong in a marriage, which is a special sort of relationship, particularly when the spouses are still living together or when there are no injuries. This definitely has the potential to endanger marriages and to disturb relationships.

The aspect with which I particularly cannot agree is the other proposed solution, namely that in such cases the Attorney-General should have a discretion, because that is in effect what is being proposed. This will create simply endless uncertainty, examples of which are in fact to be found in our law. One cannot make something an offence and then water it down by making its implementation dependent on someone’s interpretation of the law.

In spite of this criticism I want to suggest that this document is an extremely valuable one and could make a great contribution towards solving the problem.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon member Mr Schutte. He will notice that I did not shortchange him with any time despite the fact that this bench is somewhat divided on occasions.

I think the department deserves great praise for its very swift reaction in implementing far-reaching changes as a result of the report of the Hoexter Commission. In addition to our thanks for the document issued by the department in response to that report, we would like to add our thanks to that of other members who have spoken about the services rendered by the staff of the department over the years. They have always been extremely courteous and willing to help. I must say, however, that the mine of documentation this year seemed to have appeared in a rather short time. It is always nicer to have it spread out a little, because to be able to go through it and make proper use of it, one needs a little more time.

One of the most obvious things that comes to mind when one goes through these documents, is how one ever got on before in the swiftly moving South Africa without a Law Commission. The work this commission is doing today in respect of the workings of the department, the amending of legislation and the considerations that come before this House, is of such monumental importance and of such value that it must have been extremely difficult to have performed this task in the past, unless everything had remained stagnant for a very long time. When one combines this work with the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission in regard to the structure and functioning of courts, the endeavours of the department and those of the Legal Aid Board, one has all the components for a very effective system of justice with ongoing changes and hopefully far greater accessibility to the courts.

Certainly in the Legal Aid Board’s report one detects a very distinct note of frustration with regard to both the question of the awareness of people of the availability of legal aid and its availability in terms of proximity to certain areas. The board put forward certain suggestions and recommendations but the department itself, on the strength of an investigation by their work study officers, turned them down. The board responded that it was adamant that in the Mitchell’s Plain area, for instance, an office was required. They then took that to the Minister for his approval.

On page 8 of the board’s report one reads:

One finds running through this report a feeling of frustration at the degree of attention the board is getting. One can also see it in the Budget itself, because in fact there is only a very slight increase in the amount budgeted for the board this year compared with last year’s figures. Certainly, if the administration of justice is to be improved, the Legal Aid Board’s accessibility to the man in the street is a critical factor.

Another aspect concerning accessibility is the cost of litigation, an aspect also mentioned by the hon member for Sandton, and the question of what some people call the division in the legal profession and others call the monopoly of the Bar. I think it depends on which side one is on as to what one prefers to call it.

Which side of the bar?

Yes, it depends on whether one is serving or receiving. The Hoexter Commission’s report gives plenty of information and indicates amply that this has been an ongoing debate for many, many years. The departmental response has been a very weak one. It simply fobs the matter off and says the profession itself must decide on what it is going to do. The question has been raised whether attorneys be granted right of audience in the Supreme Court. Naturally, standards would be set. Whether, as indicated here, the requirement of 10 years’ service as an attorney is necessarily the right one, I would not like to say, but certainly there is a case to be made out for broadening the base of legal representatives who have right of audience in the Supreme Court. As has also been mentioned, this would allow a greater choice in the selection of judges. Already in some pro Deo cases attorneys are asked to act in the Supreme Court.

I should also like to remark on the Advocate-General’s report, because there is something in it that puzzles me a little. If I may make this point, it will also give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply to it. I refer to page 12 where reference is made to a complaint that was received concerning several alleged irregularities at the Water Research Commission. Reading through this, it appears to me that after the complaint was received, a copy of the complaint together with copies of all the supporting documents was sent back to the commission. The commission itself then went to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs who appointed a committee. The committee then investigated the matter after which the Advocate-General saw the results of that investigation.

To me this looks rather like a departmental inquiry into its own matters. It looks like a department investigating itself. I do not think it has done the Advocate-General’s status or the people’s opinion on that system any good especially if in future complaints are going to be referred to the Advocate-General, he is going to allow the department or an arm of the department in question to appoint a committee to investigate that complaint. Perhaps the hon the Minister will reply, but this is how it reads in this document because the committee had conducted that investigation and the Advocate-General later on in the report stated that he agreed with the findings of that committee. I should be grateful if the hon the Minister could comment on this.

There is another point which I should like to make. The hon member for Sandton made some remarks about the question of the severity of sentences, but there is the other side of the coin too. Not long ago the House increased the penalties for stock theft. In certain parts of the country stock theft is an incredibly serious problem. Although there is provision for these increased penalties the tendency is not to impose them. I ask the hon the Minister to go into this very carefully because it appears that some magistrates, when a sharp stock theft squad or for that matter the ordinary policemen stationed in the area show a success rate which seems above average or normal, doubt their credibility. The magistrates then question the Police as to why in all their cases stock theft is admitted. It appears that the more the successes are that are achieved by stock theft units the less prepared the magistrates are to apply these stricter penalties.

Will you be more specific?

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to allow the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member for King William’s Town may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Swellendam.

The hon the Minister asked me whether I could be more specific. I should like to be more specific when I discuss this matter with him privately because I think it would be better if I gave him some details.

Certainly the stock theft situation has not improved as a result of the increased penalties. I know that there are a great number of policemen who get absolutely exasperated by the amount of work they do in the field to bring stock theft offenders to court only to find that the cases are thrown out of court because of some minor technical point. One should not for a moment think that it is only the odd chap stealing for the pot. There are a lot of people in this business who make a lot of money. They go about this very professionally and I think they should be hit well and hard. I really should like the hon the Minister to comment on this. The hon the Minister asked me to be more specific, and I shall certainly supply some facts about this.

The last point to which I should like to refer is one with which the hon member for Sandton has also dealt. With the Law Commission now in full swing with an extended staff and more members, it might well be an extremely interesting and important exercise and a very valid one for South Africa if the Law Commission were to investigate all our statutes to establish the existence of discrimination on our Statute Book. This exercise should be undertaken in order to give the legislature of this country some idea of what is before it and to establish whether it is at all possible for Parliament to proceed on a planned basis of whittling away those discriminatory provisions. I would be very interested to see where it will lead us. One might find in certain cases that inverse discrimination applies and not only discrimination in one respect. I would certainly support the request of the hon member for Sandton that the SA Law Commission should look into the whole spectrum of legislation and identify those Acts which are discriminatory.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town will forgive me for not reacting to his speech because I want to hurry on to address a few words to the hon member for Sandton and his party.

In general I find his party amazing and even puzzling. His party’s policy, behaviour and particularly its usual kicking up of dust in the justice debate defy comprehension. I think the reason for this is the contradiction in their origin. On the one hand they stand for the so-called rule of law and they actually absolutize it, but one need only consider at the way they dealt with the Constitution of the Republic. One need only consider the way they dealt with the Hoexter Report in contrast to the way our Government dealt with it. That party criticized certain judges and magistrates by name. That is presumptuous. Surely the hon member for Sandton knows that no two cases, sentences or accused persons anywhere in the world are identical? One cannot therefore compare sentences. That party continually denigrates aspects of our law but at the same time they ostensibly stand for the law, if one can believe that.

On the other hand, the PFP advocates the freedom of the individual to such an extent that they absolutize the freedom or libertas of the individual and elevate it to the highest level. That is their liberal outlook, so much so that the PFP seeks to place the freedom of the individual above the law and above authority, as they have once again confirmed here this afternoon. This is the way in which they fail to acknowledge the law and authority. Authority and freedom are a problem to them because they do not realize that authority and freedom are two sides of the same coin. Authority and freedom do not have to clash; they serve each other reciprocally because limited authority guarantees freedom and limited freedom has respect for authority.

I want to tell the hon member for Sandton that it is easy to criticize and to idealize, but one must take practicalities into account. One has first of all to make some calculations to see what is attainable. For example, last year the hon the Minister calculated the approximate cost to the State of implementing the Hoexter Report. An amount of R250 million was estimated to accommodate family courts, and to refurbish the court accommodation etc, a further R350 million. The provision of posts for the separation of legal and administrative work would amount to another R150 million. The total would therefore be approximately R750 million, which is four times larger than the annual budget of this department.

I want to tell the hon member that in spite of all their criticism and negative actions, the legal system in South Africa is a beacon in the development of Western civilization and law. To support this statement I should like to touch on a few aspects. One aspect of which we can be very proud is the independence of our courts. I say this in spite of the cynical interjections by hon members on that side of the House. The standpoint of our Government is that the judicial officers in the Supreme Court and the magistrates’ courts have been and are independent of the executive authority.

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

No. I am very sorry but my time is limited. As far as the judicial officers in the inferior courts are concerned, our Government is in favour of all possible and feasible steps being taken to retain and consolidate the existing reality as well as the image of an independent Bench.

The report by the Implementation Committee regarding the separation of the judicial and administrative functions of magistrates really is an informative document, particularly inasmuch as the Free State has been taken as an example.

It contains extremely practical and simple proposals which, viewed in retrospect, are actually quite obvious. I want to address an earnest plea to the hon the Minister not to follow a line of action for the sake of the ideals and objectives of the Hoexter Commission that will lead to the withdrawal of the magistrate, as one qualified in law, from the platteland. I am strongly in favour of a reconciliation between the objectives of the Hoexter Commission, practical requirements and whatever may emanate from the recommendations of this Implementation Committee.

Several advantages can result from this of which I should like to mention a few: Firstly, magistates qualified in law are retained to perform, inter alia, a large amount of administrative work arising from statutes for which a knowledge of the law is essential. The Hoexter Commission’s recommendation of a resident magistrate will therefore not be a practical solution.

A second advantage is that the depopulation of the platteland will be countered, and judicial officers will be retained on a decentralized basis; thirdly, the magistrate will continue to remain in control of the magistrate’s office; fourthly, the new post of office manager is the starting point of a new administrative model for the magistrate’s office, it is therefore not a revolutionary process; we are only building on what already exists. A fifth advantage is that more opportunities for the sound administration of justice are being afforded the magistrate; and sixthly, it means that the best service to the public on a judicial and administrative level will continue to be available.

The appointment and responsible approach to the Hoexter commission is an outstanding example of our Government’s sincerity regarding the administration of justice in the RSA. The Government is also proud of the rights of the individual and guards them jealously, although it does not absolutize them. That is why the Legal Aid Board exists. It is the Government’s considered opinion that the extension of legal services by the Legal Aid Board should remain a living ideal that should continually be pursued.

In this regard the HSRC has found, inter alia, that it is not possible from the data available to explain why the needy of all population groups do not make freer use of the services offered by the Legal Aid Board. It is recommended that further research be undertaken in this connection. I should like to know from the hon the Minister why further research was decided against.

In my humble opinion the root of the problem in this respect is that thousands of people do not apply for legal aid because they are not aware of the board’s services. This really is a great pity. The simple solution is obviously the question of advertising and the provision of funds for this purpose. Perhaps the attorneys’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund could make a useful contribution in this connection.

Another excellent example of the Government’s sincerity in maintaining the standard of our legal system as one of the best in the world is the South African Law Commission. Legal reform is essential for an impartial and vigorous legal order. This Law Commission has high aims, namely to carry out research to all branches of law in South Africa in order to make recommendations in respect of their development, improvement, modernization or reformation. When the legal history of South Africa is written, the contribution of the South African Law Commission will have to be outlined in red.

Lastly, the correct view of authority and freedom, and the correct approach to the Hoexter Commission’s recommendations, the independence of our courts, the Legal Aid Board and, inter alia, the SA Law Commission are all that factors contribute to the ongoing improvement of our legal system, so much so that other countries in the process of legal reform have recently to a large extent consulted the South African legal system for examples in the field of legal reform. This is why we can speak with pride today of our own South African legal system, which really is a beacon in Western civilization and legal history.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein East has followed the hon member for Mossel Bay, the hon member Mr Schutte and others in attacking the speech made by the hon member for Sandton earlier this afternoon. However, the hon member for Sandton raised a number of very vital points of concern to the Department of Justice in South Africa. He also raised a question which is of considerable interest, namely the question of disparity of sentences coming particularly from the lower courts in South Africa. The fact that the Government is sensitive on this matter, is of no real importance to this debate. What they should realize from a factual point of view is that this disparity in sentences is a matter of considerable comment, both here and overseas, whenever the South African judicial system is looked at.

The hon member for Sandton was saying, in the most responsible manner, that the hon the Minister should take note of this fact, and he came forward with constructive suggestions in this regard. He said the matter needed the attention of the Minister and suggested certain things which the Minister could do to deal with the situation. It does focus criticism from overseas on South Africa and also causes considerable comment from within South Africa when disparity in sentences, such as those indicated by the hon member for Sandton, come to light and are published. I do not want to go further into this matter because there are a number of matters I want to raise with the hon the Minister this afternoon.

I want to join hon members on both sides of the House in talking about the functions of the SA Law Commission. The commission, as we know, has recently reported on two very important aspects, namely the law of succession and the question of women and sexual offences in South Africa. One will await, with interest, the Government’s response to the commission’s comments with regard to those matters and also the response from other interested parties in the legal system in South Africa.

In its twelfth report, the commission sets out what I believe is an interesting and far-reaching catalogue of matters which are receiving its attention. They cover a review of the law of evidence in South Africa, a review of the law of trusts, a project relating to risk as a ground for liability in delict, an investigation into the legal position of illegitimate children, an investigation into the advancement of the age of majority—and so one can go on, including the question of marriages and customary unions of Black persons, penal reform etc. These and the other projects referred to in the twelfth report cover a very wide variety of matters which are of vital concern to the society of South Africa as a whole. They are not merely matters of academic interest; they are matters which from day to day need to be investigated because they deal with the direct interests of our society. As events develop in South Africa, many of them are becoming urgent because of the needs of society in South Africa.

I need name only one of these and that is the question of marriages and customary unions of Black persons. We know that when the Matrimonial Property Act was dealt with last year, it was generally conceded at that time that this matter relating to the rights of Black women should receive very special attention. When one reads the commission’s report, it is pleasing to note that on the instructions of the Government—presumably this hon Minister’s—it is receiving priority attention. It is also apparently receiving—and one must applaud this—voluntary assistance from academics and other experts in this field around South Africa.

The commission reports that it has now appointed a formal committee to hear evidence and give these matters further priority this year. I think this question of the rights of Black women is a good example of the important work of the commission and also of the urgency of some of the work it has undertaken. When one looks at this particular example one realizes that some aspects of the need for change in the marital rights of Black women are, of course, already being anticipated by legislation which is before this House and standing committees at present.

You have received it already.

No, I am saying that in legislation before the House and the standing committees at the present, some aspects of the question of the rights of Black women are already being anticipated. This shows the urgency of the situation. That is the point I want to make.

We know that as a result of the initiative of the kwaZulu Assembly in doing away with the old Natal code, it is necessary for this Parliament to give attention to dealing with the rights relating to the matrimonial circumstances of Black women, at least in Natal. We know that there is a further amending Bill relating to the rights of Black women in respect of leasehold title.

I raise these matters, not merely to commend the commission for what it is doing but also to urge the hon the Minister to give as much priority as possible to taking steps to facilitate the function of the commission in the enormous task which it is undertaking. I hope the hon the Minister will recognize the need to do this. I know he has problems …

Are you talking to me?

Yes, I am talking to the hon the Minister, and I hope I can reinforce his hand in influencing his colleagues in the Cabinet to realize the vital work of this commission in regard to the whole legal system in South Africa. If the hon the Minister does not need convincing, I am just trying to strengthen his hand.

When one looks at the report one sees that the commission with commendable responsibility and restraint in dealing with its own administration and the resources which it has, says that it recognizes the need to use available funds with circumspection in the present economic climate. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he is satisfied with the staff situation as far as the commission is concerned in the light of the importance of the work which it is doing. When one reads the commission’s report, one finds a few disquieting references couched, as I said, in responsible terms. For example, on page 21, the commission talks about its functions and it says:

There is that reference to the withdrawal of a vital official. The hon the Minister may have had very good reason for doing so, but I want to indicate that if that is going to impede the commission, if that is the sort of thing that is going to impede the commission, this is to be regretted.

On page 15 the commission refers to the fact that when it comes to drafting amending legislation it has not even the facility of a legal draftsman to do this. This is clear from the commission’s own report on page 15. Again I raise the question with the hon the Minister: Is he satisfied that having regard to the importance of the work of the commission its staffing requirements are sufficient to carry on that work efficiently?

I want to touch on other matters relating to the aspects of the recommendation of the Hoexter Commission. This afternoon the hon the Minister dealt with small claims courts, and I welcome the statement that he made because I was going to ask him a number of questions relating to possible problems that were being experienced. The hon the Minister has indicated that most of these problems, as is common at the present time, relate to the lack of finance and money to back them up, but he has come forward with a report which indicates that despite these difficulties, the problems are being properly addressed. I think that is reassuring. I also think the public should know about the response which has come from the legal profession around South Africa generally to the prospect of small claims courts. We know that this has received very considerable approval from most quarters in South Africa. I think it is important to note the information given by the hon the Minister this afternoon as to the response from the legal profession in this regard. It would appear that there have been savings as a result of the voluntary contributions which are being made. The hon the Minister indicated that without these savings the cost might have been R2 million, whereas at the present time R125 000 is going to be made available for the pilot project. I think it is important that this should be noted. He has also indicated that the Consumer Council has intimated that 97% of those approached welcomed the arrival of the small claims courts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea supported the hon member for Sandton in his allegations of disparities in certain sentences. However, I want to pose the question to the hon members for both Berea and Sandton whether these discrepancies are not more apparent than real. During this debate two years ago I pointed out that for the Press to be interested in certain matters, those matters must contain particular elements.

*Mr Chairman, frequently the subjective circumstances of accused persons are not reported properly by the Press. It is obvious that what this means is that to the layman certain penalties appear to be irreconcilable.

The hon member for Berea also devoted a great deal of his attention to the SA Law Commission. It was also striking how many other speakers referred to the SA Law Commission. I want to make so bold as to say that this is owing to the fact that, as was the case in the past, the SA Law Commission again supplied us with a very good annual report. One can congratulate them on that. We have also become accustomed to the very high standard of their work.

I think that all the members who served on the Select Committee on Matrimonial Property Law, will attest to the fact that we would not have been able to complete our work, or even do it, without the assistance of the reports of the SA Law Commission. This also applies to the people who dealt with the essential Admiralty Courts Act. We have also just received the report on the matter to which so many speakers have referred, namely Women and Sexual Offences in South Africa. But I do not want to refer to the various reports because I do not have the time.

I should like to single out one matter, namely the commission’s realization—and I think this is why their work is of such a high standard—that as a servant of the entire community the commission must not lose touch with the community; that its rulings must be related to reality; and that because legal reform is continuous, priorities must be determined correctly. In this respect finance is of utmost importance—and the hon member for Berea also asked questions about this. If I am interpreting the Appropriation correctly it would seem as if there is an increase of 54% in the funds being voted to the commission this year. I trust that this is generally welcomed.

It is also gratifying that methods are being used which give good results but which do not have additional financial implications. Let me mention a few. In the first place the SA Law Commission has the co-operation of the media. The report says that this has improved a great deal and that the media has been very helpful in bringing the work of the commission to the attention of the general public. The commission also has the co-operation of the law faculties of the universities and of other institutions, the Magistrates’ Association, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and Assocom, for example.

During the year under review the commission’s researchers were involved in 25 seminars and simposia, 21 by universities, one held by the South African Institute of Patent Agents, one held by the Tygerberg Hospital, one held by the SA Institute of Public Administration as well as one held by the Association of Law Societies. This is interaction which can be very beneficial to legal reform of a very high standard and in many spheres. This ensures the creation of a better legal order, the increasing of legal certainty, the streamlining of procedures, the removal of anomalies, etc.

One of the limiting factors is possibly the non-availability of a legal data base making use of modern technology. I do not think that I am qualified to comment further on this and I doubt whether any institution is in fact properly qualified to comment on this at this stage. This is directly linked to costs. The question can be asked how many people would make use of that service and what they would be prepared to pay, in other words, how much of the costs could be recovered. I want to suggest that this matter justifies continuous investigation and when the time is right, serious consideration must be given to taking such a step and harnessing the technology in the interests of the judicature.

Last year in this debate the hon the Minister announced the appointment of the Implementation Committee regarding the Separation of the Judicial and Administrative Functions of the Magistrate’s Courts. We were very glad to receive that report. Of course the Hoexter Report recommends the ideal, namely that the judicial officer should be relieved of his administrative duties. The existence of 264 magisterial districts, 308 magistrate’s offices, 41 detached offices, 32 branch and 245 periodic courts, serve as proof that we enjoy the benefit of decentralized administration of justice. This is a very great advantage and must be maintained as ideal. Consequently it is quite clear to me that a certain degree of compromise will have to be made between the two ideals. I do not think that they are necessarily conflicting. In many offices, even decentralized offices, the workload is such that the judicial officer can be relieved of administrative functions, but in other offices the appointment of additional staff is not justified. However, if we allow this to hinder decentralisation of a legal presence, it would be a retrogressive step. The commission puts this very well in its report where it says:

I believe that the commission put forward very practical solutions. In the Hoexter Report the idealism is tempered by a certain degree of realism and I trust that the hon the Minister will give us more information on this.

The creation of the position of office manager affords opportunities for specialization which will lead to the better utilization and application of the available manpower and will also create other occupational opportunities. The position of office manager need not be an inferior career. I want to suggest that this commission should be congratulated on the very thorough investigation which they undertook and the report which they published.

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon member for Nelspruit. I want to thank him for the very useful contribution he made here today. It bears witness to far more insight than the hon member for Sandton displayed.

I paid tribute to the hon the Minister and his department on a previous occasion for the legal reform that has taken place under their leadership.

The present parliamentary session has produced further evidence of revitalizing legislation after a critical evaluation of the state of affairs by knowledgeable people. Of course, those who make their specialized knowledge and particular abilities available to the law in our country also deserve our appreciation. All the reports that have been tabled—and there are several of them—prove that a particularly in-depth and thorough study was done by those responsible for them, a study that certainly covered a wide field. It is clear that all the available facts were carefully considered and that carefully considered recommendations were submitted to the department and the hon the Minister.

All these studies and reforms would, however, be meaningless if the department did not have at its disposal a knowledgeable work force to interpret and implement the law correctly. That is why it is encouraging to note in the department’s annual report that functional and academic legal training is being provided for officials in the magistrates’ courts division. Just as this department serves other departments, so the legal training branch serves the officials of other departments as far as training is concerned. I am referring, for example, to the fact that courses are offered to the staff of the deeds offices. We are told that during the previous year second-year students achieved a pass rate of 100%. Only 1 student enrolled.

The position was somewhat better during the year under review, though. There were six second-year students. Even more students enrolled for the Iuris Diploma course, and also for the B Iuris course. It is pleasing to note that training is being given to people who, for one reason or another—usually financial—cannot attend a university full time.

The training the department provides for interpreters is of the greatest importance. One realizes that in South Africa considerable numbers of Blacks are not proficient in either of the country’s two official languages and therefore, if qualified interpreters are not made available to them, justice and right cannot be properly applied.

I now want to make an appeal. I want to ask that consideration be given to the inclusion of a Black language as a compulsory subject in the B Iuris degree and Iuris Diploma courses. I want to suggest furthermore that a Black language be a compulsory subject for bursary-holders for the degree of B Iuris. In my opinion it would be a great help to all judicial officers if they had such knowledge at their disposal and it would also contribute to the respect the magistrates’ courts command in the eyes of Black litigants.

I notice that the term “excessive cost of litigation” is used in the Hoexter Report on the Structure and Functioning of the Courts. I wonder whether it would not be more correct to talk of the high cost of litigation. When one compares the cost of litigation with the costs of other professional services, one realizes that professional services are simply not obtainable cheaply. It is therefore fortunate indeed that such a thing as legal aid exists, otherwise access to the courts would be available to only a very small group of privileged people. It should be clear, however, that the means test applicable at present for the granting of legal aid is too strict under the present circumstances and that access to the court can still be denied to a large number of people. I therefore welcome the proposal that legal clinics be established and officially recognized. I also support the idea that law students serve at such clinics in their final year of study and that such service receive recognition for study purposes.

Furthermore, I want to suggest that consideration also be given, in more or less the same way as in the medical profession, to assigning practising attorneys and advocates spells of duty at such clinics on a session basis so that they can give guidance to students because of their greater experience.

Of course, both of my proposals involve additional expenditure which will not necessarily be recoverable by the awarding of costs. Members of the standing committee, however, as a result of the enquiries by the hon member for Sandton—and I am happy to associate myself with those enquiries, although not with his party—discovered a possible source of finance. The Fidelity Guarantee Fund is now showing extraordinarily high growth as a result of the banks’ decision to pay interest on credit balances. If I remember correctly the fund’s income has more than doubled since then, and the income during the first year in which the new arrangement applied already amounts to R7 million, while the assets of the fund at present exceed R43 million. I want to ask that consideration be given to this fund’s making a contribution towards the provision of legal aid.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North made a few valid points about legal aid and legal aid clinics and later in my speech I should also like to briefly touch on a few points in this regard.

Fristly, I would like to come back to the speech of the hon member for Mossel Bay. He criticized my colleague the hon member for Sandton’s speech sharply and then went on to speak about the administration of justice in general in South Africa. Quite rightly he commended it and contended that our administration of justice stands out as a symbol of hope. I agree with that. He went further and gave reasons why our courts enjoy such high standing. The first reason he mentioned was the independence of our courts. With regard to the Supreme Court the hon member is correct, because our Supreme Court is independent of the Executive, gives independent verdicts and is not seen as part of the Executive or the Public Service. This is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court of South Africa enjoys such high standing.

†However, the hon member for Mossel Bay knows that as far as independence is concerned, that is not the case with the lower courts. We all admit that magistrates in the lower courts do magnificent work. Their integrity is not in question but they are not independent from the executive arm of the State. They are not perceived to be independent and they are in fact not independent. That is something the Hoexter Commission investigated.

What is the factual position? Let us look at what the Hoexter Commission finds as a fact on page 56 of its report. I quote:

The Commission finds as a fact that they perform executive functions and that they are part of the executive organ of the State. It is interesting to see what the Government’s reponse was to this finding last year. The hon the Minister last year in the debate on his vote said (Hansard, column 948, 17 May 1984):

He says directly the contrary to what is stated in the report of the Hoexter Commission. He went on to say:

Nonsense, I say. The Hoexter report states exactly the opposite. The Hoexter report says that magistrates in the lower courts are part of the executive organ of the State. The Minister continued:

The question is whether the hon the Minister accepts that magistrates in the lower courts are in fact part of the executive organ of the State. If he does not, it does not help to try to find a solution to that problem along the lines of the Hoexter Commission. When one looks at what the commission recommends, one finds the following on page 41 of its report:

The Commission recommends—

The hon the Minister has responded to this with a very good report and the department is already in the process of trying to implement this recommendation of separating judicial and administrative functions. They ought to be congratulated.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has taken cognizance of the fact that I also said in the debate that the way the lower courts should be made independent was not necessarily the way recommended by Hoexter because there were also other ways and means of doing it?

But you are now taking his time.

Is the hon member aware of the fact that I said that the question of separating the legal work from the administrative work was the only point of departure? Will he admit that?

I shall deal with that.

The commission also recommended that after the separation of judicial and administrative functions had been achieved, the judicial officers in the lower courts should be made independent of the Public Service. I should like to ask the hon the Minister how he is going to react to this recommendation. Is he going to make the magistrates in the lower courts independent of the Public Service one way or the other? I do not really mind what method he uses, but I ask him whether it is the intention of the Government to accept this recommendation and whether they are going to comply with it.

When one looks at the report which was handed to me yesterday and which contains the Government’s response to these recommendations, one gains the impression that the Government intends separating the magistrates from the Public Service but that, as a first step, the Government wants to separate the judicial from the administrative functions. I ask the hon the Minister please to give us clarity: Are the magistrates going to be removed from the Public Service as recommended by the Hoexter Commission?

Why is it necessary to remove the judicial officers in the lower courts from the executive organ of the State? If one looks at page 57 of the report of the Hoexter Commission, one finds one of the many reasons:

The commission then refers to various examples and mentions, for example, the Internal Security Act.

