Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, in the time available to me I shall try to deal with the Votes under discussion while some of my hon colleagues will discuss the role of prosecutors, the enforcement of maintenance orders, legal aid and possible steps to combat the overcrowding of our prisons and other subjects.

Allow me at the outset to congratulate the Commissioner of Prisons, Lt-Gen Willemse, on the decoration he received—the Order of the Star of South Africa, Class 1, Grand Cross, Gold. We believe it was well deserved, we wish him everything of the best and we hope that he will be able to be of service to the Prison Services for a long time to come. I also want to express my gratitude to the Director-General of Justice for the friendly service we have received from him and his staff. May I also convey a special word of thanks to all the officials and the parliamentary team of the department which were helpful to us during the activities of the standing committees. We also thank those persons who assisted us on the occasion of our visit to the Victor Verster Prison, our transportation thence and the particularly friendly reception which came our way.

Mr Speaker, we should also like to express a special word of appreciation to the SA Law Commission and particularly to Mr Justice Olivier, who is in the full-time employ of that Commission and who is rendering the administration of justice in South Africa an invaluable service. Furthermore, I should also like to thank the staff of the various offices of the Attorneys-General, the Registrars and the Prosecutors, who serve the administration of justice, for the task they are performing.

I have probably finished dealing with the powers behind the throne. If I may now come to the power on the throne I also want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for his friendliness and helpfulness over the past year in all cases in which it was necessary for us to approach him.

He is not a bad fellow!

I should like to refer briefly to the annual report. Firstly, I want to congratulate the compilers on its contents, but there is something in particular I want to say about the appearance of the report. I want to congratulate them on it. I think that if there were a prize the hon the Minister of Finance ought to award, it should be to the Department of Justice because of the savings they effected. As far as the contents are concerned the report contains everything that should be there, but it was not printed on glossy paper, nor are there any colour photographs. The annual report has been published as economically as possible. I think it is an example for all departments in view of the fact that we are living in times in which we should try to save. Departmental annual reports should be compiled in this way and not in such a way as to cause one to wonder whether one is dealing with a glossy magazine or simply a departmental annual report.

I want to single out a few aspects from the report and discuss them. First of all I want to quote paragraph 2.12 on page 80:

In paragraph 2.13 I read:

I am sorry to note that the Supreme Court Building in Pretoria is not on the building programme yet. In 1959 I had the opportunity for the first time of inspecting the plans for this building. We had hoped that it would have been possible to complete the building during the past year, but I note from the annual report that it does not appear on the building programme until 1992 either. I trust that the hon the Minister will be able to do something to alleviate the accommodation crisis which the Supreme Court in Pretoria is experiencing—that need is particularly critical. I think that annually we are spending approximately R600 000 in rent for other buildings in order to accommodate this court. If one considers what could possibly have been saved, one realises that we could have had that building completed by now.

Something else to which I should like to draw attention is found on page 82 and is concerned with the recording of evidence. It has been envisaged that savings could possibly be effected in regard to the retyping of records. It is said that consideration should be given to the record being kept by the magistrate himself in writing. That means that evidence will be limited to the essential and even though minutes have to be retyped for appeal or review purposes, such records are far more concise than transcriptions from mechanical recordings.

Yet I do want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that we do not go that far. One has confidence in the presiding officers, and I do not want what I am about to say to be incorrectly interpreted, but a summary simply has to be made of evidence given by another person. It could be that something essential may be omitted by accident or is not included in the record due to haste, but may be of cardinal importance at a subsequent appeal or review. Something like this could of course give rise to injustice.

I want to return for a moment to the question of the Supreme Court building in Pretoria. The Reserve Bank has a new building approximately 20 storeys high. It is a luxurious building; I have been informed that marble was even imported from Italy. What I should like to know is whether there is any possibility of the old Reserve Bank building being made available to the Supreme Court.

It is suited to the Supreme Court and will meet the existing needs. I think that building would be put to worthy use. However, I understand that the Treasury is still using it at this stage but since they have that new building I want to ask that consideration be given to allocating this building to the Supreme Court in Pretoria. I think it would be ideally suited to that purpose.

I want to pause for a moment to discuss our bench and the magistrates. I think we in South Africa are all proud of the reputation and of the work which is being done by our judges and our magistrates. Today, however, I want to mention another category of people as well, who are making a major contribution to the good work being done there, and who often disappear into the background. It would not be possible for the administrators of justice to perform this task and to maintain this high standard without the good service being rendered by attorneys, advocates and prosecutors. Their role is often treated lightly or either remains unseen or underestimated.

Criticism is often levelled at these professions, but I want to give the public the assurance that if there are any complaints, they can be lodged with the various associations if they are justified, and that very severe action will be taken against any offenders.

There is something else we should like to add. I think we are all delighted that there has in recent years been a law conference at which the question of merging the attorney’s and advocate’s profession was discussed. I personally am glad to see that they came to the conclusion that for the sake of the interests of the legal profession, a merger between these two professions will not take place. That was the official view as well as the view of the law societies, who spoke through their representatives as representatives of the Bar Council.

However, I am of the opinion that these professions do at times neglect another aspect, namely the defence of our bench. Attacks are sometimes made on our bench, and I must say it has become fashionable among some academics to attack our bench and our judges personally. It is easy to fight a person who cannot hit back, because a judge is not in a position to defend himself in respect of judgements and any polemic which may arise in newspapers. However, I am pleased to say that the profession did intervene when certain allegations were made, especially in the overseas Press, about the trial of the Sharpeville Six. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to join the hon member for Bethal in thanking and congratulating the Director-General of the Department of Justice, Adv Van der Merwe. I should also like to commend him from this side of the House for his enthusiastic and effective leadership in the department. His thorough approach is reflected in the annual report, in which he not only takes pleasure in recounting the positive aspects and the successes achieved by the department, but also does not hesitate to point out the inadequacies that exist. In this way he is building up the department.

I should also like to mention three other people on this occasion. They are Advocates Deon Rudman and G Nel, Director and Deputy Director of the Legislation Branch, and Mr Labuschagne, the Administrative Secretary of the Ministry. The former two gentlemen have been assisting the Standing Committee on Justice for several years, and lawyers are not the easiest people to get along with. One hears many complaints from other standing committees about the conduct of lawyers on those committees; they are said to be rather difficult. When a lot of lawyers are brought together on one committee, therefore, one may perhaps expect more problems. In spite of this, these two gentlemen have assisted this standing committee with distinction, so much so that we have been able to deal with 12 pieces of legislation during the past year. I want to thank them for their contribution.

I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to Mr Labuschagne for his very courteous and effective assistance over a period of many years. I believe it is incumbent on us on this side of the House, especially this year, to convey our heartfelt thanks to the entire staff of the Department of Justice for the great sacrifice and the enormous contribution they have made over the past year, and are still making, in spite of the great pressure under which they are working. The economic downturn and the unrest we have had in South Africa in recent years have led to a substantial increase, not only in criminal but also in civil cases. This has led to an increase in the pressure of work, but there has been no corresponding increase in the work force. The volume of work increased by 43% between 1982 and 1987, while the staff increased by only 22,3%. This work could not have been done if there had not been a substantial increase in productivity on the part of the staff. For that we must thank them.

There is no reason to expect any appreciable decrease in this pressure of work, for although there is a downward tendency in the amount of work, one may also expect that there will be greater pressure on the staff to leave the service. The tendency is already there and is demonstrated by the fact that there have been 6,3% more resignations during the past year.

Another tendency that can be observed in the department is the increasing importance of the regional court. While the criminal cases in the Supreme Court were down by 21% in the year under review, the criminal cases in the regional court increased by 9%. This court is obviously becoming more important, and specific attention will therefore have to be given to the needs of the magistrates and the prosecutors in this particular court.

I want to refer to four aspects, namely legal aid, the profession of advocate, the protection of game farmers and attacks on the judiciary and the Supreme Court. As far as legal aid is concerned, it is an undeniable fact that the Legal Aid Board is still under financial pressure, and therefore I am very grateful for the fact that increased financial aid has been granted to them. I am also grateful for the hon the Minister’s announcement yesterday that a specific amount is going to be made available to them over the next few years. This means that the Legal Aid Board knows exactly what to expect.

When one looks at the aid provided by the Legal Aid Board during the year under review, it is clear that this board is making great progress. While the applications for legal aid increased by 28% between 1985 and 1987, the briefs to legal representatives increased by 50%. During the year under review, 65 000 applications were received, of which only 12 000 were turned down; 21 000 were referred to legal representatives and another 21 000 were resolved by mediation. The Legal Aid Board has also undertaken an in-depth investigation to set its house in order. I am fully confident that the Legal Aid Board will solve its problems. At the first national bar conference held recently the Hon Mr Justice Eloff, who is the chairman of this board, also appealed to the private sector to help the Legal Aid Board. I hope that this appeal will be heeded.

Having referred to the first national bar conference, I must congratulate the General Bar Council on this conference. They discussed important subjects at a very high level, and in doing so, they have undoubtedly improved the image and the nature of the profession.

A matter to which the profession will definitely have to give attention is the fact that there are at present two qualifications for people who wish to practise in the Supreme Court, one for those who are only subject to the Act and another for those who wish to comply with the requirements of the bar and consequently practise at the bar. This means that there are also two sets of ethical rules for the two groups.

This situation is unacceptable to the profession practising in the country’s highest court, and the profession will have to look into it. The solution is not that those who do not practise at the bar should be prohibited from practising, but rather that they should be brought within the ambit of the bar. The General Bar Council would probably have to receive statutory recognition to be able to do that.

I want to refer to the protection of game farmers. It is true that there has been an increase in game farming lately and that it is being conducted on a more economic basis. There have also been more calls for these farmers to be afforded protection against poaching. I should be very grateful if the hon the Minister would give attention to this.

†In recent times great publicity has been given to attacks on the South African judiciary and judicial system. Perhaps the most notorious example of this was the leader in The Times of London describing a criminal trial which was eventually taken to the Appellate Division as “disgraceful chicanery”. In the same instance the doctrine of common purpose was described as “a doctrine which established the death penalty for merely being present at a riot where death occurs”.

This is the case when the doctrine of common purpose originated in the English law and when it has been applied in South Africa for many years in hundreds and thousands of cases—cases which had no political overtones whatsoever. The Times was not even prepared to publish a letter from the Chairman of the General Bar Council. What is sad is that there is evidence that some of these blatant untruths that have been printed in the foreign Press have emanated from South African and local academics.

There have also been allegations concerning so-called “executive-minded judges” and about the stifling of the judicial discretion of the Supreme Court. What are the facts, however? During the past few years we have seen the development of a very lively administrative law in South Africa, which has had far-reaching implications in every sphere of administrative activity. The same applies to the security sphere. As a result of this we have found that the courts have found press curbs invalid, they have forced the police to justify arrests, access to detainees has been given, and many regulations have been found to be invalid. These developments, as well as the fact that judges are independent in our constitutional framework and can only be dismissed by Parliament, something which has happened only once in our history, belie the allegations that I have referred to. These are wild allegations, but they are always given ample publicity. However, when a doctoral thesis appears—which was published earlier this year—dealing in a scientific and balanced way with the general allegations I have referred to, very scant publicity is given to it. I am referring to the publication, Judge and be Judged, by Dr Adrienne van Blerk, which appeared in April of this year.

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

Mr Speaker, I am merely rising to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon Whip for the opportunity.

†In this particular publication Dr Van Blerk refers to the classification of judges as either liberal or conservative judges, and she refers to a statement of the Hon Mr Justice Didcott who said the following:

Dr Van Blerk’s comment concerning this was: “There is ample evidence that this is undeniably so.” She provides proof of this.

Dr Van Blerk also comes to the conclusion that the pre-1950 judiciary was far more sensitive to criticism of the administration of justice than the post-1950 judiciary. As far as this is concerned, it does not bear out the much vaunted liberal reputation of the pre-1950 bench. She also concludes that unfair and groundless criticism has caused unwarranted damage to the public confidence and integrity of our courts.

There is also criticism of the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, as if this country did not inherit this doctrine from the Westminster system where it is still in force. Judges are also urged to become activists, and the example of the US Supreme Court is often cited. However, we are never told about the backgrounds of the judges in the US Supreme Court and we are never urged to implement that very system.

However, the facts are that in 21 of those states all the judges, from the top to the bottom, are elected on a partisan or non-partisan general ballot basis. In many other states the judges are elected by the legislature. Judge Neely, a Supreme Court judge of the State of West Virginia, delivered a speech to the Public Affairs Council in Washington in October 1987 where he said, inter alia, that because of the system in America “high visibility politicians—and not legal scholars—have the best chance of becoming judges”, and “American judges are overwhelmingly former politicians”. He also said that “in the federal system where judges are appointed by the President on the advice and with the consent of the Senate, judgeships go as often as not to the also-rans of big-time elected politics or to larger fund-raisers for senators”. I would submit that we can ill afford this situation in South Africa.

I am not suggesting that judicial decisions should not be argued and criticised, neither am I suggesting that the judicial system in South Africa is without flaws or that Parliament could not have overextended itself in the past. We are all human. However, what we need is criticism based on legal principles. It can be robust criticism, but it must be based on legal principles and presented in a rational and responsible way and not argued on policy considerations.

What is abundantly clear, is that our judges are men of integrity, experienced in determining the truth and trained in the best traditions of an independent judiciary. They are also functioning within the best possible system for our particular circumstances. The last thing we can afford is a court of political activists in any direction, because it will only lose all credibility in our divided society.

Mr Speaker, the whole question of the death penalty in South Africa is a highly charged issue, and involves a debate which easily arouses emotions.

While I personally, for moral and other reasons, am in principle against capital punishment, I wish to raise this matter now in as objective a manner as possible, so as to allow a rational, dispassionate, and if possible, non-party political discussion on the issue.

Out-and-out abolitionists point out that South Africa hangs more people per annum than the rest of the Western World combined. In 1987 the figure stood at 164 executions in the Republic; in other words, one execution every second day. Since I first came to Parliament in 1974 over 1 700 people have been hanged in our country, which is not a proud record.

It is argued that, no matter how careful the judiciary and the executive may be, mistakes could occur, and that the very irreversibility of the sentence precludes bringing back to life a person who has wrongly been executed. It should also be noted that in South Africa the death penalty has been extended to include in certain circumstances crimes other than murder—for instance, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and rape.

However, it is not only the abolitionists who have in recent weeks raised this matter for public debate. The immediate past Director-General of the Department of Justice, Mr J P J Coetzer, SC, whose authority and voice should not be ignored by the hon the Minister, has entered the discussion. He argues, in the most recent edition of Consultus, which is a journal of the SA Bar Council, most persuasively the case for a new investigation into the whole issue.

The points he makes can be summarised as follows. Mr Coetzer believes that the mandatory death sentence for murder should be replaced by giving the judiciary greater flexibility and more discretion in deciding upon the desirability of the death penalty in specific cases. He says that the present system involving mandatory death sentence for murder in the absence of somewhat narrowly construed extenuating circumstances, is too rigid. After over 50 years in practice this system requires revision. This suggestion is worthy of serious consideration, for I believe, inter alia, that the present burden upon the hon the State President as the final arbiter on executions must in fact be an intolerable one to bear.