Magistrates are tainted by the work which they do for the executive arm, and I want to give just one example. In terms of section 46 of the Internal Security Act—this section deals with the banning of funerals—the order is signed by the magistrate of the district concerned. We know that in most of the unrest areas in our country there have been incidents where magistrates have had to sign such an order. When he signs such an order, he is immediately tainted by those who are affected as an arm of the State with political and security connotations. That is why the magistrates must be separated from the Public Service in order to have independence from the executive arm perceivably.

I want to refer briefly to legal aid because that is also dealt with in the report of the Hoexter Commission. I believe it is not sufficient merely to increase the budget; one also needs to recognize the problem of the standing of the Legal Aid Board. On page 22 of its report the Hoexter Commission recognizes that the composition of the board must be perceived to be independent of the State. It must consist mainly of individuals from the legal profession and must not be dominated by public servants.

The statistics of the Legal Aid Board are disturbing in the sense that they show that the poorest section of the population makes the least use of the facilities. When one compared the figures of the previous year with those of the present year in so far as applications for criminal cases are concerned, one finds that among Coloureds and Asians there is an increase of 74%; among Whites, 55%; and among the Blacks, only 43%. There is something inherently wrong with the Legal Aid Board and its approach.

There is obviously a lot of ignorance about it too. I would suggest that the department should take the initiative to organize a national conference on legal aid which would draw in all the legal aid clinics, all the bodies that do provide some form of legal aid, and also, obviously, the department and the Legal Aid Board itself, in order to try to work out a national legal aid scheme or process whereby legal aid can be dealt with in a more co-ordinated way in South Africa. The problem areas should be identified so that the concept of due process can be made more of a reality than it is at present.

Order! I regret the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Sir, I should like to deal with one further point and that relates to the Matrimonial Property Act that was passed last year. The latest statistics show that very few people have made use of the new provisions of that Act. The position is that as at 29 April 1985 only 94 couples who were married in community of property had contracted to abolish the marital power of the husband over the wife and only 264 couples had made the accrual system applicable to their marriages. If one tries to find the reason for this, it seems as though there are a number of reasons, one being that married couples appear to be quite satisfied with the previous system. It is quite clear that there is tremendous ignorance and lack of knowledge about the details of the Act and the advantages it provides for married couples. It is not clear to me whether the legal profession has done enough to inform the public about the benefits of this Act. Perhaps the hon the Minister would also inform the public about these benefits through the department. I think he could perhaps also approach the legal profession to see whether the profession as such cannot do more to inform their clients and the public at large about these benefits. It seems to be so wrong for this Parliament to have passed such a positive measure after so many years and for that measure then, as it appears, not to be made use of by members of the public to the extent one expected.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I want to single out a few other points which do not link up with the speech he made.

With effect from 1 September 1984 the judicial functions, the application of the related statutory provisions, the legal bodies and the relevant staff of the Department of Co-operation and Development were transferred to the Department of Justice. This transfer was preceded by a thorough investigation by a project team consisting of officials from the two departments involved as well as the Commission for Administration.

†In total 19 functions were identified as judicial functions and the related administrative tasks were taken over by the Department of Justice. The department made officials available for secondment to the justice components of the national states and provided legal training for the staff of these components. The inspection services in the national states and the related organizations and establishment investigations in the Departments of Justice and magistrates’ offices of the national states were also taken over by the Department of Justice. An additional 567 posts of which 274 were for magistrates and public prosecutors, were created. Legal staff for 89 posts in the national states and the former national states were provided by the Department of Justice. In the transfer of the judicial functions 91 magistrates’ offices were affected and 570 officers of the Department of Co-operation and Development were transferred to the Department of Justice.

*The fact that this task was completed within such a short time and the change-over took place so smoothly and with so little disruption, attested to the competence, co-operation and dedication of the staff of these departments. We should also like to have our thanks to them placed on record. It is already clear that this was sound development which has given the desired results in practice.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention briefly to a few matters which in my opinion must receive further attention. The first matter I want to raise concerns maintenance payable by Blacks. Both the investigation into an the determination of the amount of the maintenance, as well as prosecution for non-payment, are now handled by the magistrate’s office. But maintenance as such is still paid out at the commissioner’s offices.

Although most problems in this connection have been eliminated, there are still possible procedural law difficulties when a person is charged with non-payment of maintenance. Because payment takes place at the office of another body, the non-payment must first be proved by way of a sworn affidavit from the commissioner. If it is contested, the relevant parties must give evidence, and this could give rise to delays. I therefore want to ask that consideration be given to having maintenance paid out at the magistrate’s office too, as is the position for other population groups. It goes without saying that this will give rise to far more administrative duties, and the necessary facilities and staff must be made available for this. If there is then a prosecution, the information is immediately on hand at the relevant office and this could contribute to cases being finalised more efficiently.

A second matter I should like to refer to concerns the application of indigenous Black law in civil cases. Although this law no longer applies to a large part of the Black population, particularly the urban Black population, it is still the applicable law for a large part of the Black population. Today provision is consequently still made for the presiding officer to be able to determine in his discretion which legal system he will apply. In the course of this debate one of my colleagues will elaborate on this matter further.

I merely want to ask that when the appeal and divorce courts for Black people are abolished and are incorporated in the Supreme Court and the Family Court, respectively, the officials of these courts, who have built up a great deal of expertise in the field of indigenous Black law, will still be available to the courts, possibly in an advisory or assessorial capacity. This is a highly specialized field which is made even more difficult by ethnic and even regional differences. It is essential that this knowledge remain at the disposal of the courts.

Problems which crop up in practice, for example, are that civil law content are given to the concepts and systems of indigenous law. As regards bequests, for example indigenous Black law recognises the system that the oldest son inherits the entire estate from his father, but in addition to this he also inherits the accompanying and equally important obligation to take care of the rest of the family. By linking the absolute content of property rights, to the exclusion of any obligation in terms of the civil rights, to this system, one has the untenable position that the heir takes everything as his sole possession and deals with it to the exclusion of his duty to support the rest of his family.

It also happens that Black litigants resort to indigenous law when it suites them, rather than that it really applies to them. A case one can mention here is where, in a effort to avoid paying maintenance, a person offers to pay the necessary fine in terms of Black law in exchange for the child—this is the so-called isondhlu head of cattle—and then need not pay any further maintenance. Obviously this is frequently to the disadvantage of the child. If the expert officials of the appeal and divorce courts could possible be made available to the Supreme Court and the magistrate’s courts on a regional basis, this could make a big contribution in this field.

A final matter I want to touch on concerns the application of influx control measures. In this regard it is gratifying to see that the percentage of the total prison population of transgressors of this measure dropped from 7,09% on 15 March 1984 to 2,79% on 15 March 1985. This figure is a reflection of the number of cases appearing in court. It is also very clear that these legal proceedings fitted in very efficiently with the ordinary proceedings of the magistrate’s courts. It is generally accepted that there has been a great improvement in the position. Even an organisation like the Black Sash has praised the magistrate’s courts in this connection in an article which appeared in The Cape Times, in November last year.

A problem which has cropped up in this respect, concerns the position of prohibited or illegal Black immigrants. I want to make it clear that I am in no way advocating a tightening of influx control; on the contrary, the new measures which have brought about an easing of the position, are to be welcomed. As a matter of fact I want to go further and state that these measures will also have to be reconsidered, so that freedom of movement will be granted to all people at all levels, while the control measures should rather be aimed directly at orderly urbanizations as such.

But what has happened is that the aid centers of the development boards which helped people who were prosecuted in terms of influx control measures have been disbanded. The registers and expertise of these centers are therefore no longer available to the courts. This has led to Black people who are in actual fact illegal immigrants, not being charged with this offence, but being treated the same as ordinary influx control offenders. They are then charged with not carrying a passbook or being present in a particular area for longer than 72 hours, for example. There is no mechanism in terms of which their actual place of origin can be readily determined.

I am requesting that an urgent investigation be launched into the introduction of an effective administrative process, through which the courts can be helped to take effective action in respect of illegal Black immigrants as well. In this respect I am definitely not referring to people from the national states but to people who enter the country from the foreign states around us. These people must be treated on an equal basis—as is the case with every other illegal immigrant. The large numbers involved here may create a problem. But the necessary mechanisms simply must be created so that stringent steps can be taken against illegal immigration.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for East London City. He raised matters of topical importance which certainly deserve attention. In the five minutes at my disposal I should very briefly like to touch upon two matters. The one matter deals directly with my constituency, and the other matter with the situation in prisons in general.

In a town or community such as Randfontein, where one does not have a concentration of Government departments, the only real display window of the State is the magistrate’s office. It is unfortunately a fact that the magistrate’s office in Randfontein is in a dilapidated condition. There is no other way I can describe it; it is really in a dilapidated condition. The image which the State therefore conveys to the outside world, is everything but desirable. I do not wish to take up the time of this Committee by going into the condition of this building in detail, but I trust that the hon the Minister will take my word for it. Apart from the fact that the construction of the building is in a dilapidated condition, the building cannot accommodate the facilities which center around a magistrate’s court as such. At present the sittings of the regional court have to be accommodated elsewhere. This for example places an unfair burden on the clerk of the regional court, who has to keep on shuttling between various premises. It is also a fact that the courtrooms themselves are of such a nature that prisoners who have to be taken from the cells to other courtrooms are all required to pass through one courtroom while the court is in session. The facilities in regard to cells, therefore, are also totally inadequate.

It is also a fact that the law dispensing functions previously dealt with by the commissioner’s courts, which now have to be dealt with by the magistrate’s courts, cause such a situation there that it is entirely impossible to accommodate all these activities. I really want to ask whether serious attention cannot be given to this situation.

There is one last aspect in regard to which all I really want to do is merely ask a question. It is a matter which has been troubling me for a considerable time, and I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could reassure me on this specific matter. It is in connection with possible conditions in a prison cell. A few year ago I saw a film entitled Brubaker, and a film is going to be shown in South Africa under the title Beyond the Walls. In Brubaker a situation was depicted which I found disturbing, namely that enforced homosexuality is a commonplace occurrence owing to a specific structure which develops in a prison. I do not wish to refer to the other related matters, but this a matter which I am personally concerned about, and I should like to ask what the situation in South African prisons is. If this kind of thing occurs, I want to know what is being done in order to try to prevent it. I trust that I will receive a reply to this last question and that the hon the Minister will truly give very serious consideration to the question of a new magistrate’s court or office or building in Randfontein.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randfontein will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he had to say here. I share his concern about the things which sometimes occur in prisons, but perhaps he will know that it is a problem which has been receiving attention for a very long time and which is very difficult to resolve.

I should like to draw the attention of this House to section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, which deals with what is described as justifiable homicide. Chapter 5 of this Act deals with the whole question of the arrest of persons who are suspected of having committed offences. Now, first of all, I specifically want to quote section 49(1). This deals specifically with the question of the use of force in regard to an arrest. It reads as follows:

1. (a) resists the attempt and cannot be arrested without the use of force; or
2. (b) flees when it is clear that an attempt to arrest him is being made, or resists such attempt and flees,

It seems to me as though this subsection makes ample provision for the use of force in order to arrest a suspect. If judicious use is made of the powers granted by this section, one will readily find oneself acting within the limits of meaningful application of the law. The actions of police officers or other persons will then be justifiable, measured against normal civilized standards. I just want to mention this qualification in respect of section 49(1), namely that it should perhaps be borne in mind that a life ought not to be taken, unless this is absolutely unavoidable.

My objection, however, is more concerned with the definition in section 49(2). This section reads:

It is clearly stated, therefore, that under certain circumstances, which are defined here, a person may be killed by a police officer, or to a lesser extent perhaps by Prison Service officers, or in certain cases by private individuals, in order to prevent such a person from fleeing.

There is a reference here to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in which a list of certain offences appears, which are relevant to this subsection. If a person is suspected of any of these offences and an attempt is made to arrest him, he may, in an emergency, be killed if he cannot otherwise be arrested. I want to say at once that I consider it to be unfortunate that such a reference should exist in the first place, because the impression is created that, just as certain penalties are prescribed for certain offences, which is normal and correct, there is also a list of offences in respect of which it may be accepted that it may be justifiable that a person may take another person’s life if he experiences problems in arresting that person. I say that this is an impression which is being created, and I think it is perhaps an unfortunate impression.

This provision is relevant not only to policemen, but also to ordinary members of the public and other departmental officials who have the right of arrest. If we look at some of the offences in Schedule 1, we see that certain serious offences are mentioned, such as high treason, murder, culpable homicide, rape and so on. However, offences are also mentioned which in this specific context are considered to be less serious—and I am saying this with circumspection—offences which I should like to consider in this context to be less serious offences if they have nothing to do with violence. Consequently we are not referring here to a person who is prima facie a violent person, but to people who have for example committed theft or fraud, perhaps offences relating to forgery or uttering, offences relating to the coinage, and so on …

What about morphine pedlars?

Yes, it is interesting that the hon member should mention that now. Perhaps he knows something about what is stated here that I do not know. He should perhaps read what is stated in Schedule 1.

I just want to make the point that it therefore means that a person who steals a small item in a supermarket or elsewhere, who is caught red-handed and tries to flee—which is a natural reaction—can, in an emergency, be killed in order to prevent his fleeing.

That is a very unfortunate state of affairs. I do not think that such a statutory provision should appear on the Statute Book of a civilized country. As far as I am concerned, these provisions have nothing to do with the right of self-defence—the right which a policeman or any individual ought to have to defend himself against being injured or killed, or even to indemnify himself against material loss if property of his might be damaged. In such a case common law makes provision for that in an absolutely clear way. Here, however, we are dealing with an authorization which, over and above that right of self-defence, is being given to a person to take the life of another.

What is the scope of this section? According to the reply to a question of ours, 98 people were killed in 1984 in terms of this provision. We are not therefore talking about a small number of people. This is a considerable number of people. This is roughly the same number as the number of people who are executed in South Africa in one year. Consequently, if one compares those two figures, one concludes that we are referring here to material numbers. We know that in certain cases it led to contraventions. I am thinking of the unfortunate Duvenhage case of two years ago. Of course the person concerned was in fact charged and found guilty. Nevertheless I wish to argue that the mere existence of such a statutory section gives rise to people committing such errors.

I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister, in all earnest, to give his attention to the wording and the existence of this section, in order to see whether a drastic amendment of this section and its definition should not be effected, so as to bring it closer to what I really believe civilized standards ought to be.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point raised a particularly interesting subject here today. I listened to him carefully and want to say that there are aspects of his argument with which I am in agreement. I think that certain of the proposals the hon member made can very profitably be considered. I do, however, think that the hon the Minister and the directorate will, to a greater degree, have background knowledge of the deep-lying historic aspects of this specific section. We can therefore ascertain from them why this is indeed the case. I shall not reply to this in any further detail, however, because my time is relatively limited.

To start with, I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for his comprehensive and patient liaison with hon members who are interested in this particular Vote. We want to thank him for his continual accessibility. We also want to express our thanks to the Director General, Advocate Van der Merwe. It is always a privilege to work with Advocate Van der Merwe. We also sincerely thank General Willemse and his staff for the assistance they granted us and for the privilege of recently being able to pay a visit to certain prisons. We thank him for the special effort they made. Our special thanks, too, to the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division for the selfless assistance granted.

Sir, I feel I want to agree with the hon member for Sandton about his criticism in regard to the annual report. I think this would have been a more meaningful debate of one could have referred to more up-to-date figures. The figures I am going to refer to are already outdated and there are certain aspects in regard to which there have already been changes and improvements. We could therefore be expressing unfair criticism of the relevant directorates in this respect.

According to the report there is an increase in the financing of the directorate, the amount being approximately 32,98%; this means an increase of R101 million to R135 million. Staff expenditure comprised approximately 80% of the total budget. The economic slump in the country, however, and the price and tariff increases on a wide front, have largely absorbed this increase in funds. The work and the service of this directorate may not be scaled down. Nor may it, in any respect, be neglected. The maintenance of law and of justice within a state by a civilized, impartial legal system, which subscribes to the best of traditions, is an absolutely minimum requirement for the preservation of confidence and stability.

We are grateful for the efforts already made to maintain these fine ideals and standards. We are, however, still concerned about staff shortages in, amongst other things, the Registrar’s section where there is a 47% shortage in clerical posts. The time of professional officers is wasted if there is a shortage of administrative staff, and that is really just not good enough. There are still too many public prosecutors, too, without the minimum qualifications. Those who prosecute should not, in any case, have merely minimum qualifications. Serious consideration should again be given to granting bursaries for LLB-studies and a great deal more should be done to retain legally qualified people in the Department.

According to the directorate’s report there is a need, amongst other things, for the creation of the following posts: Magistrates, 62; public prosecutors and advocates, 85 and court interpreters, 48. There is a need for at least 32 regional courts, with only approximately 15 being made provision for as a result of a shortage of funds. This results in long delay periods. On page 28 of the report it is indicated that cases have to be postponed for up to 19 weeks. This leads to an escalation of costs as far as clients are concerned, and many magistrates insist on the appearance of a legal representative, in spite of the fact that a case is merely being postponed. Witnesses also have to appear in court repeatedly, and this also wastes time and manpower, costs money and makes people reluctant to come to court and uphold their rights. In the Hoexter Report this problem was examined, amongst other things, with certain recommendations being made. It is worthy of note, however, that there are still many vacancies, particularly in the professional division. On page 36 of the report we see that this is still on the increase. The numbers of students taking the various legal courses, as indicated on pages 38 and 39 of the report, are generally declining, and this is also disturbing. There are still too many resignations. On page 36 of the report it is indicated that vacancies in the professional division increased from 53 in 1982-83 to 105 in 1983-84. The commencement of the civil jurisdiction of regional courts has also been deferred, again as a result of a shortage of funds and manpower. These are serious matters that ought to be given attention. I think that as soon as the necessary funds are available, the hon the Minister will be giving the matter serious attention.

The directorate must accept that as soon as there is a resurgence in the economy they will again be relinquishing staff to the private sector. Then the shortage will be even worse than it is at present. The directorate must endeavour to retain officials who have established positions in relevant departments, to build up an experienced staff and to ensure that when legal representatives appear in the numerous court cases, there are prosecutors who are properly able to oppose them. When there are no properly qualified individuals available to oppose such highly qualified advocates, this could lead, at times, to disrespect for the legal system. According to the composition of the population in South Africa, Brown and Black people should, in greater numbers, enter the employ of the Directorates of Justice and Prisons. At present the composition in the relevant directorates, particularly Justice, is unbalanced, in spite of this government’s policy. In the memorandum of the hon the Minister in his comment on the report, we find the following on page 39:

It is worth noting—I have requested information in this regard from the directorate—that at present there are only two Black people in the directorate who are legally qualified. The Black legal men normally ask for a transfer to the independent Black states. We are also expected to grant assistance to these independent Black states, and we therefore do not like to compete with them as far as legal men are concerned. It is therefore not as a result of government policy that the appointments are not made to such posts.

As far as Coloureds are concerned, there is one person with legal qualifications at present acting as a magistrate. There are also five Indians. There are 19 Coloureds and 16 Indians acting as prosecutors.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister, like my colleague the hon member for Randfontein, that we hope and trust that the plan to call for tenders for a magistrates’ court in Roodepoort in December will be adhered to. Roodepoort does very badly need this.

Mr Chairman, to start off with I want to deal with a very sensitive matter relating to a report tabled today. It is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Appearance of Advocates in the Supreme Court of South Africa. This commission was appointed on 31 May 1984 to investigate, and report on, the circumstances under which a certain Sebastiaan de Jager professed to be a practising advocate in the Supreme Court of South Africa.

According to the commission’s report Mr De Jager had never been allowed by any court to practise as an advocate of the Supreme Court. As Jacobus Willem Pienaar Mr De Jager did, in fact, appear as a pro Deo advocate for 10 accused in the Orange Free State Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. Of these 10 accused, four were found not guilty and released. The remaining six were found guilty and sentenced.

In 1983 and 1984 he also appeared in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, under the same name, as pro Deo advocate for 11 accused. Of these accused, four were found not guilty and released. The remaining seven were found guilty and sentenced. The sentence of one of those sentenced to death, a certain Johannes Buti Mokoena, has already been carried out.

The commission regarded it as undesirable to express any opinion about whether justice was done in the case of Mokoena. The commission did indicate that it would report on this question after any appeal is lodged by the co-accused, a certain Motloung, and any legal steps, which might result, are concluded. Motloung wants to appeal, and in due course the Appeal Court will have to decide this issue. If necessary, the Smuts Commission will report on his case at a later stage.

What have we done about this? We have meanwhile received the report, and as a result of the commission’s recommendations in paragraph 7 of its first report, pro Deo advocates have been appointed to notify each of the above-mentioned sentenced offenders of the irregularities which took place during the court proceedings with a view to making a special entry to appeal. Copies of the case records were also made available.

Of the 12 convicted offenders, five indicated that they wanted to appeal, four were satisfied with the court proceedings in which Mr De Jager was involved, two cannot be traced, whilst the decision of a further convicted offender will be made known in due course. Other than that, effect has been given to all the recommendations.

I should like to thank the chairman of the commission, the hon Justice F S Smuts, for the tremendous task he took upon himself. I should also like to thank Adv I W B de Villiers and Adv G A Hattingh, chairmen of the relevant bar councils, and also all the other advocates who quickly came forward to grant assistance when they were approached. Their conduct again confirmed the high premium they place on having justice done.

In his supplementary report to the first report, the commission states that Mr De Jager testified before the commission and that it confirmed the findings in regard to Mr De Jager’s activities.

I have already decided that the State will bear all the costs in order to ensure that justice is done. The first supplementary report is being tabled in parliament today, and it will also be made available to the relevant advocates for use in furthering the appeal applications. A few days ago the chairman of the commission meanwhile handed me the second report. The findings and recommendations contained in that report will be studied by the Government. This report deals with paragraphs (b) and (d) of the commission’s terms of reference. It contains relevant recommendations and relates to the admission and identification of advocates.

This brings me to a matter that was broached earlier this afternoon in the debate. I want to link up with the announcement I made, in connection with the government’s approach to the Transvaal Provincial Division, in which I indicated that we had decided that two Deputy Judges-President should be appointed in that division. I said that we would make announcements in this connection at a later stage. In the meantime the State President has confirmed the appointment of Judge-President Boshoff to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, this being with effect from 16 June 1985. Judge-President Boshoff of the Transvaal had a long period of service as an ordinary judge, and subsequently as Judge-President of that division. As a legal man he is highly regarded and greatly esteemed by his colleagues on the Bench. During the period he distinguished himself, in particular, as an administrator with outstanding abilities, particularly when viewed in the light of the fact that he administered a very large division. The State President furthermore approved, and has already confirmed, Mr Justice Henry Moll of the Transvaal Provincial Division’s replacement of Judge-President Boshoff from the same date, ie 16 June 1985, in the post he previously occupied.

This brings me to the hon member for Sandton. The hon members for Mossel Bay and Bloemfontein East and other hon members reacted to the principles adopted in his speech. The hon member for Sandton, however, did not learn his lesson after Prof Dugard, apparently one of the hon member’s spiritual allies, said earlier this year in a seminar, inter alia:

Mr Justice Coetzee of the Transvaal Provincial Division, however, asked him on the same occasion to say on what basis he made that statement. Prof Dugard intimated that he was referring to instances which had occurred prior to 1970. Mr Justice Coetzee replied to that by saying that in the 17 years in which he had had knowledge of the Bench, he had not encountered any such discrimination. Sir, that included all aspects. On the same occasion Mr Justice Goldstone said:

Now, in 1985, the hon member for Sandton is dragging South Africa’s name through the mud. [Interjections.] The matter has two sides, because sentencing is a very difficult and complex task. Just to indicate how complex it is, I want to quote what Nicholas said in his book Crime and Punishment in South Africa:

It must, of course, also be applicable to a magistrate’s judgment. That goes without saying. I see the hon member indicating that I am right.

The matter does, however, have two sides. Let us look at the other side of the coin. In the 1977 Scheepers case a magistrate sentenced a livestock speculator to 12 months imprisonment for having stolen a single head of cattle from a Black man. The reasons he advanced were that he regarded a White man stealing from a Black man to be an aggravating factor. The man appealed to the Transvaal Provincial Division, but the appeal was set aside. He then had recourse to the Appeal Court, and there Judge of Appeal Viljoen, one of the leading lights in regard to the meting out of punishment in South Africa, heard the case.

†He conceded that the fact that the accused was a White and had stolen an ox from a Black, was an extremely reprehensible act. However, he said:

Where will one ever find a clearer directive that there should not be any discrimination? The magistrate who erred …

I have no argument with that judgment.

He had no argument. [Interjections.]

*We take it one step further. In his speech the hon member for Sandton also referred to the case of the parking meters. I took the initiative in this case and asked Judge President Boshoff to have a look at it. [Interjections.] He thoroughly checked the records of all three cases. He then came to the conclusion that these cases were tried strictly in accordance with the legal rules of this country and could therefore not be reviewed. In the case of the White who used the ring from a soft-drink can, the parking meter had not been activated. Consequently he could only be charged in terms of a by-law of the relevant local authority, which carried a maximum penalty of R50. The Black man, however, was charged with a completed act of fraud, because he had activated the mechanism. He was charged and fined R200. That is what the hon member is going on about. [Interjections.] In the Transvaler of 27 April 1985 a brief report appeared under this heading: “Man swaar gestraf vir gordynringgeld”. According to the report a White man, Carlos Vierra, used three curtain rings in a parking meter. He received a fine of R300 or 3 months’ imprisonment.

Now that is rubbish!

The hon member did do it, because here is …

I raised it because I noticed that you had not even bothered to reply to my letter on the subject.

Order!

The fact is that the hon member would have raised it in the House, and I knew he would because other hon members had dealt with my query.

If you had I would probably not have brought it up.

Other hon members also did.

It is your fault.

Because the hon member erred?

I have not erred. You have been incompetent and inefficient … [Interjections.]

Order!

The point is that we should not place ourselves in the position of an appeal court or a higher court of review merely because newspaper reports give us the impression that there is some disparity. [Interjections.] I have no fault to find with the hon member about that. All I want to point out to the hon member is that there are various sides to this matter, and what has indeed happened here is that the hon member, by implication, has acknowledged as much. He presented the case from a completely unnecessary angle.

I shall come back to the hon member at a later stage, but I just want to deal with another matter of particular importance.

There are at least seven questions you have not replied to yet.

I shall be coming to them.

*The hon member referred to the question of outdated statistics. The hon member knows, however, that he can place a question on the Order Paper at any time and that we would give him the latest statistics. I myself am unhappy about the fact that our annual report is discussed virtually a year late, because this could create a wrong impression. I shall definitely be regarding the point the hon member raised in a positive light.

Now I come to the case of Oscar Mpetha. He lost his appeal on 29 May 1985. The clerk of the court immediately issued a warrant for his arrest, but before this warrant could be executed, he was admitted to Groote Schuur Hospital on 3 June 1985 for kidney tests. We understand that he probably also has other problems. In the light of his illness the responsible functionaries have not, at this stage, yet issued the warrant, and on the basis of the hon member’s representations we shall be looking into the matter. The hon member will concede, however, that I am right in saying that the crime of which has was found guilty would definitely have been regarded as a serious crime if he had been a younger man. His age, however, does not detract from the seriousness of the crime, and I shall also have to view the matter in that light.

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he will give us the assurance that he will take into account the statement made by Mr Justice Deneys Williamson when the sentence was first handed down and, secondly, the statement made by all the judges, both the majority and the minority decisions of the Appeal Court, when they reluctantly confirmed the sentence. They all appealed to the administration to ameliorate that sentence, and I am asking the hon the Minister to take that into account.

When questions of pardon or reprieve are considered by the Department of Prisons or by the State President, all relevant factors such as asides from the Bench and directives from the Bench are taken into account as a general rule. Of course the severity of the sentence and the seriousness of the crime must of necessity also be taken into account.

Of course. But there is a minimum sentence which is mandatory.

I think we have now satisfactorily dealt with the question of sentences, except to tell the hon member that he is correct in saying that we must continually keep up to date in regard to our need for a correct system of sentencing. That is why the Rabie Commission recommended that minimum sentences, as far as security legislation is concerned, be abolished. The Government has meanwhile given attention to this. The hon member is also aware of the fact that we go out of our way to ensure that we do not prescribe to the courts in regard to sentences in connection with other statutory provisions to which sanctions are attached. As far as that is concerned, I should like to add a few words tomorrow.

announced that Mr Speaker had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 10 June, at 14h15, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills.

laid upon the Table:

Supreme Court Second Amendment Bill [No 110—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).

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

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Bills of the House of Assembly, as follows:

H SCHOEMAN,

Chairman

Committee Rooms

Parliament

4 June 1985.

Bills to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, as follows:

D M STREICHER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

16 April 1985.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of Posts and Telecommunications, as follows:

C J VAN R BOTHA,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

10 April 1985

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr Chairman, the chairman of the committee of inquiry into the incidents at Uitenhage on 21 March this year, the hon Mr Justice Kannemeyer, submitted his report to me this morning. The report has been submitted to the State President and he has authorized me to announce that he has decided, after consultation with the Cabinet, that the report will be tabled in Parliament in the course of next week and that a debate of two hours and 30 minutes in each of the three Houses be recommended to Mr Speaker. The relevant arrangements in regard to the time and other matters will be announced shortly.

Oh, it is no longer necessary, then, to discuss that with the Whips at all?

Mr Chairman, I clearly stated that it would be recommended to Mr Speaker that there be a debate on the report. Therefore ample opportunity for discussion of the matter by the Whips will be afforded. I believe that the hon member will understand that I did not say that such a decision had been taken by us. We did decide to recommend a debate on the report to Mr Speaker. I hope that I have now set the hon member’s mind at rest.

Yes, thank you.

Mr Chairman, yesterday I was in the course of replying to the hon member for Sandton. He referred inter alia to the fact that we have made no progress as regards the issue of the double standards applied as who may appear in the Supreme Court. The point at issue is that an attorney may not appear in a Supreme Court, while an advocate may. The hon member also linked this to the issue of cost.

†I regard his reference to the question of escalating costs of litigation as a very important facet of our debate. This matter also received the attention of the Hoexter Commission. The commission was satisfied that at present it is not in the interest of the public to grant attorneys the right of audience in the Supreme Court. The hon member for Yeoville debated last year, in a very articulate manner, I must say, the cause of the attorneys. I said I would take it up with the profession and this is a matter I did in fact refer to them. I can give the hon member the assurance that I am in constant consultation with that profession.

I would also like to inform the member, however, that I took the matter regarding escalating costs of litigation in general a step further. The hon member is aware of the fact that I introduced a Bill in Parliament providing for the establishment of a Rules Board for courts of law. This board has been tailored in such a way that consideration of the question of legal costs will be an ongoing process. The board will review existing rules of court on a regular basis—and I quote from clause 6(1) of the Bill:

That is not the end of the matter. In terms of clause 6(6) of the Bill:

It is therefore clear that this Bill is of the utmost importance when it comes to the matter of costs of litigation.

Much is expected of the board. Not only will the board be able to create, as far as possible, a uniform and simplified procedure in the Supreme Court and the lower courts, but the existence of such a board will also ensure that the question of limiting costs of litigation will receive the constant attention of experts in a scientific manner. I may even decide to refer the question regarding the divided legal profession to the board for advice, or they may pursue the matter themselves.

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

I regret I have very limited time. Hon members will tell the hon member for Yeoville that I have all the goodwill in the world for him, but I really cannot take a question now.

The possibilities to which I referred depend, of course, on the question whether this Bill will be approved by Parliament. So, if I may say so, the matter is to a certain extent in the hands of that hon member. It is to a certain extent in hands whether I am provided with the necessary machinery to have this matter investigated further.

The hon member also made reference to the criminal appeal judgment by Mr Justice Friedman in the case in which eight trialists appealed against a magistrate’s ruling on a certificate issued by the Attorney-General in terms of section 30 of the Internal Security Act precluding the granting of bail. The appeal succeeded and the matter was remitted to the magistrate. The matter eventually came before the Judge President for confirmation of the terms of bail for the accused on which the prosecution and the defence had agreed.

Sir, I abide by the judgment and pronouncements of the Bench in this matter and I hope and trust that in other matters the hon members will exhibit the same respect for our Bench. I shall continue to promote our legal system. The events to which I have referred have made possible the judgment and also confirmation of bail.

Finally, I have taken due cognizance of what was said in court.

What are you going to do about it?

I have taken cognizance of what has been said. I think that that should be sufficient.

That is not sufficient. What are you going to do about the Attorney-General being allowed to block bail? The discretion is being taken away from the judges. What are you going to do about it?

I said that I abided by judgments of the court. The hon member should study those judgments. The hon Mr Justice Friedman issued judgments and eventually ruled on the basis of a technical point whether the Attorney General had put the correct question to himself. It is quite clear that this may be a key judgment in the process of the reform of our law. The hon member should not take it any further than that. I think that at this stage he should acquire wisdom. I now turn to staff policy.

†The designation of posts in the Department of Justice is completely uncoupled from any population group, and appointments are only made on merit and efficiency. These are the principles on which we operate. Appointments to the Bench are likewise made on merit and on merit alone. I think the hon member will be wise to leave the matter at that.

I devoted a lot of time to the hon member for Sandton, but there is still a matter to which I shall revert if time permits.

I hasten to tell the hon member for Durban Central that insofar as his request for the backing up of commissions is concerned, one should bear in mind that various commissions have differing views regarding the investigations they have to conduct. If a commission is appointed by the Department of Justice and it requires back-up staff, the required staff is provided. It is also possible that another department may request the appointment of a commission. Such a commission will then require a different kind of know how to support it. If an investigation needs to be done by a commission, such a commission may make use of any organization or institution capable of assisting it in its investigation. It may not necessarily be the SA Police or a component of the Department of Justice. It could even related to a university or another institution of an academic nature. Therefore I agree that the hon member has taken a good point. We are taking cognizance of the comments he has made and I shall revert to him when I deal with legal aid. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Mossel Bay made a very positive and strong-principled contribution and I thank him for that.

The speech by the hon member Mr Theunissen reminded me of a speech made by a certain hon member years ago. For the information of the committee I wish to point out that the hon member Mr Theunissen argued that the right to privacy should be further developed by the Law Commission. He said that in the process they should please consider the whole issue of phone-tapping. He himself also stated very positively that the police were tapping telephones and that as a result the right to privacy was being violated.

Apart from anything else the hon member also knows that the right to privacy includes inter alia violation of the dignitas. Assailing someone’s dignity does not necessarily entail publicity or publication. If I were to say outside Parliament that the hon member was not an able member of Parliament it would not have to be published to constitute a violation of his dignity. I certainly do not say so at this moment nor shall I say so outside, but I mention it merely to illustrate the point. If I were to say it outside, the hon member could charge me with having assailed his dignitas. That is part of a person’s privacy, of his personal rights.

The hon member had in mind the very first case in South Africa which dealt with this, the case of O’Keefe vs the Argus Printing Company in the 50’s when that newspaper took a photograph of a pretty girl somewhere in Cape Town. The law then took its course. This is also linked to the German development in this field. I hope that the hon member had that as background.

The hon member then dragged a matter into the debate which in my opinion is not relevant to it. That is why I say that his speech reminded me of one made years ago. A very clever hon member on this side wanted to have an investigation into a specific newspaper instituted. He did not know how to handle it, and as a result made a long speech during the discussion of the Forestry Vote about combating the misuse of timber, since newspaper is made of timber. [Interjections.] I think that the hon member followed more or less the same process.

The right to privacy is one which is increasingly demanding in-depth study by many lawyers. Leaders in this sphere are inter alia judge of appeal Mr Justice Van Heerden and Prof W A Joubert. In any event, I shall request the SA Law Commission to keep an eye on this matter. The hon member must tell me whether he wants included in this the issue of the violation of the privacy of the individual during elections. Does he support the idea that there should be no gossip-mongering during elections? [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Schutte addressed us on the issue of what the Law Commission had to say about women and sexual offences. Some of the recommendations of the commission affect not only old, established legal rules, but also the views of many as regards the essence of marriage. Before I adopt a standpoint on the recommendation of the Commission it will be necessary for them to be duly studied and considered. The report is being carefully studied by the Department and as soon as business has been finalized we shall attend to the matter and decide whether legislation should be drafted in that regard.

The hon member also referred to the achievements of the Office of the Master of the Supreme Court and I want to take this opportunity to say to the staff of the offices of the Master that they have performed their task extremely well over the past number of years. With a few exceptions they are right up to date with their work.

†This brings me to the hon member for King William’s Town. He referred to stock theft and asked whether the courts are applying the higher penalties imposed last year by Parliament for stock theft. I can assure him that this is the case. However, I do not think this is the time to debate various sentences imposed for stock theft. In many cases it is a very personal experience when something is estranged from its owner. I am sure the hon member has a valid case because whenever he stands up to speak here he has a valid case. I invite him to take the matter up with me personally and I will then look at the situation in his particular area.

*The hon member also discussed the Advocate-General. The Advocate-General has very wide powers. He is in the position of one who can decide how he obtains his facts and information. He may do so formally or informally. He may obtain evidence by way of summons or without one. At present he is creating a convention which will keep departments on their toes, even on an informal basis, as was the case here. He found that irregularities had not really taken place but that the commission had taken certain remedial steps that bore his approval. In terms of the Act applying to him, he could simply have said that there was no case, and closed the matter. However, he went much further. He accepted the recommendations of the commission and is creating a convention with regard to departmental matters which may be regarded as a very sound practice. Perhaps I should also explain this further to the hon member in a private discussion.

The hon members for Bloemfontein East, Nelspruit and Durban Central referred to the issue of magistrates’ courts. The Hoexter Commission indicated that magistrates functioning outside the hierarchy of the public service would not per se offer a guarantee of independent administration of justice. The independence of a bench depends substantially on the quality of its judicial officers. It has to do with its spirit, its training and its personal outlook. Where he draws his cheque and by whom it is written, does not determine the independence of the judicial officer. That is what makes us so proud of our higher courts and our lower courts, viz that we have this high degree of independence among our judicial officers, despite the issue of appointment, whom they are paid by etc. I want to state this very simply and directly. In this regard I want to convey my sincere thanks to the committee of the Deputy Director-General for their good work. They have not departed from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission on the independence of the judiciary but have acted in accordance with the guidelines indicated by the commission. The commission said that there would be no blueprint for the Supreme Court as far as independence was concerned and that the lower courts had to develop their own model. Only people who are schooled in the law and otherwise fully equipped for the task will be appointed as judicial officers in lower courts. These recommendations served as a guideline for the Van Niekerk Committee. I urge hon members, particuarly those representing the rural constituencies, to read the Van Niekerk report. It is absolutely in line with the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission.

†Time does not allow me to reply to the hon member for Berea in greater detail except to tell the hon member that a Bill addressing the vacuum which exists in regard to the matrimonial property affairs of Black women is, I believe, still to be tabled during the parliamentary session. The Law Commission once again did a very good, swift job in preparing an interim report which they handed to me and which I passed on to the responsible Minister. He informed me this morning that a copy of this Bill is on its way to the hon member for Berea. I appreciate the hon member’s support of the Law Commission. I shall invoke the hon member’s assistance again when I have an interview with the hon the Minister of Finance in this regard.

*The hon member for Port Elizabeth North made a very valuable contribution and also discussed legal aid and Black languages. I support him in all respects except that I think that we should not make legal aid the be-all and end-all. There is a large variety of forms in which the State can provide legal aid to the public. One form, for example, is the courts for small claims. We must not discourage these courts now by granting legal aid in such a way, for example, that people can incur the heaviest expense in order to get into the higher courts.

I also just wish to say to the hon member for Durban Central that his contribution in this regard was positive. We are on the way, not to reviewing the whole matter of legal aid ab initio, but to taking a fresh look at it. Discussions with the chairman of the Legal Aid Board, Mr Justice Eloff, are taking place. All this bodes well for the future.

†I will reply to the hon members for Randfontein and Roodepoort in detail later. I just want to tell my hon colleague from Roodepoort that the picture of the problems encountered by the Department of Justice is not as grim as he depicted it. His figures are a little antiquated. [Interjections.] However, I shall deal with the hon member’s suggestions.

This brings me back to the hon member for Sandton. I want to know from him whether he supports the issue of alternatives to imprisonment. Of course he does.

Oh, are you answering the question?

Yes, of course the hon member supports the alternatives to imprisonment. He did so profusely on a number of occasions. This indicates that at times he is of very sound mind. [Interjections.] I blame the hon member for having traded this image we have of his sound mind for a few headlines in this morning’s newspaper. [Interjections.] We still remain friends because I must obviously accept the fact that the hon member did not intend any harm. [Interjections.] That makes the situation even graver; it aggravates the matter.

It was the Cape Times which aired a certain statement by Mr Justice Curlewis relating to the callous hitting and kicking to death of two Black men by five White schoolboys. I believe the Cape Times said the judge must have thought that boys would be boys. The hon member for Sandton also referred to that judgment yesterday. The point is that the hon judge applied the principle of an alternative to imprisonment. He applied this principle to White boys. Would the hon member be prepared to indicate to me that an alternative to imprisonment should only be available to Black people?

Of course not! [Interjections.]

The hon member says: “Of course not!” Mr Justice Curlewis, the same judge whom the hon member for Sandton yesterday sought to criticize, on 3 June 1985 at Witbank postponed the sentence on a Black boy, Christopher Mathebula aged 19, after being convicted of culpable homicide on a charge of murder, for one year on condition that his behaviour during that year was satisfactory, that he subjected himself to the supervision of a welfare officer and that he reported for 26 consecutive Saturdays to the Government Mortuary to do such work as might, be decided upon during the hours from 08h00 to 16h00. Is that not fair? Admit it. I am challenging the hon member to admit that he has been wrong and that he has jumped to conclusions.

I was not wrong in my criticism.

The hon member has this choice: Either he supports the principle of alternative sentences or not. [Interjections.] If he does, he has to concede that Mr Justice Curlewis passed as fair a judgment in the case of the White boys as he did in the case of the Black man.

That is not the point.

Then what is the point?

The case is the point.

That hon member is completely off the point. These are first offenders and they must be kept out of jail. [Interjections.] In both cases we had deaths, we had mortal issues. [Interjections.] The hon member for Hillbrow should not participate in this debate. I think the hon member should stick to the small claims courts. [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Sandton may still recover some ground. It will not happen now, as it is very difficult to admit that one has been wrong. On some future occasion he should just say that he supports the issue of alternative sentences for prisoners.

I will do so now. I certainly support the principle.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 20—”Prisons”:

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

I have studied the departmental report quite carefully. There is some very interesting statistical material in the report and I am particularly interested in the statistics on pages 73 and 74.

We know that in 1982-83 the average daily number of prisoners was 101 302. On 30 June 1983 this had increased to over 105 000, and the hon the Minister told Parliament earlier this year that the average daily number had now risen to 107 964, including about 18 000 prisoners awaiting trial.

South Africa has, and has had for many years, the unenviable record of the highest pro rata average daily prison population in the Western world. To give one comparative figure: In 1983 in the UK which has a population of 55 million people, which is more than double the population of South Africa, there is an average daily prison population of 50 850, which is just about half our average daily prison population.

When one looks at our figures, one finds that of the average daily prison population, 81,9% of these people were in 1983-84 serving sentences of 6 months or less. A further analysis regarding Black prisoners only shows that 38,4% were serving sentences of up to one month and 34,9% were serving sentences of from more than one month up to and including four months; in other words, 155 090 prisoners out of a total of 211 651 were serving sentences of up to four months—that is 73,3%.

I now return to an argument which I had with the hon the Minister last year on the question of the reasonable assumption that a considerable number of prisoners serving short-terms sentences are statutory criminals convicted under pass and influx control laws. I believe that this is substantiated by the fact that in the first eight months of last year there were over 100 000 convictions for these offences. The hon the Minister has hotly contested this assumption and has referred to two one-day surveys that were conducted throughout all the prisons. He found that on 15 March 1984 only 7% of the total prison population consisted of passlaw offenders and later, during the Prisons Vote, he referred to another survey done on 30 April 1984 which showed that on the total prison population of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners only 5,19% had been detained for influx control offences.

These percentages are completely misleading. I have consulted an expert criminologist, Prof Dirk van Zyl Smit of the University of Cape Town. He pointed out the obvious fallacy which I mentioned last year when we had this dispute during the hon the Minister’s Vote, viz that the percentages are based on the total number of prisoners, and that is obviously wrong. Prof Van Zyl Smit agrees with this absolutely in that he says that first of all only Blacks can be convicted of pass and influx control offences and therefore it is absurd to calculate the percentage of the total prison population. Secondly, most of the sentences served by Black prisoners for these offences are short-term sentences and therefore one ought only to include, in working out the percentage, Black prisoners serving sentences of up to six months. Then one gets a correct percentage which is not 5,1% but 35%, which is much higher. I might say that that is a conservative estimate.

Why is this argument relevant and why do I bring it up again? I will tell the hon the Minister. It is completely relevant to the overcrowded situation in our prisons. It is a chronic situation regarding most gaols and is one which the hon the Minister hopes to relieve by building more gaols. That is his solution.

I have here a very comprehensive question and answer, dated 18 March 1985. The question was put by my colleague the hon member for Sandton and concerned the overpopulation of South African prisons. The reply covers 172 prisons. The hon the Minister’s reply reveals that, although the position has improved in comparison with what it was the previous year, there is still serious overcrowding in many prisons. I did a little analysis and found that in 16 prisons there is overcrowding of more than 100%, and that in 61 prisons there is overcrowding of more than 50%. The departmental report tells us on page 50 that in 1983-84 the overall occupation figure of gaols was 132,33%. That shows a decrease in the previous year’s occupation figure because extra accommodation—4 000 units—has been provided.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that there is a better solution to the problem of overcrowded gaols than merely building more gaols and providing more accommodation units. That solution is, obviously, reducing the prison population. Sir, I wish you could call that hon Minister and that hon Whip—or is he also a Minister?—to order. I suggest they have their caucus meeting outside because I cannot hear myself speaking at the moment.

Dawie, go for a jog.

A better solution would be to reduce the number of prisoners and obviously one should start with the statutory offenders. We have had all these commissions—the Smit Commission, the Fagan Commission, the Viljoen Commission and more recently the Hoexter Commission all of which complained that our gaols were overcrowded because of the number of statutory offenders created by the pass laws.

I say right away that this hon Minister is not responsible for the retention or even the implementation of these offensive, discriminatory laws. However, insofar as they have this far-reaching adverse effect on prisons—for which he is the responsible Minister—he should be using his influence with his Cabinet colleagues to get rid of these laws instead of using invalid arguments to minimize the effect of these laws. That is the reason why I raise this again.

I presume the hon the Minister has seen the exchange of correspondence between myself and the Commissioner of Prisons.

You are on an extremely good footing with him.

Well, I am, as a matter of fact; better than I am with the hon the Minister, as I shall soon be showing. I have written a long report to the Commissioner in which I have listed all the complaints which I have received from prisoners across the length and breadth of South Africa. They are contained in letters that have been smuggled out of jail and they give gruesome details of the sort of treatment that some people have been receiving. I analysed these, prison by prison, listing the complaints in each particular prison, and I sent the list to the Commissioner. The other day I received a very comprehensive reply from the Commissioner in which he by and large dismissed the complaints as being without foundation.

I want to say at once that I am grateful to the Commissioner for having had the complaints investigated—as I have no doubt he did do—and while I accept the bona fides of his report, I am very uneasy about the obvious difficulties the prison staff must encounter in the overcrowded conditions in jails and in regard to the apparently uncontrollable activities of prison gangs. We had evidence of this in at least one case this year, namely the vicious riot which took place at Durban Point Prison where two prisoners died at the hands of prison gangs and six were seriously injured. That prison was overcrowded at that time to the extent of 224%. The cell in which the fracas took place housed 117 convicts. [Interjections.]

Since I wrote to the Commissioner, I have received a particularly distrubing report about conditions in North End Prison in Port Elizabeth. The Eastern Cape, I must say, has more than its fair share of horrors. This statement comes from a man who was picked up by the police and charged with public violence. His case was remanded and he was kept in jail. The statement makes ugly reading, and I want to read portions of it. It states, inter alia, that he was kept in a cell…

Was this passed on by the Commissioner or was it given to you by my department?

No, I received if after … Oh, is the hon the Minister referring to the Kannemeyer Commission? Or is he referring to the Commissioner?

No, no, I mean the Commissioner.

Oh. No, I received it only a couple of days ago; and that was after I had written to the Commissioner.

The statement states that this man was kept in a cell 5 metres by 7 metres in which 90 prisoners slept on mats. Yes, 90 prisoners slept in a cell of that size! In one corner of the cell there was a pit which served as a toilet—with no privacy whatever! Among the 90—and this is almost the worst aspect of this matter—there were children awaiting trial.

In the cell were “bosses” belonging to gangs which bullied other prisoners, appropriated the bread and meat of other prisoners and beat up those who resisted using the so-called “pompa” punishment which apparently means blows on the face. Every night, according to this report, the young adults and the children were sodomized by these “bosses”; in other words, they were raped by these “bosses”. This goes on in many jails. However, the worst thing about this particular case was that the warders were apparently well aware of what was going on and did nothing to stop the practice.

The man making this statement does not want his name disclosed as he is frightened of being picked up by the police and landing in the same jail again with dire consequences to himself. However, I am assured by people in the area that he is a very responsible member of society.

Will the hon member accept a statement from me that no harm will come to him if she discloses his name across the floor?

No, I am not prepared to disclose it. [Interjections.] I must have his permission first. [Interjections.] I want to tell the Minister that, despite what Mr Justice Kannemeyer said about people being protected, people who had been helping Molly Blackburn and her assistants find lost children were picked up at the Catholic Church the following week.

And ambulance men lost their jobs.

Right.

The estimates state that the aim of the Prisons Programme—which this year, by the way, stands at R358 798 000—is:

Well, it seems to me that law and order, like charity, should begin at home, and that the Prisons Department had better begin with North End gaol. It sounds to me as if that requires a thorough investigation, and the answer to the question put to the hon the Minister by the hon member for Sandton reveals that North End Prison is overcrowded by 138%.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister a few questions.

Will the hon member please speak slowly so that I can write it down?

I am trying to get through such a lot of stuff, unfortunately. Would he tell us whether apart from the four PAC prisoners who accepted the State President’s offer of release if they rejected violence as a means of effecting a change of Government in South Africa, and Denis Goldberg, any other prisoners have been released in terms of this offer? Did the hon the Minister get that question? I do not want names—the numbers and race of the people concerned will suffice.

There is really no need for me to repeat what I have already said on several occasions in this House.

[Inaudible.]

No, I would like to know whether they are White or Black prisoners—that is all.

In no civilized country are people kept locked up for periods of over 20 years, no matter what their sentence or what their crime, unless they are a real menace to society and likely to commit vicious acts of violence. [Interjections.]

Nobody who has met or spoken to Nelson Mandela or Walter Sisulu or the other prisoners in that category would seriously believe that they would constitute such a menace; on the contrary, I am convinced that their unconditional release would defuse the present unrest in the townships throughout the country.

Talking of Mandela reminds me of the constant irritation to which I am subjected regarding my requests to the hon the Minister to be allowed to visit Nelson Mandela. Why I have to go through all this nagging, all this cornering of the hon the Minister in corridors in Parliament or in the Lobby in order to be allowed a visit as the official spokesman on Prisons for the Official Opposition, is beyond me. I have not been able to see Nelson Mandela since June 1983. The hon the Minister keeps putting me off. In 1983, as he has acknowledged, I corrected a very exaggerated story about Mandela which was published overseas.

I hear that Nelson Mandela has complained about new rules of censorship of letters. They go to Pretoria first to be censored. Then they come back to Pollsmoor where they are censored again. This means long delays in receiving letters. I also understand that for the first time he has been refused a request to see his attorney. Now I ask publicly whether the hon the Minister will kindly arrange a visit to Mandela for me before the session ends, which is in a fairly short time. I do not want one of these big formal visits with tea and sandwiches and briefing meetings and 12 MPs trailing along not knowing what to do with themselves. [Interjections.] I just want a nice tête-á-tête with Nelson Mandela so that we can talk quietly and I can discover exactly what his complaints are. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether any serious consideration is being given to the issue which has been raised—I think I raised it myself at one stage—in regard to an exchange of our two prize communist spies, Dieter Gerhardt and his wife Ruth—the one is serving a life sentence and the other ten years for high treason—for the release from prison of Anatoly Shcharansky. That would be a very imaginative thing for the Government to try to do anyway, and I am sure the International Red Cross will be glad to act as intermediary. If that does not work out, if the Soviet Union is adamant about not releasing Shcharansky who is serving a sentence of 13 years for high treason imposed on him in 1979, there are other possibilities that can be considered. For instance, the celebrated nuclear physicist Andre Sakharov is confined to the town of Gorky. I understand that he and his wife would very much like to leave the Soviet Union and join their children in the USA. Now as never before, if I may coin a phrase, the Republic needs an imaginative gesture like this which, for once, would win international approval, should it succeed. I should like to suggest that to the hon the Minister.

In the couple of minutes still at my disposal I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will change the prison rule so as to enshrine the right of judges to visit prisons at any time. At the moment it is just a regulation, but it should be given the force of law and put into the Prisons Act. Judges should be encouraged to visit prisons more often. I am sure we would not have the conditions at North End Prison if judges visited more often. The numbers of visiting judges went up to 95 last year, but it is not enough. More judges should visit. More MP’s should also be allowed to visit. South Africa should have Boards of Prison Visitors such as they have in England for every area. Appointed by the Home Secretary, these people have access to any jail, any part of any jail and any prisoner in private at any time. [Interjections.] That is what we ought to have in South Africa as well.

Would the hon the Minister tell me why the department retains as a general rule for prison visitors the rule of “first degree relatives only”. Why do they not allow any friends or relatives who want to visit prisoners to do so? If those prisoners are willing to see them, they should be allowed to have them as visitors.

Would the hon the Minister tell me when the report by the HSRC on prison gangs which, I understand, was handed in in May 1984, is going to be made available? I think it is a very important report and we should all like to have a look at it. Finally, why does it take so long to promote prisoners to A-group? The position of children in jails also needs to be looked at very seriously indeed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton has dealt with such a wide range of unrelated matters, that it is hardly possible to respond to every point she has raised. However, I do want to take issue with the hon member, firstly, on the matter of her plea for the release of Mr Mandela. She made a remarkable statement in this connection when she said that Nelson Mandela’s release would defuse the unrest in the country. An hon member who can make such a statement or can believe a statement like that must certainly be the most naive person in this country. [Interjections.] We have it on the authority of no less a person than Mr Mandela himself that he proposes or intends taking up the armed struggle the moment he leaves prison.

He did not say that at all!

The moment he leaves prison, he is going to take up the armed struggle. [Interjections.] In view of that categorical statement of Mr Mandela …

He did not make it.

He may not have made it to the hon member for Houghton, but she has no monopoly on what people in prisons say. [Interjections.] The hon member tries to project the image that she and she alone is informed about what is happening in prisons. That is why she has treated the House to some gruesome details from a statement allegedly made by an undisclosed person of so-called high repute.

Have you ever been to North End Prison? [Interjections.]

The fact is that the State President made a specific offer to Mr Mandela which went far beyond the standing regulations in respect of the release of prisoners.

Not at all.

Of course it did.

Why?

In the first instance, there is no provision for the release of security prisoners on the same terms as apply to other prisoners.

But they changed that rule three years ago.

Security prisoners are not entitled to the same privileges in that regard as are other prisoners.

That is not true.

It is true. I have it here in the standing regulations. [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Houghton contend that the offer made by the State President was not in fact a more generous offer than what applied before the State President made his offer?

What do you mean? I cannot understand your argument.

It was a more generous offer than anything that preceded it.

There had never been an offer before.

Exactly! [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton is trying to play with words. I am not trying to play with words. I am putting it to the hon member that the State President made a specific offer to Mr Mandela which he refused. Is that correct?

Yes.

The offer made to him only required him to denounce violence. That was all. That was the only requirement contained in that offer.

He was not required to give up his membership of the Communist Party.

No, he was not even required to give up his membership of the Communist Party. All he had to do was to denounce violence.

†Mr Mandela’s history of violence is after all the reason why he is in prison.

When was that? That was 20 years ago.

Yes, that was 20 years ago, but because of his refusal to denounce violence he excluded himself from the privilege contained in the offer of the State President.

*The plea of the hon member for Houghton on behalf of Mr Mandela is therefore, with all due respect, an insult to Mr Mandela. Fully aware of the implications of his refusal to foreswear violence, that it would mean that he would not be released, he preferred, for the sake of his image, to refuse the offer. In her arrogance, however, the hon member for Houghton is now appealing for Mr Mandela to be released. Therefore she knows better what is in Mr Mandela’s interests than Mr Mandela himself. That, however, is typical of the attitude of the hon member for Houghton as far as prison affairs are concerned. She poses as the only confidante of the prisoners and as the only person who possesses information as to what is going on in the prisons.