Secondly, Mr Coetzer is also convinced that yet further steps should be taken to be totally certain of the guilt of a person sentenced to death. For this reason he argues that an automatic right of appeal should be instituted. I agree with him. When a person’s life is at stake, he should be allowed the opportunity to put his case before the highest court in the land as a matter of right and not as a matter of a decision by the lower court. In this connection, he argues very convincingly for the replacement of the present pro Deo system of legal representation.

Whatever our personal attitude may be to this whole issue—I have stated what mine is—there are at least some aspects upon which, I believe, we can all agree, namely that except for isolated debates in Parliament dating back some years, except for occasional articles in legal periodicals and except for seldom offered speeches at legal symposia, more than 50 years has elapsed since an in-depth investigation was carried out in our country into the whole question of the death penalty. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to give consideration to instituting such an investigation. It can be done most desirably through the offices of the Law Commission and thereafter through the process of a joint committee of Parliament. I keenly await the hon the Minister’s response to this appeal.

Mr Speaker, I trust that the hon member for Sandton will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to what he said. Personally I do not like the death penalty either. I hope the hon the Minister will react to the hon member for Sandton. I do not think any harm will be done if this question is re-examined from time to time.

I would like to devote the few minutes I have at my disposal to the question of maintenance, and in particular maintenance for children who are the victims of divorce. I am very concerned that the present system of getting breadwinners—who are usually the fathers of the children—to pay maintenance, is not operating effectively enough. According to a report by the HSRC in 1985 it cost the taxpayers some R40 million a year to support women and children in cases where the breadwinners are dodging their maintenance obligations. Last year it cost R56,7 million for Whites alone, according to information I received from the department. In other words, the amount is rising rapidly. In March of this year alone, the department paid out R4,727 million for the maintenance of White children in these circumstances.

With one in three marriages of Whites in South Africa ending in divorce, according to statistics published last year, more than 20 000 White children annually are victims of divorce. If comparative figures in other countries are anything to go by, a third of these children are under the age of five. In other words, for years and years these children will have to be maintained, paid for, clothed, fed and educated, apart from being loved and cared for. In the case of very young children, where the mother cannot leave them to go out to work, she is entitled to maintenance as well.

The fact of the matter is that many men are shirking their obligations and getting away with murder. It is true that many men resent having to give part of their monthly incomes to their ex-wives. However, what has not been stressed enough is that maintenance is a children’s issue and a welfare issue, and is unrelated to the current relationship between a woman and her ex-husband.

However, it often appears almost as though the mother of the children as applicant in a maintenance hearing is put on trial herself. She is often exposed to hours of cross-examination by her ex-husband’s attorney. It always appears that he can afford an attorney whereas she is usually assisted by officials of the department.

The legal position, however, is very clear. It is a child’s right to be maintained by both parents. The maintenance rule is that both parents should share pro rata in the maintenance of their children in accordance with their means. Therefore, if a woman has her own income she should also contribute pro rata to those means. However, normally a woman with young children is unable to pursue a career to the extent of the father and therefore should be entitled to maintenance for herself.

The Divorce Act makes provision for the courts not to grant divorce until they are satisfied that the arrangements made for children are satisfactory. This is where the family advocate will play an important role once the Bill is promulgated in that a neutral third party will be able to bring both the parents together where, at the present time, it is very often only one parent who appears before the court and puts facts before the court in connection with maintenance.

The law is reasonable. However, the machinery to enforce the law is breaking down in a sense that it is not coping with the numbers of people involved. Where the State acts as agent for collection and distribution of maintenance, the figures speak for themselves.

I want to use Johannesburg which is just one city in this country as an example. According to the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg the city’s Maintenance Court currently has 8 446 cases on its records for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Every day there are 25 to 30 new applications from Whites, Coloureds and Indians for maintenance, and there are daily 45 new cases for Blacks on the roll. Last year 2 349 maintenance dodgers were prosecuted in Johannesburg. In 1987, 8 857 telephonic enquiries in connection with maintenance payments were received at the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg. In fact, when we look at the telephone book, we see that there is only one number listed for the court, while three numbers are listed for the maintenance section. It is probably the busiest court in the city.

According to what I have been told by the people running the court, all these applicants, except for one or two grandfathers, are women. If the maintenance bill of the State is R56 million, breadwinners are clearly just not fulfilling their obligations.

I understand that the hon the Minister undertook to investigate the matter in 1986 and a special committee of the Department of Justice is investigating or has investigated the whole question of maintenance and the effective enforcement of maintenance orders. I would like to ask the hon the Minister if he has received a report from this committee yet. I think it is most important that something be done as soon as possible to remedy the current situation.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member for Rosettenville. Later I shall take some of the ideas which she raised in regard to the question of maintenance further.

It is a great pleasure for me to be participating in this debate, because the legal profession is a matter of deep concern to me. Not only did I myself go through the whole process in the Department of Justice from being an exhibits clerk to a State advocate, but during the past 21 years I was involved daily in the criminal courts where I defended cases. I am therefore aware of the problems experienced by prosecutors as well as those experienced by magistrates and magisterial personnel at the magistrates’ offices.

Today I want to speak specifically about a more pleasant part of the Department of Justice, namely the female prosecutors and female staff at the department. During the last few years women have made considerable progress in the department, and besides Miss Justice Van der Heever and the Attorney-General’s staff a former class colleague of mine who studied with me at my old alma mater, Potchefstroom University, Advocate Natalie Fleischack, is at present Deputy Attorney-General in Pietermaritzburg.

Besides her there are also 301 female prosecutors appearing in various courts throughout the country. I have been informed by the department that these women, with the exception of nine, have all received proper legal training. In my constituency, Standerton, where there are five magistrates’ courts, all the magistrates’ courts, except for one, are staffed by female prosecutors, and I must say that I am truly impressed by the conduct of these women in these posts which they occupy, the outstanding quality of the work they produce, their thorough preparation of their cases and their judicial discretion. Because they are so well trained, cases are finalised far more easily than is usually the case with people who have not been properly trained. I want to compliment the hon the Minister on the fact that he and his department are continuing to appoint these women, and I think they are truly able to make a very considerable contribution to the administration of justice.

Since I am discussing magistrates’ courts I may point out that there are of course certain negative aspects, but these are the exception rather than the general rule. In some courts one finds the situation that completely untrained prosecutors have to deal with cases, with the result that the administration of justice does not take place as it should and that certain deficiencies arise. One then is saddled with the problem that in many such cases the magistrates have to do the prosecutor’s work from the bench, which is of course a very unhealthy situation and ought not to be allowed. I merely want to ask the hon the Minister and his department to prevent this kind of situation.

There is also a further problem the public complain about—it is also the exception—and that is that on certain days in some courts one finds the situation in which a prosecutor sits on the prosecutor’s bench and prepares his dossiers and the next day he sits on the bench and tries cases in the same court. That is of course a very unhealthy situation which ought not to occur and which should be eliminated.

A second aspect which I should like to deal with is the question of maintenance, to which the hon member for Rosettenville also referred. However, I want to refer to the tracing of these people who have already been ordered to pay maintenance and who then simply disappear off the face of the earth so that no one can get hold of them. Such a person’s duty of paying maintenance usually becomes too burdensome when he remarries. He subsequently disappears and no one can trace him. The poor wife, who is usually saddled with a few children, usually has to go to the attorney or the magistrates’ office and these people are usually traced only after a few months have passed.

There was a particularly interesting development in this regard, and that was that a parent locater, as he is called, was appointed at the Johannesburg Magistrates’ office and he has apparently been very successful in tracing these louts, as we may as well call them, who simply cannot meet their obligations. I want to ask the hon the Minister for this practice to be expanded to other centres, especially since it has been such a great success at the Johannesburg magistrates’ court— I understand that there has been a success rate of 83%, and that a former policeman was appointed to do the work and that he is doing a very good job. Perhaps some of the local staff at magistrates’ offices could be used to help trace these people. It would mean a great deal to single parent families and these women if they could be helped in this way. My request to the hon the Minister is that if there are sufficient funds available again, this matter should be accorded a high priority and receive urgent attention.

If time will allow me I want to mention one last aspect, and that is, once again rather by way of exception than the general rule, that these days cases—a few of which I have been involved in— are transferred from the place where the crime was committed to other venues; in other words to different places altogether.

In these specific cases too this ought really to be the exception, if it happens at all. If a crime takes place in a particular town, the trial in that connection ought to take place in the same magisterial district. It should not be transferred to another magisterial district. I ask the hon the Minister to please give attention to this matter so that persons involved in such a case, for example, legal representatives and relatives of the parties involved are able to attend the trial without unnecessary effort and expense.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken about the security aspects at magistrates’ courts before. Once again I want to raise the matter here today. In the magisterial district of Standerton there are five courts, and only at one of those are there any security measures. At the other four magistrates’ courts there are absolutely no security measures. There are usually large crowds of people at magistrates’ courts and for that very reason it is essential that the necessary security measures, which will permit the administration of justice to take place in safety, should be in force.

Mr Speaker, I gladly associate myself with the hon member for Standerton in the tribute he paid to the female sex in the Department of Justice. I identify myself with what he said in this regard.

As far as the hon member’s problem with prosecutors is concerned, I am of the opinion that the cases which he mentioned, are highly exceptional, since we know that the Department of Justice goes to some trouble to ensure that prosecutors receive proper training. If these are cases which the public did in fact complain about, it is possibly because they are such exceptional cases. That is the very reason why they were brought to his attention.

Of course the change of trial venues does not occur often. In any case there have to be good reasons when a trial venue is changed from one magisterial district to another. I therefore cannot imagine that a magistrate would decide without good reason to transfer a case from one magisterial district to another.

I should also like to join the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in thanking the Director-General of Justice. I thank him for the exceptional service which he and his staff render. Furthermore I also want to express my gratitude to the hon the Minister for the initiative which he displayed in regard to the reform of our legal system and its adaptation to changing circumstances. On behalf of this side of the House I also want to express my gratitude to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, for the competent way in which he performs his task.

Mr Speaker, mention is often made of the rights of the individual, but the fact that there can be no question of rights without accompanying obligations is often overlooked. In the same way there can be no question of absolute rights, because every right which a person may possibly possess is derived from the law which in turn can expand or limit it. Just as there are reciprocal rights and obligations among individuals, the same relation exists between the State and its citizens, and like individuals, states also have certain objectives which they strive to attain. Such objectives are often an inspiration to the people and to the conduct of the State as well as being indicative of the direction to be followed, and also motivates both parties to make the necessary sacrifices in order to achieve those objectives.

In this regard I am also referring to a few of the national objectives which are embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa to recognise and protect the human dignity, life, liberty and the property of all, to further private initiative and effective competition, to further the contentment and the spiritual and material welfare of all and to secure the maintenance of law and order, to uphold Christian values and civilised norms with recognition and protection of freedom of faith and worship and to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the equality of all under the law. In all these cases it is the South African legal system itself which governs legal relationships among individuals and between individuals and the State from which the rights and obligations to which I referred arise.

The fact that our legal system is held in such high esteem, that it is accessible to all and ensures equal treatment, undeniably contributes to the fact that legal relationships can be entered into with confidence and that national objectives can be achieved.

In this regard I briefly want to refer to the rule of law principle and it is important to refer to the view of the English constitutional law expert, Dicey namely that it in fact means that the law and not the government is sovereign. The aim in the adoption of laws such as the Magna Carta, habeas corpus, the petition of rights and bill of rights was mainly to curb the king’s arbitrary powers and his interference with the administration of justice. These were then consolidated into the rule of law principle. The intention, however, was not that the highest legislative body would have to yield to this principle.

Unfortunately the rule of law operates politically, and there is a liberal insistence on maximum individual freedom regardless of how the exercise of these so-called freedoms encroach upon the rights of others and of the State. It is a kind of humanistic absolutising of individual rights.

Allegations that the South African Government is violating the rule of law principle are liberally made from political platforms when its policy and certain legislation which has been placed on the Statute Book to maintain law and order is being attacked. To create a situation in which law and order are maintained, it is in point of fact essential to prevent minority groups from encroaching on the rights of the moderate majority. Minorities cannot be permitted to participate in seditious activities which disrupt the orderliness of the rest of society, because such conduct prevents law-abiding citizens who are not emotionally involved and who do not want to participate in radical activities from continuing with their daily routine.

To us the cardinal question is, however, whether the Government is destroying or strengthening the principle. To allege that the essence of law should not be the rule of the law but that the law rules can only be correct if due regard is given to the prevailing reality which not only includes the security situation but also the State’s right to protect itself by means of effective legislation.

When the interests of society are weighed up against those of the individual, preference must be given to those of the group, because ultimately it is to the advantage of that very individual. Because the security and survival of society depends upon the conduct of its own members in times of crisis as well as that of the external enemy, it is clear that in such times the conduct of citizens must be such that society’s meaningful survival will be ensured, even if the rights of certain persons or those of minority or sectional interests have to be curbed or impaired for the sake of that goal. The highest law according to the Roman legal principle is that of the State and not of individual or sectional interests.

Persons who want to overthrow the Government unconstitutionally with violence and who try to apply democratic concepts such as the rule of law to achieve their goal, cannot expect society and the law to deal with them as if they were loyal citizens, because their conduct seeks in fact to destroy democracy, and therefore the rule of law as well. That is the case because to want to make a country ungovernable means that in the process one must also destroys its legal system which is the regulatory mechanism of the reciprocal rights and duties of society and its components.

Because the executive authority is separated from the judicial authority in South Africa it can be said without fear of contradiction that in protecting human rights, liberties and values the courts will scrupulously ensure the maintenance of common law principles and will continue to be regarded as one of the foundations of our democratic system.

Mr Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to be participating in this debate on the Justice Vote. I want to make a few observations about the age-old problem which still requires our consideration from time to time in South Africa.

In view of the increasing legal costs, access to the courts and the right of the public to be supported by legal representatives remains one of the greatest problems. The Legal Aid Board wants to overcome this problem in terms of the Legal Aid Act, 1969, by rendering legal assistance to people who have an income of R400 per month, to which a further amount of R100 per dependant child may be added. Married persons qualify for legal aid when such persons earn R800 per month, to which a further amount of R100 can be added per dependant child.

Since the beginning of this decade financial grants by the State to the Legal Aid Board have not kept abreast of the rise in attorneys’ and advocates’ fees on the one hand and especially not of the increase in the demand for legal aid on the other. In the first half of the year under review, there was in fact an increase of approximately 40% in the number of applicants for legal aid. To eliminate this problem the Legal Aid Board did two things. In the first place they requested an additional amount of R2,9 million and in the second place they curbed their activities and their assistance to prospective litigants by inter alia suspending legal aid for criminal and civil appeals.

Once again there was no question in the year under review of a reasonable remuneration for legal practitioners for services rendered—I know the hon the Minister took cognisance of that. In fact, the Legal Aid Board could only make a contribution—I want to emphasise this—to legal practitioners for the redemption of legal costs. I could mention briefly that an estimated R12,6 million in fees which have to be paid to legal practitioners are at present outstanding. I must concede that these do not have to be paid in the same year under review, but they are nevertheless outstanding.

Yesterday’s announcement by the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives that more money would be made available to the Legal Aid Board is therefore a welcome one. I also want to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon the Minister for this additional money which has been appropriated for the Legal Aid Board, yet at the same time I want to indicate and emphasise that it was an emergency measure to save the Legal Aid Board from its financial predicament. Perhaps the time has also come now—I should like to ask the hon the Minister to consider this in view of the additional funds which have been appropriated for the Legal Aid Board, to raise the amount involved in the means test for rendering legal aid.