It is common cause that there is overpopulation in the prisons and that the Prison Service is under considerable pressure as far as this is concerned. Instead of complimenting the Prisons Service on the exceptionally competent way in which they are performing their task in very difficult circumstances, the hon member poses as the great authority on prison affairs, and does so on the basis of gossip contained in a document of unknown origin.

Let’s go and look together! Will you go with me?

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon member for Houghton made that remark. Indeed, I wanted to use that argument.

Yes, let’s go and have a look!

The hon member for Houghton and I have over the past year had the privilege of visiting several prisons. However it is interesting that when she and I visited the prisons together, we found no grounds, no evidence or indications of these alleged scandalous irregularities to which she is now referring. [Interjections.] Where did we encounter them? Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton is now quoting from a communication of unknown origin. That is where she obtains evidence of such irregularities. However, when the hon member and I visit the prisons together, we find nothing of that nature. Is that not strange, Mr Chairman? Does that not explain why the hon member for Houghton says that she wants to go and speak to Mr Mandela alone? [Interjections.] Yes, she says she wants to go and speak to Mr Mandela alone. She does not want other hon members of the House of Assembly to accompany her. This is because she knows that she will be able to come and gossip afterwards and make all kinds of allegations in connection with what Mr Mandela supposedly said to her. If she does not go alone then surely there are other people present who can monitor what passes between her and Mr Mandela. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the fact of the overpopulation of prisons. This is certainly cause for concern. No one with a feeling of responsibility can accept such a situation with equanimity. Now, however, the hon member for Houghton contends that the solution to this problem is that offenders of …

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member for Mossel Bay the opportunity to continue with his speech.

I thank the hon Whip, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Houghton now contends that this problem can be resolved by not detaining in the prisons offenders who have broken statutory laws. That is what she proposes. How ridiculous can one be! What, then, is the sense of penal provisions in legislation if those who infringe such provisions are not to be put in prison?

Well, change the law.

Now the hon member says, “Change the law”. The laws to which the hon member referred—the so-called pass laws—are not, however, relevant here. They are in no way relevant to the discussion that is being conducted here now. The Prisons Service is not responsible for the existence of that legislation. The Prisons Service has only to receive those people who have been sentenced by the courts in terms of that legislation. Therefore this is neither the time nor the place to argue about pass laws and so on. They are not the responsibility of this department or of the Prisons Service.

I said you should change the law.

Mr Chairman, I regret that I am allowing myself to be misled into reacting to the hon member for Houghton at too great length. [Interjections.]

You really should not allow yourself to be led astray by her to such an extent! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am also concerned about the overpopulation of our prisons. What does cause me concern is the issue of release. In the annual report of 1983-84 I find a paragraph in which it is stated that during the year under review 6 115 prisoners were released for the very reason that prisons are overpopulated. This may not be literally true, but perhaps the hon the Minister could correct me here. What causes me concern is the fact that the ordinary norms, standards and considerations in terms of the regulations, on the basis of which prisoners are released before the expiry of the full period of their sentence, will be adjusted in favour of early release specifically for the reason that there is a shortage of prison accommodation. This situation may never arise, because it would be counterproductive to the maintenance of law and order in the country. Once offenders and potential offenders gained the impression that due to a lack of prison accommodation they would not serve out their prison sentences, respect for law and order in this country would be undermined.

The public at large, too, expects of us that we should remove offenders from society and keep them removed. They expect of us that we will protect society against these people. They expect of us that offenders will be punished. As far as this is concerned we may not disappoint the law-abiding citizens of this country simply because we do not have the necessary prison accommodation. Accordingly I ask that provision be made for adequate prison accommodation to comply with the requirements of the Prisons Service. The prison population must not be reduced simply to adapt to the available accommodation; the accommodation must be adapted to the number of prisoners who have to be accommodated.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay responded mainly to the standpoints put by the hon member for Houghton and I shall not right now respond further to the hon member for Mossel Bay. However, I may perhaps in the course of my speech touch upon a few of the points he raised and I will respond to them then.

I want to say at the outset that the Prisons Service comes under the spotlight mainly when events of either a sensational or negative nature take place. I want to point out a few of these. One finds, first of all, that when prisoners, usually dangerous prisoners, escape, news of their escape reaches the media. When cases of unnatural death occur, these are reported. When staff members of the Prisons Service come under fire because of so-called malpractices, that is placed under the spotlight. This also happens when charges of overpopulation, as we had again this afternoon, are brought forward, or when one listens to the stories—and they are stories of a very negative nature—which the hon member for Houghton usually conjures up about this department. Much is usually made of the sensational and negative aspects concerning this department, while the meritorious service, the positive aspects, those things which this department does that are worthy of mention, are usually suppressed or withheld.

What are actually the facts in regard to this department? First of all, there are the statistics with which we have to contend. The statistics show an alarming growth in the prison population. This is not the fault of the Prisons Service, however. Neither is it the fault of the courts who send the people to the Prisons Service. Is the individual himself who becomes an offender when he acts in contravention of the rules, the law and the order which ought to be maintained, and who, because of that offence, brings misery upon himself, appears in court, is sentenced, receives punishment and is sent to prison.

It is also clear from the statistics that the highest percentage of people in our country who go to prison are Blacks and Coloureds and that the number of prisoners from these population groups is considerable in comparison with the number of members from the White and Indian population groups who land in prison. Actually, as far as the Blacks and Coloureds are concerned, this ratio is out of proportion to the numerical strength of the particular population groups in relation to the numerical strength of other population groups. It cannot be ascribed to the transgression of influx control measures, as the hon member for Houghton alleges is the case in respect of the Black peoples.

The hon member really has a very strange way of assimilating statistics if she can say, when it is shown that only 2,9% of the prison population have been found guilty of such an offence and are in prison for that reason, that the figure is false. Surely that figure has to be seen within the context of the total prison population and not just a part of it, because in the latter case one would send a false figure out into the world. The actual figure is obtained when one places that particular offence within the context of the whole, for the percentage that constitutes of all other offences is calculated within the context of the total prison population.

The fact which we are up against here is that numbers play an important role in the Prisons Service. The average daily prison population exceeds 110 000. The big question is: Who are these people who make up the 110 000 prisoners per day and with whom the Prisons Service has to work daily? With whom does the Prisons Service have to deal? This is an important matter which one must also take into account if one is to approach and judge the work of the Prisons Service in a positive way.

The Prisons Service does not choose its inhabitants; they are sent to the Service by the courts. Actually, it is the offenders themselves who send the inhabitants of the prisons to the Prisons Service because they commit offences and are consequently sent to the Prisons Service by the courts.

However sympathetic we may feel towards these people, the fact of the matter is that they have transgressed the laws of the country. Those people who are offenders are sent to prison because of their offences. The Prisons Service then has to work with these inherent offenders. It is the offender who lands in gaol and not the innocent member of the population who does not commit any offence. This makes the work of the Prisons Service that much more difficult and we should realize that.

It is also important to remember that the highest percentage of the people who are sent to prison are those who commit deeds of violence as opposed to a lower percentage who, for example, commit economic offences. The staff thus has to deal with a high percentage of people who are violent and dangerous. Such an individual does not change overnight when he goes to goal. They do not suddenly undergo a metamorphosis when they get there, neither do they suddenly become paragons of virtue. The philosophy, character, nature and wiles of such a person do not change overnight. The prison staff then has to deal with someone who is violent by nature.

The Prisons Service is, first of all, charged with the responsibility of guarding over these people. It has to stand watch over them in order to keep them isolated from the community in which they have become a danger. It has to ensure that these people do not escape from prison. The Prisons Service thus has continually to protect the community against these offenders.

The ratio between staff members of the Prisons Service who have to perform these guard duties and the offenders is 1:12. This means that each warder shoulders a tremendous responsibility. That is why we on this side really desire to express our heart felt thanks to the prisons staff, Gen Willemse and his entire staff, and especially those doing guard duty, for the admirable way in which they are carrying out their task and protecting society against these people who are sent to them.

This places enormous demands on them. The task they have to perform is onerous. Their primary task is to protect society against these offenders. The Prisons Service has to ensure that such a prisoner remains in prison for the period to which he was sentenced and for the period during which he has to serve out his sentence and be isolated from society.

The Prisons Service has the responsibility of ensuring that a prisoner does not escape and once again become a danger to society. It has to ensure that society is protected from the presence of the offender for the duration of the latter’s isolation, especially in the case of the violent offender. It must try to ensure that such a person does not again become a danger to society. The prison official often does this at the cost of his own life. He has to handle the violent offender who has been isolated and for whom he is responsible. He has to ensure that the person correctly serves his period of sentence and that some change comes about in the prisoner during that period, that is, that the prisoner may perhaps be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation depends on the extent to which the prisoner can be rehabilitated and is prepared to be rehabilitated. If somebody is not prepared to be rehabilitated, the Prisons Service cannot do anything to him. The Prisons Service offers the possibility of rehabilitation insofar as the prisoner is prepared to be rehabilitated. The Prisons Service offers the prisoner assistance so that he may help himself. In this regard the prison staff perform important rehabilitation services.

In the first place, spiritual care is offered. This is an important matter, because it is actually the overriding factor. Complete freedom of religion is allowed. No one is forced to practise religion or to attend church services, or anything like that. These are offered and it is up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to take part in them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Koedoespoort for his interesting and constructive contribution.

†Referring to the contribution of the hon member for Houghton, I can only say that her arguments will make very interesting and perhaps even comical reading. How 3% can in fact be 35% of the prison population beats me. The problem remains the high prison population. To free influx control offenders will not be a solution to this problem. It makes no sense to talk of 35% if that will only reduce the prison population by about 3%. I am afraid she was going again for headlines with allegations and not with facts and least of all with solutions.

*I would like to take this opportunity of thanking Gen Willemse and his staff for the excellent annual report. It is a comprehensive annual report which will be of great value not only to Parliament, but also to people outside of Parliament, including academics, who are interested in penology. I would also like to thank Gen Willemse and his staff, and Col Bruyn in particular, for their willing and friendly assistance during the past year.

While reading the annual report I was struck by one sentence in particular. It reminded me of a visit I paid to a prison. The sentence appears on page 51 and reads as follows:

This reminded me of my recent visit to the C-prison at the Victor Verster prison. When we arrived there, we were very proudly shown the church in the courtyard of the prison. The people there believe that it is the only prison in the world which has a church in its courtyard. On closer inspection it became evident that this was not all, as there was also a small golf course laid out around the church. There were also golf clubs available for playing with. This definitely substantiates the statement in the annual report and I believe this prison is indeed the only one in the world that can say that it has a church in the middle of it with a golf course laid out around the church.

I would like to refer to the administration of prisoners. If one looks at the prison population and at the shortage of prison staff, one can get some idea of the enormous responsibilities resting upon the service. By administration I mean only the physical control and not the rehabilitation and education of prisoners. According to the establishment of the Prisons Service, the service has 18 164 staff members. They are not all concerned with the physical control of the prisoners, however. Only about 15 786 are linked to the functional occupational group while the rest are concerned with auxiliary services such as agriculture, social services, spiritual services et al.

During the year under review these 15 000 people were responsible for the admission of more than half a million prisoners. The exact figure is 528 270. These warders really had an enormous task to perform. One must state very clearly that the half a million to which I refer are not half a million separate individuals. The number is made up of 266 000 sentenced prisoners and 252 000 prisoners awaiting trial. These sentenced prisoners, or many of them, were most probably also prisoners awaiting trial at an earlier stage. One must also mention that one prisoner can be admitted to prison three or four times. The same person can thus be counted among these prisoners more than once. It is also necessary to mention that 9 139 of these half a million prisoners fall into other categories. Of these 9 139 prisoners 9 044 are judgment debtors. That represents an increase of almost 1 000% over the previous year when there were only 939 judgment debtors.

If one looks further at all the duties of these warders in regard to the prisoners, one gets an even better impression of the enormous task they have to perform. Every prisoner has to be admitted and kept in custody according to the requirements pertaining to his particular case. There are prescriptions for each particular case. Professional wardership, of which the Prisons Service can be justly proud, demands that every warder must be fully acquainted with the requirements in this regard. It is indeed a formidable task.

I have the table of contents of Section B of the Prisons Service Orders with me. This is the section dealing with the control of prisoners. The table of contents alone is 15 pages long. It has 45 sections and approximately 800 subsections. It is based on the law and on the regulations and has been refined over the years. Time does not allow me to go into detail about this, but it is very impressive indeed in the way that it covers every aspect of the prisoner’s life. I think this is the strongest proof that the Prisons Service is striving to provide an orderly and efficient service and also that their warders have to meet stringent requirements.

A matter that is closely associated with this is the computerization programme that was started a few years ago. The aim of this programme is to have a complete information base to hand in regard to prisoners serving sentences of two years or longer. By means of this escapees will be very quickly identified, dates of release will be very quickly obtained and movement of prisoners will be controlled much better. The staff can also be very productively utilized. At this stage the computer already contains data in respect of 61 188 prisoners serving sentences and 74 228 others.

The last aspect which I want to deal with very briefly is the question of overpopulation in the prisons. That really is a major problem. From the annual report it appears that permission was granted in April 1984 for a measure to be applied, by way of exception, in terms of which prisoners could be conditionally released one month before their actual date of release. More than 6 000 prisoners were released in this way.

The USA uses the so-called “bursting system”. According to this system every prison is allowed a certain quota, and when this quota is exceeded, the prisoners with the shortest sentences are released. I am not asking for such a system, but I would like to suggest that the institution of prison councils be considered. The hospital councils of those places to which mentally handicapped persons are admitted have, at this stage, the power to release certain persons. I think the same thing can be done in respect of prisons.

I am aware that the information committees can exercise a discretion in respect of persons serving a sentence of less than six months, but if we can increase this to sentences of up to two years, the community can also make an input, and I feel these councils are the right place in which to do that.

Mr Chairman, I too would like to congratulate the Department of Justice on the content of its report, and thank the Commissioner and his staff, particularly the parliamentary staff, for the assistance we received during the year. They were most courteous and extremely willing to help.

I am always struck by the fact that so much effort is put into the providing of prison services, including training and rehabilitation, but there seems to be a cut-off point once a person leaves prison. There are no monitoring devices thereafter to establish to what extent the rehabilitation of the prisoner has been successful. I know that there is a little feedback through various organizations but it does appear to me that it would be very useful if one could institute some form of monitoring device. Included in such a report should be an indication of the percentage of ex-prisoners who communicated back to the prison in regard to the effectiveness of the training they had received there as well as related matters.

Like most other hon members, I want to deal mainly with the question of the overcrowding of prisons as well as the investigation of prison gangs.

On page 70 of the report of the department we read that the HSRC was approached in October 1983 to carry out through their Institute of Sociological and Demographic Research projects investigating gangs in South African prisons. This was completed during the period under review and the report was handed to a departmental working group to refine strategies for the handling of prisoners with behavioural problems.

The outcome of this project will obviously be received with great interest. One sincerely hopes that despite the overcrowding in prisons which makes it very difficult to separate prisoners, one will at least be able to isolate certain prisoners from the others to a far greater extent to avoid the unfortunate incidents which, according to various reports, still occurred in the year under review.

I would also like to refer to a slight disparity in approach. I want to quote from part B of the fifth and final report of the Hoexter Commission, page 580:

The department has come forward with figures concerning influx control. These are now being contested by the hon member for Houghton by means of somewhat advanced mathematics. [Interjections.]

This report on influx control does not completely contradict the statement made by Gen Brink. If Gen Brink’s observation is correct then I suggest that paragraph 21.7 on page 58 of the departmental response that the handling of the overpopulation phenomenon does not lie only with the provision of prison accommodation as suggested by the hon member for Mossel Bay needs further thought. The development and refinement of alternatives to imprisonment, the greater utilization of fines and the postponement of sentences seem to be such obvious solutions that if Gen Brink’s figures were not concerned entirely with influx control—which I do not think they were by the way they read—then the penal reform programme which is being undertaken by the SA Law Commission should give attention to this matter. In the report of the SA Law Commission there is a report by the Standing Committee on Penal Reform which has been resuscitated, and I would suggest that that project receive a great deal of priority in order to see to what extent paragraph 21.7 on page 58 of the departmental response can be put into action as soon as possible to alleviate the position in regard to the overcrowded prisons.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to refer briefly to the question of overpopulation in the prisons and would like to point out that serious crimes increased considerably during the past year. At 15 March 1985, 59 956 out of a total of 125 879 prisoners were being held for violent crimes, 57 951 for economic crimes and 7 972 for drug offences.

The effective protection of the community against the ever increasing number of criminals is and remains essential. With a view to this, the directorate is giving constant attention to crime prevention and also to methods of limiting the influx to the prisons to a minimum. The release policy of the directorate also receives constant attention. The phenomenon of overpopulation—it is about 40% on average at the moment—also receives constant attention and everyone in the directorate is very concerned about it. The provision of accommodation is not the only solution, as other hon members have already indicated. I suggest that the refinement of the alternatives to prison sentences be looked at, that those responsible for imposing punishment give greater consideration to the imposition of fines, that the postponement of sentences in order to allow fines to be paid be looked at, and also that the possibilities of advanced, conditional releases by way of exception be considered with a view to reducing the numbers. If it is at all possible, more use should also be made of suspended sentences and of corporal punishment without the addition of any other punishment.

The cost of erecting prisons is so tremendously high that we should restrict it to the minimum in the current economic conditions and seek other solutions. The cost of single accommodation is three or four times that of accommodation in larger cells. The cost per prisoner in our country at present is approximately R8,61 per day, and this is very low in comparison with world standards. In the rest of the world the average cost is presently about R30 per prisoner per day, and in America, for example, it is about R50 per prisoner per day. In spite of the savings and other measures presently being applied by the Prisons Service, about 66% of the directorate’s needs are still bought from the private sector.

I would like the hon the Minister to give us some facts concerning the release policy in the future and the possibility of parole and amnesty. Then I would also like to suggest that more medium-security institutions be built and that we place the less dangerous and less hardened prisoners in these. They would then be less exposed to the bad influence of hardened criminals.

This department and its directorate has a tremendous task. On the other hand, however, tremendous opportunities and stimulating careers are also offered in this department.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Roodepoort. I associate myself gladly with the positive thoughts he expressed.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to exchange a few ideas on the treatment and training of prisoners with specific reference to their reintegration into society. In saying that, I naturally refer also to the type of prisoner who is actually capable of being rehabilitated. The hon member for Koedoespoort made a positive contribution in this regard and also touched on certain aspects of this.

I wonder if we fully realize the magnitude of the task and the responsibility of our Prisons Service in this regard. In saying this, I wonder whether we as individuals in society also fully appreciate our own duty and responsibility in this regard. I say this because somebody who lands in jail in South Africa does not simply disappear inside it in order to serve out a sentence; on the contrary, that is when we all have the duty of ensuring that, as far as possible, such an individual becomes a useful and serviceable citizen once more. As it behaves a civilized country like South Africa, we have an excellent Prisons Service as far as the institutions administered by the Service are concerned. I want to add immediately that, despite all the nasty things—unfounded things—which the hon member for Houghton said here, the Prisons Service and related institutions in South Africa are comparable with the best in any civilized country in the world today. The hon member can talk until she is blue in the face but she will not be able to refute that fact, because it is a fact.

Our Prisons Act—and now I refer particularly to section 2 of the Act—is based on the minimum rules laid down by the United Nations in this regard. We endorse those rules and we are thoroughly fulfilling our responsibilities in that regard. With these rules as the starting-point, then, the basic aims are therefore the protection of society in the short term, while in the long term the prisoner is treated and trained in an effort to return to society a better person than the prison received from it. Seen in this light, the protection of society does not take place at the expense of the offender. He remains a member of society, and I want to emphasize that. We must remember that; someone who is in prison still remains a member of society because he will return to that society. However, he is held in custody and is treated for a prescribed period in an effort to equip him to resume a normal, productive life after his release.

We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that this is the task of the Prisons Service alone; on the contrary, this task must be carried out on a far wider front. In this regard the State, society, the individual, the welfare organizations and the church have a very meaningful role to play. The Prisons Service authorities’ whole concern with the prisoner in the treatment programme is directed at the prisoner’s reintegration into society. Against this background all possible forces—the prisoner himself and forces in society—must be utilized in order to make possible the positive reintegration of the prisoner into society. This implies that the prisoner as well as society, ie the family, colleagues at work, the church and the like must be mobilized for the achievement of this goal. If this is not done, the prisoner often becomes so disillusioned after his release that he feels frustrated and will often revert to crime.

If we were to examine the programmes which the Prisons Service has drawn up precisely with the objective of making possible the prisoner’s reintegration into society, we would need an hour and a half to discuss them in detail. I refer to the social work being done there. Contact is also made with external social workers in an attempt to preserve the prisoner’s family ties. We also think of programmes such as group therapy. In the annual report we are given an indication of the magnitude of this enormous task and also of the work being carried out by the Prisons Service. The hon member for Koedoespoort also referred to the spiritual care of the prisoners. I think the churches can do even more in this regard. The church is naturally a very important factor as far as the prisoner’s reintegration into society is concerned, because the contact which the church made with someone like this in prison must be carried on at the time of the prisoner’s reintegration into society. Society and the parish must also be prepared for such a person’s release.

In passing I am also very pleased to mention the psychological and educational services that are available. There are mainly two groups as far as the latter is concerned, namely primary and secondary education. We still get illiterate people today and the primary education is there to teach such people at least to read and write. The secondary education programme is such that one can study and obtain a degree in any approved course. For want of time I cannot elaborate further on that.

I want to conclude by saying that the SA Prisons Service is doing a tremendous job in regard to the rehabilitation of these unfortunate people and their reintegration into society. I would just like to appeal to everyone today, to the individual, to people in society, and to each one of us, also to play our part in the fields in which we are active in order to make it easier for both society and the prisoner himself to make of the prisoner a useful and serviceable citizen once more.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the outset to convey my cordial thanks to hon members who had much that was good and agreeable to say about the Directorates: Justice and Prisons. The Directorate: Justice has indeed had a very active year and has had to deal with several reports which were supported by the outstanding service of the South African Law Commission. All other units of the judicature falling under the administration of the Department of Justice also played their enormous role in the administration of justice in South Africa. The Directorate: Justice also provided infrastructure in this regard and in spite of a stringent budget and manpower shortage in places, this great law machine of South Africa was in my opinion kept in operation quite satisfactorily. It was done not only satisfactorily, but also efficiently, because hon members have argued that it was, and who am I to differ with hon members of this House in their wisdom?

As far as the Prison Service is concerned I feel it incumbent upon me, after a year in which the staff have had to work under increasing pressure from various quarters, to convey my appreciation to the Commissioner and his top management. In particular I want to say to every member of the Prison Service, too, that we appreciate their loyalty to the Service and to South Africa, whatever their rank, place or position in the Prison Service.

Apart from the economic pressure with the consequences that has entailed, the Service has had to contend with realities such as a growing prison population, difficult working conditions and the constant element of danger. All this has an effect on their ability to provide good service, but it has tempered them, because in this way they have proved that they are able to deal with these difficult situations and have maintained their position with outstanding dedication and loyalty, in South Africa and in regard to the outside world. I venture to say that visitors to South Africa were impressed by the way in which Prison Service staff dealt with those who had been entrusted to their care.

In their endeavour to maintain and improve productivity the majority of members worked long hours at considerable personal inconvenience to themselves and their families. It is conservatively estimated that approximately 13 000 members worked approximately two hours overtime per day without remuneration.

We place a very high premium on our staff. Sport, for example, is seen as an important incentive and that is why we are so proud of our people who do well in the field of sport. In athletics and several other types of sport they have achieved colours and have, indeed, produced some of the finest achievements.

We should like to convey our thanks to Maj-Gen Van Rensburg, who will be retiring at the end of July after a colourful career; to Mrs Van Rensburg, too, for her unique preparedness to render service in the community in which she becomes involved. We wish them a well-earned period of rest.

I hereby associate myself with the hon member Mr Schutte, the hon member for Koedoespoort, the chief spokesman on our side, the hon member for Mossel Bay, the hon member for Kroonstad and any other hon member who participated here. Hon members must not think that the Justice Directorate does not work overtime; on the contrary, when occasional whispers were heard about the amount of extra time that would have to be worked in the Public Service, they were already going to the office at the crack of dawn. We want to convey our appreciation to all these hon members who have made contributions.

I shall begin by replying to hon members on our side of the Committee. The hon member for Mossel Bay, true to form, advanced a standpoint on the release of those who may be a danger to the community. He is correct. One of the main tasks of the Prison Service is, indeed, to look after the people entrusted to its care in such a way that they do not pose a threat to the community. Therefore the Prison Service must take this factor into account in any policy of release, whether unconditionally or on parole. Moreover, they do so because the whole system in this regard has been designed by way of institutional committees and a release board which considers such cases. Every form of release is dealt with with a view to this. Any future proposals in this regard—such as, for example, the interesting proposal of the hon member Mr Schutte in connection with “bursting”—will have to be dealt with in this light.

While I am on this point I want to say that while our norms for over-population and occupation of a prison are strictly in line with international standards—the so-called minimum standards prescribed, for example, by agencies of the UN—the question arises whether our standards are always in accordance with the real circumstances. For example, we strive to have prisoners in the open air as much as possible during the daytime, with ample light and air, and to provide them with sports facilities. Moreover they have the opportunity to get rid of their frustrations through work. Therefore, while our situation is different to that in Europe and in other places where they are inside a prison day in and day out and can indeed build up frustrations, one wonders whether we should not revise our standards.

Indeed, with this in mind a project has been launched to ascertain what the real maximum occupational limit of a cell and of a specific floor surface is, taking into account the amount of air, light, washing, toilet and showering facilities. We shall report on this further in due course.

This, then, brings me to the hon member for Kroonstad, who made a very positive contribution. It is certainly true that we cannot afford expensive programmes, particularly if they do not show good results. Moreover it is also true that the Prison Service has achieved excellent results in this regard. I believe that rejection is part of the penalty for a crime. However an attitude must be instilled in the community that will enable the State to return people to society after release from the prison. Clearly the hon member studied our sources well and it is clear that he is full of confidence that in the South African prison milieu, recidivism, which is at present estimated at approximately 28%, is among the lowest in the world.

I also wish to associate myself with what the hon member for King William’s Town said, viz that we are developing a policy which will amount to our being able to use outside bodies, eg Nicro, the OW and several others—there are approximately 17 such bodies—as a continuation of the rehabilitation programme among the public. However this falls beyond the scope of the activities of the Prison Service. Other departments are involved in this and I have no fault to find if hon members all concentrate on this aspect.

The hon member for Randfontein is not in the House at present. He spoke yesterday about the behaviourally disordered. We are really deeply concerned about this. This matter, too, is at present the subject of a study by the HSRC. It is being investigated by way of internal study by internal working groups. However, the fact remains that we are indeed concerned about this as well. Specific programmes are being followed to prevent the relevant behavioural disorders that really create problems that could exceed our present capacity to deal with them. In his resumé of this matter the hon member for Green Point did say that this phenomenon occurred worldwide. I believe his conclusion is correct.

The hon member for Roodepoort also referred to the overpopulation of prisons. He made a plea in favour of alternative sentences and other solutions. It is true that at present the Prisons Services is following a policy of deconcentration in order to equalize the occupation levels at the various prisons as får as possible. However this approach has its limitations, too. After all, specific service areas must be reserved for men or women. Moreover, the next-of-kin of prisoners must also be consulted in the matter because they must be permitted to visit people in the prisons. All this makes the matter far more difficult to deal with than one would normally assume it to be. However, the fact remains that we are achieving a degree of success with the policy of deconcentration which is aimed at preventing a specific prison from being occupied beyond its capacity.

Hon members are already aware of the Krügel Committee. Before discussing the Krügel Committee further I just want to say that I have received a note in connection with the speech by the hon member for Houghton. I shall come back to her speech in a moment. However, as far as the Krügel Committee is concerned—a committee which is investigating the matter of alternative sentences—it is true that the whole science of sentencing is a living science. I tried to explain yesterday to the hon member for Sandton and I think he understands it now— hat we must not criticize our judicial officers if we think they are wrong. After all, a judicial officer is acquainted with all the relevant facts. He is acquainted with the special circumstances of the particular person, the community and the crime and he takes all those things into account.