Secondly, I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s standpoint as to whether it is possible to add fines which are imposed in court cases to the funds of the Legal Aid Board in order to supplement the Legal Aid Board’s funds.

Nevertheless I do not think that that is the only way in which this problem can be solved. In my maiden speech I indicated that other ways and means should be sought and considered to give substance to the right to legal assistance, which is a fundamental keystone in any sophisticated legal system. As I indicated on that occasion, one such way is to give substance in South Africa to a comprehensive system—I think I called it that— of legal costs insurance. It is a system in terms of which prospective litigants can ensure themselves against legal costs which arise from litigation.

Today I want to content myself with a few remarks in this connection, and I should like to request the hon the Minister’s attention. A useful starting point for putting a legal costs insurance scheme into operation could be found in the medical insurance schemes. Naturally a legal costs insurance system would have to be established and maintained by the private sector; that is obvious. It could now be asked what contribution the Department of Justice could make in respect of the establishment of a legal costs insurance system.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the Department of Justice ought to take the initiative in co-operation with organisations such as the General Bar Council, the law societies and other interested parties to get the ball rolling and to see whether we could establish a legal costs insurance system in South Africa. In fact, the legal systems in Europe are also saddled with the same problem of rising legal costs, and one of the ways in which it is solved in Europe is by means of a comprehensive legal costs insurance system.

As I have indicated, it would ultimately have to be the private insurance companies that would have to take this initiative by the Department of Justice further.

I want to emphasise this once again, and I therefore ask the hon the Minister, as a matter of urgency, whether it might not be possible to take this first step on the way to establishing comprehensive legal costs insurance in South Africa. In fact the introduction of a legal costs insurance scheme could become the major area in which the public and private sectors could join hands to enrich the South African legal system and in so doing not only make the right to legal representation a reality for the public, but also materially further the interests of justice in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is said that since the earliest times advocates positioned themselves right in front of their clients with a money bag suspended over the shoulder on a string, and after having spent some time on the lawsuit, the advocate would sit down until he heard the chink of a new coin being dropped into his money bag. From that one can deduce—and on that score I associate myself with the hon member for Losberg—that high costs of litigation have been a problem since the earliest times. Today advocates’ togas still have a symbolic cord which is suspended in front with a symbolic money bag thrown over the shoulder, and from that one can infer that the problem of the high costs of litigation is still with us today. I am saying all this in a lighter vein.

In a more serious vein, the most refined legal system has to forfeit some legitimacy if that legal system becomes inaccessible because of high costs. Justice may not belong only to those who can pay for it. We are very grateful that so much has already been done in South Africa recently to address the problem of high legal costs. One possibility which could be considered is the method which the hon member for Losberg advocated in his speech. There are certain initiatives which the hon the Minister and the department have taken. There is the Rules Board and our courts have themselves moved away from the strict formalism which was adhered to in the past in dealing with the law of procedure.

There was the important innovation in respect of the small claims court which made it possible for the man in the street to have his minor case adjudicated by being given a hearing without a legal representative in a court which goes about its task in an investigatory way.

It has been suggested that we extend the pattern of small claims courts in order to eliminate high litigation costs and to make legal processes more accessible to the public. We must, nevertheless, be careful in this regard. In the first place the small claims court is embedded in a fundamental system which is at least comparable to the inquisitorial system. The inquisitorial system is alien to the political philosophy we are accustomed to because it is actually embedded in an alien political philosophy, namely that of socialism or even communism.

But surely that is not the case!

Therefore the idea of moving towards an inquisitorial system—I agree with the hon member for Losberg that the small claims court is not really based on an inquisitorial system—does not offer any possibilities within the South African context.

Furthermore it is a simple truth that the public seek a legal counsellor when they find themselves involved in a legal action. That is why we must devise systems which will enable them to make use of their legal representatives. Innovative thought is required in this regard, and I am referring to a breakthrough which I believe has been made on a theoretical level in a thesis by Danie van Loggerenberg, who is at present professor of formal law at the University of Port Elizabeth. In his thesis he points out that there are two factors in particular which make the costs of litigation very expensive in South Africa.

The first factor is the excessive use made of the written word in the process, and secondly the excessive control on the part of the parties involved when an action is being conducted. It means that the entire lawsuit becomes a game between the legal representatives. I do not blame the legal representatives for doing everything in their power to win within the rules of the game, just as I would not blame the rugby player for winning a game with kicks. If one wants to eliminate kicks as a match-winning factor one must change the rules. If we want to eliminate the juridical game which is being played we must simply adapt and change the process.

I think the German system offers great possibilities because the emphasis there is placed on the importance of the court as controller and director of the process. On the one hand one can therefore eliminate a large measure of documentation and one can also in that way eliminate the game between the legal practitioners.

A simple model which would be based on that system is one in which the court takes the initiative, after the summons, to convene the parties with their legal representatives, if any, and to define the dispute after interrogation of the parties, the court determining then and there which witnesses and what evidence would be necessary to appear in court on a specific day specified by the court in order to investigate and finalise the action.

I am of the opinion that we could profit from examining new and different kinds of models to those which have hitherto obstructed our vision. I want to take the liberty to ask the hon the Minister to take appropriate steps so that we can have these possibilities on the agenda and give them very serious consideration. It could be done as an extension of the small claims court; it could be done as a parallel system introduced in the magistrates’ courts; it could also be done experimentally in other ways so that we, our public and our legal practitioners can be guided into a new system.

I believe justice must be brought within reach of everyone in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, White South Africans are noted for their pride in our legal system—something which is often thrown at our critics. They are quite rightly proud of the system. I believe that the Roman Dutch system, based on the principles of justice, reasonableness and impartiality, is one of the best systems of law in the world. These principles have over the course of time always been highly regarded by our courts, in the past even to the extent that where statutory provisions deviated from the principles of justice, reasonableness and impartiality, the laws were regarded as invalid. I am referring here to cases in the early 1900s of beach apartheid which were set aside by the courts as not being in accordance with the Roman Dutch system of law. Unfortunately, we know that this strict adherence to principle has not been applied by Parliament, and the courts are obliged today to apply laws which not only ignore but actually contradict very many of the fundamental principles of Roman Dutch law.

Despite the impartiality of our judiciary, I believe that the laws—I refer to the discriminatory laws which have been passed by the NP Government—have unfortunately brought our judicial system into disrepute, particularly in the eyes of those of us against whom the laws discriminate. In addition, the increasing tendency to give Ministers and policemen the power not only to make the laws but also to administer them, without recourse to our courts, and without any account to Parliament, has further degraded the system of justice in the eyes of many South Africans. The real tragedy of the situation is that many White South Africans, who in our limited democracy are the people who have the power to stop this erosion and see to it that Parliament does not act in this way, have become punch-drunk; we do not see what is happening to our legal system. We see it as part of our way of life. We have become punch-drunk, and many of us have lost the will to protest against injustice.

The hon member for Vryburg referred to human rights and the rule of law. What he said bears out what is mentioned in an editorial in the latest edition of De Rebus, namely that the concepts of human rights and the rule of law are associated in South Africa today with the loony left and the subversive, and they are no longer regarded as the very foundations upon which our legal system was founded. I want to quote just the first few words from the editorial of last month’s De Rebus:

That is the situation we find ourselves in today. The very basis of our law is something which the average White regards as something loony left. It has completely lost its value as a foundation-stone of our legal system.

In stark contrast to our apathy and our rose-coloured view of our legal system, our courts are bearing the brunt of the disdain and rejection which are increasingly manifest, not only among those who are brought before our courts, but by the entire communities against whom the discriminatory and repressive laws are aimed. For so long as discriminatory laws remain on our Statute Book they will be treated with the contempt they deserve. For so long as this Government continues to use the legislative process and our police force to suppress and eliminate legitimate political opponents, the distinction between what is legitimate and what is illegitimate will become increasingly blurred.

What do you say about the ANC?

I am referring to legitimate opposition to the Government.

Likewise, the distinction between crime prevention and political oppression will be blurred. It is therefore not surprising, when persons charged with normal criminal offences—and we have seen this in the Cape Supreme Court the past few weeks—reject the authority of the court with displays of political protest. Because of what this Parliament does, because of what the NP does in using the legislative process to pursue its political objectives, the people out there have completely forgotten the distinction between crime prevention and political oppression.

I would suggest that, in the eyes of the people, the standing of our courts and respect for the law can only be restored by drawing a clear distinction between the Government’s political objectives and the administration of justice. I would therefore like to associate myself with the appeal made in De Rebus to the legal profession, and I quote:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to this debate this afternoon, and thus far I have been impressed by the calibre of the debate. It is great pity, however, that the hon member for Groote Schuur had to bring it down to the political level once more. [Interjections.] I am sure our hon Minister will soundly put him in his place.

The legal system in South Africa is modelled on Roman-Dutch law. It is for that very reason that throughout the years, in the eyes of the law, women have been regarded as minors under the guardianship of their husbands. As far back as the seventeenth century a Roman-Dutch jurist, Van Leeuwen, reflected the thinking prevalent in his day which accepted, even then, that as the weaker sex women embodied an inherent weakness and that in their emotionality and instability they could never have rights equal to those of men. They said she had to be protected, and it was unthinkable that she could ever obtain the vote. The possibility of her getting an outside job and holding public office was therefore quite unthinkable.

Sir, you and I know that over the years that school of thought has been proven to be wrong. The rights we have today as women were not simply the culmination of a natural process, nor the product of the goodwill of the male sex. No, those rights were the product of hard work and a hard struggle on the part of women.

Today society cannot do without the services of women. It has been proven time and again by the contribution of women during the last two World Wars. Today, in an era of rapid technological development, she certainly makes a major contribution.

As far as the woman’s legal position is concerned, a great deal of progress has been made in the past few years. In the Matrimonial Property Act, Act No 88 of 1984, the marital power of the man has been abolished in marriages contracted in community of property. This made women equal partners with their husbands, protecting them against abuses. In marriages by antenuptial contract, with the marriage contract stipulating the complete separation of property, it was realised that economically there was no equality. That position was rectified by the introduction of a dispensation of accrual. If there were to be a divorce, the wife would get a fair distribution of goods. A bothersome aspect, however, is that there are still women who were married before 1985 and who do not automatically obtain these rights. That can only be done by notarial deed.

It is important for us to realise that Black women have now also obtained the same rights as White women by way of the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill which we piloted through Parliament this year.

Times have changed, and with the unfortunate increase in the number of divorces it has specifically become important for the rights of these women to be protected. It is important for a divorced woman also to be in a position to claim some of the pension her former husband gets. The South African Law Commission is specifically examining this aspect. We shall soon have legislation in this regard.

Today it is still possible for a husband to disinherit his wife if they were married by antenuptial contract. This aspect is also being examined, and the law will permit women to share in the estate, particularly if her husband has disinherited her.

The Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Bill, which is being advocated by the Law Commission, is now specifically receiving the hon the Minister’s attention. This would provide for the payment of maintenance to the surviving spouse, particularly if the surviving spouse does not earn anything or has no income.

This afternoon I want to give our hon Minister due thanks and credit for having instituted an investigation into sexual crimes and the woman. It is the most exhaustive investigation yet carried out in the Republic of South Africa. It attests to the seriousness with which our hon Minister regards this matter. Today rape is a far more serious social problem than is officially recognised.

Annually 5 000 people in South Africa are sentenced for rape. Statistics on the number of rapes are unreliable, and probably only 50% of the cases are ever reported. The reason for that lies in public reaction to the women concerned, and also in the fact that the reaction, after the rape has been reported, is frequently not what it should be. In South Africa today seven out of every 1 000 White women are the victims of rape. In 1975 Halström van Burgess said:

In 1984 the Law Commission investigated the status of women and the question of sexual crimes against women in South Africa, and the report was tabled on 28 May 1985. Several recommendations were made to protect women against exploitation and unnecessary embarrassment.

In the Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Act, No 103 of 1987, provision has already been made for several of these recommendations. It is important to have uniformity between the RSA and the national and independent states, particularly in regard to customary unions and common law marriages. The hon the Minister has also instructed that an in-depth investigation be instituted in that regard. Customary unions among Blacks in South Africa are recognised, and the fact that Black women can now also obtain property in their own right and can register that property in their own name, without the permission of their husbands, is an important step forward as far as these people are concerned.

Today I also want to thank the hon member for Standerton for having made such a fine job of taking up the cudgels for women who have done such good work in the legal profession. That is a very positive contribution by the Official Opposition.

We in South Africa are proud of our independent judicial system, and most welcome are specifically those laws designed to grant women more recognition, status and protection.

Mr Chairman, I think that the imposition of punishment is one of the most difficult tasks any presiding officer can be required to perform. Therefore I want to advocate that the Attorney-General and prosecutors should place facts before the court which could help in the imposition of punishment. In this I include possible aggravating circumstances, because I think that certain types of crime call for severer penalties.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to pay special attention to penalties for drug-dealers. I know that the Act prescribes certain minimum penalties, but the presiding officer is not always aware of the important role that drug-dealers are starting to play—I am not speaking about the drug addict who is the victim—and how that crime is increasing, but I want to ask for heavier penalties for drug-dealers.

I also want to ask for heavier penalties for people who abuse or assault soft targets such as children and the elderly. We must eradicate this iniquity in our society.

Unfortunately I do not have much time at my disposal, but I also want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to the salary package of registrars.

I know it is difficult to punish those who avoid paying maintenance, because if one were to fine them, one would be depriving the children of food, and if one were to send them to jail, they would possibly lose their jobs and one would thereby be defeating the ends one wished to achieve. This fact is known to those who avoid paying maintenance, and they exploit the situation. In my opinion one should think in terms of week-end punishment, whether imprisonment, punitive labour or community service.

Another aspect I want to touch upon is that one finds a Zulu witness being questioned by a Zulu constable or sergeant, while the statement is actually being taken down in Afrikaans or English. Neither of the two really knows those languages very well. Ultimately the statement ends up in court and the witness is cross-examined on the basis of a translated version of his evidence. That translation, of course, is not an exact reflection of the statement made. That could possibly lead to injustices being perpetrated against the witness and to a verdict of guilty, or the other way around. What I want to ask is that investigating officers take down the statements in the language and in the words of the witness, where possible in the relevant Black language and by someone who is fluent in that language, and that this statement subsequently be translated for court purposes by a sworn translator. I think that would eliminate many problems, because those are problems which do, in fact, crop up in practice.

I merely want to come back to something I touched upon earlier, ie the attacks on our judges by academics. I want to ask those academics to exercise some restraint, because at times it seems as if they are ill-informed about both the law and the judge concerned. I have referred to the attack on the Sharpeville judgment. I do not want to speak about the judgment itself, but it was implied that the judge, in no time at all and in just a few sentences, solved a problem which had been in existence for years. The academic who wrote that was probably unaware of the legal position and of the integrity and ability of the particular judge responsible for that judgment. I think it was an unnecessary attack. It was an attack against which he could not defend himself, and as far as those attacks are concerned, I want to appeal to advocates, attorneys and even attorneys-general to take up the cudgels for judges and magistrates in such cases, because in those circumstances they cannot defend themselves.

I want to content myself with that; my time has unfortunately expired. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to the matters we have mentioned, including that of court accommodation, because in many places that problem has assumed critical proportions.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Bethal. I agree with him about heavier penalties for drug-dealers and those who assault children and the elderly.