However the Krügel Committee has put forward certain proposals. I hope to introduce legislation to Parliament next year to streamline the whole system by making the imposition of alternative sentences—community service, for example—easier to handle. I hope that everything that has been done in this regard in the interim will contribute towards facilitating matters. I am not saying thereby that this is not already the case. After all, we know that several of those entrusted with the imposition of punishment have in the past come up with imaginative sentences. Every now and again we hear about sentences of weekend punishment and other ways of imposing sentences. I have in mind, for example, the man who, some years ago, was responsible for a destructive mountain fire on the slopes of Table Mountain. He was sentenced to perform certain community services. Of course, I support the idea expressed by the hon member for Roodepoort, viz that sentences of this nature should be imposed to an increasing extent. However, we also ask that we be given the opportunity next year to implement this form of sentencing. The hon member also asked me whether work would be done on occupancy ceilings. I can tell him that the Prisons Service is at present giving consideration to the ceiling it is able to maintain. We shall certainly bear in mind the warning given by the hon member for Mossel Bay and will not let violent criminals loose on the public, but will consider this matter with circumspection if the situation should ever crop up.

Finally, I request the support of this House for the new policy approach that we have a classification system which enables us, on the one hand, to accommodate people with a good prognosis in accommodation which does not require the same high degree of security and is not so expensive to construct. Thus system can even be extended to involve the private sector—this links up with the idea put forward by the hon member for King William’s Town. However, this will be far in the future, because the people of the private sector still have to be educated in this regard. Members of the private sector will then have to be prepared to do more to look after people who are released on parole or conditionally. As the hon member for Kroonstad advocated, they must be taken by the hand and incorporated in the community. Recently I read a gratifying report about a person who had been assimilated into a community in the vicinity of White River after having been in prison for 15 to 18 years. I think that the public is becoming educated and is becoming sensitive to its share in the rehabilitation of prisoners. In those circumstances this system can work. Those who do not have a good prognosis can then be detained in the high security buildings which are expensive to build. Then we can have a better balance.

That is my reply to the spokesmen on our side. If there is any hon member whom I have left out, or if there is any point which I have not dealt with I shall come to it. I think the hon members will understand if I now devote some attention to the hon member for Houghton.

†The hon member for Houghton kicked off by developing her own science in respect of statistics. I should like to counsel her that at our age—and I am including myself here—I think we should not be bogged down by vital statistics. I think we are far too advanced in life for that. [Interjections.] The hon member will also forgive me for quoting Andrew Lang to her, who said: “He …”—I should say “she”—”… uses statistics like a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than for illumination.” The fact is that the hon member is challenging the veracity of the figures appearing in the memorandum which I have tabled. She discards those statistics altogether and ventures into a field completely unknown to her. In doing so, as she said, she is supported by only one professor, namely Prof Van Zyl Smit. She argues that, because there are so many thousands of convictions, those people must all be locked up…

I never said that.

That is the gist of her argument. She does not tell us, however, that she also knows that many of these people, who may have been convicted in the morning, may be let out on parole, pay their fines or be released.

Of course.

Very subtly, she challenged the veracity of these figures. I should like to refer her back to last year’s debate. When the hon member challenged last year’s figures, I invited her to visit the Commissioner who would show her certificates issued by officers commanding prisons. As far as I am aware, she did not avail herself of that opportunity, she did not take up that offer. Why not? Is she frightened of the truth? Is she frightened that she will then be in a position that she cannot challenge our figures anymore? Is that the gist of her trouble?

I deplore the fact that in this afternoon’s Evening Post of Port Elizabeth the main report is headed “Shock claim” relating to the overcrowded situation at the prison there. I find it very amusing that that report appeared so swiftly on the streets. [Interjections.]

We, too, deplore the overcrowded situation at prisons. I have explained to hon members that we have a determined policy to deal with it. We do not say that building more prisons is the solution to the problem. That is why we have given an analysis of how the prison population was made up on a certain date. From this analysis it appears that many of these people are there for crimes of violence, for offences of an economic nature and for offences involving drugs, but the hon member does not even refer to those figures. We deplore the fact that the hon member has seen fit not to refer to the trouble taken to give her the correct figures.

*The hon member put questions to me concerning several other matters and I shall reply to them briefly. As far as the activities of gangs are concerned we already have a report in our possession. We are implementing certain steps and we shall get back to that.

As regards the visits of judges and magistrates I might mention, for example, that in the case of Durban Point, Mr Justice Wilson has also paid a visit there. In Natal visits are paid to prisons on a large scale. Judges can go there at any time and they do so. It is unecessary to go further than a regulation. They have free access and I have the full cooperation of judges. Over a period of six months there have been 31 visits by judges. We encourage such visits.

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

No, the hon member may not because I do not have enough time.

*The hon member referred to complaints, and I now request her to reveal the name of that person. He will not be prosecuted, just as the Commissioner has guaranteed that no one else will be prosecuted. Every prison has a complaints book, and there it can be seen how many prisoners have complained. Our records show, for example, that in 1984, 1 087 people complained at Baviaanspoort. In the case of the Central Prison in Pretoria, 3 363 people complained. When a judge or a magistrate goes in there, he may ask what the complaint is about and he may report on it. We receive such reports and if there is anything to be rectified we do so.

The hon member referred to visits by members of Parliament. I repeat my offer that an hon member is free to visit a prison within his constituency. Arrangements must please be made in advance with the Ministry so that an hon member is welcomed and the necessary identification, etc is arranged. The hon member will understand that everyone would like to visit prisons.

Why should she be singled out when we arrange Parliamentary visits? That is a point she has not yet debated. [Interjections.] The hon member for Koedoespoort waxed very eloquent about the Prisons Service. What is wrong with him accompanying the hon member for Houghton? [Interjections.]

When complaints are made, the Prisons’ Service takes action against its own officials. For example, in 1984 there were 1 257 complaints of assaults on prisoners by staff. This was not ignored. Sixty seven of these cases were handed over to the Police, 293 members were charged departmentally, 103 members were cautioned whereas 709 cases were found to be unfounded. There is another point I wish to state. The hon member must stop condoning, through her silence, assaults on members of staff. The hon member must also speak out against that on occasion because hon members of all parties speak out against that in the strongest possible terms.

This brings me to juveniles. A project in this regard is under way.

†We do not approve of infants in jails. We are investigating the matter because we are concerned about it and we shall deal with it.

Children?

Children and infants.

I was talking about children under 18, not infants.

The hon member inquired after the situation pertaining to Mr Mandela and also asked how many people had been released. On 12 May 1982 I announced a policy—the hon member was in the House at the time—in terms of which a person sentenced under security legislation who proved that he had turned his back on crime would be dealt with on a par with other criminals; in other words, he would be entitled to be released. [Interjections.] Sir, in terms of that policy …

Are you addressing the Chair?

How does the hon Chief Whip manage party discipline with the hon member for Houghton in its ranks? He should give me the recipe.

In terms of that policy, 107 people were released. As a result of the offer made by the State President and the conditions laid down by him, nine more people have already been released. However, I am not prepared to give the hon member any clues as to their race or identity, and I will tell her why. We have reason to fear for their safety and that of their families. I am therefore not prepared to give more details than I have just given to hon member. These people are very clever and may by a process of elimination work out who the people are who have been released.

*I wish to conclude. The hon member for Mossel Bay spoke convincingly about the issue of violence. I should like to refer to an interesting facet in this regard. On 2 February 1985 Oliver Tambo advocated armed struggle. On 10 February 1985 Miss Zinzi Mandela made a speech in Soweto to the effect that the State President’s offer was not acceptable. The fact is that Mr Mandela himself only handed his reply to the State President on 13 February. What this amounts to is that before Mr Mandela had any opportunity to announce how he felt about violence, the outside leader of the ANC, Mr Oliver Tambo, and Mr Mandela’s daughter had already announced what his decision had to or was going to be.

I wish to express my sympathy for Mr Mandela today. [Interjections.] He is being orchestrated by other people from outside, and in fact he is worth more to them in the prison than outside. He is becoming the victim of subtle international political manipulation, and care is being taken to ensure that he stays within the prison so that he can continue to propagate violence. However that is not what he has prepared himself for. That is not why he has looked after his health and done exercises every day. That is not what he originally worked towards when he believed that he was acting correctly and in the interests of his people—when he did commit a crime, was charged with sabotage and sentenced to life-long imprisonment! No, that is not what he had in mind. My conclusion is that we have here a sad concatenation of circumstances which in effect means that these outside bodies are manipulating him so that he has to remain in prison and cannot, therefore, accept the State President’s offer of release on condition that he foreswears violence.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 25—”Audit”, agreed to.

Vote No 13—”Administration: House of Assembly”:

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to establish which hon Minister I must address in respect of this matter, because when we debated Vote No 13 as an own affair in the House of Assembly, the hon the Minister of the Budget took charge of it. In the light of the fact that he is not here, I should just like to know whether this Vote still falls under him. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether the hon the Minister of the Budget would also take charge of this Vote in the other Houses of Parliament should it be debated there.

The Minister of the Budget?

Yes, the hon Minister Louw who was to have taken charge here of this Vote which I now want to discuss in Committee.

I would have taken charge of it there.

I see. So the hon the Minister of Finance would have taken charge if it there.

It is interesting that we are now debating this Vote for the second time here in the House of Assembly. In the debate on own affairs the NP said the CP were belittling the Whites’ budget for own affairs. [Interjections.] There we again have that chorus of voices confirming that. We have the proof here today that in practice the NP has not merely limited the own affairs of the Whites—their right of self-determination—but has totally destroyed it.

But you have already said that twenty times!

Sir, if I repeat it a further 20 times that hon member will still not understand it. [Interjections.]

The self-determination of the Whites is reflected in Vote No 13 of the general budget, which is now before the House of Assembly. In this case the House of Assembly does not act as a House that is the instrument of White self-determination; in this case it acts as a part of a multiracial tricameral parliament which is obliged to agree to Vote No 13. The Coloured and Indian Houses of Parliament have the same say as the House of Assembly in respect of Vote No 13. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what would happen to Vote No 13—Administration: House of Assembly—if the Coloured and Indian Houses rejected this Vote. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not now tell me that the Coloureds and Indians have already given this Vote their approval. The Coloureds and Indians could in the future decide to reject this Vote. With the scrapping of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act the UDF could have itself registered as a political party and gain control in the Coloured and Indian Houses. They could then possibly refuse to approve the Vote of the House of Assembly. The concessions the NP has made to Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi could come to an end. Those concessions can come to an end. They can come to an end while the demands of the Coloureds and Indians still remain. Their Houses could, in such an event, refuse to approve this appropriation. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what would happen if those two Houses rejected this Vote. The hon the Minister can then tell me that the Vote will be referred to the President’s Council for its approval. In that case, however, it will still be a multiracial President’s Council that will have to take a final decision about the funds available to the Whites. [Interjections.]

I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister today: How dare the NP speak of White self-determination if the funds required for White self-determination have to be obtained with the approval of the Coloureds and Indians? [Interjections.]

Strangely enough the House of Assembly has already agreed to the Second Reading, the Committee Stage on the Third Reading of the Budget for own affairs and that has been disposed of. As an instrument for own affairs, the House of Assembly has already apportioned the funds appropriated in Vote 13. Today the House of Assembly has to tell itself that it can get the funds it has already apportioned. Today the House of Assembly tells itself that it as an institution and the people in it have no right of self-determination.

I therefore want to say to that hon Minister that what we are now doing here provides the clearest and most practical evidence that the NP has surrendered the right of self-determination of the Whites to the decisions of a multiracial tricameral Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I should like it placed on record that my colleague the hon Minister of the Budget could unfortunately not be here today. He asked me to respond on his behalf if required. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the speech the hon member for Kuruman has just made is an irrelevant speech because the hon member does not understand the Constitution. [Interjections.] In terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution the largest part of this amount represents a statutory appropriation which cannot be rejected by the other two Houses.

Like his colleagues in his party, this hon member is, however, so blinded by his aversion to the new dispensation that even the simplest facts escape him. What we had from the hon member for Kuruman was a total lack of understanding of the present Parliamentary procedures.

That is not true.

Of course it is. Section 84(a) makes provision for an appropriation in accordance with a certain formula. That is a statutory appropriation and that cannot be rejected.

We are talking about Vote No 13. [Interjections.]

Money for the Administration: House of Assembly is voted in terms of section 84(a). That is a statutory appropriation that cannot be rejected. Section 84(a) appropriates an amount of R1 925 million for us. Section 84(b) appropriates an amount of R211 million for us—that amount is appropriated for a specific purpose—and section 84(c) appropriates R27 million which can be applied at will.

That is how the new Constitutional dispensation is initiated. It is clear, therefore, that the hon member’s argument that, if this happened, that would happen, and that if that happened, something else would happen, is irrelevant. It is the same old story all over again; the hon member is simply using this opportunity once again to get his clichés taken up in Hansard. [Interjections.] It is really not worthwhile reacting to that. I recommend that the hon member get hold of someone who understands these things and can explain them to him so that next time he will understand them better.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 27—”Administration: House of Representatives”, and Vote No 28—”Administration: House of Delegates”, agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Votes Nos 4, 5,12,13,14,17,18, 21, 26, 27 and 28.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to the Schedule printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. To substitute the amounts indicated below for the corresponding amounts in Columns 1 and 2 of the Schedule and to insert the following new Column 2 items under Votes 13, 18, 27 and 28:

Schedule

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The object of the motion is to give the House the opportunity to consider in Committee an amendment to the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Bill appearing in my name on page 366 of the Order Paper. That amendment concerns the validation of marriages, a matter which is already dealt with to some extent in the Amendment Bill. In other words, the Amendment Bill proposes that marriages which were in the past invalid as a result of the existence of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act can in the future be declared valid.

As a result of representations made to us—and perhaps also to other parties and the Ministry itself—from church and also other circles, consideration has been given, certainly by us on this side, to the possibility of an amendment the effect of which will be that in the future such marriages will automatically be considered valid rather than that, as is presently the case in terms of the Bill, the parties to such a marriage must apply for such validation. Having given the matter some thought and discussed it, we came to the conclusion that it would be wiser to proceed with the Amendment Bill as presently worded in respect of this matter, since there may be instances where people, having married years ago in spite of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, subsequently separated. Because these people knew that their marriages were not valid, they would not have taken the trouble to get divorced. It would in any event not have been possible legally. Some of them may also have remarried. By introducing such an amendment, we would therefore be creating legal uncertainty.

Another problem brought to our attention is that the possibility exists that the wording of the enabling provision, in terms of which the Director General: Home Affairs would declare such marriages valid, may be too restrictive at this stage; that is to say, as it is contained at present in the Amendment Bill. People with whom we discussed the matter have given us different interpretations of this provision. According to one of these interpretations, the possibility exists, inter alia, that the wording is so restrictive that only marriages contracted abroad can be declared valid in terms of the present Amendment Bill. I know that the legal representatives of the department do not agree with that interpretation, but one does, after all, sometimes get different legal interpretations.

Another possibility is that marriages which were contracted but which are considered to fall under Section 11(3) of the Marriage Act, can now be considered valid marriages; that is to say, cases where the marriage ceremony was solemnized by a marriage officer belonging to some religious denomination but the parties to the marriage did not intend contracting a valid marriage because that was not possible as a result of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Here we are of course faced with very difficult legal questions, because the question can be posed: How can one intend contracting a valid marriage while one knows that, as a result of the existence of this prohibition, it cannot be valid? As a result of the fact that different interpretations do exist—at least according to our information—I have placed the amendment on the Order Paper as it appears on page 366.

I have been given the assurance by the Department of Home Affairs that in their view what I have in mind is indeed already contained in the Amendment Bill as presently worded. At this stage we are still in disagreement about that. However, I want to put it very clearly: In all honesty I believe that the whole House is in agreement that as many as possible of these people whose marriages were invalid in the past as a result of that prohibition should be accommodated so that their marriages can be declared valid in the future; and that we would not like the situation to arise that, in consequence of some legal point or legal uncertainty, these marriages cannot be declared valid.

Although I have been told by officials of the department that the Government is not inclined to accept the amendment in my name on the Order Paper, I should like the following assurance from the hon the Deputy Minister who will be responding to my motion: That, if in the coming months difficulties are experienced with such applications, the Government will introduce further amending legislation. There may be cases where applications are made to the Government to validate marriages that were previously contracted in spite of the prohibition and those applications are turned down as a result of a restrictive interpretation of the Bill as presently worded.

I should like to request an assurance from the hon the Deputy Minister that at least at that stage serious consideration will be given to introducing amending legislation in this House so that we can deal with the matter. I request that because I believe that we all hope that as many as possible of these marriages can be declared valid in terms of this Amendment Bill and will not be considered as falling under section 11(3) of the Marriage Act—which indeed makes provision for invalid marriages in terms of the normal legal system—because in that event, according to our interpretation of the legislation, such marriages cannot be declared valid in terms of the Bill as presently worded.

Mr Chairman, the standpoint in principle of the CP about this matter is very clear. As far as we are concerned, we are left unmoved by the things the hon member for Green point mentioned, as we will also be by the reaction to that from the side of the Government. Inevitably the Government has to date not given us a clear indication of what the consequences will be of their scrapping this Act. We will therefore also be interested to hear what the hon the Deputy Minister has to say about this matter when he replies to the hon member for Green Point. All I want to say is that, as far as the CP are concerned, we will do absolutely nothing that will prejudice the standpoint we have adopted in principle.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start off by reacting to the speech of the hon member for Rissik. His party has in the past already indicated clearly its objection in principle to this Bill. We have already discussed and debated that. We therefore know what their standpoint is. Naturally, this is not the right opportunity for us to discuss again the whole principle involved in the scrapping of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. We understand their standpoint and have appreciation for what they said. However, that is their standpoint—we have a different standpoint, and we are pleased to proceed with the scrapping of the relevant legislation.

The motion by the hon member for Green Point that the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Bill be considered in Committee of the Whole House is one we on this side of the House unfortunately cannot accept. We indeed listened to the hon member’s motivation of his motion, and paid close attention to what he hopes to achieve by introducing it. However, I should also just like to tell the hon member that we investigated thoroughly the possibilities he mentioned here today.

We must also bear in mind that the amendment on the Order Paper related to the motion of the hon member for Green Point has already been considered very carefully by various parties, including members of the department and also our legal advisors. The hon member will notice that clause 7 of the Bill provides that a marriage that would have been valid were it not for the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, can be legalized by the Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs. I think the hon member will concede that.

What it amounts to is that the marriages that can be legalized must meet the minimum requirement laid down for a valid marriage. There are a number of requirements, but the following four are perhaps the most important ones. In the first place there must be a marriage ceremony. Secondly, the marriage officer must be authorized to solemnize the marriage. Thirdly, the couple may not fall within the forbidden area of relatedness. Fourthly, the parents of minors must consent to the solemnization of the marriage, and so forth. The requirements are set out clearly in the relevant legislation.

In other words, the hon member’s amendment states exactly what is already proposed in clause 7 of the Bill. Hon members on this side of the House are therefore of the opinion that it is not necessary for the Bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole House. This side of the House therefore opposes the hon member’s motion. In the light of the hon member’s request, however, I should like to give him and other hon members the assurance that applications for the validation of marriages will be very sympathetically considered. The hon member also asked whether we would reconsider the provisions of the legislation if, in time, through circumstances it became apparent that there were aspects we had not foreseen. I can give him the assurance that that will be done. On those grounds we will leave it at that for the present, but I want to thank the hon member for putting his motion so that the matter could be clarified. I can assure him that the Government will certainly keep an eye on the situation and if it becomes apparent that these marriages cannot be affirmed in practice as intended, we will come back to the House with the necessary amendments.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the assurance the hon the Deputy Minister has given me, I should like to withdraw my motion with the leave of the House.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill makes provision for the construction of a guaranteed single line of railway between a place on the Crown-New Canada section and the new showgrounds and future sports complex at Crown Mines.

Full particulars of the proposed scheme are furnished in the report of the South African Transport Services Board, which has already been tabled.

An urgent need for a national sports and recreational center on the Rand has existed for a long time, and on 5 December 1978 an interdepartmental committee was appointed to identify a suitable site for the construction of such a center. After thorough investigation a site at Crown Mines, situated near to the well-known drive-in restaurant, Uncle Charlie’s, and conveniently close to Soweto and Johannesburg, was decided upon. The available land is approximately 270 hectares in extent and is adequate for the future development of amenities, which include parking.

The Witwatersrand Agricultural Society leased Milner Park from the City Council of Johannesburg for the annual Rand Easter Show and for various exhibitions during the course of the year, but since the University of the Witwatersrand requires Milner Park for the expansion of its amenities, it was decided to re-establish the Agricultural Society at the Crown Mines site.

The National Football League is of the opinion that soccer should have its own stadium, and the provision of adequate amenities at the Crown Mines site is considered to be an important and positive step in this direction. A railway connection to serve the new sports, recreational and exhibiting center at Crown Mines, which has already been partially completed and has been utilized, is considered by interested parties to be indispensable for the conveyance of equipment, livestock and visitors to the grounds. Additionally the best way of conveying the large numbers of spectators who will attend sports meetings at the site will also be by rail.

The Cabinet resolved that the SATS should deal with the construction of a railway line to the site as a priority project.

Since the interested parties are not at this stage able to furnish particulars of the expected volume of traffic, it is impossible to determine the operating results of the proposed railway fine. However, the line is expected to be uneconomic.

The estimated total costs of constructing and equipping the proposed new electrified single line which will branch off from the Crown-New Canada section to a new station at Crown Mines, will amount to approximately R20,8 million. [Interjections.] The proposed railway line will be approximately 3,6 kilometers long and it will take approximately three years to build.

†The SA Transport Services Board conducted an inspection of the route of the proposed railway line and found that it would be possible to construct a single line of railway between a point on the Crown-New Canada section of line and a new station to be built at Crown Mines. It is expected that the revenue derived from the operation of the line would be insufficient to meet the exploitation and capital costs thereof, and the board cannot, on purely economic grounds, recommend that the proposed railway fine be constructed. Should Parliament nevertheless decide that the line should be constructed, the SATS will have to be indemnified against losses—including expenditure in respect of capital costs—in terms of section 10(3) of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981 (Act 65 of 1981). Any such losses will have to be made good annually to the SATS from the State Revenue Fund.

Although the proposed railway fine has no economic advantage for the SATS, it must be seen as a serious effort to give effect to the Government’s endeavour to promote healthy relations between the different population groups.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs has been given an opportunity of hearing evidence as to the desirability or otherwise of constructing such a line of railway at this stage;
2. (2) the Minister of Finance has undertaken a full investigation of the financial implications, including the extent of subsidization, of constructing such a line of railway; and
3. (3) the Minister of Finance has laid a report on such an investigation before the Standing Committee on Finance with his recommendation that such expenditure is warranted and in the public interest.”.

Mr Chairman, the whole purpose of Parliament as an institution is to debate matters put before it in such detail as is required so that responsible decisions can be taken. This does not apply only to the debates that take place in this Chamber but to all debates in whatever committee Parliament by its rules and convention seeks to call into being. When this Bill was brought before the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs, the only documents that were given to that committee were the Bill itself and a report of the SATS Board relative to the construction of a new line of railway between a point on the Crown-New Canada Section and Crown Mines.

After perusing the motivation which the members of the board had given for this, we became aware that much of that information was out of date and that certain events in the sporting world had completely overtaken the situation as had been previously set down by the SATS Board.

On Tuesday, 28 May, I met the chairman of the standing committee in the Lobby and he told me that he intended calling the meeting of the standing committee on Wednesday, 5 June—that is this morning. I contacted certain people and asked them to prepare evidence for my use; that evidence to be addressed to the chairman of the standing committee. I added that we should have such information not later than Tuesday, 4 June, so that I could hand it over personally to the chairman on Wednesday, 5 June. Late on Wednesday, 29 May, however, I found a notice on my table in my office informing me that the meeting was to be held on Thursday, 30 May at 09h00.

Van Breda’s bulldozing! [Interjections.]

It was at that meeting that the chairman informed members of the standing committee that, at the request of the Chief Whip of Parliament, he had been asked to expedite the passage of the Bill through the standing committee so that it could be placed on the Order Paper for Second Reading in Joint Sitting of the three Houses on Monday, 3 June. [Interjections.]

Rotten system!

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central moved a resolution that evidence be called for and that the voting be postponed until Wednesday, 5 June, so that fuller evidence could be placed before the standing committee. I happen to have the minutes of the meeting of the standing committee in front of me now. I can quote from them everything that happened at that meeting. That will make the position quite clear in relation to how steamrollering of legislation can take place. That is one of the weaknesses of our present system, which is a completely different system from the one we had before, in which matters could be discussed at Second Reading, in Committee of the whole House and at Third Reading.

The first thing that was decided at the standing committee meeting was that the committee go over to the consideration of this particular Bill. The hon member for Durban Point moved, and I quote:

As a result of that motion the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central moved, and I quote:

We maintained that we should allow interested parties to submit representations. The matter was put to the vote, two Houses voting in favour of proceeding with the legislation without calling for representations, and one House voting against. The Bill was then considered and both the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and I voted against this legislation.

I believe it is necessary therefore that we should now consider the details of this Bill and the question of why it is said to be required. One of the things that happened at that standing committee meeting—and I hope the hon the Minister is listening to me now because this affects the SATS—was that the representatives of the SATS were questioned about how much information they had available, to which they replied that the information they could give us was in fact very limited.

They could give us virtually no information in addition to that already contained in the report of the SATS Board. We asked them whether they had approached people to establish what the proposed railway line was intended to carry. They said they had not been able to find people who could give them the correct information. They had difficulty in obtaining any information whatsoever other than that contained in this report. When we asked them what the interest and the subsidy would amount to they informed us that the interest would amount to at least R2,5 million a year, and that the operating expenditure would only come into effect once the line had been put into use. They could give no information whatsoever on how much the subsidy would amount to which would have to be paid out of the State Revenue Fund to the SATS for the losses that would be sustained by the fine, not even on an annual basis. One of them said that as far as they were concerned they did not think that the line would ever operate at a profit at all. So, the whole question of subsidies then came in. Despite the misgivings and protestations of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and myself, this was steamrollered through and passed by the standing committee and is now before the House.

I think it is absolutely necessary that we should consider the history behind the requirement that this railway line be constructed. The Black population of South Africa regard soccer as their national sport. Many years ago soccer was principally an amateur game, but this changed with the introduction of a multiracial National Professional Soccer League, and competition between teams in the league on a Republic wide basis came into being. In the midseventies problems arose about the behaviour of crowds attending soccer matches, for instance at the Wembley Stadium in the center of Johannesburg. That stadium was owned by the Johannesburg Municipality and is situated in a White residential area. Transport facilities were poor, consisting only of buses. This was the only big stadium that was available in Johannesburg at that particular time. It is not uncommon for crowd behaviour at soccer matches to be bad as witnessed present, and on one or two occasions there was an uproar, as a result of which the Johannesburg City Council decided to close the stadium to soccer altogether. As a result of the City Council of Johannesburg refusing to allow that stadium to be used by the NPSL, the Caledonian Sports-ground in Pretoria was simultaneously closed to soccer by the Pretoria City Council. The only major stadium which was still available at that time was the Orlando Stadium in Soweto which seated about 30 000 people and was far too small for big-league soccer.

It was as a result of this that in 1978 the Department of Public Works had to purchase a large area of ground in the vicinity of Crown Mines with two purposes in view—not only for a soccer stadium. The first purpose was to provide ground for relocating the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society Showgrounds so that the University of Witwatersrand could expand onto their old site because they were in dire need of additional ground and this was the only ground available adjoining the university. The second purpose was to provide ground for a soccer stadium, especially for the Black population, in an area adjacent to Soweto.

It is very interesting to read the replies given by the Minister in charge of sport from time to time to questions put in the House in connection with that particular stadium. I refer to questions by the hon member for Sandton on various occasions. On 2 March 1983, for instance, in reply to a question, the hon the Minister of National Education said (Questions, Vol 110, col 403):

He went on to say:

Note this:

So, the idea was that this was going to be run by private enterprise and not by the Government, although the Government might provide bridging finance.

I read further:

In addition to that one must realize that the Department of Public Works comes into the matter because it is that department that has to provide the infrastructure. I quote further:

In those days the Department of Community Development was responsible for public works.

In 1984 the hon the Minister of National Education said that a master plan had been drawn up for a national sports, recreation and exhibition center and that a steering committee had been approved of by the Cabinet. He said that committee was in the process of converting itself into a non-profit-making company. This is now known as Nasrec.

Now comes the important point, and I quote:

That is where history has now overtaken this because, as I shall explain later, there has been a complete split in the National Soccer League.

Order! This Bill pertains to the construction of a railway line between Crown Mines and New Canada. Will the hon please indicate how what he is saying now is relevant to the Bill?