Before I go any further I just want to come back to the hon member for Standerton. I should just like to ask him whether I heard him correctly. Did he say that there are instances—even though he said that they were the exception rather than the rule—of prosecutors who prepared dossiers one day and then tried the same cases as magistrates the next. Is that correct? Did I hear him correctly?

They are not the same cases.

If he says they are not the same cases, I shall not take the matter any further. I understood him to have said that the same cases were involved.

I should now like to come to the hon member for Groot Schuur. I want to tell him that it is clear that he was not listening at all to the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, because this afternoon he did precisely what that hon member warned against by making unbridled accusations against our legal system and the independence of our judiciary, without logically and rationally basing this on legal principles. I want to put it to him that he should take the trouble to reread the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

I was dealing with that when my time expired!

The Rules Board for Magistrates’ Courts has elicited great interest since its establishment. In the short period of its existence the Rules Board has already given attention to the recommendations of the Galgut Commission which relate to practice and procedures in civil actions and are aimed at limiting the costs and expediting litigation. Attention was also given to efficient litigation procedures in terms of legislation involving motor vehicle accidents. Several of the recommendations have already been adopted, and as early as 1 January of this year a comprehensive set of amendments to the Rules of Court for the Supreme Court came into operation. Judging by these amendments it appears that the activities of the Rules Board will lead to a more streamlined and cheaper system of litigation, a very positive step at a time when the costs of litigation and accessibility to our courts are constantly being limelighted.

I should therefore like to know from the hon the Minister whether he is in a position to inform us about any further functions of the Rules Board in the future, since further developments are awaited with great expectancy, particularly in legal circles.

Today I should also like to make a few remarks about that group of people who, in the quiet anonymity of their offices, are responsible for keeping the machinery of this Parliament functioning in top gear. I am referring to our State law advisers. They are chiefly entrusted with providing verbal and written legal advice to hon Ministers, to Government departments and to other statutory bodies on a continuous basis, and this also includes promoting the legislative programme, whether by way of editing Bills or attending meetings of standing committees of Parliament for the purposes of dealing with legislation.

Particularly in the formulation and the legal preparation of draft legislation, the State law advisers perform an exceptionally complex task, being called upon each year to examine and draft a large volume of draft legislation. Particularly for the tasks of drafting and editing legislation a great deal of language and legal expertise, insight and vision are prerequisites. To carry out this task successfully, experienced and knowledgeable legal draftsmen are needed. The quality of the legislation in this Parliament depends largely on the experience, the insight and the expertise of those who draft and edit the legislation. A country’s level of civilisation is in no small measure gauged by the quality of its legal system. If Parliament, owing to a lack of legal draftsmen with the necessary expertise and experience, were to place legislation on the Statute Book which was technically inadequate, that would of necessity have a detrimental effect on our legal system. The social consequences are obvious.

The degree of complexity of the work done by law advisers, and their work-load, is steadily increasing. In the old dispensation there were amendments only in very exceptional cases. We all know how this has increased now. As far as legal opinions are concerned, the commencement of the new constitutional dispensation is apparently introducing unique legal questions, whilst the further development of constitutional relations with both the self-governing territories and the independent states which were previously part of the Republic, has equally been the subject of various particularly complex problems which the State law advisers have had to interpret in terms of the appropriate legal provisions.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to pay tribute to the chief law adviser, Advocate Rossouw, and his team of law advisers for the exacting task they carry out with dedication and great distinction, and frequently without due recognition.

It is disturbing to read in the annual report that once more there has been a considerably large staff turnover amongst the law advisers and that this is ascribed to the fact the posts of State law advisers are these days filled by younger officials who, after having gained a quite thorough service experience, are enticed to more attractive posts. As far back as 24 October 1974 it was argued in this House that the salary structure of State law advisers should extend to a very high top scale so that it is not necessary for people to wait until more senior posts become vacant. In 1983 the present hon Minister of Law and Order concluded a speech with the following words, a speech in which he dealt, amongst other things, with this subject:

Mr Chairman, I shall conclude by asking: Is it not again time to give attention to this matter? Is it not time to re-examine the pleas which were made in the past and which I endorse? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, because of the short time available to me, I regret I shall not be able to follow on what the hon member for Umbilo had to say.

There are a number of specific issues I should like to raise with the hon the Minister. The first of these is a matter that has concerned me over many years and about which I have spoken repeatedly. I refer to the delays in criminal cases in our courts, particularly in magistrates’ courts. I wonder whether the public at large fully appreciate how many people actually decline to be witnesses in criminal cases because of the wastage of time in the courts. What is perhaps even more important is the amount of time wasted by the SA Police because of continual remands which keeps them hanging around the courts when in fact their services could be far more profitably engaged in the combating of crime. We heard evidence in this regard on the Standing Committee on Finance during the discussion of the Budget, and there is no doubt that this is a factor that has to be borne in mind in regard to the effective use of the police force. The remedy for this lies with the Department of Justice which needs to expedite the hearing of criminal cases.

For the hon the Minister’s consideration, I should like to suggest once again the concept of having certain criminal cases, particularly those of a relatively minor nature, dealt with summarily by the so-called night courts in regard to which we have available for the purpose of the accused the public defender system which is used in the United States and elsewhere. I maintain that that system will clear our courts more quickly and be more effective.

The second matter I wish to touch on briefly is one that disturbs me in regard to our neighbouring countries and, in particular, a country which was formerly part of South Africa and which is now an independent country which has instituted a system in terms of which, under the certificate of their State President, civil proceedings can be delayed. This is a matter which affects South African litigants, it is a wholly undesirable situation and I would ask the hon the Minister to make the necessary representations so that, on a diplomatic basis, this matter can be dealt with.

Similarly, we find that in some of our neighbouring countries the procedure of demanding very large sums as security to cover costs is being used in order to frustrate South African litigants. Where that kind of relationship exists with countries which were not only formerly part of South Africa but are still also substantially financially dependent upon us, I think we can ask them to apply systems which conform with norms that are generally accepted.

The third point I wish to raise is a hardy annual which the hon the Minister knows I am going to raise, namely the high cost of litigation. We have heard the hon the Minister as well as others speak in various Houses about the Legal Aid Bureau and the assistance that is given to lower income groups. For instance, we know that the Legal Resources Centre takes certain cases which are matters of principle to them and which are very often regarded as being of a constitutional nature. We know of the existence of pro Deo counsel, and we know that there are mechanisms to assist people. However, the reality is that the middle class of South Africa is being pushed out of the civil courts of our country by reason of the high cost of litigation. Something more needs to be done about this.

It now seems as though nobody wants to have the two sections of the profession merged. However, what does need to be dealt with is the question of the right of audience of attorneys before courts in South Africa so as to reduce the cost of litigation. This is a matter that is being put aside year after year. There is also the question that there are pleadings which need not in fact be drawn up or signed by counsel…

You are way behind, man!

I may be way behind, but the hon the Minister has not done it.

You are way behind.

I am not behind. That is a reality. As I say, we continue to have this high cost of litigation.

You are way behind.

If I am way behind, the hon the Minister must get up and tell me where I am wrong. I want the hon the Minister to tell me what right of audience there is for attorneys before a superior court.

I shall tell you in due course.

Tell me now! As we sit here today, tell me whether that is the situation or not. Sir, it is no good the hon the Minister becoming agitated when one is trying to make a reasonable point. If I am wrong, he must tell me that I am wrong. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville raised certain points, and it is very clear that the hon the Minister is eager to reply to them and is ready to do so. I shall therefore not react any further to those aspects.

For years the South African legal system has been grappling with the problem of finding a workable alternative or alternatives to imprisonment in appropriate circumstances. There are too many cases of people being sent to prison for short periods because they cannot pay fines which have been imposed. Particularly offenders in the lower income bracket fall into this category.

In the majority of cases the social problems resulting from this, for example loss of employment, with its concomitant loss of income and the possible breakdown of family life, cannot weigh up against society’s feeling that offenders should be punished for their offences.

The legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime must be implemented in such a way that justice is served without prejudicing the offender out of all proportion to the offence committed. In the case of juvenile offenders, too, imprisonment or fines are not necessarily the best punishment. Today, however, I envisage devoting some time to only one possible alternative, ie that of community service.

This is an alternative which has been receiving serious consideration for many years now. Community service can be defined as the furnishing of a free service by the offender, a service which is of value and of use both to society and to the offender. This service is furnished outside the prison walls, the benefit being that the person under sentence does not have to be removed from society. The offender can therefore continue plying his trade or working at his profession, retain his income and continue to maintain his family, which prevents them from becoming a burden to society.

Since community service must be rendered outside the offender’s normal working hours, he is indeed being punished since this makes inroads into his leisure time. Public sentiment about offenders being punished is therefore appeased by this rendering of community service. Instead of being unproductive for short periods in prison, with the concomitant costs to the State and the taxpayer, society is benefited by the free service rendered by the person under sentence.

The offender also benefits personally from this experience. He is rehabilitated in society and is given a chance to regain his place in society as a useful citizen without the jailbird stigma which would otherwise attach to him.

As far back as 1976 the well-known Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa recommended, in its report, that provision be made in the Criminal Procedure Act for the furnishing of community service. Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No 51 of 1977, now makes provision for this.

In the aforementioned section the concept of community service is not, however, fully defined, and this has led to the courts not being very keen to make use of this type of punishment. A further important point of criticism involves the uncertainty about the liability for claims in the case of injuries received during such periods of service, or any other claims that could arise out of such service.

A departmental work-group on the overpopulation of prisons was constituted in 1981 and found, after conducting an investigation, that there was a need for greater legal certainty, particularly in regard to the definition of community service, the age of people who could be subjected to such service and the question of liability for claims that could arise out of such service.

As a result of the recommendations of the workgroup, sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1986, Act 33 of 1986, were placed on the Statute Book. The said sections envisage the amendment of section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act with a view to more clearly defining community service; determining a minimum period and a maximum age limit for such community service; arranging for the issuing of an order of postponement or suspension in regard to community service; making provision to have a notice served upon the accused directing him to report for community service and the designation of certain offences in this regard. Arrangements are also made in connection with the State’s liability for patrimonial loss arising out of the furnishing of community service. The said sections, however, will only come into operation on a date to be determined by the hon the State President.

Unfortunately it is true that any penal system requires supervision. The lack of a proper supervisory system has thus far been the major obstacle to the effective operation of this system. Mr W F Krugel, chairman of the work-group on the overpopulation of prisons is of the opinion that the solution lies in finding suitable supervisory staff, the motivation of such supervisory staff, the creation of a proper administrative structure to ensure the practical implementation of sentences; continuous monitoring and evaluation of the system and the granting of sufficient publicity to the system.

The benefits of community service, not only for the offender, but also for society, must constantly be propagated. Just think, for example, of the benefits to the taxpayers and to specific municipalities if clearing-up operations could be conducted over week-ends by workers performing free community service. Community service could also profitably be rendered in other spheres, for example in the health service sphere through the performance of administrative tasks in the casualty wards of hospitals, and also in the sphere of nature conservation.

To start off with I said that finding alternatives for imprisonment was an age-old problem. In legal circles this is true. For the man in the street, however, this is a relatively unfamiliar concept, and in order to have it work effectively the idea will have to be given greater publicity and be implemented in such a way that the general public can see that the idea can work.

It is extremely encouraging, however, that organisations such as the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders, NICRO, support the effort to establish community service as an alternative and also work actively towards achieving those ends. Such organisations should be granted every possible assistance and their contributions on the practical implications of this system should be obtained. We cannot jeopardise a workable alternative because of practical problems involved in its implementation.

The time has perhaps come to put sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1986, into operation. It is to be hoped that this will lead to the greater use of community service as a sentencing option by those who impose sentences. Problems developing after the commencement of the Act will, if need be, have to be resolved by further legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for North Rand gave a very well-reasoned plea for the extension of community service. It is something which I imagine most hon members here will support heartily—I certainly support it heartily—as a concept which perhaps needs more attention from the Department of Justice.

Again I assume that most hon members have a direct interest in trying to ensure that our Supreme Court more specifically has as high as possible a standing as an independent court. I also assume that the Department of Justice is perceived by the population as a whole as playing a complementary role by staying out of political controversy.

It is therefore with regret that one notices in the annual report on page 74 that as from 1 April 1987 the responsibility for the execution of the provisions of the Internal Security Act was transferred from the hon the Minister of Law and Order to the hon the Minister of Justice. It is a negative step because it directly affects the image and role of the Department of Justice generally and the office of Minister of Justice, irrespective of who the incumbent is. It is a negative step because many of the controversial aspects which this hon Minister will have to deal with under the Internal Security Act home in directly against what our judicial system stands for and has always stood for—the hon member for Groote Schuur referred to some of those aspects.

It would be interesting to hear from the hon the Minister what the reasoning behind this transfer of responsibility was. One assumes that the hon the State President gave the order—so I assume—but the step was taken directly against the suggestion and recommendation made by the Rabie Commission in its report. The Rabie Commission, I believe correctly so, accepted the arguments that, if the Minister of Justice was to administer the internal security legislation, it would reflect on his department’s image as an impartial organ as far as the administration of justice is concerned. I believe that is correct.

The Rabie Commission also accepted the argument that the role of the Minister of Justice and that of the department ought to be and has traditionally been—that is how it is seen—to keep a critical eye on the rights and interests of the citizens of the country and, if necessary, to create remedies to assist the individual in retaining his rights and interests. If the Minister of Justice is now perceived to administer security legislation which is seen by the majority of South Africans as a law on the Statute Book purely to retain the status quo and to retain political control, then this hon Minister…

That is not what your party leader says!

The majority of people perceive it so. I also believe that the Internal Security Act is used mainly to keep political opponents out of circulation.

That is not what your party leader says!

That is how it is perceived, and I believe it is correct. This hon Minister taking over the administration of that Act will have an undermining influence on the administration of justice.

The Rabie Commission also said that the Minister of Law and Order should deal with the Act as far as its effectiveness and administration were concerned. It is for that very reason that there was a change of designation from “Minister of Police” to “Minister of Law and Order” on 1 March 1982, I think. That was what the department accepted at that stage.

For the same reason that it is undesirable for magistrates to become embroiled in the political issues of signing orders for the banning of meetings or processions under the Internal Security Act, so it is undesirable for this hon Minister and for the Department of Justice to be involved with security legislation.

I wish to deal very briefly with one other matter, namely the question whether the time has not arrived for a more fundamental look at the powers of review of the Supreme Court. The hon the Minister is aware of the fact that in many areas the powers of review have been restricted or taken away, and that has an effect on the standing of the Supreme Court. I do not have to tell the hon the Minister that. Is the time therefore not ripe for an investigation to establish whether wider powers of review cannot again be handed back to the courts in order to enhance their status in a society where there is division and where the courts themselves can play a central role? Those powers of review need to be widened and to be available to ensure that the Supreme Court and the legal system are not perceived as existing merely and mainly for the purpose of retaining the status quo. The Supreme Court needs to be seen as having the inherent power to see that justice is done, and that means it must have the power to review in order to enable it to ensure that justice is done. I ask the hon the Minister to react to the question of wider powers of review.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central raised various matters with the hon the Minister who will no doubt respond to those. The question of review is an aspect I shall deal with in the course of my speech.

*How the administration of justice can be made more streamlined, and how one can broaden the base from which judicial officers are drawn, is at present the subject of discussion amongst the general legal fraternity. We are living in an era in which specialisation is the order of the day, and it therefore goes without saying that the administration of justice cannot completely escape this trend.

Officers responsible for the administration of justice are expected to assess facts presented to them, apply legal principles and furnish a judgment accordingly. One cannot get away from it, however, that practicing legal men develop preferences for certain legal fields and then specialise. Consequently legal practitioners chiefly or sometimes exclusively gear their practices to these spheres. Advocates are increasingly being instructed on the basis of specialised expertise, and the expression “horses for courses” is in common use in the profession. In the Supreme Court there are three fields involved, ie that of the motions court, the civil trial court and the criminal court. The hon Mr Justice Pierre Olivier recently proposed, in a paper before the Bar Congress here in Cape Town, that the Supreme Court be divided up into these three specialist components. He had certain proposals about extending the qualifications to appear in each of these forums, which in turn would extend the source from which judges for those forums could be appointed. Time, however, prevents me from discussing the inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Probably one could profitably examine the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Benson, and the conclusion drawn by that commission in England. As it is, the Supreme Court is already divided into three courts. The panel of judges from a provincial division of the Supreme Court serves in all three courts. With a view to spreading their work-load, and at times merely for the sake of a change, some judges elect to work in three courts on a rotational basis. Apart from these components of the Supreme Court there are already specialist courts in which the panel of judges of a division also serve. These courts are constituted in accordance with the prevailing need. The most well-known of these courts are the court of income tax appeals and the water court. Because some already exist there ought not to be any problem in the general approach to specialist courts. The question that deserves greater and more in-depth consideration is whether the appointment of judges should be linked or confined to specific specialist courts, and also whether the appointments should come exclusively from the ranks of practitioners who are qualified to appear in those forums and exclusively practise there.

Apart from this there are numerous courts which have been created by legislation and which are not necessarily manned by judges and/or magistrates. These courts are all specialist courts and deal with a large variety of matters in our society. Amongst these there are, for example, the industrial court and the compensation court. The former functions as a separate body and the other as a forum which is logistically administered by the registrar of the relevant provincial Supreme Court. Other specialist courts include, inter alia, the copyright court, the Black divorce court, the children’s court, the disciplinary court in prisons and the military court. The overall legal administration is augmented on a regular basis by numerous administrative terminals which have been established in terms of a variety of Acts and which fall under a variety of Ministers.

To complete this mosaic I have to mention the numerous organs which, to a greater or lesser extent, perform judicial functions. Well-known examples are the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the Classification Board, the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, the Road Transportation Board, the Liquor Board, etc. I think the time has come for the Department of Justice to institute an in-depth investigation into these bodies with a view to ascertaining whether a degree of uniformity cannot be introduced. Here I am thinking, in particular, of the establishment of uniform rules, where practicable. A possible ideal which should be pursued is that of placing these organs, which have judicial powers, under the auspices of the Department of Justice. When all is said and done, the department should be responsible for all the administration of justice in South Africa. I am aware that in its 1986 investigation into the courts’ powers of review of administrative activities, a work-committee of the SA Law Commission came to the conclusion that there was an urgent need for legal reform in this field because, in comparison with the other Western systems, we had lagged behind in the development of this aspect.

The work-committee was also of the opinion that subject to section 18(2) of the Constitution, it should be possible to take all administrative and quasi-judicial activities and decisions by the responsible person on review in the Supreme Court. Whereas in the past our statutes permitted an appeal on merit to the political functionary of the department, whose decision was final—with the maintenance of the common law powers of review, however—now a new pattern is in the process of entrenching itself. Besides the right of appeal to the political functionary, provision is sometimes made for an appeal directly to the court. Bearing this phenomenon in mind, has the time not come to examine a system of administrative courts for South Africa? Such a court, with its own judges, could then function as a specialist court. I am of the opinion that such a step would meet a long-felt need in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like now to raise briefly a few topics for reply by the hon the Minister.

The first relates to physical child abuse. I am sorry to say that this cowardly and cruel type of crime on defenceless children is on the increase. Only yesterday yet another case of child torture came to our attention through the medium of the Press, and another case was tried in the courts. It is true that the special units of the police force combating child abuse are having some success. We had the reports on this aspect from the hon the Minister. However, this is not enough.

Apart from expressing disgust at this type of crime, I believe the Government has an urgent duty to curb this burgeoning, ugly phenomenon. Perhaps one of the steps to be taken would be to ensure that all trials relating to child battering should be brought before the Supreme Court and not left in the lower courts. Secondly, the executive should in a formal manner express its concern to the judiciary as to the serious light in which these crimes are viewed, thus indicating that more severe sentences in these cases would be supported. I would value hearing the hon the Minister’s views on this issue in particular, as also his own ideas as to what should be done.

The second subject I would like to mention relates to cruelty to animals. It is good news that a code of conduct is being prepared relating to experimentation on animals. However, no code of ethics is worth the paper it is written upon unless it has the force of law. I am sure the hon the Minister will agree with me on this. In this connection we should always remember the truism that “honour sinks where commerce long prevails”.

It is hardly a feather in our South African cap that in 1984 a multimillion rand laboratory for experiments on animals was built outside Pretoria. One of the reasons for it being built in our country, was because such facilities have been refused in most other Western countries, and because our laws in this connection are less restrictive than those of overseas countries.

I therefore seek the assurance of the hon the Minister on three aspects. Firstly, he must assure us that when the code of conduct is finalised, he will insist that it be translated into enforceable law. Secondly, he must ensure that experimentation on animals for commercial or pharmaceutical purposes will not be allowed in South Africa. Thirdly, the hon the Minister must respond now to a letter I wrote to him on 15 April 1988 requesting that an all-party parliamentary fact-finding visit be arranged to the laboratory concerned, outside Pretoria, to establish the scope of its activities and the conditions under which the animals are kept and used there.

The third matter I would like to mention, is the question of visits by judges to detainees and to prisoners in general, and in particular to the prisons of our country. In terms of prison regulations, judges shall at all times be afforded admission to a prison. These visits are particularly valuable because judges determine their own schedules and can visit any prison unannounced. Furthermore, judges are entitled to report any matter which they may consider necessary arising out of any visit they may have made to a prison, to the Commissioner of Prisons and to the hon the Minister.

This provision is an important factor in providing peace of mind to the public in regard to the accommodation and treatment of detainees and prisoners, and goes some small way toward humanising the system of detentions without trial. In this way the judiciary performs yet another valuable function in our society.

A few weeks ago the hon the Minister disclosed in this House that during the period July 1986 to June 1987 judges visited prisons on 257 occasions. This is appreciated. When one realises, however, that 241 prisons exist in the Republic, simple arithmetic tells one that in theory each prison was visited barely once by a judge during the year. In practice, of course, this is not the case. Very likely some prisons were visited more than once by more than one judge. Certain prisons were probably not visited at all during the year and certain other prisons again have doubtlessly not been visited by judges for years.

With all respect, I venture to suggest that this situation falls short of what is desirable. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to initiate a discussion with the Judges President of the country with a view to the judiciary placing a higher priority on this activity. If the hon the Minister is hesitant to broach this subject with the relevant Judges President or feels that he does not wish to discuss these issues with them, I would like to appeal publicly here in the House of Assembly to the Judges President of South Africa to discuss this matter with their brother judges to see if something cannot be done to increase the frequency of prison visits by a broader spectrum of participating judges and also to cover a greater number of prisons.

This power of impromptu prison visiting is allowed to no one except judges and is a vital power in the upholding of humane standards in that sphere.

Finally, in this connection, I would like to enquire of the hon the Minister whether judges are entitled to visit and whether they in fact do visit detainees being held not in prisons but in police cells. This aspect also should not be neglected.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton will excuse me if I do not follow up on the speech that he has just made. I should like, however, to deal briefly with the other speech that he made earlier today. In that particular speech he referred to an article written by a certain P J Coetzer, SC, in Consultus, the new periodical of the Bar Society.

The hon member created the impression that the author favoured the abolition of the death sentence.

No, I did not!

That was the impression I got.

You just misunderstood him.

That is not how I understood the article and, if I am mistaken in that respect, I would like to apologise. I must, however, point out that my interpretation of the particular article is that it is not so convincingly in favour of the abolition of the death sentence.

But do you dispute that there should be an investigation into the issue?

No, I do not.

That was all I wanted to say.

I thank the hon member. There are also many other people of equally outstanding legal background who, in my opinion, think differently on this particular aspect.

I would also like to deal with the hon member for Groote Schuur who said that our so-called discriminatory laws eliminate legitimate political opponents and therefore bring our legal system into disrepute. He used words to that effect.

I must respond to this, because I consider this a travesty of parliamentary sovereignty. In his reasoning he completely ignores the plain principle that Parliament may make any encroachment it chooses upon the life, liberty or property of any individual subject to its sway, and that it is the function of courts of law to enforce its will.

Whether just or not! [Interjections.]

If our legal system is in such disrepute as the hon member maintains, how does he explain the fact that the basis of the South African legal system, namely Roman-Dutch law, remains the legal basis not only of the TBVC-countries but also of Zimbabwe?

*In the rest of the time at my disposal I should like to pay attention to the legal relationship between South Africa and its neighbouring states. It may be stated unequivocally that, as in South Africa— I think the hon member for Groote Schuur could listen as well—Roman-Dutch law is also the common law of the TBVC states. As regards statutory law there is also a great measure of uniformity between South Africa and the TBVC countries, as statutes of the Republic which applied in the areas of those states on the assumption of independence, were adopted by them to a great degree.

Since then legislators of those states have obviously placed their own stamp on the Statute Book and, although this natural development is welcomed, it is also pleasing to be informed that a great deal of trouble is being taken to retain uniformity in the statutory precepts of South Africa and these states. Here I am referring, in particular, to the activities of the multilateral technical committees.

The establishment of a Multilateral Technical Committee for Juridical Affairs has brought about formal and constant liaison between the respective Departments of Justice of South Africa and the TBVC countries. The involvement of the Department of Justice in this multilateral dispensation is of paramount importance to the general promotion of the administration of justice in Southern Africa. Co-operation between the SA-TBVC states’ Departments of Justice is not only in the interests of the administration of justice, but also establishes a firm basis for overall co-operation and goodwill.

The first joint meeting of the Ministers of Justice and Prisons of the SA-TBVC states took place as early as September 1987, on which occasion a bipartite decision was reached that (a) liaison between the legal professions would be promoted and (b) a permanent legal reform conference would be established. I should like to know from the hon the Minister by what means such liaison is envisaged between the legal professions.

A few examples of the positive consequences of the multilateral liaison are the following: An extradition treaty between South Africa, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei in November 1986; a similar agreement with the Transkei in April last year; an international conference on legal reform during August 1986, and the reasonably recent Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Act, Act 32 of 1988, is a further example of uniform legislation.

Other elements which are currently under consideration are the following: The enforcement of suspended sentences and maintenance orders; uniform procedure for handling instruments of civil and criminal procedure, post-mortem examinations and the exchange of information regarding relevant legislation and the development of a legal data base for the SA-TBVC countries. It goes without saying that this liaison is necessary and effective.

I should also like to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any similar liaison with the LBS countries; if so, what the nature of that liaison is and, if not, why not. I assume there is similar liaison with the self-governing territories, and I think we may assume that a great measure of independence exists regarding the degree of independence of the administration of justice in these self-governing territories.

In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the thorough way in which matters of justice are dealt with. Because of the nature of the legal profession, its exponents are very critically orientated toward reality; nevertheless no fault can be found with the operation of this department, and my thanks and appreciation to those involved for this.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Bloemfontein North will forgive me for not reacting directly to what he has said, but I have other matters to raise and not too much time in which to raise them.

Although I have not seen it myself, I have been informed that there is an article in this evening’s edition of The Argus in which the hon the Minister makes a statement to the effect that he is not going to reverse the decision of the Attorney-General as far as the non-prosecution is concerned of the people who were involved in the so-called Trojan Horse case. I have not read it myself, but I am told that is so. I hope it is not so because I cannot imagine a more worthy case in connection with which the hon the Minister can use his powers in terms of section 3(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No 51 of 1977. In terms of that section he has the power to overrule the Attorney-General’s decision in relation to whether to prosecute or not in a criminal case.

It seems to me quite incredible that the hon the Minister is going to allow this travesty of justice to take place, because the findings of the magistrate in that court were perfectly clear. The magistrate found that a police lieutenant and his task-force were responsible for the killings and that negligence was involved. Let me remind the House of that case. It was a case relating to an incident On the Cape Flats in which three people died when the police popped up from boxes on the back of a lorry and opened fire during the height of the unrest in Athlone in 1985. The people involved were young people—children in fact.

The hon the Minister owes this House, and certainly the country as a whole, an explanation as to why he will not overrule the Attorney-General’s decision in this case.

There is also another case which is just as bad. That is the case in which the Attorney-General of the Western Cape Division, Mr Niel Rossouw, has declined to prosecute Marthinus Mans, a former district commandant of Bellville, and Okkie van Schalkwyk, a former head of the district’s riot unit. After the two policemen were acquitted of murder following an unrest incident in Bellville in 1985, the police said the case had led to the investigation of charges of defeating the ends of justice and perjury against the said officers. I do not understand whether or not the hon the Minister thinks he is advancing the cause of justice in this country by this sort of action, that is by declining to use his power.

The second matter I want to bring to his attention is in connection with a magistrate’s powers under the Inquests Act, which, I believe—I am sure members of the legal profession would agree— are too wide. I cite here the cases of Victoria Mxenge and the notorious unsolved murders of Goniwe, Calata, Mkhonto and Mhlawuli. All these are Cradock cases. The burned out corpses of all four of these victims were found in the veld. Those murders have never been solved. The magistrates in both of these cases—in the case of Victoria Mxenge, who was assassinated, the culprits have also never been found—have made their decisions at informal hearings, instead of formal inquests. That means that no evidence was called for, no witnesses were called and there could not be any cross-examination. How does one explain to the families of these people why informal hearings have been held instead of proper formal inquests? That is something I should like the hon the Minister to explain to me and to this House.

Thirdly, I want to support very strongly the call by the hon member for Sandton for a commission of inquiry into capital punishment in South Africa. To the best of my knowledge this House has never debated that subject except on one occasion, and that was when I introduced a private member’s motion calling for such a commission to be appointed. That was almost twenty years ago, in 1969. At that time I was the only Progressive Party member, and it will not surprise hon members of this House to hear that I did not get the support of a single member of this House at the time. Not even a member of the United Party, which was then the Official Opposition, supported my call for a commission of inquiry to be appointed.

I made it clear when I moved that motion that I was in favour—I still am—of the abolition of the death penalty, but neither I nor the hon member for Sandton asked for that. We have asked for a commission of enquiry into the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent and everything else connected with capital punishment. All the UP did in 1969 was ask for an amendment similar to the one suggested by the hon member for Sandton now, and that is an automatic right of appeal. The UP asked for that, but they did not support the request for a commission.

Prior to that, there had been no discussion at all on the question of capital punishment in South Africa, although it is a vital issue. It has long been considered an important issue in most countries of the Western World, most of which have in fact abandoned capital punishment. There are specific exceptions such as Israel, were Eichmann was the only man to be executed since the state was formed in 1948, although another is likely to be executed. Certain crimes—I think they are piracy at sea and the murder of police officers— are punishable by death in Britain.