Sir, if you look at the relevant report of the SATS Board, you will see that the whole question of the motivation for the construction of this railway line is based upon two things. The one is the erection of the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society’s new showgrounds and the other one is this new sports complex because, without the sports complex, there is no viability.

The hon member has now put what he wants to say in a nutshell. He may continue.

What has happened to soccer in the interim? The Ellis Park Stadium was constructed in the first instance especially for rugby. At first the then president Mr Jannie le Roux would not allow soccer to be played at Ellis Park. When his stadium ran into financial difficulties he was compelled to start negotiating with the NPSL for soccer to be played at Ellis Park. Last year the Transvaal Rugby Union were forced to relinquish control over Ellis Park for financial reasons, and the bondholders Volkskas Bank had to take over the administration of Ellis Park.

Only soccer could save the ground and only soccer will allow the national stadium to be erected. Rugby is only seen at Ellis Park in provincial and test matches. The rest of the season it is used for soccer. For cup finals and big fixtures it is not unusual for the ground to be filled to capacity when it holds over 80 000 spectators, the majority being Black. In the 1984-85 financial year Volkskas made a profit—hon members will be surprised—of R750 000, mainly out of multiracial professional soccer.

I attended a number of matches and I found the behaviour of the crowd excellent. The facilities which they enjoy are very, very good. I want to advise the hon the Minister that he will save a lot of money if he improves the facilities at the Ellis Park railway station, particularly since the All Blacks are coming to play at Ellis Park and there is not enough room for the people to get on to that station. [Interjections.]

In addition, Ellis Park is now the home ground of Kaiser Chiefs which probably has the largest number of supporters of any club in South Africa. This change has lessened the demand for the new stadium.

The new stadium steering committee is called Nasrec and its staff consists of a manager and a secretary, so there is really no organization. I would like the hon the Minister of Public Works to listen now. The steering committee consists of Prof Charles Skeen, the president of the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society Mr Louw, the past president Mr Nicholson, a representative of Rand Mines Properties, a representative of the Department of Sport, a representative of the Department of Finance, and Mr Colyn and Mr Ras of the Department of Public Works. They are trying to raise money by what is called the Blackfin Plan, which is a Black financial group …

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The whole motivation for the railway line contemplated in the Bill is that it is going to be used to transport people to a soccer stadium and a showground. If those things do not come about the expenditure of R20 million of the public’s money is going to be wasted. The hon member is pointing out that as far as the soccer stadium is concerned, there is an area of doubt as to when it will be constructed, or even if it will be constructed. That is very relevant to the building of this railway line. I therefore think that the whole soccer story is totally relevant.

Order! I accept what the hon member says, but I must point out that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has not said that. The hon member is quite welcome to pursue a line of argument as long as it has a direct bearing on the Bill. The hon member for Bezuidenhout may continue.

Mr Chairman, the memorandum on the objects of the Bill says “to provide for the construction of a railway line to the sport, recreation and exhibit site at Crown Mines”.

It is impossible at this stage to prove the viability of the stadium for without soccer it cannot be viable. There is a need for more soccer grounds, but the question is whether this one is viable at present. The hon the Minister of Public Works should listen now. The Department of Public Works which will have to provide the infrastructure for the stadium which must be run by private enterprise, has adopted the following policy, and the steering committee has been informed accordingly:

What is going on? One department does not know what the other is doing. The hon member for De Kuilen does not want to hear evidence at all. He does not want to be told that another department does not want it to be constructed.

That is not true.

He can go and ask the hon the Minister of Public Works if this is his department’s policy.

At this juncture, I believe it is not the function of this Parliament to become involved in the politics of Black soccer. There is a complete split between the NPSL on the one hand and the NSL on the other. It is, therefore, not our function to involve ourselves in it. Until their differences have been resolved, no stadium will be built neither will the necessary funds be made available by financial institutions.

I would like to deal now with the requirements of the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society. According to information I obtained from the manager, the major show is the annual agricultural show of three weeks’ duration. Other minor exhibitions are also held. When I asked how many passengers would use the fine, he told me that they would merely like a service from Johannesburg to Crown Mines. When I asked about cattle, he said that they get 3 000 per annum in of which 25% come by rail, so that the railway line would be used for only 800 head of cattle. He said that of the 600 pigs entered, 300 came by rail, while as far as sheep are concerned, they were all conveyed by the farmers themselves. Langlaagte station was used and is quite suitable for the purpose of offloading these animals. [Interjections.]

It is not my task to gather all the information to be decided upon by the standing committee. That is the job of the standing committee. However, under the prevailing stringent financial circumstances, is it correct to build a railway line for R21 million and then have to meet an annual subsidy of R4 million to R5 million? To me this does not seem justified. It is the duty of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs to have investigated this matter fully. [Interjections.] Is the hon the Minister of Finance prepared to subsidize that? The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has not indicated whether the hon the Minister of Finance is prepared to subsidize it; ’perhaps he is going to refuse to do so. The time to reconsider the whole matter is surely when the stadium is built.

Coming back to the amendment, I believe that although one has standing committees on transport, when money is involved it should also be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance. That is why we have included paragraph (3) in our amendment— so that the question of whether the subsidy should be paid should be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Bezuidenhout gave us a long narrative. He and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central are obviously of the opinion—and have acquired the habit of doing so—that they have to inform this House on every little thing that happens in the standing committees. The hon member for Bezuidenhout has really become an old woman who belongs in a boarding-house. The hon member is quite correct in saying that I told him we were initially to have had the meeting this morning. The hon gentleman forgets, however—and I told him this—that the arrangement was changed upon the request of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. Nevertheless, it is my right, as Chairman of the Standing Committee, to decide when that meeting should be held. When the hon the Chief Whip presents me with an argument as to why he would like to have the legislation before the House it is left to me to decide whether we shall have the meeting on a specific date. It is for me to decide on this.

On that day, when I met the hon member for Bezuidenhout outside, he was already running around with these two reports, however. He was on his way to telephone people, for he wanted to undertake to convince the standing committee, that apart from this report, we should also have witnesses appear before us. The hon member knows what my ruling was, but he and his hon colleagues questioned that ruling. They also consulted the hon the Chief Whip of their party about it, and they know that they returned empty-handed, for it was for that standing committee to decide whether it wanted to call witnesses above and beyond the evidence it had before it already.

The hon members for Bezuidenhout and Port Elizabeth Central are not democrats. They are in the minority, but wanted to shunt the majority in that standing committee around. The tails wanted to wag the dog! When they could not manage this, however, the hon member for Bezuidenhout and his hon colleague, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, were dissatisfied about the standing committee’s method of work. I want to tell the hon member for Bezuidenhout that that decision taken by the standing committee was taken within the right of the standing committee, and in my opinion was done properly, while the standing committee had all the facts at its disposal.

In his amendment the hon member for Bezuidenhout has told us we should have had additional evidence. The hon member was here today, however, and we listened to the new evidence he introduced. I have never heard such flimsy evidence. It is the evidence gathered by the hon member since the meeting of the standing committee. The hon member has not told us anything we do not know and which was not mentioned in the standing committee.

That is not true and you know it! [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said: “It is not true and you know it”. May the hon member say that?

Order! I did not hear that. Did the hon member say so?

Yes, Sir, I did.

The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The hon member may continue.

The argument I want to advance is that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has not brought additional information to this House today which could influence us not to pass this legislation and to vote for it in its present form. That is my point. [Interjections.] That hon member did not bring us even one piece of additional evidence.

Did you know what the Department of Public Works had said?

I know what was decide in 1982. The hon member will not convince me that the area at Crown Mines where the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society is, and where a large complex has been set aside for sport and recreation—it is not only for a soccer stadium—is not essential for good relations between the various groups in South Africa, and neither is it essential for the sport and recreation of those people the hon member’s party is always fighting for so readily. I am talking about the Blacks of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.]

What is the position? [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition never makes a speech of any meaning in this House, but it seems to me that now and again he uses his position as Chief Whip to make irrevelant interjections. [Interjections.] He need not show us that he does not have good parliamentary manners, for we know that.

Sport and recreation is a very important facet of man’s life. It is merely a pity that often there are not more participators than spectators. The spectators cause more problems than the participators. There are many examples of this all over the world of which the most gruesome example was the recent one in Brussels. Dozens of people died and hundreds were injured.

It is essential therefore for sportgrounds to be laid out in such a way that spectators can enjoy themselves in an orderly fashion. [Interjections.] Should problems ever arise, it should be possible to restore order quickly. Sportsgrounds should preferably not be situated in densely populated, built-up areas.

The area at Crown Mines is ideal for a sport and recreation complex of this kind. It can serve thousands of Blacks. This was only decided upon after a thorough investigation which, as we know, was in the pipeline for longer than four years.

It cannot be argued that the new showground is not essential. It is imperative, therefore, that this railway line be built now and there are sufficient reasons for this. It is not the SA Transport Services which will be responsible for this. They will be remunerated properly with money from the State Treasury.

Mr Chairman, I listened to both members’ arguments. One thing that struck me, naturally, is the financial implications of the building of this railway line. We must keep in mind that we are experiencing a serious economic problem in the country at present. That “grasboesman” can point his little finger as much as he likes, he must merely keep quiet when I am speaking. [Interjections.]

Order! What does the hon member mean with the words “grasboesman”?

Sir, I merely said the “grasboesman” must keep quiet; I do not know which of those hon members thinks he is a “grasboesman”. [Interjections.] I withdraw it, Sir.

The decision was taken in 1978 and the land for the soccer stadium was obtained at R13 million. With retrospective effect from today it is R3,5 million per year and if one calculates it from the other end, it amounts to somewhat more than R10 million in the first two to three years. In other words, it amounts to R23 million for that stadium where there is nothing at all as yet. [Interjections.] There is nothing yet. It is utter incompetence and ill-considered politics to waste money in this way at this time.

I have nothing against the Railways. Hon members must understand that they were instructed to build this railway line and they are merely acting as an agency. The only point I want to make, is that once that sports ground is there, there will have to be transport facilities. I ask myself, however, whether the cost being incurred at present is justified. Can even the interest, which will amount to R1,6 million, be justified?

R4,5 million.

I am only saying what this first report says. Let us say R2,5 million. The mere cost of the land has built up to R25 million. I am asking when the stadium is to be built.

It is being said that the Railways will not pay for it, but that it will be paid for from tax. Do we not have enough problems today in taking care of the pensioners, the schoolchildren and the people who are suffering? Can we tell them they have to pay tax for a stadium when we do not even know when it is to be built?

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon the Chief Whip must rather keep quiet. He must rather try to ensure that his committees do their work in time. The point I want to make, is that one department says the stadium will not be built before that soccer club gets its house into order and reaches the stage where they can make proposals etcetera. I do not blame the hon the Minister. He is correct. On the other hand someone is asking the Railways to build the railway line at a cost of R20 million. At 25% it is R3,5 million per year on that money which is going to lie idle and upon which the return is not even R500 000 per year, calculated according to the number of people who will go there. An income cannot be derived from that. The cost of the land will not be recovered within 20 years. I am not angry with the hon the Minister. They are carrying out an instruction and like a good businessman he is merely ensuring that the Railways is not burdened with it. The country is being burdened with it, however. We cannot afford it. I am not against that railway line’s being built. I also think, taking the ordinary building costs on that site into account—and I know that site—that the building costs of that railway line are not too high. I think the timing is wrong, however. We cannot afford it if it is not utilized.

Do you want the Black soccer players to play soccer at Wembley? [Interjections.]

You see, Mr Chairman, there is a time when there is provocation, but one takes no notice of it. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, as he is the only one in the Cabinet who understands what these things involve, whether he does not want to give the other hon members a bit of guidance. They are on the wrong track. For example, they only want to build structures for which they do not have money. The hon the Minister knows just as well as I do that the interest on this is going to amount to more than R2 million within this three-year period, and that when it is capitalized it will rise to between R3 million and R4 million towards the fifth and sixth years. In addition it will generate no income. I am merely asking: Can the Government afford it? [Interjections.] I am asking this in all honesty and in all seriousness.

I do not think the instructions given to the SATS to investigate this matter and then to build the railway line, should be carried out at this stage—at least not before the soccer stadium and the other sports grounds have been developed there!

As hon members know, the agricultural show is held there for two to three weeks and people from all over visit that site. I know Soweto lies on the border of that area. It is a good site. I have nothing against the site, but the Whites normally go there from the city either by bus or by car.

That railway line will be needed urgently once the soccer stadium and other sports grounds have been completed. That is why I support the idea of that railway line. I have nothing against the construction of the railway line as such. I am against that railway line’s being constructed a whole seven years—at least, that is how it seems to me—before the sports complex is to be completed, however.

I therefore want to say once again: The land cost R13 million. Here is something I want to say to the hon member for Turffontein. He and I are quite good friends. [Interjections.] I merely want to tell him that the land was bought—I am a man who looks at land every now and again—at a price of R45 000 per ha—this price for farmland!

Barnie, did they buy the land from you?

No, they were there before me. [Interjections.] Hon members must think about it: Farmland at a price of R45 000 per ha. That price is a little high, is it not, even for the Crown Mines area, which is taken up almost completely by mining. As hon members know, when one constructs a road, its basic cost is already as much as R6 million per kilometer. After all, I know what I am talking about. In my opinion these expenses have not all been considered fully.

Therefore I merely want to ask the hon the Minister to take cognisance of the fact that he has a duty in the Cabinet other than that of being the Minister of Transport Affairs. I know there are people who do not listen and only talk, but the hon the Minister should speak to those people urgently and try to determine whether or not the construction of that railway line can be postponed. I ask this although I know the legislation under discussion will be passed. We are not going to vote against it. That railway line ought to be constructed in due course. Therefore we do not want to stop things now and then say in three years’ time: “Look, you must build it now.” We believe the Government should get permission to build it, but we merely ask for that expense not to be incurred at present.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout is not here and neither is the hon …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to ask you whether we have a quorum in the House.

Will the Secretary please determine whether there is a quorum in the House?

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorom, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Order! The hon member for Primrose may proceed.

Mr Chairman, because the hon members for Bezuidenhout and Langlaagte are not present, I shall not react to their remarks in this debate.

All I want to say is that this Act serves a certain purpose. I should like to ask the hon the Minister in the initial stage whether he is considering building this railway construction immediately. I do not think the hon the Minister has any plans to build this construction immediately but rather when the opportunity presents itself. There was quite a bit of criticism from the Opposition on the City Council of Johannesburg which is controlled mainly by the PFP. They always said that if the agricultural society was moved out of the city … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Swellendam has broken the line. [Interjections.]

After the excitement of the dinner and the interjections, etc. I shall proceed.

The Official Opposition’s partners in the City Council of Johannesburg were opposed to its being moved outside the city, for there was not sufficient infrastructure there. Now we want to create infrastructure there and now these people are opposed to it again. What does the Official Opposition want now? I should like to take the Official Opposition back into the past a few months to the time when the show was on and there was chaos when 130 000 people attended it. Those 130 000 people were only on the showground on a specific Saturday and that was even before there was any idea of hastily building a sports ground which people could reach from the showground where they look at the exhibitions. The 130 000 people resulted in more than 17 000 vehicles, and traffic jams which stretched to between 13 and 16 km in distance. Things cannot carry on in this way. That is why I support the legislation so that in principle we can grant approval to the building of that railway construction. That railway line serves two purposes. Some or other show will be on throughout the year, which is why the showground was moved out of the city. We cannot continue to accommodate 17 000 vehicles on approximately 52 ha land which has been set aside for parking.

The hon member for Langlaagte had a long argument about the price of the land. The price of the land is such that I am convinced we should try to get people there in an alternative way so that we can use this expensive land, as the hon member for Langlaagte said, for the purpose it was bought for, and not as parking.

If we strive towards that objective, it is definitely important that in the first place we shall build a railway line which can be integrated with a bus service—I should like to request the Minister to investigate that—so that spectators can make use of two kinds of mass transport systems. It is possible that the sports ground and the showground are used simultaneously and then we shall not be speaking of only 130 000 people, but of a quarter million.

I do not want to go into further detail on the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s argument to save Ellis Park. I am grateful that he wants to save Ellis Park, for he and the hon the Minister and I all bank at Volkskas and I am pleased that he is taking care of our interests. Matches of a conflicting nature are played at Ellis Park, however, viz rugby and soccer matches. When rugby and soccer have to be played on the same day, we have a problem, because where do we go to with the soccer? I cannot understand why hon members are opposed to having a soccer stadium built additionally.

In conclusion I want to ask whether the Minister can tell us whether the Department of Finance is going to give an unlimited guarantee on this railway line? In other words, will the Treasury recompense the SATS for any losses it may suffer there as long as it provides services? In the first place, therefore, it must be an open-ended contract as far as the period is concerned; secondly, it must be an open-ended contract as far as the amount is concerned, so that we ensure that each cent of running costs and capital comes back to the SATS account for deficits suffered.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon the Minister for the announcement he made today that all railway pensioners or SATS people who receive pensions from the department, will receive an increase in pension as from 1 June. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him for this.

Mr Chairman, we do not support the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout on behalf of the PFP caucus of the Johannesburg City Council. [Interjections.] It may have been novel to hon members who heard the arguments for the first time this afternoon, but for those of us who have heard 80% of them before, ad nauseam and at length—I repeat, at length; they were almost as long as those we heard from the hon member this afternoon—there was no new argument to persuade us that the standing committee was wrong in deciding to go ahead with the Bill, deal with it and bring it to this House.

There was new information.

There was new information. If only the hon member would listen—which he never does! Not only did that hon member come to the standing committee with a photostat copy of an incomplete extract from the Guide to Chairmen of Standing Committees, but he misled his hon colleague from Sea Point and the hon member Prof Olivier, so that they also came to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs with the same incomplete and inaccurate claim. I do not know who misled whom … [Interjections.] I do not know who misled whom but they were so confused that both in the Standing Committee on Transport Services and in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs they put forward an argument which was totally invalid. They did so in an attempt at filibustering and at preventing this measure coming before the House. That was the first thing.

Rubbish!

No, it is not rubbish. It is factual and true. If the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon member for Port Elizabeth North had …

Port Elizabeth Central! Get your facts right!

All right then, Port Elizabeth Central. I never know where that fugitive hon member is at any given moment. I still remember him as the hon member for Port Elizabeth North before he decamped from the NRP.

No, East London North! [Interjections.]

Well, East London North then. [Interjections.]

Let’s rather call him “windpomp”. Everybody knows who that is! [Interjections.]

Order! No, we definitely cannot continue in this fashion. There are too many hon members commenting while the hon member for Durban Point is trying to deliver his speech. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I repeat that if they had had their way and if we had called for evidence, following the normal procedure of allowing people three to four weeks within which to give evidence, and of waiting to receive memoranda and to hear oral evidence, it would not have been possible for this measure to be considered by Parliament this year. That is a fact.

So what?

In other words, Mr Chairman …

It is not a fact. It is untrue!

In other words, Mr Chairman, the whole thing was a process of filibustering in order to cause this legislation to stand over until next year. [Interjections.] Furthermore, it was done at the behest of the PFP caucus of the Johannesburg City Council. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let us look briefly at the merit of the decision taken by the standing committee. There were two reasons given why this railway line should be built. The one was to service the new showground for the Rand Show. The other was to service a new sports complex.

A non-existent one!

Now, all we have heard about is soccer. That is an issue with which I intend to deal too. It is to be, however, a national sports complex which will cater for a whole variety of sports. The only argument we have heard so far is that soccer is important—soccer is important—and soccer will not need such a railway line for an indefinite period, and therefore the entire railway line is not needed at all. [Interjections.] Let us examine that argument, Mr Chairman. This argument was dealt with specifically in the standing committee. In fact I asked the question: If there was to be no soccer played and no soccer stadium to be built would such a railway line then not still be necessary in the interests of the new Johannesburg showground? The answer given by those who had investigated the matter was that it would still be necessary. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Primrose who has just spoken in this debate gave the example of the traffic chaos that had been caused when people tried to travel by road in order to attend the Rand Show in its first year there. In the first year that the show has been held, before its new location had even become familiar and fully utilized, utter chaos was the result of people attempting to reach the showground by road. Those hon members also failed to take account of other exhibitions that would be held at the same venue. They talked only of the passengers who would be conveyed by train …

From Soweto.

Not only from Soweto; from Pretoria as well, and also from the townships outside Pretoria, from Alexandra and from all the areas jthe inhabitants of which attend soccer matches.

How can a Natalian know what is going on in Johannesburg? [Interjections.]

The fact is that the railway line in question is not only meant for Soweto. It will be utilized by people from right across the entire PWV area. [Interjections.] Not the P W Botha area; the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging area. Those hon members are just not interested …

Do not say PWP! [Interjections.]

Yes, I think “PWP” is a better description for them. That party would sound better as the “Wee-Pee”, but that is not their official name.

It was clear to the standing committee that there was only one issue at stake, namely to play ball for Ellis Park. There was no other motive. They were prepared to inconvenience tens of thousands of spectators, of whom 80% to 90% would be Black, in order to try to strengthen the position of Ellis Park. Whether it is for the bank that is underwriting it or for the PFP Opposition in the city council is not material; the fact is that the whole opposition to this has but one motive.

Let us look at the facts again. With the overlap of soccer and rugby, Ellis Park cannot accommodate both sports.

Rubbish!

My friend says “Rubbish!”. So, soccer and rugby are going to be played on the same day or on the same weekend on the same field and there is going to be no chaos, there are going to be no problems, no difficulties. [Interjections.] That party does not mind chaos in South Africa. Those members do not mind chaos, they do not mind trouble. They do not mind conflict. They do not care what happens. They are thinking only in terms of rands and cents and not in terms of the convenience of the spectators.

Let us take soccer. They want to confine the whole soccer-playing and soccer-watching community to one center, which, admittedly, can accommodate a major game and some 70 000 to 80 000 spectators. What about the rest? There are not just one or two soccer teams that play. There are also other teams that want to play. Facilities are also required for other sports. But, no: To protect one stadium they adopt the attitude of “To blazes with the rest of the players, it does not matter if they cannot have matches: They are going to be confined to one venue”.

Vause, have you read the amendment?

Yes, I have read the amendment. That is the next point I want to make. It is not often that that hon Chief Whip is clairvoyant and has a brilliant idea, but he has had one now. The amendment is pinned on the cost and on a delay for that reason. However, every hon member there knows that the board stated in its report that this line cannot be built and ready under some three years. It is not going to be built tomorrow. It is not going to be built with money paid this year, money obtained from Railways finances. The line will be completed in three years if it is built at maximum speed and without any delay at all. All we are doing is authorizing the building of this line, which will then be undertaken in phases until it is completed by which time one will anyway have a demand in respect of the showgrounds and one could have an additional demand in respect of sports other than soccer.

What about the operating losses?

The operating losses are a “guesstimate”. In the board’s report it is simply stated that they could not be assured that this was an economic proposition and therefore could not recommend that it be built by the SATS unless guaranteed. However, nobody has given us an accurate figure of what the loss will amount to. Nobody can until one has found out what traffic there will be on it. Those hon members know what the traffic is going to be. They know what the loss is going to be. None of them travel by train; they travel in their BMWs and their Mercedes…

Will you get into a coupe?

Yes, I manage very well in a coupe even if I had a little girl to talk to and to hold my hand during the lonely hours.

I want to be serious. Obviously the Official Opposition have no seriousness at all about this matter. They treat it entirely in a light-hearted manner on the basis of dubious allegations without reference to the facts. I am satisfied that the standing committee acted correctly in asking Parliament to authorize the building of this line. The building will proceed in terms of phases and if necessary it can be delayed if the economic situation does not improve, but the authorization will be there. With inflation it will cost more the longer it is left. They want to hold this over, so that instead of R20,8 million it will be R30 million or even R40 million because the longer they delay it, so much more will it cost. We believe that we should go ahead with what is an essential facility for South Africa’s premier show and later for a national sports complex.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point has told us in very clear language what happened in the standing committee. I find it very strange that the PFP could not succeed in effecting division in the other Houses of Parliament, for within two minutes the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates had passed the Bill. It is very clear that the PFP could not succeed in sowing division there in order to carry on in their normal way.

This project arises from a 1974 Cabinet directive. As the hon member for Primrose said, it comprises the removal of the agricultural show from Milner Park to Crown Mines. The University of the Witwatersrand derived benefit from this. At the time there were bitter tears because Wits did not have land. The Government then decided to go away from there, and eventually that Cabinet committee investigated 74 kinds of sport and eight sites. They then found this piece of land at Crown Mines in the heart of the metropolitan area, 7 km south of Johannesburg and 4 km east of Soweto.

What have they found in the meantime? At the time they found that there would be 7 million people within a radius of 50 km in the year 2000. Those 7 million people must have recreational facilities. The State then came and gave R13 million for the land and R2 million for the creation of infrastructure. Of course, this is R15 million which has to be recovered at some stage or another. It does not come only from the taxpayers.

I want to indicate how the costs will escalate should we delay the construction of this railway line. The present cost is R20,8 million. If we delay it for one year, the fine will cost R24,5 million. If we delay it for two years, it will cost R29 million. If we delay it for three years, it will cost R34,2 million. This means it will cost us R14 million more if we do not construct it now.

It was found that at least 32 500 passengers can be conveyed by train. There is to be a steam train connection between the Gold Mine Museum and the showgrounds and a Transport Museum. I want to say these hon members are on quite the wrong track. Why did they not protest at the time?

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

No, I do not want to reply to a question; I have only five minutes.

At the time it was declared that the planned railway station would make access by train more convenient. The following was also said:

Why did the Opposition not object then? What has to be conveyed, is 3 000 show cattle, 500 pigs, 500 sheep and goats and 800 horses. There must also be 1 500 square meter for poultry and rabbits, while 15 000 bales of straw have to be conveyed there for the animals. Does the hon member for Bezuidenhout want the pigs to be conveyed by road, which involves the danger of injury? Pigs have to be protected at all cost. The road from Langlaagte station is very poor and causes a great deal of discomfort—for the pigs too.

Reference has not yet been made to the exhibitions held there. These days there are 1 200 exhibiters of whom 800 represent industries. There are 13 countries which have their own exhibiting facilities and six overseas countries have exhibited there for the first time. The SATS could not exhibit there this year because there is no railway line.

Various kinds of exhibitions are held there throughout the year, for example computers, the building industry etc. This year one million spectators were expected, but because there was no railway line, the number of visitors decreased from 840 000 last year to 641 000 this year. Ellis Park cannot provide all these facilities. The soccer complex is to be built in two phases. The first phase will make provision for 67 000 people and the second for 100 000.

When?

In time. The center will only be opened in 1988. What sports facilities will it have eventually? There will be a multi-purpose indoor stadium for 12 000 people, indoor halls for 2 000 people, under-cover swimming pool and cycling facilities for 5 000 people, an ice-skating rink for 5 000 people, an athletics field which will be able to accommodate up to 30 000 people, bowling facilities for 8 000 people and conference facilities for 3 000 people.

A theme park which will include a kind of Disneyland is to be built. There will also be a scientific and technological exhibition. Exhibiting facilities for historic and classical objects will also be built at great cost. There will be a complex like the Smithsonian Open-Air Museum in Washington. Models and exhibitions from institutions abroad such as the museum of science and industry in Chicago, the Ontario science center in Toronto, the Parc de la Villette in France, the Munich science museum in Germany, the Epcot Future World in Florida are being planned. All these exhibitions are being planned and therefore one must judge the project in the long term. I hope the railway line will be built.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rosettenville rejoices in the nickname “Sporie”, and I am sure he enjoys that nickname because he takes a great interest in railway matters and has done for many years. However, I find it somewhat sad to hear him justifying this railway line on the ground that it has to take a lot of animals to the Rand Easter Show. I want to tell him that it is not necessary to have a railway line there to take these animals. It is only 3,6 kilometres to the nearest station. The hon member for Walmer bought a bull at the show this year and he had no problem getting it away.

It had to walk.

Yes. Animals are capable of walking 3.6 kilometers.

The hon member for Rosettenville also referred to the wonderful sports complex that is going to be built, and we hope that ultimately it will be built, but can I ask the hon member when it is going to be built? Can he give me any idea at all when that sports complex will be built? Can the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs tell me when it is going to be built? Can anybody tell me when it is going to be built?