By and large, however, capital punishment has been abolished practically throughout Europe. In America 38 states reintroduced the death penalty, but it is interesting to note that executions have taken place in only 12 states since then.

As the hon member for Sandton mentioned, 164 executions took place in South Africa last year. I understand that there have been another 36 since the beginning of this year. That amounts to 200 executions in the past 15 months. In America, however, which experiences a great deal of violence, is multiracial and has many other characteristics which we are told are unique to South Africa, 87 people were executed in the five years from 1984 and 1988.

South Africa is fast developing a reputation as a country where punitive hangings take place. As I have said, it is high time that we had a commission of enquiry so that we can examine this matter calmly. It should be a judicial commission headed by a judge. Social workers and, needless to say, people of all races and both sexes should serve on the commission as well as, among others, people interested in the law. I must say that the thought of 200 people having been hanged in the past 15 months sends a shiver down by spine. It is a most terrible situation.

I want to add that these people are often kept in death row for over a year, waiting to hear whether clemency will be granted. It is a cruel and unnatural punishment. I want to point out to the hon the Minister and, indeed, to the hon the State President that the granting of clemency—20 people were reprieved last year—is not an interference with the natural process of justice, as the hon member for Edenvale appears to think it is. It is written into our law that the hon the State President has the right and the power to grant clemency.

Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, gives the State President the right to grant clemency in any case where the death sentence has been passed. That does not, therefore, interfere with the processes of the law and of justice. In fact, within a short time of the whole question of the Sharpeville Six coming up, the hon the State President himself reversed his own decision in respect of a case in Namibia, in which a policeman had been sentenced to death. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to give us his opinion on the matter of a commission of enquiry into the death penalty.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton raised certain specific matters with the hon the Minister and entered into a dialogue with him on them. I hope that the hon the Minister will furnish her with the replies. She once again raised the matter of the death sentence and supported the hon member for Sandton as regards his request for a commission. I hope the hon the Minister will furnish them with a suitable reply to this.

Today I want to discuss the impartiality of the South African legal system. I hope that by doing this I shall refute some of the unfounded statements which were made in this House today by the hon member for Groote Schuur.

In the preamble to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, this basic sentence appears. It consists of few words but, as far as I am concerned, it is extremely important and of great significance. I quote:

This pithy guarantee forms part of the Constitution of our country, and this Government has at all times, and will at all times, commit itself to the execution of this. The judicial authority of the Republic of South Africa is vested in the Supreme Court of South Africa in terms of section 68 of the Constitution. This court has the exclusive authority to administer justice, independent of State interference, and no other body or authority in South Africa may interfere in this independence of the judiciary.

The impartiality of judges of our Supreme Court has gained world-wide respect. In fulfilment of the aspiration to maintain the independence of the Bench, and in accordance with internationally recognised requirements, the Supreme Court Act, Act 59 of 1959, continues to provide for the protection of the term of office and the remuneration of judges, and judges have immunity against liability in the performance of their office, and contempt of court can come in for extremely severe punishment.

As the pillar of State authority responsible for the administration of justice, the Supreme Court exercises meticulous control over such administration in other courts and tribunals too. Any wronged person who is dissatisfied with the judgment of a lower court may resort to an appeal here. Nevertheless the law can go even further and, seeing that a citizen may be ignorant of his rights, there is also an extensive system of automatic review, by the Supreme Court, of criminal trials in lower courts, something which is unique in the world.

The independence of the South African judiciary and the impartiality of our judges are assets we should preserve and cherish with the utmost prudence. In his book, The South African Constitution, third edition, H J May says on page 247:

Similarly, W A Joubert says in volume 2 of Law of South Africa, on page 314:

Every citizen of this country is assured that, whatever offence he commits against the laws of the country, he will have a fair trial and nothing but a fair trial according to the laws of the country. This country accords its inhabitants a right and a protection which are not available in all countries. [Interjections.] I shall quote from an article on the Russian legal system, which appeared in The Star of 22 June 1987:

The article continues:

Toward the end of the article the following statement is made:

I wish to pay tribute to the South African legal system today. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Bethal and pay tribute to the legal fraternity of the Republic of South Africa. I want to praise the independence of our judiciary, and the world outside can try to accuse us of many things and crucify us for many reasons, but they will never be able to point a finger at South Africa about the impartiality of our legal system.

Mr Chairman, hon members who participated in the debate touched upon a very wide range of subjects. I have had a record kept of them and approximately 87 subjects were broached. I have 40 minutes at my disposal and that means that I have half a minute per subject. [Interjections.] Hon members are all sitting here today as part of the team which has to judge whether we shall be able to do justice to them. I doubt whether this is possible. Hon members will therefore understand if I do not reply to everyone in detail and perhaps even omit some hon members. Nevertheless I shall do my best to attend to the main points.

I want to thank hon members on the NP side very sincerely for well-prepared speeches and coverage of our legal system in a way that gave evidence of a well-organised department—if I may say so myself—which is preparing itself to face the challenges of the times, a department which has progressed to such an extent with various reports that we have a Rules Board for Courts today which draws up rules to refine and abbreviate our procedure and to eliminate unnecessary portions of our law of procedure. We have made progress in this regard, and I shall spell it out in detail to hon members in a while.

I want to refer to the SA Law Commission which has, over the past few years, adapted our substantive law appreciably to the realities of our times. We are referring, in particular, to the position of women and children, which has changed recently. We are also referring to a large number of other reform measures, such as the law of evidence and trust law, which is before us now and receiving attention from the standing committee.

In the same breath I also want to thank the chairman of the standing committee, together with all hon members of all parties who are truly developing into meticulous specialists, to such a degree that the work before hon members here, even work of a body such as the SA Law Commission, is scrutinised successfully. They move their own amendments, which are of value and are also accepted by the legal fraternity. It is a great achievement for this Parliament that, within less than three years, a system has developed to such an extent that here we are able to effect improvements in a specialised field, which do not merely come out of thin air.

As regards the practical application of the law, too, we have obtained a considerable number of adjustments in the form of Bills which are of great value. This is actually reflected in the spirit of the debate which was of a creatively reforming nature and in which criticism and concern were expressed on relevant points, something which I do not fault, but welcome, and on which we shall definitely work. I therefore merely want to say that in that spirit one does not receive colleagues’ comments as sharp criticism aimed at the department or anyone else. We regard it all as well-meant in an effort to make a good system work even better. I shall also deal with a few other outstanding facets.

This means that here and there I have to refer, on a personal note, to personalities concerned. We have recently promoted a very senior member of our management team, Adv Noeth, to Deputy Director-General. He is present here today; this is the first time that he has attended our debate in this capacity. He is no stranger; he was the adviser and assistant to the Hoexter Commission and, if there is an expert on the recommendations of that report, he is the man. Hon members can now understand why the Hoexter Report is not gathering dust.

We are almost heartbroken to have to take our leave of Gen Reitz, the Deputy Chief Commissioner: Personnel, who furnished very good, loyal service in this capacity. He is a decorated officer with exceptional distinctions; he is characterised, par excellence, by the fact that he matriculated in the Free State. It is true that he is not retiring from public life, but that he is actually becoming the secretary to the South African agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This is an exceptional distinction because he also has a diploma in museum science and intends concentrating on that. Maj Gen Deon van Wyk is being promoted to his position as from 1 June. He will carry the rank of Lieutenant-General and serve as Deputy Chief Commissioner: Staff Services. May I express a hearty welcome to all these gentlemen.

This brings me to a further matter which was not raised at all, but which I wish to mention and which is being eagerly awaited in particular geographical areas. This is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Desirability of Further Decentralisation of Services by the Supreme Court of South Africa. The chairman of this one-man commission was judge of appeal, Mr Justice Hefer. I am pleased to be able to inform members that the report was received yesterday, that the recommendations will be studied and that the Government will announce its standpoint on it in time.

I think the hon member for Bethal made a very interesting and valuable contribution. He put questions to me on the recording of court proceedings. I want to start with the simpler aspects. I share his concern about manual recording. I shall not easily approve that. At present the possibility is being considered of having transcription work done by private individuals or undertakings on a district or regional basis. This should extend the service base, promote job creation in country districts and eliminate delays. The Department of Justice continues to serve rural interests in this way.

Other techniques and mechanisms are available commercially as well. Modern technology offers us enormous possibilities. Using a specific technique, evidence can be placed on a disk and made available to the administrator of justice involved and/or representatives of the parties in litigation. This is a technology which depends on foreign expertise, and this is the sole aspect which still concerns me. I can assure hon members, however, that the department is paying continuous attention to the improvement of the present system with which we are not happy at all. I have mentioned a few points in this regard.

The hon member referred to a very important item, namely the Supreme Court of Pretoria. What the hon member probably knows far better than any of us, as he is a practitioner of that court, is that over the past few years we have spent millions of rands on the Palace of Justice—one of our prestige buildings on Church Square and in the country—to make it serviceable again. Although this has not taken place as quickly as it could have, because of rain and other factors and because the court building has been used in the interim, I nevertheless want to say that the end of that work is in sight.

The old Reserve Bank building was considered as an alternative to supplement the Palace of Justice. It was not available to us, however. For that reason we proceeded with what Pretoria and—I almost said the Transvaal—South Africa deserve. We may as well say the Transvaal deserves it! Our administrative capital is welcome to a prestige complex of court buildings. Consequently I find it a pleasure to confirm again that we shall proceed with the erection of a new court building in Vermeulen Street at an estimated cost of R37 million. This already represents and enormous scaling down of potential costs. Let us not gasp—it is in the interests of the administration of our justice that we erect a building which nobody could fail to respect.

More than 25 additional courts will ultimately be obtained in this way. The building will be quite a few stories in height and we shall have enough judges’ chambers so that they will not be scattered, as at present. We are referring to more than 40 judges’ chambers. I also want to tell hon members that there will be a tunnel under Vermeulen Street from the Palace of Justice to that building. All this has already been included in plans which are available; I invite the hon member, as a citizen of Pretoria, to take a look at them. I want to confirm further that the demolition of the existing building in Vermeulen Street is taking place already. As we are dealing with two or three other departments, I thank the hon member for his support. Support from his side is valuable, but I also know that everybody in South Africa welcomes this step.

With this building Pretoria need not take a back seat regarding other centres where we have already erected prestige court buildings for our Supreme Court. I am speaking of Pietermaritzburg for example. Cape Town requires one too, however. The Cape Town Supreme Court needs drastic renovations at the very least; there are problems with air-conditioning and so on. Bloemfontein had better keep quiet for a while, however, because they received the necessary assistance a few years ago before I became the Minister. Nevertheless, this has not been completed yet either and should receive attention.

Seen as a whole, there is a basic need throughout the country to renovate our court buildings and to renovate buildings in which our staff work daily. The other department is suitably sympathetic. We have thought of a particular solution already so that the amount which is to be spent may be allocated to us to enable us, as the Department of Justice, to call for outside contracts. In this process we may perhaps be able to obtain local talent and support to assist us.

Some time ago, for instance, I was in the Western Transvaal—it was long before the by-election— and people in those centres all indicated that they would like to see their court buildings renovated. They even offered to do the work personally. This is a direction in which we should definitely move, and I thank the hon member for that support.

This also brings me to a question which the hon member for Umbilo, as well as the hon member for Bethal, put to me. It deals with the proceedings of the Rules Board, but also concerns a case raised by the hon member for Yeoville, my good friend Mr Harry Schwarz. [Interjections.] The only reason why we shall remain friends is that we otherwise aspire to the same values and adopt the same yardsticks. I know he did not mean to offend us. What I tried to say to him, by means of an interjection, was that we had taken the necessary steps, as the hon member had requested us to do on various occasions, namely to examine the process of law and to abbreviate legal procedures. I shall not permit the hon member to put questions. I have only half a minute to reply to him.

I did not say anything!

Yes, but it is a fact that that hon member took the lead as regards those proposals, which we acknowledged and carried out, because we were all in agreement that we should streamline our legal procedures.

I know!

That was why we instituted the Rules Board. This board has sat quite a few times and has adopted a new set of rules for the Supreme Court in which pleadings have been abolished.

At the moment they are examining pre-trial procedure in Supreme Courts, and it is hoped that this will result in a dramatic improvement. The hon member requested that unnecessary procedure and process be eliminated.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must not permit himself to be provoked into replying.

I want to announce now that the Rules Board has meanwhile started working on the entire question of costs. The board has decided to create a cost-element under the chairmanship of a retired but now acting judge, Mr Justice G A Coetzee. Their mandate is to make recommendations, on a continuous basis, on possible structures for counsels’ and attorneys’ fees. They have accepted the mandate to inquire into specific cases of excessive fees and to make recommendations to the board for sanctions in such cases or in general. They will not replace the control bodies for the professions, namely those for the Bar and the Side Bar, but they will refer matters which are brought to their attention to them for action.

The fact is that we now have a body to which the public may go with their complaints if they cannot obtain satisfaction elsewhere. They will develop experimentally and through convention into a body to pay attention to this. I expect a great deal of the Rules Board in this regard. We have created the mechanism now, but as a further task we have undertaken to investigate unnecessary delays, in specific cases, in civil and criminal court cases which lead to a waste of time and money and to make recommendations to the board for sanctions in such cases or in general.

As a result of this, we are dealing here with appreciable, dramatic progress, from last year to the present, in our creation of a body to fill this vacuum. I cannot deal with these cases, as I am not in court every day, and because there are autonomous bodies in the field of legal proceedings.

The hon member also questioned me on the matter of the appearance of attorneys in higher courts. The fact is that this idea was also referred provisionally to the Rules Board. It was thoroughly discussed at the conference of advocates which was recently held. I was present there myself and listened to Lord Benson, who gave the keynote address and also replied afterwards. Little was said, in the course of that debate, with which I could not agree. I want to express my appreciation to the advocacy and the General Bar Council of South Africa today because they were so sensitive in respect of debates of the House of Assembly. That is why I hold this against the hon member for Yeoville today. There was a dramatic reaction here, and there were dramatic debates.

Nothing happened! They have not appeared yet!

The hon member says that nothing has happened. He therefore did not raise the question of the amalgamation of the professions, but mentioned the question of appearing. This was also dealt with there.

Nothing was said at that conference with which I could not agree, and I appreciate the advocates’ action and the fact that they were sensitive in opening the debate so that everyone could get to know the advocacy in South Africa better and could understand the important place they occupy in our society by developing as specialists to supply our judiciary, of which we are all proud. That is how it works.

Lord Benson raised the point that, if one also gave attorneys the right of appearance in the Supreme Court—I shall explain my use of the word “also” in a moment—one would be taking the food out of the mouths of young advocates. Young advocates would then no longer enter the profession; it is as simple as that. [Interjections.] I did not subsequently hear of one advocate or attorney who did not agree with this. It seems to me that the entire question of the amalgamation of the professions has been concluded at this stage because even the Side Bar indicated that that was not what they had in mind.

One may discuss the question of appearance in multiple forums, because the fact remains, from the impressions I gained after I had investigated, that there is a large number of forums in which attorneys may appear, and that is why I told the hon member he was behind the times. We have just made it possible for attorneys to deal with some of the most important cases regarding nonliquid claims up to and including R10 000, and other claims up to and including R30 000, and I should now like to see how many attorneys will appear, because I have been informed, for instance, that in a specific city there are few attorneys who make use of this opportunity of appearing personally; they are too busy. What happens is that they send a number of advocates, and young advocates make use of those opportunities to appear there.