The speaker prior to the hon member for Rosettenville was the hon member for Durban Point who made his normal sycophantic speech. He accused this party of filibustering. I want to point out to this House that when we called for evidence to be taken by the standing committee all we asked for on the Thursday was to delay the matter until Wednesday of this week. The hon member for Bezuidenhout specifically informed the standing committee that it was less than a week’s delay that we asked for because he believed that he could have certain important representations there within seven days. I want to ask the hon member for Durban Point whether he remembers that. He indicates that he does remember. [Interjections.] Why on earth then did he say that if we had had our way, we would not have been able to pass this Bill during this session? That is patently misinforming this House, Sir. [Interjections.]

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

Let me just complete what I am saying and I will then certainly give the hon member the opportunity to ask a question.

Secondly, the hon member for Durban Point accused the hon member for Bezuidenhout, the hon member for Sea Point or myself of misleading one another on the aspect of the right of a member of the standing committee to call for evidence whether or not that standing committee had made that decision. The hon member for Hillbrow informs me that he discussed this very matter with the Secretariat of Parliament two weeks ago. He did that as a result of wanting to call for a memorandum for the Standing Commitee on Private Members’ Bills. On that occasion he was told, he tells me, that he could not do it for private members’ Bills but that it could be done for standing committees. He was informed of this by the Secretariat of Parliament. Therefore, perhaps there was confusion but I am not entirely sure whether that confusion was in our minds or in theirs. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Point wanted to ask me a question. I give him the opportunity to do so now.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central whether it would have been fair not to allow anyone else who wished to submit oral or written evidence to the standing commitee to have that privilege, thereby extending the sitting of the standing commitee for two or three weeks, if the hon member for Bezuidenhout had been allowed to call for oral and written evidence from people chosen by him?

Sir, the answer to that question is firstly, that we did not ask the standing commitee to call for oral evidence; we asked only for memoranda. We were quite happy to give anybody the right to submit memoranda within the same constraints as the people whom the hon member for Bezuidenhout had called upon; in other words, the memoranda had to be there in time for a standing committee meeting on Wednesday of the following week [Interjections.] Therefore, I submit that we bent over backwards to try to get memoranda for an input into that standing committee in time.

I want now to get to the point raised by the hon member for Primrose who is very knowledgable on railway matters. He asked what the PFP wanted in this Bill. It is very simple. There is R20 million of the public’s money to be spent on this project. It is the taxpayer’s money that is going to be spent. In addition to that we have to give a blank cheque from the public to the South African Transport Services on an annual basis to subsidize the losses that they expect to make on that line. What we want is that proper consideration be given to this matter before we in this House take the decision to spend the public’s money in this manner. [Interjections.] It is our view that proper consideration has not been given to this matter, hence the amendment.

The hon member for Primrose also mentioned the conflict between rugby and soccer. As I understand the situation—and bear in mind that we have not had the opportunity to call for memoranda—soccer has preference at Ellis Park unless firstly, there is an international match. Those are few and far between thanks to the Government. Secondly, preference is given to provincial matches. Now, on how many occasions in the rugby year are there going to be provincial matches at Ellis Park? I submit that it is actually not terribly material and that soccer can easily arrange its programme around those international or provincial matches without any problem at all.

I now come to the extraordinary contribution of the hon member for De Kuilen who is also the chairman of the standing committee. He claimed that it was his right to call the meeting whenever he saw fit. That is of course true, but that right is given by this Parliament and it must not be abused. That hon member wanted to exercise his right to have the meeting today, but it was the hon Chief Whip of Parliament who exercised his power and made the chairman of the standing committee call the meeting when he did. The hon member said himself that he had done it at the request of the hon Chief Whip of Parliament. [Interjections.] He is therefore nothing but a “jabroer”. He said to the Chief Whip: “Whether it is good for the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs to rush this matter through or not, I will do it because you want me to.”

It is the same with this legislation here this evening. It has jumped from No 6 on the Order Paper to No 1. It is being rushed through and I believe this is incorrect.

The hon member for De Kuilen also said that the hon member for Bezuidenhout had offered nothing new in this debate. At that stage I made a remark which I had to withdraw. I said that it was not true and that the hon member knew it, and then I withdrew that second half. I now want to demonstrate what I meant. I am going to read the official policy of this Government’s Department of Public Works:

Was the hon member for De Kuilen aware of that? [Interjections.]

I was aware of what the report said. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that he was aware of what the report said. The report said nothing about the Department of Public Works’s attitude towards this matter. Therefore, the hon member for Bezuidenhout patently did add something new and it was patently important. I therefore believe that I have demonstrated that what the hon member said was not true. [Interjections.]

All that I have done so far is react to the speeches that have been made. Let us now get to the crux of the matter, which is that the public of South Africa is being asked to spend R20 million on the construction of a railway line of 3,6 kilometers to serve a prospective new sports complex and to serve the Rand Easter Show.

Interest on that capital has to be paid by the SATS. They say, quite rightly, that they do not expect that they can make a profit on it and if they therefore proceed with this project, they will have to be reimbursed by the taxpayers of this country. It is a perfectly sound business attitude on their part.

As the hon member for Bezuidenhout said, we attempted to get additional information on this matter because we believe that the situation had changed from the time when the original decision to go ahead with the sports complex was taken. I want to quote only one sentence from the report of the SA Transport Services Board: “The National Football League is of the opinion that soccer should have its own stadium.” Is that still the case? They have Ellis Park and they are using it, and enormous crowds are going to Ellis Park.

The matter was rushed through the standing committee without any memorandum being called for. I believe it is essential that, if we are going to spend R20 million of the public’s money, we should at least know what we are talking about in making a recommendation to this House as a standing committee. That was not done.

I now come to the next point which is the present state of the economy. We all know that South Africa is in the grips of, at the very least, a recession; some people are even calling it a depression. There are many, many people without jobs. As the member for Port Elizabeth Central, I can say there are many of them in the area which I represent.

I think we owe it to those people to consider carefully the expenditure of every rand by this Government. I believe we owe it to them that, before we spend a sum as large as R20 million, we should give proper consideration to the matter. I do not know whether this new railway line is fully justified or not. I believe there are three questions that one should ask: Should we build it now? Should we build it later? Should we build it at all? I cannot answer those questions. I have a feeling that we should not build it now because of the economic circumstances and because the sports complex for which it is to be built is not, as yet, anything more than the figment of somebody’s imagination. I believe it is entirely possible that, in fact, it should not be built at all. I do not know.

So what we are saying is not that this railway line should not be built. We are saying that it should be delayed until such time as we have been able to reach a properly reasoned decision—hence the amendment that we have put to this House. I believe what we need is evidence regarding the sports complex. This railway line is basically to serve a proposed sports complex and the Rand Easter Show. That is what it is about. I believe we need evidence on the building of that sports complex. We need to know when it is likely to happen because that hon Minister’s own department has recommended that the railway line should be postponed. So we are not alone in this.

We are talking about the railway line.

I believe it is important that the Standing Committee should have called upon members of that hon Minister’s department to give evidence on why they believe that the sports complex should be postponed.

I believe we needed evidence from the organizations that represent soccer. What is their situation relative to Ellis Park? Do they believe that their needs and their aspirations can be satisfied now by the use of Ellis Park?

Yes.

The hon member for East London North says “yes”. He agrees with me on this and I thank him for his agreement. I hope that, when we divide, he will come and sit on this side of the House, although I have a feeling that he will not.

We also have an altered position in relation to Ellis Park itself. Again I think we need evidence as to what the Ellis Park people are prepared to do for soccer, how they are prepared to help soccer. I am quite sure that they will lean over backwards to be as accommodating as possible to soccer at this particular stage. They need it for financial reasons quite apart from anything else. So I am sure that they will lean over backwards to accommodate the soccer people.

Let us turn to the Rand Easter Show. I understand that this Government made the people concerned a promise when they moved from their original showground that it would provide them with rail facilities. Certainly, I do not believe that the Government should go back on its promises. However, once again, I believe that consultation between the people of the Rand Easter Show and this Government could be fruitful. We are talking about 3,6 km. Is it not possible that for those two weeks of the year a free bus service from the closest rail point to the Rand Easter Show could be provided by the SATS, for which they should then be remunerated by this Government? Would that not cost us a lot less money? I do not know, but it might.

Find out.

That is what I am trying to do. But this measure was bulldozed through the standing committee and we have not been given the opportunity. I believe that, if we had received a memorandum from the Rand Easter Show people, we might have learnt more. It is possible that this hon Minister, after discussions with them, could make adequate arrangements for the transport of livestock to that show. The hon member for Albany, who is our spokesman on agricultural matters, informs me—and I think the hon the Minister will agree with this—that there is an ever-increasing tendency on the part of farmers not to rail their livestock but to use road transportation. I ask the hon the Minister across the floor: Is that not true?

Yes.

He acknowledges that and I thank him for that. It is certainly quicker and it is safer for the livestock concerned. Sometimes I actually wish the hon the Minister would run his department as well as he runs his farm. That would perhaps be a very great improvement.

We might ultimately approve the building of this railway line. It might become necessary. However, we submit that this Parliament does not have sufficient information to make a properly reasoned decision. If the Department of Public Works itself says that the building of the railway line should be postponed—we got that information only today—then surely it is incredibly incompetent of Government that they have one Minister’s department saying that the construction of the railway line should be postponed and the other Minister’s department saying: “Well, we will build it.” We will perhaps even have a third Minister saying: “Well, we are going to give it to you out of the public’s money, out of the Treasury.” It is the taxpayers’ money that is going to be spent in this instance.

So, we do not say that it must not be built; but we do say that we should delay this matter until we have been able to evaluate it properly. That delay will cost us nothing. I appeal to the hon the Minister to heed the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenthout, which I certainly support.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—in fact, the entire Opposition party—does not understand what is going on. It does not concern a show that is held only for two weeks of the year. In September of this year, for instance, there will be a show of cattle. There will be a show of horses—that is already in the beginning stage. It is thus not a question of one show for two weeks per year. [Interjections.] When we wanted to build the Koeberg power station, the Official Opposition complained. When we wanted to build Sasol, they complained. We can look at Hansard. [Interjections.] They are against every undertaking in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! If any hon member wants to ask a question, the correct procedure is for him to get up and ask for permission to do so. I request hon members to observe the rule. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? [Interjections.] I should like to ask him whether it is not so that the Official Opposition in this Parliament objected to the Sishen/Saldanha project which has ultimately turned out to be a very costly exercise for the taxpayer. [Interjections.]

The Sishen/Saldanha railway line would have been a paying proposition were it not for the problem with the rand and for the price of iron ore overseas. I still say it was the right thing to do. [Interjections.] If we were to listen to those hon members, we would not do anything. [Interjections.]

I was amazed to hear the hon member for Bezuidenhout fighting for Volkskas. Can hon members believe that? [Interjections.] He is banking at Barclays and he fights for Volkskas.

Where do you bank, Hendrik? [Interjections.]

Sir, do you know what we are arguing about? We are arguing over a railway line that will run over the same distance as from here to the harbour, namely 3.6 km. That is what we are arguing about.

It is costing R20 million.

The SATS’ capital programme involves over R1 600 million this year.

By how much did you trim it?

We are taking R20 million of that…

Order! Does the hon member for Greytown wish to ask a question?

Yes, Sir. I want to ask the hon the Minister how many projects involving R20 million were shelved by the SATS in the current financial year because he said that he had limited funds.

We did shelve a lot of projects. This one, however, is essential. It is—and in this respect the hon members for Durban Point and Primrose are perfectly correct—going to be built over a period of three years. It is not going to be built immediately. [Interjections.] These hon members think that Ellis Park alone will provide sufficient sports facilities for the Blacks and the Whites of Johannesburg and Soweto.

Not one of us said that!

Those hon members are not prepared to expand and to have another sports field. [Interjections.] They are looking at Ellis Park and they are listening to the minority of Progs serving on the City Council of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] That is the PFP’s problem.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he can give us some indication of when he thinks the sports complex is going to be built.

That all depends on the financial situation. It might be next year, but in the meantime we are prepared to call for tenders and to carry on building this railway line. It will take a long time for the tenders to come in. Prices escalate all the time. [Interjections.] There is not going to be a complete loss. It all depends on the kind of support we are going to get. This is not a continuous line … [Interjections.]

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

I prefer hon members to make interjections rather than to ask questions. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bezuidenhout asked what the interest rate was going to be—he wanted to get more information. He is a very successful businessman. R20 million at 20% means that the interest paid will be R4 million. At 15% it will be R3 million.

What do you pay?

Why do they want to have an investigation on the interest rate?

What are you paying?

No, I do not have an overdraft. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasize that it is not a soccer field we are arguing about—it is a sports complex. The hon member for Rosettenville explained that it is a whole complex of sports facilities, including cycling. There is a whole booklet on it. Even bowls and snooker—you name it, and it will be there. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for “Ellis Park” is one of the very finest chairmen of standing committees, and I want to congratulate him. He is an excellent chairman. [Interjections.]

I have before me the booklet National Sport, Recreation and Exhibition Centre. What they say in this booklet is unbelievable. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon member for De Kuilen most sincerely for his contribution towards the passage of this measure through the standing committee. It is not necessary to devote so much time to investigations concerning such a practical matter.

So you support the system?

I am in favour of the system, but I am efficient. Surely it is not necessary to make such an endless fuss about a 3.6 km line—what one should do is to get on with the job. One can have investigations when it comes to major projects. Surely this matter is in good hands—after all, I am not such a fool as to build a line for which there is no need. [Interjections.]

What about the line between Sishen and Saldanha?

Yes, but that was Lourens Muller.

I appreciate the standpoint of the hon member for Langlaagte that he is not opposed to the complex, but has his doubts about our timing. However, I should like to put it to the hon member that we are creating infrastructure. Surely we cannot cut off everything and say that we are in a depression and are consequently not going to embark upon a single new project. This railway line is being built; people are being given job opportunities and firms will pay tax if they make a profit.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he can proceed with the railway line if the hon the Minister of Finance does not provide him with the assurance that his department would pay the losses incurred by this railway line?

No, we would not have proceeded with it if we had not received a guarantee that the losses would be covered. In the beginning it cannot be a viable undertaking until the sports complex and all the facilities have been provided.

*However, I disagree with the hon member for Langlaagte. This depression will not last three years. It cannot last three years.

I want to thank the hon member for Primrose for his contribution. He is quite right in saying that 0,25 million people …

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

No, I want to continue.

At the last Rand Easter Show, congestion was caused by 130 000 people arriving on one day. There were people who could only enter the showgrounds at four o’clock that afternoon. We want to prevent this sort of thing and that is why we are going to build a railway line.

I want to thank the hon member for Durban Point. He is a practical man—that is why we awarded him the Decoration for Meritorious Service. [Interjections.] He made a very fine contribution.

I have already thanked the hon member for Rosettenville.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said the hon member for Walmer bought a bull at the Rand Show, and he did not need a railway fine. He spoke a lot of bull! [Interjections.] The hon member for Walmer is a wealthy man, he can buy a lorry. However, 800 head of cattle had to be transported by rail to the most recent Rand Show. [Interjections.] Those people could not afford lorries. [Interjections.] Those hon members hate poor people and people with lorries support them, but I am talking from a poor farmer’s point of view who has to have a railway line to transport his cattle. I wonder what kind of bull he bought. It must have been a scraggy old Jersey bull. [Interjections.]

We do not want a blank cheque. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said we wanted a blank cheque, but it is not a waste of the taxpayers’ money, because the taxpayer will benefit from the building of this railway line. [Interjections.] The only security we want is to cover possible losses, but I foresee that it will not be necessary in four or five years’ time to show a loss when the complex is operating. If we get the sports complex, this operation can show a profit.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he was aware when he piloted this through the Cabinet—which I assume he did—firstly, of the decision reached by the Department of Public Works in relation to this line; and secondly, whether the hon the Minister of Public Works made that department’s viewpoint known to the Cabinet?

The Cabinet realized all the problems fully. However, one of the members of the Opposition quite rightly said that we had given an undertaking to the University of the Witswatersrand. They wanted the Rand showgrounds and we told the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society that we would provide the railway fine because they must have a railway line. It is the biggest show in Africa, but it does not have a railway line. We were fully aware of the comments of the Department of Public Works. However, we need not argue any more. This line will be built within the next three years, and one day the Opposition will tell their children: This was a very wise decision; let’s go to the Rand Show and the sport fields by train. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in all sincerity, may I please ask the hon the Minister as Leader of the House if he does not think that all the questions discussed here tonight in this Second Reading debate should have been discussed by his Standing Committee on Transport Affairs? [Interjections.]

I am not a member of the standing committee and I do not know what happens here. [Interjections.] The questions being asked here are actually not very intelligent ones as far as I am concerned.

*Truly, I think it was a good thing that the chairman of the committee ruled these things out of order, because any fool will tell you: Build the railway line and get done with it.

Mr Chairman, I move:

When the Associated Health Service Profession Act was discussed in Parliament, I explicitly stated that the restrictions on the registration of practitioners could be lifted if an acceptable standard of training had been determined, control over the conduct of practitioners had been instituted and the scope of practice had been defined. The regulations concerning ethical rules and the scope of practice have since been made and are strictly applied by the Associated Health Service Professions Board.

During last year the Associated Health Service Professions Board submitted proposals … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are requested to lower their voices. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members must contain themselves. The hon the Minister may proceed.

… regarding training, as well as proposals to provide for the registration of new chiropractors and homeopaths. A draft Bill was prepared which was submitted together with the training proposals to the SA Medical and Dental Council and the Medical Association of South Africa for comment. Educational institutions in South Africa are not prepared to consider training or educational proposals unless and until appropriate statutory provision is made for the training of practitioners. The board is therefore unable to take the matter any further at present.

The salient features of the Bill now before us allow for the lifting of restrictions on the registration of practitioners and for the provision of their training. Hon members will note that, in the main, the provisions of the Bill are based on existing legislation controlling the medical and associated professions. I therefore do not intend to deal with the Bill in detail, but wish to highlight some of the more important provisions for the benefit of hon members.

Clause 5 repeals section 16 of the Act. In terms of this section only South African citizens who are practising abroad or students who were studying at specified dates in the past were eligible for registration as practitioners. The Bill now evisages new requirements for training of students, and practitioners from abroad will also have to comply with the new standards of training.

Clause 6 prevents any person or educational institutions, including universities and technikons, from providing education or training unless the approval of the board has been obtained beforehand for such education or training. This provision will prevent quackery and eliminate certificates or diplomas for practitioners in respect of which the training is insufficient or incomplete.

Clause 12 empowers the board also to impose a fine in cases of improper or disgraceful conduct. Experience has shown that in some cases a fine may be more appropriate a penalty than a warning or a suspension. The fines will be paid to the Receiver of Revenue.

In order to prevent practitioners from collecting excessive fees from patients, clause 13 stipulates that a patient may have any account examined by the board in order to determine the appropriate amount which a practitioner may charge in a particular case. For this purpose the board may determine and publish the fees which the board will use as a norm for the determination of the amounts concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I am sorry that I did not receive a copy of his second reading speech. I understand that there were none available. There was a lot of noise while the hon the Minister was speaking, with the result that I found it difficult to follow what he was saying. When we were discussing the report, I put ten questions to him. Is it necessary for me to repeat those ten questions, or does he have a copy of them?

There were seven questions.

Whether there were seven or ten does not matter. I hope he will be able to answer those questions without my having to repeat them. I shall discuss those questions in the course of this speech, and I should be very grateful if the hon the Minister would answer them.

The problem which the medical profession and I have with this Bill does not concern the question of whether there are homeopaths who are doing bad work, and I really hope that this will not be the subject of the discussion this evening. There are people who go to homeopaths and chiropractors and who derive benefit from the treatment they receive there. I recognize that. The medical profession also recognizes it. So it is not a question of the individual patient who goes to them for treatment. Nor will any purpose be served by relating the story tonight of an uncle who went to see a doctor and who was given the wrong treatment. Of course there are medical practitioners who do not provide proper treatment in certain cases.

We are concerned here with the qualification. That is where the problem Ires, and that is why I regret the fact that the hon the Minister has not answered my questions, for then we could have debated this problem with each other.

To prove what I am saying, I shall read from the memorandum which appears on page 26 of the Bill:

It goes on to say:

What is meant by this? Is this training sufficient to allow such practitioners to do the work which they say they are able to do? To put it differently, I am asking whether patients may simply come to see them off the street and whether their training is good enough to allow them to examine and treat such patients and to decide, on the basis of their training and experience, whether they are able to make the right diagnosis and to prescribe the right treatment. That is what is at issue here, and that is the only problem I have. I agree that there are patients who benefit by the treatment which they receive from these practitioners.

It is well-known in the medical world that between 80% and 90% of the people who go to a doctor for medical treatment would have recovered even if they had never gone to see the doctor or taken any medicine.

I would not say that.

That is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about the 10% who do need the treatment. If they get the wrong treatment, it may have serious consequences for them and may even result in their death.

The hon member for Durban Point said that we had to decide tonight; that it was the right of Parliament to decide about this problem. The hon member wants us to decide tonight, therefore, whether this Bill should be proceeded with. I notice that he is sitting there among the hon members of the NP. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that the doctor is the one who says to that patient: Look here, I am sorry that my diagnosis was wrong and that I prescribed the wrong treatment, but your body is now riddled with cancer, and because there is no treatment, you will die. I have had to say this. In the course of my career I have had to tell a young lady of 26, in whom breast cancer had been diagnosed and who had been treated with herbs and so on, that the diagnosis had been wrong, and that in consequence of this, nothing more could be done for her. I want to admit that this happens to doctors as well, and for that reason my argument is not about the chiropractor as against the medical practitioner, but about the training of the respective professions. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the training of the professions concerned qualifies people to do this. I want it to be clear that we recognize that the qualifications of health workers in South Africa should be of a very high standard.

†During the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote, I spoke about the three tier system of health in South Africa, namely the specialist, the general practitioner and what is known as the primary health care professional. A primary health care professional is a well-trained nurse engaged in primary health care, the frontline of medicine. The hon the Deputy Minister responded to my speech by saying:

The hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Rustenburg must please pay attention now. He continued:

He does not accept a nurse who has received three or four years’ training in the concepts of medicine in a hospital. He continued:

That is what the hon the Deputy Minister says about medical training in South Africa.

However, we now have to discuss the Bill and the training of these people. I would like to refer the hon the Minister to clause 1 which deals with the qualifications which will be recognized by law for the practising of these professions.

*I quote:

People may obtain these qualifications at a university or a technikon in order to practise certain professions. Who are they? I have here a letter from Dr Engelbrecht, who is, I believe, the chairman of the Chiropractic Association. In it he says:

These people say that they are in the same position as dentists. Does this mean that when such people have obtained a diploma or a certificate at a technikon, they can pursue their studies just as a dentist can? A dentist can specialize, but can such a person do so?

But one does not take a doctorate before specializing.

No, but one does attain a certain degree of proficiency. I hope the hon the minister of chiropractors will have the opportunity to speak later on. [Interjections.]

I wish to go on and to refer to osteopaths, herbalists and homeopaths. In discussing the Bill, we must remember that it does not deal with chiropractors only. It also deals with osteopaths, homeopaths, naturopaths and herbalists. All the provisions of the Bill are applicable to these other groups as well and not only to chiropractors. A lecture was given by a Dr Andrew Stanway, and a copy of it was given to the standing committee by Dr Ismael Essop, an MP in the House of Representatives. The document comes from “Health Services Proprietory Limited”, Stokroos Street, Kimberley, and is distributed by Dr Essop. According to Dr Stanway, the osteopaths have the following to say about their own profession:

This Dr Spill was not a doctor; he actually studied engineering. [Interjections.]

This is the diagnosis. [Interjections.] This is what these people claim to be able to do. We should investigate what these people are actually able to do. However, time does not allow me to say any more about the osteopath.

Allow me to say something about herbalism. I should like the hon the Minister to listen to what the herbalists have to say about themselves. I quote Dr Stanway again:

He goes on to say:

That is the medicine. Sir, if you went to a herbalist, these are the principles according to which he would diagnose and treat you. [Interjections.]

I quote further from the same source:

I want to ask the hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Rustenburg, as two medical practitioners, whether this is good enough for them. Are they going to support this Bill? I am not going to deny for one moment that those people are able to administer some of their herbs, and to perform certain manipulations, to cure certain patients and to make them feel better. No, I withdraw the word “cure”, and I merely say “to make them feel better”.

I just want to ask these two hon members, Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Rustenburg, whether in their opinion, the training of these people is good enough to give them the confidence to approach any one of them to have themselves or their wives and children treated by them in their own particular way. Do those two hon members think that these people’s diagnosis, medicine and treatment are good enough? That is the only question I want to ask them. [Interjections.] The hon members may reply to me later. Does the hon the Minister wish to ask me a question?

I just wanted to know what training you had received in administering medication.

I am very glad that the hon the Minister has asked me that question, and I hope I shall have the time to answer it. I now want to come to the subject of training. [Interjections.]

You have not answered my question.

Answer the hon the Minister’s question.

I shall answer it in due course. Just allow me to discuss these people’s training first. [Interjections.] Here in my hands I have the South African Associated Health Service Professions Board’s…

He is not going to reply.

I think that hon member has had a little too much homeopathy tonight.

Order! The hon member for East London North is making too many interjections. The hon member may proceed.

This memorandum which I have here covers the proposed minimum curriculum for chiropractic and homeopathy in South Africa. Has the hon the Minister seen it? Have the hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Rustenburg seen it? [Interjections.] I may assume, therefore, that those hon members have read it. Does it satisfy them that a herbalist or homeopath possesses the skill to diagnose patients with pathological conditions and to decide that his treatment is not good enough? This is my question to the hon members, for I have the curriculum with me.

The hon the Minister asked me what my training was. My training was the very best one could have, and I am proud of it. One can see that this curriculum is a poor imitation of medical training. It also covers a period of six years and it includes the same type of subjects. It is a poor and artificial imitation. [Interjections.]

I now want to refresh the hon the Minister’s memory, for perhaps he was not such a good student. I was taught by my seniors, and they were first-rate doctors. Does the hon the Minister remember Prof Saint, Prof Crighton and Prof Foreman? Is the hon the Minister suggesting that they trained me badly? That is what he is asking me tonight. Did they train me badly?

From my fourth year as a medical student, I visited hospital wards where I conducted clinical examinations of patients, where I was informed about their medical treatment and where I came into daily contact with the practical training for the profession. Does the hon the Minister wish to deny that? [Interjections.] Subsequently, I went to work in hospitals for two or three years, where I gained practical experience in specialized fields. Is the hon the Minister telling me that I had not received a proper training by the time I finished there? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I make my question clear? I asked what training the hon member had received in administering medication; I did not ask about his medical training. I know he had the same training as I. He does not have to explain it in such detail, therefore. We all had the same training. [Interjections.]

After my training I built up a general practice, and to this day, the service I render to my patients is of a high quality. [Interjections.] I received the necessary training.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I shall hear the hon member directly. The hon member for Swellendam is making a lot of interjections. The hon member for Sandton may proceed with his point of order.

Mr Chairman, at last you appear to have noticed it. That was my point of order. [Interjections.]

What does the hon member mean by the words “at last”?

Mr Chairman, what I meant by those words was that you appeared not to notice the interjections before that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon member has cast a reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! I have considered the hon member’s reply and I do not regard it as a reflection. The hon member for Parktown may proceed.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the hon the Minister’s question. If I have, I apologize. I just want to tell him that my training prepared me to practice as a doctor. It was based on the knowledge of my seniors, who had many years’ experience behind them. They trained me for a profession in which it was my aim to render the best possible service to my patients and to use my knowledge to examine, diagnose and treat them. During my 10 years as a general practitioner, as well as during my years as a specialist, my skill and knowledge have increased. If the hon the Minister is not satisfied with that…

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

When I have finished, the hon member may put his question to me with pleasure. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister, the hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Rustenburg: How much time did they devote to the study of biochemistry?

What is he saying?

That hon member will not understand. He is too stupid. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. Let me say that the hon member is not practical enough.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Did you rule that the word “stupid” is unparliamentary?

I ruled that the hon member should withdraw that word in the manner in which it was said. The hon member did withdraw it; he had no objection to its withdrawal. “Stupid” is unparliamentary.

Sir, I apologize to the hon member. It is not my style, but it simply slipped from my tongue. [Interjections.]

I have the curriculum here.

Just come to the point, please.

Very well. I shall begin by asking the hon member where these homeopaths and chiropractors are going to receive their training. Where are the lecturers with the ability to instruct them in these subjects? That is the first question. Secondly, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he has read what the diagnostics I course consists of and whether he will tell us how it compares with that of the medical students.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member whether he agrees that the object of this Bill is not to turn these people into medical practitioners, but to make them good chiropractors and good homeopaths.