We have therefore actually brought about dramatic change, so that attorneys may definitely appear there, but it remains a lower court. Examining the number of forums in which attorneys may appear, however, we have the following: The Water Court, the Copyright Court, the Black Divorce Court, the Industrial Court, the Children’s Court, the Disciplinary Court for Prisoners, the Military Court, the Compensation Court; there is almost no forum where they cannot appear.

But not in the Supreme Court!

The fact remains—as I have told the hon member—that this debate will continue but the professions themselves have quietened down, and that is why I say that he is behind the times; he did not take note of this. I believe attorneys will certainly want to come up with this again.

[Inaudible.]

With a view to this, they set their sights on an LL B as a qualification some time ago—this is the last point—so that they could state it as a requirement. They have given this up now. Why? Because they see it as their vocation to have more people admitted to the Side Bar, and I support this. This applies to all population groups. If one does not have an LL B degree, one cannot appear in the Supreme Court. That is how the argument goes. The developments that have therefore taken place in the interim are such that it appears to me the hon member has fallen somewhat behind the times.

I am ahead of the times!

As regards this request to the Rules Board, namely that they should examine the possibility of appearance in the Supreme Court, I want to say that the other side of this is that advocates will then receive instructions directly from the public. One cannot separate the two. One cannot permit the one but not the other. This would cause so much trauma; it would not be reform. At this stage it could only cause extreme discord in South Africa, and attorneys and advocates are not prepared for that. [Interjections.] We have been active in so many spheres that I do not think we required this comment from the hon member for Yeoville.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

And that lady’s slip is hanging out from age! From pure age! [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Umbilo otherwise made a very good contribution and I thank him for it.

I have now replied to the hon member for Bethal as regards the Rules Board.

This brings me to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and other hon members who spoke about legal aid. The hon member for Losberg referred to legal aid too and actually came up more with ideas. I would really have thought that the hon member for Sandton and the hon member for Durban Central could have been a little more articulate today about legal aid. They have whined in this House year after year, and now that we have accomplished something, we hear nothing from them.

[Inaudible.]

The fact remains that we told them at the time that we would deal with these matters—they did not need to concern themselves. If their reaction is an indication that they are not concerned, they had better leave it in our hands. The fact remains that I gave them credit for making these representations and used them in my further representations and negotiations with the Government. The hon member accused me of not carrying any weight with the Government and he does not even apologise!

But did you carry any weight?

The fact remains that I still regard the two members as part of the Justice family. They do not actually deserve this, but I cannot help regarding them in that light.

That is not the end of the matter. I shall work for a reserve fund on the basis that, for every rand from the Government, one rand from the public will be used to build up this fund. This cannot be the end of the matter. In this I also associate myself with the hon member for Losberg, who referred to the fact that we required more than R12 million to meet our obligations. This five-year programme—when this year is excluded, it is actually a four-year programme—provides amply for all contingency obligations and also for all cases which have already been embarked upon. They will therefore be able to conduct cases running into millions of rands more. Nevertheless I say this is not good enough; I believe they should build up a reserve fund.

There is a further point that I wish to emphasise. The hon member is quite right. If a case is opened on 1 April 1988, and the estimate of the potential legal fees is R2 000, this cannot be claimed immediately. After all, the instruction may be terminated at any time; then fees are payable only for services rendered. The fact therefore remains that the hon member is right. I wish to say in addition—if the hon member feels it is necessary—that, as far as his idea about the legal fees insurance plan is concerned and about our taking the initiative in this, I really do not know whether this is our duty. We are taking so much trouble already. Let us examine the entire matter of legal aid at this point. Let me refer to an article by a Mr Bredenkamp of Unisa which deals with the activities and expansion of Unisa’s legal aid centre. These people furnish a phenomenal service; an enormous service. I am also under the impression that our universities actually support subsidies financially. The State therefore has a large indirect share in this; we do not show our hand; we do not influence anybody. They deal with the matter in their own way and according to their own policy. Our contribution must nevertheless be astronomical, and that is why I want to say that I think that indirectly we activate so many people to give their attention to legal aid that academics, and perhaps also people in the legal profession, could possibly turn their attention to the hon member’s proposal. I told him on a previous occasion that we would examine it.

I actually ascertained that at the advocates’ conference Mr Cilliers raised no fewer than 12 items, for instance, in which legal aid was directly or indirectly involved. In every one of them the State plays some role or other. Appearances pro Deo are a form of legal aid, for example. The State pays R1,9 million per annum under this head. As far as appearances in forma pauperis are concerned, we have made it possible to assist people. I could go on like this. The hon member asked me whether we could not increase the yardstick concerning legal aid. This has just been done. It now amounts to R1 000 for a married couple and R150 for each dependant. Do hon members know how quickly people are able to qualify for this? It amounts to R500 for a single person plus R150 for every dependant. It is therefore possible for people to acquire legal aid reasonable easily; actually also reasonably rapidly. We are keeping an eye on the matter, however, and the Legal Aid Board is specifically responsible. They will consult us in this regard, but actually it is ultimately an autonomous decision. In fact, I am under the impression that they carry out their work very responsibly. Wherever possible, I shall nevertheless create an opportunity for professional bodies to take note of the hon member’s proposals again. I think we should receive far more from the public in this respect. We expect a great deal from them concerning the envisaged reserve fund, in particular.

I am still talking to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, whom I want to thank most sincerely in his personal capacity. He has done outstanding work as the chairman of the standing committee. He put certain questions in connection with the matter of poaching. The fact is that the National Wildlife Committee of the SA Agricultural Union directed a request to us, from as far back as its first wildlife congress in 1982, that we try to give a decision on the question of ownership rights and control of game. At this committee’s second congress in September 1984 they made the same request. In January 1983 the SA Agricultural Union also argued that the courts should impose heavier penalties on poachers. In the recent past certain newspapers even joined in the discussion and pointed out to us that we would certainly have to pay attention to the entire question of poaching.

It may perhaps be necessary for me to enlarge on this. Poaching, or the expropriation or damaging of game, is not a simple matter. Under our common law the animal is regarded as a res nullius, that means a case which does not belong to anybody. The acquisition of ownership rights to such a wild animal takes place by means of occupatio, that is to say by holding, acquisition and actually also control. Wild animals which continue to be regarded as res nullius are therefore the exception, because most wild animals are in game reserves, on game farms and in zoos at present. The res nullius animal, in other words the animal which does not belong to anybody, is increasingly becoming the exception. In addition, game farming has grown into a large commercial industry, and today wild animals are obtained chiefly through inferred acquisition of ownership, for example by their purchase at game auctions.

In the light of the changes mentioned, new needs have arisen in respect of game farmers’ ownership of game. Poaching is increasing, and specifically because a wild animal is res nullius under our common law and because a person may acquire it by owning it—actually by controlling it—certain problems arise in the combating of poaching. The Stock Theft Act contains provisions aimed at the curbing and more effective trial of stock-theft cases. This provides greater protection for farmers. The general impression is that penalties for stock theft are also much higher than for poaching.

In the light of prevailing requirements and conditions in respect of game farming, it therefore appears fair and desirable to accord the claims of game farmers the same recognition. Briefly summarised, it comes down to the fact that a farmer’s right of ownership to his game does not receive the same protection as would stock if he loses control of his game. The Government has therefore decided, in principle, that our game farmers deserve the sympathy and attention of the legislator.

I envisage implementing this decision shortly and coming to Parliament with the proposal that the position of the game farmer be thoroughly investigated, especially as regards the protection of his interests. I believe that is positive progress and we shall deal with it.

This brings me to another case which the hon member for Sandton raised. He asked me about child abuse. Of course, I have already replied to him in Parliament. The Government and I condemned this; neither do I summarily permit parole. All cases of parole in connection with child abuse have to come to me. I have written to the attorneys-general and told them to take exceptional trouble to ensure that they obtained every possible shred of evidence to make the imposition of the severest penalties possible. This has already been done.

As regards the entire matter of experimenting with animals, I have indicated to the hon member before that I am on the animals’ side because they cannot defend themselves. The code falls under another department, however, although the Department of Justice was a strong motivating force behind that code. I agree with him that the code should be given substances, and we shall keep a weather eye open. I am not the functioning Minister in such cases, but we do draw the attention of the Minister involved to them. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the question of the death penalty. The hon member for Houghton is wrong if she thinks that the death penalty has been abolished throughout the world. [Interjections.]

I never said that! I said most of…

I wish the hon member could keep quiet for at least a short while and allow me to tell her that, for one simple reason, she is wrong.

[Inaudible.]

According to an analysis by two learned gentlemen from Unisa, the situation appears to be that only 25 countries have abolished the death penalty completely. I am not defending the death penalty, but the fact remains that there are only 25 countries in the entire world which have abolished it completely.

Only!

Nothing has happened to indicate that the death penalty should no longer be included in the system of penalties available to the judiciary of South Africa.

To argue that it has not assisted us in curbing and curtailing crime, is wrong. I want to quote again what Judge Barshy of New York said some time ago:

An inquiry is held if something has occurred to justify it. Some of the countries which have abolished the death penalty have tried year after year to reinstitute the death penalty. I am referring to Britain where public opinion is three in favour of and two against this penalty. The fact is that nothing has been said in this debate that warrants or justifies a commission such as has been asked for.

*The hon member for Sandton did not request it. I shall study his Hansard. He actually requested that we look at Mr Coetzer’s article in which he did not speak of the abolition of the death penalty, but the removal of the mandatory death penalty in the case of murder. That is what Mr Coetzer advocates.

It is a fact that the death penalty has not been abolished yet. At present it is not the end of a case if the death penalty is imposed for murder. It happens in such a case because the judge has not found extenuating circumstances. The proses then becomes operative in which legal advisors work through the records and the case is ultimately referred to the hon the State President— the hon member is right—and he may then exercise clemency. He does have that power.

What may well be done is to refine and perhaps formalise the process of recording, or actually the confidential private advice which a judge gives the Executive Power. With a view to this, we shall negotiate with the judiciary to ensure that we receive absolutely precise advice from them on whether there may be clemency when no extenuating circumstances have been found.

This is a very sensitive matter. Time does not permit me to tell hon members that the sentence which is available in South Africa has been available over the centuries. Time does not permit me to tell hon members that if we removed this from the ranks of available sentences, it would have an effect on the entire penal system. For that reason even the Viljoen Commission’s terms of reference did not cover this.

I am convinced that hon members will understand me when I say that this penalty requires the least possible limelight. It is a sensitive matter to all. It is a delicate matter and should be applied in the most civilised form. I disapprove of people being executed before onlookers in civilised countries. I disapprove of debates—until practically the day before—on the choice of the form the death penalty is to take, be it by means of gas or an injection. I disapprove of people being executed in public before a firing squad. I disapprove of our giving this a public image. Consequently I propose that we continue dealing with it with great sensitivity.

†The hon member for Rosettenville raised a very important point. I wish to make a statement on this issue of maintenance.

As the result of a television programme in 1985 regarding problems with the maintenance system I instructed a departmental committee to investigate the functioning of the maintenance system. The investigation brought to light the fact that unsatisfactory aspects regarding the functioning of the present system cover a wide spectrum of activities. An interim report has been drawn up with the view to obtaining approval for the implementation of proposals contained in the report. Those proposals encompass the following: Every possible available means and institution must be made use of so as to obtain particulars of the addresses of maintenance payers. In this regard the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, with his new identification card system, will be pleased to hear that I support him in his efforts to make this a popular document.

*In order to bring non-payers of maintenance to book, we shall have to have an identification and address system for the whole of South Africa and we shall have to know when people move to whatever place because otherwise we shall come in for increasing criticism because of non-payment of maintenance. It is true that there are more people who are not paying maintenance and we have to clamp down on them. I agree with the member for Rosettenville. She made an extremely valuable contribution. This matter will receive urgent attention.

We shall discuss delays which are caused by using the messenger of the court to serve process so that a start can be made on this work now. We want to privatise it; that is one of the further steps we want to take. We want to make use of modern facilities to operate our computers and our accounting system to enable a person to establish more rapidly whether a man has paid or not.

The most important aspect is that we are considering whether we cannot obtain a summary sentence for non-payment of maintenance from the courts because non-payers of maintenance drive flashy motor cars, bet their income on horses and spend their money on other things while they neglect their children. I say we must clamp down on them by instituting a system—I hope hon members will support me in this—of a sentence which, upon non-payment of maintenance, will become a sentence of the court and may result in the attachment of somebody’s assets. Even if we have to sell his flashy motor car out from under him to care for his children, we shall do it. [Interjections.] My hon colleague here on my right has mentioned a non-payer’s Mercedes; some of them drive Porsches.

†Consideration ought to be given to the possibility of instituting differentiated after-hours session times for maintenance courts in the larger centres. That is also my reply to the hon member for Yeoville. He is not here at the moment, but let us be positive with him for a moment. We visualise sessions of courts after hours to deal with this problem, as well as with more minor offences such as traffic offences. That is also a reply to the hon member for Yeoville. Let us be positive for a moment.

*Ultimately it will be possible to establish paternity very much more quickly by using the new blood tests which are available. [Interjections.] I am sorry for the legal fraternity, because in this way they will not be able to conduct such long-drawn-out court cases.

The hon member for Standerton spoke to me about the women in our service. I am very proud of the fact that so many women are involved in the Department of Justice. Sixty-one percent of the administrative clerks in the department are female. They do not do trifling jobs—they have to take important decisions. Sixty-one percent of senior and clearance clerks are women, but here is another very interesting figure—37% of prosecutors are female today. The greatest achievement is that there are three women sitting on this side of the House today—three women who participated in the debate today and are still to participate—and that in the debate on Justice. This represents a high percentage of participants in this debate. It is of interest that each of them raised or will raise only one subject. This shows how thrifty and how thorough they are.

Don’t forget the CP!

If the PFP had another lady, there would be two more. I am not discounting the hon member for Houghton’s contribution.

The fact is that our women, and also law students, have made a dramatic entry to the legal profession. I think television programmes have popularised the legal profession. There is no lack of entrants to the legal profession today, and especially to the Department of Justice. Our problem, however, is the degree of experience. Today there is hardly a position which cannot be filled by young people, but experience is lacking. Nevertheless I am not saying that they are not productive. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that since 1982 there had been an increase of 42% in our work-load and that the establishment had been increased by only 22%—including new entrants whose degree of experience will increase in the course of time. I thank the hon member for his assistance.

The hon member for Sundays River referred generally to administrative law. The SA Law Commission has this on its programme, but I think it will take a long time yet. The fact remains that this is law which is developing. That is also my reply to the hon member for Durban Central, namely that we are in the process of developing this section of our law. I want to tell him he must look at the first part of Law of South Africa, in which a full explanation of administrative law and recent developments in this sphere are given. I do not believe the hon member is fair in saying that nothing is happening there.

The hon member for Sandton and other hon members referred to a number of subjects to which I shall reply by letter. The hon member for Yeoville tempted me—I am very sorry about this—so that I was unable to give the hon members for Sandton and Houghton adequate replies. If a few minutes remain at the end of this debate—we are now going to discuss matters relating to Prison Services—I shall return to that hon member and other hon members too. I move that we continue the debate now.

Mr Chairman, just before I say something about the Prisons Service, in answer to the hon member for Umbilo’s allegation I want to say that in exceptional cases it does happen that a prosecutor acts in his capacity as prosecutor on one day and is on the bench the next, which is not a very healthy state of affairs. I never alleged that after such a person had examined the dockets the previous day and obtained information from them, he had to act in his judicial capacity the next day and try that case.