Sir, the hon member is right. What I am asking—I have said so repeatedly—is whether it gives them the skills and whether their training equips them with the knowledge to be able to examine any person and to take a decision.

That is a good argument.

I have said so before. [Interjections.]

Marius, just carry on; do not be misled.

No, I am not being misled, but I feel that that doctor is very guilty. He knows that if he had the right, he would vote against this Bill. [Interjections.] He knows that. In fact, if he does not feel guilty, I should be very surprised.

This is the practical experience during the five years. Now I want to ask the hon member where the public clinic is. Is there such a public clinic? Does the hon the Minister know of a public clinic for chiropractors in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Turning to homeopathy, I quote again:

Did the hon the Minister receive his practical training from medical students or in a hospital? I quote further:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether he can help me with this. Part of the training is:

Could the hon the Minister explain to me how this helps to diagnose a patient’s ailment?

The practical experience for both professions in the sixth year is “internship”. Where? Where is he going to do the intership?

I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether members of these professions may call themselves doctors. May they call themselves doctors? [Interjections.]

They call themselves doctors.

Well, they should not.

Do these people have the right, then, to examine, question and treat any patient who comes to their door?

Yes.

Very well. I now want to ask the hon the Minister a question. I asked it the other evening, and on that occasion the hon the Minister misunderstood me—I am sure he did not mean it—and said that I had said something different in my Hansard. I asked him where in the world recognized training was offered for homeopaths and naturopaths.

I shall tell you presently where your Hansard was wrong.

If it was wrong, I want to ask the hon the Minister what I wanted to ask him on that occasion, and he must then reply to it. Where in the world is recognized training being offered for homeopaths, naturopaths and herbalists?

I referred to this in my Second Reading speech.

Well, then I suppose I did not hear it. I admit that and I apologize. The hon the Minister might tell me again where on earth they can be trained. The other day, when the NP afforded the chiropractors and the homeopaths the opportunity of addressing us, the Chairman of the Chiropractic Association of SA gave two very interesting replies to our questions. When the hon member for Pietersburg and I asked him about his practical training—and the hon member sitting next to me is my witness—he admitted that it was not good enough and sound enough. [Interjections.] He admitted that.

Surely that is not true.

That hon member, who was not there, tells me that it is not true. The hon the Minister himself has admitted that he said this, but that he had subsequently qualified his statement.

Secondly, the chairman of the Association admitted that homeopaths, naturopaths and herbalists could not receive recognized training anywhere in the world.

But that is not true.

If he did not say so, I apologize and I withdraw my words. I want to be absolutely fair. If he did not say so, I must have misunderstood him. [Interjections.]

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister a question: What does the hon the Minister have against the idea that the people which enter these professions should first received medical training? If this were done, I air sure that the hon the Minister, who received medical training himself, would be satisfied, as I would, that their training gave them the ability to examine a patient, to diagnose his disease and to treat it. It is said that the people in these professions do not want to send patients to a doctor. My question is therefore: Is their training and knowledge good enough to enable them to take that decision? This is the problem I have, and this is where I disagree with the hon the Minister When one reads their memorandum, one sees that they are asking for interdisciplinary recognition. Why should they not undergo medical training first? What is wrong with that? That is what I feel so disappointed about. I feel disappointed because the standing committee did not go further in trying to solve this problem with the various professions. I think it was a mistake, for if this Bill is passed, there will be discord among the various groups. I think the hon the Minister knows that the Medical Association of SA the SA Medical and Dental Council and the SA Associated Health Service Professions Board are unhappy about this.

These people want to help people and they do in fact help people. I concede that They advanced the valid argument that ever medical practitioners send patients to them Of course medical practitioners send patients to them! However, the medical practitioner has the skill to decide, in the first place whether it is a condition for which their kind of treatment is required. That is the point which the hon the Minister should grasp The medical profession has the necessary skill.

Finally, I want to point out that we are going to vote here tonight…

Hear, hear!

Very well, say “hear, hear!” if you like.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell me tonight what we are going to do if the decision which we are going to take here tonight results in the death of one patient because of a wrong diagnosis?

What about all the patients who have died because of a wrong diagnosis by a doctor?

I fully agree with the hon the Minister, but I maintain that they did not die because of any inadequacy in the doctor’s training. [Interjections.] Can the hon the Minister not see that? Does the hon the Minister want to tell me that the medical training and the medical principles are the cause of these deaths? I said at the outset that I admitted that there were incompetent doctors, so I think it is not worthy of the hon the Minister to keep referring to what happens in the case of one or two or more doctors.

If we cast our votes in favour of this Bill here tonight, and if one patient dies unnecessarily as a result of incorrect training—if it is incorrect—then we shall have signed that patient’s death certificate here tonight.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that his time has almost expired. If he wishes to move an amendment, he should do so now.

I shall not be moving an amendment, but I should very much like to hear the hon the Minister’s replies to my questions. I shall not support the legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is quite obvious that the hon member for Parktown has only one thing in mind and that is that this discipline of chiropractic as well as the other disciplines that are grouped with it, has to be phased out and must disappear from the scene. It is clear that he is not at all interested in adopting another standpoint. For the rest, the hon member for Parktown certainly had nothing new to say this evening. He only advanced arguments that should have been ruled completely out of order because he had already made his Second Reading speech on the occasion of the consideration of the seventh report of the committee a few days ago. We, on the other hand, are interested in the fact that these people are trained. As the hon member in fact correctly stated, this concerns training …

Where?

I shall reply to the hon member’s question shortly. The hon member for Parktown asked if I was satisfied with the training. Of course I am not satisfied with the training. I want to establish a basis, however, from which we can work towards getting people in this discipline trained. I shall refer to this during the course of my speech.

The hon member for Parktown also referred disparagingly to diplomas that one will now be able to obtain at technikons as well in terms of the legislation before us. I want to know from him, however, what he thinks of the diploma that an engineer obtains at a technikon. The engineering diplomas that are taken at technikons are very highly regarded in the profession. [Interjections.] But of course that is so! The hon member for Langlaagte is laughing about it but he does not know what it is all about.

Surely one cannot compare a person to a machine!

But it concerns training, does it not? [Interjections.]

It is very easy for the hon member for Parktown to quote from old documents. This is also where the problem lies when Prof Guy de Klerk and his people make quotes. They quote from old documents. Let me tell that hon member that these chiropractors …

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

No. Time is passing and we have to pass this legislation.

This is the problem with Dr Guy de Klerk. It is easy to quote in regard to a person who was treated for a carcinoma of the prostate and in fact had metastasis in his vertebrae. A chiropractor manipulated his back and subsequently caused a great deal of damage. Of course it is easy to quote such cases but surely that is not what it is about. Fortunately the hon member for Parktown at least admitted that we should not try to base our case on this simple little example.

The hon member also referred to the question the hon member for Pietersburg asked Dr Millani about the training. Dr Millani admitted that the training was inadequate. Surely that is a wonderful admission from those people—it shows that they are honest in the sense that they now want to establish a basis. The only way to do so is for this Parliament to establish such a basis on which they can build. That is why we have established a board. Hon members voted against that board. We shall discuss what that board has achieved up to this stage in a moment.

I also want to refer to the comments of the hon member for Parktown on the briefing which I did not arrange but which was in fact arranged in consultation with me at the friendly, polite request of the chiropractors for the purpose of briefing members of the standing committee and other interested parties as well, of speaking to them and of replying to their questions. Let me just ask the hon member for Parktown why he attended the meeting if he was so opposed to such a meeting? [Interjections.] He could just have stayed away.

May I reply?

I do not think so. The hon member has had a lot of time. [Interjections.] Surely it is nothing strange for interest groups to brief and hold discussions with individual MPs or groups of MPs. [Interjections.] In the past, before the hon member for Pietersburg deserted us, he was present when the chiropractors addressed us as a group and put their case.

You are the deserter, man. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik and the CP should not even participate in this discussion on the legislation because a chiropractor cannot treat a person without a backbone.

Hear, hear!

Before I go on to discuss the issues on which the hon member for Parktown and I agree I just want to raise two points. The first concerns the choice of words in the description of the amending Bill as indicated by the principal Act, ie associated health service professions. The legislators at that time did not give it this name for no reason. They had a good reason for it; in fact, the reason for it was so good that it impressed the hon member for Pietersburg because, the other day after the hon the Minister had made an interjection, the hon member intimated that the profession was in fact supplementary. This is the point I now wish to make because at the time of the commission of enquiry into chiropractic in 1972, the commission replied in the negative to the question of whether the profession of chiropractic could be a useful and essential supplement to the normal medical services. They said in addition, however, that chiropractors could only be useful if their services could be restricted to cases requiring manipulative therapy. The legislature at that time looked ahead and bore in mind the fact that a system had to be created by means of the parliamentary process which would give them a firm basis on which to practise their profession. [Interjections.] All the questions put by the hon member for Parktown are futile because we can only ask those questions once there is a body or a institute or a university which makes provision for the correct training of those people. [Interjections.]

The next thing I want to mention before I get around to the hon member for Parktown again, relates to the negotiators from the Chiropractic Association. There has never been a trace of self-righteousness or arrogance about them. Over the years that we have had dealings with them—the hon member for Pietersburg can verify this—they have behaved in only the nicest and most civilized way, with a very good understanding of the opposition to them and of the reasons for the opposition they have experienced from the members of the medical profession. In other words, they have always done what was expected of them.

Let me now return to the hon member for Parktown. We agree on many matters and are equally protective of the image of the profession to which we belong. I am just as proud of my training—as far as I have progrossed with it—as the hon member is of his training. We are equally eager to ensure and equally concerned that the practitioners of the various disciplines in the medical and health service professions should be truly professional people. We too therefore find it repugnant when a chiropractor alleges that he can treat croup or diabetes mellitus, for example, by means of manipulative therapy. We find it wholly repugnant.

Then what about homeopaths?

We are moving here in the direction of medically and scientifically responsible training. In the meantime, however…

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

No, Sir. I am not interested in the question of the hon member. He had sufficient time to say what he had to say. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rustenburg does not want to reply to a question. The hon member may continue with his speech.

There is just one other small matter, Mr Chairman, before the Chief Whip of my party indicates that my time has expired. This is something that I just have to say. The hon member for Parktown has completely forgotten that aboard has been appointed in the interim which has done what was expected of it—to exercise discipline, to apply a code of ethics, to remove the charlatans from the profession and as it were to determine up to a point the parameters within which those people have to practise. They have already given attention to what is expected of them in regard to training—certainly not adequately; that is true. I want to ask if we should turn our backs on them and tell them we are not going to continue with the legislation now that they have put their house in order to this extent. We have no choice but to go ahead with this. Because of this new basis they are being provided with they can now put it to the universities that they are ready to start arguing about the issue of training. Without this legislation we are dealing with now they cannot approach a university or other training institution to put their point of view in regard to the establishment of a chair for their profession.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House strongly support the legislation under discussion.

Mr Chairman, it is significant that the hon member for Rustenburg had very little to say about the actual legislation under discussion. [Interjections.] I really think that our medical colleagues in the governing party—the hon the Minister included—will still in future hang their heads in shame before their own colleagues in the medical profession. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rustenburg said that a basis is, in fact, being created by this legislation for the necessary training of chiropractors and homeopaths. This is exactly where the problem that I shall shortly be point out lies—the problem that this basis is, in fact, not being created. I also question whether this professional association has done all that was expected of it. I shall also motivate this.

I found it quite amazing that the hon the Minister could ask the hon member for Parktown if he had, in fact, been trained to administer medicine. The hon member for Parktown is a trained medical practitioner—a person who underwent six years of training and completed a year of internship. Does the hon the Minister really wish to imply that the hon member for Parktown is not qualified to administer medicine?

And they both attended the same university!

I find it abolutely amazing! [Interjections.]

Lapa was really only a cheer-leader! [Interjections.]

Order! I have only given the hon member for Pietersburg the floor.

I just want to refer briefly to the previous legislation, in this regard, put before the House by the same hon Minister—in 1982, when he was still actually the Minister of Health and Welfare and not acting in that capacity, as is the case at present.

Yes, legislation which then received your support.

Mr Chairman, I am going to quote to the hon members what the hon Minister said at that time. On Monday, 15 March 1982, this same hon the Minister, in his second reading speech on the occasion of the presentation of the Associated Health Service Professions Bill, said, and I quote (Hansard, vol 99, col 2906):

This is the publication of the Bill of 1981:

This was precisely the reason at that stage—our most important reason too—why we did not support the previous legislation. The hon Minister went on to give the reasons why the Medical Association of South Africa did not want to take the matter under its wing at that stage. In the same second reading speech the hon the Minister also said:

Now just listen carefully, Mr Chairman, to what the hon the Minister added to that. He said:

This still remains the unchanged standpoint of this side of the House. When I indicated this across the floor of the House the other day the hon the Minister made the tongue in-cheek comment that it was impossible to put a lot of cats into one bag. That decision on the part of the Medical Council was taken in 1981. I have spoken to many members of that council since then and I want to state categorically this evening that if the hon the Minister had referred this matter back to the Medical and Dental Council, the decision would probably have been different and he would have done the primary health service of South Africa a favour as far as its future prospects are concerned.

In the same speech the hon the minister went on to say (col 2908):

This concerns the restriction involving registration:

It has to be created.

Where is it? It has not yet come into existence. This matter is being anticipated. I quote further:

Note the two basic standpoints or statements of principle of the hon the Minister, firstly own educational institutions and, secondly, minimum training requirements in South Africa. Neither of these two basic principles have been met as we find ourselves continuing with this legislation this evening. In the same speech the Minister goes on to say (col 2908):

The Minister said that should take place first. I want to make the assertion tonight that with this legislation, and everything that has happened in the interim, this has not been met.

Now the hon the Minister has come to the House with this legislation this evening. This House of Assembly now has to decide whether it is satisfied that the issues of training and qualifications are adequately regulated according to acceptable scientific standards which apply here in our country and which are regarded by the rest of the world as being of a high quality. If we examine the medical profession we see that no medical practitioner is allowed to practise in South Africa before the Medical Council has satisfied itself, inter alia by means of an examination which has to meet specific requirements, that such a person can become a member of the primary health team in South Africa. It is, in the first place, in the interests of the patients in this country. They were perhaps even a little stricter during my students years. From the fourth year there were even professors in my class who had lectured at medical schools in other countries and who again had to go through the practical part of the fourth year course with us and had to write exams before they could be registered as medical practitioners. The job of supervising examinations and the standards should only be carried out by one body in South Africa, the Medical Council. This was also the opinion of the hon the Minister in 1982. Why should this be the case? Because the Medical Council was created on a statutory basis, by the Government itself, to exercise control over the health professions in our country. The aims of this council, instituted by the Government, are, in terms of the specific Act, inter alia—

What does this council, this highly qualified council, this statutory advisory council of the Minister and the Government, think of this specific legislation? I am not going to quote from old archive documents now; this document was drawn up on 13 August of last year by that highly qualified advisory body which took the whole issue of training into consideration and made its findings public. I quote from the first paragraph which deals with medical doctors. The education committee of the Medical Council says:

It also deals with chiropractic. How do chiropractics go about diagnosing? The principles and application of recording someone’s medical history, observation, palpation, percussion, auscultation, differential diagnosis, special examinations and final diagnoses without practical training of a patient or a hospital—can one credit this? The Medical Council says:

The hon the Minister mentioned to the hon member for Parktown that they would also be called doctors. How would the public be able to differentiate?

They are already being called doctors.

Does that mean it is right?

They should not be.

The Medical Council also says:

The Medical Council also says:

The council then gives attention to homeopathy, of which the hon member for Parktown quoted an example here to indicate what those people have to say about themselves. The Medical Council has the following to say about homeopathy:

The hon member for Parktown then made a statement, and I now want to ask my hon colleagues on the other side of this House if they agree with this statement of the Medical Council on homeopathy.

Yes.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says he agrees. What does the hon member for Rustenburg say?

I also agree. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Middelburg says he does not agree.

Homeopathy itself, which now stands to be registered as a practice, says that homeopathy is based on the principle that remedies that cause certain symptoms and signs in a healthy person can heal the same symptoms in an unhealthy person. They also say that the more a remedy is diluted, the more powerful it can become. Do all the laymen in this House believe this? Does the hon member for Middelburg, the herbal expert, believe this?

But it works, and that is the crux of the matter.

It is amazing that in this enlightened age—in fact in 1985—people can still come up with this kind of scientific training and then still try to gain recognition for it as training for a scientific profession. The other day the hon the Minister told the hon member for Parktown, by way of an interjection during the discussion of the seventh report of the standing committee, that the matter we are discussing at the moment most definitely had nothing to do with the Medical Association of South Africa. Can you credit that! I think it is a slap in the face for the representative association of all medical practitioners in South Africa, all 16 000 of them.

No wonder old Willem van Niekerk is now becoming the Minister. A gynaecologist!

Let me put one matter very clearly on behalf of this side of the House: We are not, as such, opposed to the manipulative procedures that chiropractors engage in. Most certainly not. They are, as a matter of fact, recognized procedures employed by medical disciplines such as orthopaedy and others. We know that thousands of patients benefit from this. We are not denying that it for a moment. We are therefore not blindly opposed to the profession. On the contrary, in the best interests of future registered practitioners we are in fact asking for greater recognition, a higher status, the recognition of the quality of training and for co-operation with the medical professions as far as these people are concerned. I am afraid, however, that the way it is being proposed in the Bill this evening, it is not possible. Let me indicate why. These professions are now finally being driven apart. We should have liked to see a greater degree of co-operation between all medical disciplines, or to use the latest Government catchword, consensus, in the overall primary health team of South Africa. The hon member Dr Vilonel is nodding his head approvingly, but I want to repeat that it is impossible to do it in this way.

On 15 May 1985 the registrar of the Medical and Dental Council wrote in the following terms to the secretary of Parliament:

This is the official standpoint adopted by the Medical Council of South Africa. The hon the Minister says by implication, however, that this council has nothing to do with the legislation and should keep its hands off it.

Not the council, the association.

Why is the hon the Minister in such a hurry with the legislation?

In a hurry? How long have we not been working on it?

How many people have already been trained, or are in the process of training, that it should now be such a matter or urgency to have the legislation passed by the House within a matter of weeks? The Medical Association and the Medical Council have tried unsuccessfully to give further evidence before the committee. They were not given the opportunity. Last week there was a meeting of the Federation of Medical Schemes in Windhoek. The secretary of the chiropractic association also gave a lecture there. I should like to quote what, amongst other things, he said there:

Reference is made to a “*ander spesialiteitsbenadering”. These people therefore regard their profession as being a specialized field in a certain sphere of medicine.

You said it was a supplementary health service.

I said I was sorry that it was not the case, because it could have been. [Interjections.] No, the hon the Minister must not try to steal a march on anyone. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows that he is at a disadvantage as far as medicine and the medical profession is concerned. He must not get all worked up now. [Interjections.]

The secretary of the Chiropractic Association then concludes with these words:

It will be a ‘’waardige lid van die gesondheidspan”. Let me now ask the hon the Minister if he regards chiropractors and homeopaths as members of the primary health team in South Africa.

I shall reply when I feel like it.

The hon the Minister really only has to say yes or no. [Interjections.]

A representative of the Nursing Association also delivered an excellent lecture at the same meeting. She also spoke about the primary health team in South Africa, but did not mention chiropractors and homeopaths as being part of the team. The hon the Minister knows better, however, and’wants to make them part of that team. It is very important for us to know whether they are going to become part of that team. If one looks at the proposed training programme one sees that they most certainly ought be part of that team. The hon member for Parktown also referred to that. The proposed curriculum for the first year includes the following subjects: Physics, chemistry, biology and anatomy. Is this not the medical course? I now want to ask why provision cannot then be made to offer these courses at our medical schools, which have trained people available to them. [Interjections.]

The following subjects are offered in the second year: Anatomy 2—now I just want to ask the hon the Minister if that anatomy 2 course involves the dissecting of cadavers—physiology, biochemistry, pathology and environmental health. They continue with this up to the third year, when pathology, diagnostics, medical principles, the conducting of a practice, psychiatry and first aid are added.

Then the two groups diverge. Chiropractics then continues on its own with manipulative medicine, radiology and so forth, while homeopathy then continues up to the sixth year, with the part about the indeterminable quantities of medicine. Provision is then made for a year of internship. [Interjections.] Here I have 15 pages about that training. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he really thinks that this training can be provided by those training facilities.

I read for example that in the fourth year gynaecology has to be dealt with. [Interjections.] Aspects that have to be dealt with include:

It continues in this vein—all about obstetrics. [Interjections.] Also, everything that one could list about orthopaedics is mentioned here. It continues:

and so forth. Everything concerning pediatrics is mentioned here. Then there is still neurodiagnostics as well, geriatrics and dermatology so it goes on. It is impossible for these people to qualify for these professions without having access to lecturers with this training.

A comprehensive recommended training programme, such as the one we have looked at here, should surely embody a fair amount of research. Can the hon the Minister give the House examples of research projects or pubheations in this regard, or quote from them? I want to ask the hon the Minister if relevant research and training is being done in South Africa. I shall return to this in a moment. In a while I want to point out to the House how strict the Government is about other natural scientists receiving university training in South Africa in order to qualify.

If it is not going to be done in South Africa I have to accept that the hon the Minister and the Government, on the face value of a proposed course, simply accept that students in these fields of study have reached an acceptable standard without having to write the examination of a recognized tertiary educational institution in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us look clinically at these matters. Let us compare this to legislation that will be coming before this House, the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of which we have already had in this House. Let us take a look at its provisions.

I just want to quote one sentence of the hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning from Hansard, 1985, col 2725: “This provision …is aimed at ensuring that the public interest and public safety are protected. The legislation consequently makes it clear to us how the public interest should be protected. We find there is a glaring contrast between this Natural Scientists’ Amendment Bill and the legislation now under discussion.

If we look at the acts we see that detailed legislation has been entrenched in the Statute Book for an imaginary situation that does not exist in South Africa. In Section 9 of the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Bill, for example, provision is made for a four year bachelor’s degree in natural sciences, plus three years’ practical experience, before such a student may be registered as a natural scientist. If anyone has a master’s degree in natural science, in terms of this paragraph he has to gain a further two years’ practical experience, and even if he has a doctorate he still has to gain a year’s practical experience before he can register as a natural scientist in terms of the legislation.

Certain people are excluded by this legislation, eg professional engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and pharmacists as well as medical practitioners, dentists and everyone in professions that are regulated by that council, including veterinarians and professional land surveyors.

I want to ask the hon the Minister what these people are. I notice that the Human Sciences Research Council carried out an investigation on them, but in my opinion they are really natural scientists. They should also have been mentioned in this legislation, rather than being excluded by the provisions of this legislation.

If we look at who has to register as natural scientists in terms of this Natural Scientists’ Amendment Bill, we see that it is, amongst others, a zoologist, a zoological anatomist, a zoological ecologist, a zoological physiologist, a zoological geneticist, a zoological paleonthologist, a zoological parasitologist and a zoological taxonomist. These people must have the relevant university training before they can practise these professions. Now we come to people who work with human beings, and for them this type of regulation is not required. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to clause 6 of the Associated Health Service Professions Amendment Bill in which provision is made for an imaginary situation. Clause 6 inserts certain sections after section 16 of the principal Act. It is stated in the proposed new section 16D, for example:

Where are those institutions? No such an institution exists in South Africa, but the Minister and the Government make a law to make provision for it without there being a single institution of that kind, a technikon or a university. It is simply ridiculous to introduce that in the House this evening. If the Government continues with this legislation, it will be doing the medical profession irrevocable harm. I want to ask the hon Acting Minister to ask the newly appointed Minister of Health, Dr Willie van Niekerk, what he thinks about this. I think he is very pleased that he is not yet sitting in those benches this evening having to defend this kind of legislation about the profession we are very proud of and guard jealously so that it can provide a service of high quality.

If the Government is not prepared to make provision for academic control to be exercised over the training of these people and for examinations in South Africa for professionals who have to become part of the primary health team in South Africa, we on this side of the House are not prepared to support the amending Bill. It is not in the best interests of the practitioners of these professions, but what is more important, it is not in the interests of the overall population of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I shall try, in the short time available to me, to cover as many as possible of the aspects raised by those gentlemen.

Many people, and of course doctors, are of the opinion that if the Government makes a certain decision and adopts a certain standpoint, that it is the only possible standpoint that the Government had considered. Naturally that idea is not correct. It may happen that the Government has considered certain standpoints and that there were many factors in favour of the one and many in favour of the other, but that the Government, in the nature of the matter, cannot choose both options and consequently makes a decision knowing full well that there is another side to the matter as well. To give support to that incorrect notion that the Government has turned its back on doctors, the hon member for Parktown said amongst other things, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

Further on he says:

Let me state categorically that this is not true. I want to state categorically that the NP and the Government unconditionally accept the bona fides of the Medical Association, those of the South African Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and those of the medical profession as a whole. We unconditionally accept the bona fides of the medical profession. We summarily reject the views that are sometimes expressed such as, inter alia, that doctors are afraid of chiropractors. To say that 16 000 doctors are afraid of the 60 practising chiropractors in this country is of course utter nonsense. [Interjections.] There are people who say that the standpoint of doctors is based merely on professional jealousy. Doctors are in fact saying that those people are not on the right level. How can they say this and still be professionally jealous of them? Once again, it is utter nonsense.

It is also being said—as the hon member for Durban Point also said incorrectly—that the doctors want a closed shop, as it were. This is not true either. There are clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, nurses and a whole Series of medical and paramedical services that are part of this team. There therefore is no question of a closed shop. The Medical Association of SA has said, and the Government and the NP accepts this unconditionally:

I therefore categorically state that what the Medical Association says, we unconditionally accept as their standpoint. I shall now get down to the reason why we are not giving that standpoint statutory effect.

Do you agree with what they said in the …

The hon member cannot quote only one brief sentence. He is like those fellows who take one text from the Bible and then ask one if one agrees with the Bible.

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

No, I cannot reply to a question in regard to one little text.

The hon member for Parktown, for example, has now quoted from the statement by the homeopaths to the effect that their treatment is based on the principle that remedies that cause certain symptoms and signs in a healthy person, can heal the same symptoms in someone who is sick. They believe that the more the remedy is diluted, the more powerful its effect can be. Now the hon member asks whether I accept that. Of course I do not accept it! I find it absolutely ridiculous. It makes me think of that person who walked into the bar …

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

No I only have seven minutes and the hon member did not want to reply to my question.

I did reply to your question.

Yes, but the hon member did not have only seven minutes.

As I was saying, this matter reminds me of the fellow who walked into the pub and ordered a six tot drink, a five tot drink, a four tot drink, a three tot drink, a double and a single drink. He sat there and drank them all. When he had drunk the last drop of the single drink, he shook his head and said that he could not understand it. When those around him asked: “What can you not understand?”, he replied: “The less I drank, the drunker I became”. [Interjections.] This is just about the reasoning behind this principle. The principle of the less one drinks, the drunker one becomes, cannot be applied in medicine. Let me say, therefore, that when doctors say that they do not accept these principles, we do in fact understand their viewpoint.

Why, then, are we pressing on with this legislation? What are the reasons? In his second reading speech the hon the Minister gave a fairly detailed explanation of why we are proceeding with the legislation. I could add a few reasons. The fact remains that in point of fact, the only issue here is chiropractic and homeopathy, and not all five professions. If the hon member had read what they had said he would have noticed that the South African Associated Health Service Professions Board agreed to have only two disciplines, the manipulative and the medicinal, or, chiropractors and homeopaths. They therefore excluded the herbalists and all the others and finally decided on these two professions alone. Therefore all five professions are not at issue; only the two are. [Interjections.]

I said that homeopathy and chiropractic are here to stay—this is also the case in South Africa. If we were now to adopt the same attitude as the Americans did on prohibition, to forbid this thing entirely—it is one of the choices—we would once again find ourselves in the same mess we were in before legislation was introduced. In other words, during the past 14 years, from 1971 up to now, these chiropractors and homeopaths have literally got their house in order. They have developed a very high standard and rid their membership of 70 charlatans. Their work is therefore of a far higher standard at this stage.

I shall conclude in a few moments but I firstly want to voice one idea concerning the aim of this legislation. I do not have the time to quote the Medical Association of South Africa now. The Medical Association itself, represented by its Secretary-General, said in 1981 that there should be complete control. It was said that the Medical and Dental Council of South Africa should exercise this control, but this council did not want to accept it. The only aim of this legislation is, therefore, that there should be sound control. Sound control and thorough training is even accepted by the Medical Association of South Africa.