At the commencement of this debate I should like to express my congratulations to certain individuals in the Prisons Service who received decorations and medals. In particular I want to refer to the SA Prisons Service Star for Distinction which was received by Lt-Gen A C Sephton. The SA Prisons Service Cross for Valour (Ruby) was received by WO J A Moolman, WO G C Matthee, Sgt I K Swart, Sgt M C Roelofse, Sgt J C Smit and Warder J R Laubscher. These people risked their lives when the cargo boat Blouberg broke its moorings, and they rushed to the Blouberg’s assistance in another ship, the Susan Kruger, and risked their lives in an attempt to save the ship. We on this side of the House would like to congratulate these people on their brave conduct.

I want to link up with what the hon member for Bethal said. At the beginning of his speech he expressed his thanks to the hon the Minister and the officials for the visit we paid to the Victor Verster prison. As far as I am concerned this prison is like every other prison throughout the country. When, in travelling through a town, one sees a building which has a neat, attractive and inviting exterior, it is normally a prison. The gardens are always tastefully laid out and well cared for. It always looks very attractive from the outside, but it is not always that attractive from the inside. That was also true of the Victor Verster prison. I gather that in earlier years this prison was actually known as Little Switzerland. It is not, however, the same Switzerland that the hon member for East London North visited. [Interjections.] This is the one in Paarl surrounded by those beautiful mountains. Apart from its outward appearance, it is also a great pleasure to walk around inside this prison and see what is going on there.

Since there is no female member of the CP, and since there are three women on the other side of the House who are lawyers, in this debate this afternoon I have decided—as I did in the case of the Justice debate—to focus attention on the role of women as warders. [Interjections.] I had the privilege of having a very interesting conversation with Brig Erica van Zyl who is at present the woman occupying the highest post in the Prisons Service. I can tell hon members that this discussion with her was indeed informative. I think that young women in the country who are looking for work would do well to apply to the Prisons Service. I think that they would really receive training of a very high calibre there. Many of the hon members on that side of the House who will soon no longer be here, should do themselves a favour and pay the Prisons Service a visit. They would get very valuable training from that woman. [Interjections.]

From the first page to the last the department’s report attests to its efforts to rehabilitate prisoners and to the fact that everything possible is done in prison to allow those people to become useful citizens on their release. There are many positive aspects in the report which I specifically want to focus on today.

I also want to refer, in particular, to escapes from prisons. I should like to point out that there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of prisoners escaping from prisons during this financial year, from 1 007 to 963. In other words, a decrease of 44. That is not all, however, because there were only 198 actual escapes from the prisons themselves. The remaining escapes were from work gangs, while prisoners were being transported from hospitals and while prisoners were being transported elsewhere. What makes this achievement even more remarkable is the fact that the total average prison population increased from 98 985 to 114 098 during the same period. There has consequently been better supervision and control, with an absolutely minimum number of escapes taking place from the prisons themselves. I must mention that there were no escapes whatsoever from women’s prisons. It seem to me that conditions there are so attractive that no one wants to escape. There was only one Black woman who escaped from one of the prisons.

Another interesting fact in the report is that in the daily intake of prisoners—sentenced and unsentenced—there are approximately 180 White women as against more than 4 000 men. This is actually disturbing when one thinks that there are actually more women in the country than men. I gather from the prison authorities that these figures are on the increase. They are gradually increasing, and this is probably something we should look into in an effort to ensure that our prisons are not inundated with women, as they are with men. As far as women are concerned, there is no question of overcrowding in our prisons.

There has also been a change in policy in the department in regard to the release of prisoners. Let me refer hon members, in particular, to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Amendment Act. The hon the Minister of Justice has given approval for consideration to be granted to the future conditional release, in certain cases, of prisoners sentenced for the possession of, or for dealing in, prohibited dependence-producing substances. A further policy change involves approval being granted for the fact that in future prisoners, for whom the death sentence has been reduced to specific terms of imprisonment by the appeal court or the executive authority, can also be considered for conditional release in terms of the policy applicable to prisoners in general.

We support this change of policy in the department, but we think that it would most probably be easier to implement this in regard to those who are in possession of habit-forming drugs. However, we regard the suppliers of these dependence-producing substances as murderers, and their offences should be regarded in a very serious light. We want to recommend to the hon the Minister that only in very exceptional circumstances should the release of these people be considered before they have served their full sentences.

I want to conclude by referring to the spiritual care of prisoners. In this regard I want to quote a short poem which appeared last week-end in one of the newspapers. It is about a child’s father who is in prison, and I want to relate this to the whole rehabilitation process in prisons. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Standerton conveyed his congratulations to several members of the Force who received decorations, and on behalf of this side of the House I should also like to extend my congratulations to those members.

In March of this year Gen Willemse received the highest civilian award for exceptional achievement that can be presented to a South African citizen, ie the Order of the Star of South Africa, 1st class. I cannot but congratulate him on that achievement on behalf of all the hon members on this side of the House. I should like to quote to the House the citation accompanying that award. It reads as follows:

I do not think one could improve on that, and I want to congratulate him on that achievement.

It is, of course, true that the Prisons Services report is the best proof of the merit of this award which was made to Gen Willemse. If one looks at effective custody—the hon member for Standerton has already referred to this—one sees that during the past 10 years there has been a very substantial decrease in the number of people who have escaped, except for one year. In the year under review there was again a decreasing trend, in spite of the fact that the prison population had increased. This is proof of the fact that there is much more effective custody than in the past and that this is constantly improving.

The purpose of the Prisons Service is not only to keep people in custody. It is also a question of the quality of the custody. It is important to look after the prisoners and to make better people of them. I should like to present statistics which prove that there has been a great deal of improvement, also as far as this aspect is concerned. In spite of the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of prisoners, the fatality rate amongst prisoners in the year under review was the lowest in 10 years. The fatality rate amongst prisoners as a result of prisoners assaulting one another was particularly low. There were fewer than 10 in the year under review, compared with approximately 25 during the previous year.

As far as educational programmes are concerned, there has been a 39% increase in the number of students taking part in these programmes in prisons. Ninety per cent more students received diplomas and certificates.

There was an increase of 26% in the number of prisoners for whom psychological services were provided. There was a 60% increase in the number of diagnostic interviews conducted. In regard to social services there was an increase of 30% in the number of individual interviews conducted. All these percentage improvements reflect high quality improvements, and this is quite simply proof of the improvement in the quality of custody.

Another interesting trend is that of the decrease— since 1982—in the admission of prisoners. This means that prison turnover has decreased, and in all probability this is due to the sharp decrease, since 1982, in the number of short-term prisoners—ie prisoners serving jail terms of six months or less. In 1982 the prison population was 230 000, a figure which had decreased to 110 000 in 1986. That should be seen in the light of the fact that use is again being made of alternative forms of punishment.

I should like to refer to an important aspect of the use being made of prisoners. To date relatively limited use has been made of prisoners, such use largely being restricted to the departmental context. Prisoners have been employed as cleaners and they have been employed in the preparation of food, but they have also been used in the workshops for textile processing, the making of bedding and also the making of uniforms. They have also been used in doing leatherwork, metalwork and woodwork. The relevant material used cost approximately R11,3 million. They also carried out construction work amounting to R16 million and they have also been used in agricultural activities. This was purely for departmental purposes, however, and perhaps some furniture was sold to other departments. The attitude of the Prisons Service thus far has been that there should be as little competition as possible with private undertakings. The trend world-wide, however, is increasingly towards production by prisons, but production which is for sale on the open market, and I should like to mention examples of this.

In the state of Indiana in the USA the prisons service is active on the open market, manufacturing brooms, brushes, traffic signs, mattresses and tyre retreads. In Scotland the prisons service is also active on the open market. In England 19% of the production is furnished to non-governmental institutions and there are 310 workshops. In Japan products are also manufactured for the open market, even with the assistance of private initiative. My contention is that in the future we shall undoubtedly have to move more towards greater production by prisoners, but also production for the open market. At present 26% of sentenced prisoners are not productively active, and not only would increased production be better able to keep them busy and provide them with better opportunities for training, but it would also furnish them with a better income which they could receive when they had served their sentences.

It would also be of great benefit to the State as far as profits are concerned. This also holds out great possibilities. It even holds out the possibility of affording the private entrepreneur an opportunity to make use of prison labour in the prison yard.

At this stage the obvious trend is towards the optimal development of existing production activities. If that were to be done, there would be only one question that would need to be asked: Which activities would be of optimal economic benefit to the department? For example, one should not ask what products must be manufactured for use by the Prisons Service or the Public Service. Such products would not necessarily be of optimal economic benefit to the Prisons Service.

I also want to contend that when the Prisons Service enters other fields of production it should do so, where possible, in co-operation with organised commerce. Then the question of competition would be limited to a minimum. This extension of the production potential would, of course, mean that in the short term greater pressure would be brought to bear on the budget, because more people would have to be employed and more material purchased. Nevertheless, in the medium term it would not only embody greater economic benefits, but also greater therapeutic and training benefits for the Prisons Service.

Mr Chairman, the reintegration of the prisoner into the community is a most serious challenge. I believe that the Prisons Service, with vision and foresight, are making great strides in the accomplishment of this unique but difficult task, and on that eventful day when the prisoner walks away from behind closed doors, every effort has been made to prepare him and assure him that he will not be left to wander the streets.

I should like to pay tribute today to those men and women of the SA Prisons Service, who, with empathy, are motivated and prepared to do a job which is characterised by high risks, unique challenges, routine chores and sheer drudgery.

In 1982 the Community Integration Division at Prisons Headquarters was established, with the prime object of overcoming the problem confronting the prisoner to be rehabilitated, and also his family. In 1984 the Prisons Service commissioned the HSRC to research methods for the effective reintroduction of released prisoners into society. Members of the Prisons Service throughout the country were instructed on how to assist prisoners with their reintegration into the community.

Owing to the scope of this task and the realisation that the community would also have to be involved to a large extent, a division of the Prisons Service was established in 1986 specifically for the orientation of the community, and as recently as 1987 senior personnel liaised externally with the various organisations interested in the establishment, development and administration of programmes to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners and of orienting members of society as a whole and informing them of the problems and the needs of released prisoners and their families, with a view to eliciting their involvement.

The reintegration of prisoners is regarded as a process which already commences with their admission to the prison. This is a period of orientation with regard to aspects such as internal training and further study, and the availability of members to help facilitate the orientation programme and to be of assistance with a view to the limited external job opportunities.

This process of orientation is a continuous process throughout the period of incarceration, and attempts are made to involve the prisoner himself, his family and his friends. This humane factor is of vital importance. To enable the prisoner to find a job and accommodation for himself during the final phase, additional privileges are also allowed, and to bridge the gap between incarceration and reintegration into the normal community, material and financial help are also offered. In the final phase before his release, the prisoner is fully prepared for his discharge into the outside world.

The attitude of the community to which the prisoner returns after his release is one of the most decisive factors in his successful reintegration or failure to reintegrate. Without the community’s willingness to become involved, success is highly unlikely.

We know that there are certain categories of criminals who simply cannot take their place in society, and very strict considerations will have to be maintained in the selection of candidates for parole. The contributions of the institutional committees at prison level, the Central Release Board and the Advisory Release Board are of the utmost importance in this regard.

It has to be accepted that, quite understandably, the community is frequently negatively disposed and unsympathetic towards released prisoners. There is no doubt that the community’s empathy and involvement are of vital importance if reintegration is to be successful. The positive campaign embarked upon by the Prisons Service to inform and orient the community in regard to the problems and needs of the released prisoner and to motivate them to become involved and responsible is to be welcomed.

I am convinced that those community leaders, families of prisoners, possible employers, womens’ organisations, churches and other interested people who are taken on tours through the prisons and attend lectures and discussions will acquire far better insight and knowledge, and will not fail in their responsibility to adopt a positive and sympathetic attitude on this very sensitive issue.

I welcome the work that is being done at present in the production of documentary videos and written articles and participation in radio programmes, so that society will have a far more realistic and compassionate picture of the exoffender’s fight for survival in our sometimes prejudiced and hostile world.

The hon the Minister of Justice is to be congratulated on his announcement in September last year that in keeping with the normal practice in Western countries, the day parole system is also envisaged for South Africa. A thorough investigation in this regard is now being carried out by the SA Prisons Service. This indeed is evidence of the flexibility of the system and it will be of vital importance to prisoners who have served a long sentence or find it difficult to find accommodation or a job. The possibility of allowing selected prisoners out of prison during the day would certainly be a tremendous incentive for their successful reintegration into society.

A system such as this requires a specific infrastructure so as not to disrupt the activities of the normal prison population. Opinion has it that such a system would not only benefit the needy prisoner but is an essential development which is in line with international standards. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the department’s annual report. I am interested in some of the statistics it contains. On page 2 we are told that the average prison overpopulation percentage is 33,9%. This figure is high enough to be disturbing, but statistics and averages are, of course, very deceptive indeed. On 16 March this year the hon the Minister replied to a question put by the hon member for Sandton, and I have analysed that reply. That analysis reveals that 17 prisons are overcrowded by more than 40%, eight by more than 50%, 14 by more than 60%, 11 by more than 70%, six by more than 80%, three by more than 90% and one by more than 99%.

[Inaudible.]

Those are the figures which the hon the Minister gave to the hon member for Sandton.

It is now nine months later, though.

Are things very different nine months later? What has the hon the Minister produced in his gestation period of nine months, besides a few more prisons? [Interjections.] Very well, the report mentions that there are prisons…

The report refers to the situation up to June 1987.

But the figures given in your reply to my question are more recent!

That is correct. But the question was replied to in March this year.

It is possible that it was at the end of February.

Well, I cannot help that. All I can say is that I am analysing the hon the Minister’s reply and it is very disturbing indeed. It also gives a very different picture from the average given in the report of the Department of Prisons. Quite obviously this overcrowding must be a strain on the facilities—all of them—in the prisons. It must be much more difficult to maintain discipline and it must be more difficult to deal with the whole question of rehabilitation, study and visits. All those things must be made much more difficult.

I might say that the thought of some of the cells accommodating more than 40 people is simply unacceptable. Just think of 40 men or more in one cell! Indeed, I have a letter from one prison in which a man complained that he was put in the cell with 70. Now, I do not know whether that is true or not, but the figure of 40 is certainly true because I saw that with my very own eyes when I visited a prison recently. I do not believe that the situation is acceptable.

The position is particularly bad in respect of prisoners who are awaiting trial. Many of these people, who have been convicted of no crime as yet, are kept in jail for months before the trial in fact takes place. During that time it is extremely difficult for the prison authorities to arrange any sort of recreation for these people or to allow them study privileges and so they hang around all day doing nothing. I imagine things get very bad indeed in these overcrowded conditions.

There are new prisons being built but I doubt there will be sufficient accommodation, even if all the new prisons are finally completed, to make provision for the ever-rising prison population. The daily average prison population has risen by 3 000 in each of the past two years. The figure now given in the report is 114 098 for the year under review. One can make an interesting comparison between South Africa’s figures and the figures in the United Kingdom. There the daily average prison population is 55 000 as compared to our 114 098. Their total population is 56,75 million people and our total population is about 30 million. Hon members can see how very unfavourably we compare. I want to make it quite clear to the hon the Minister that this is not a reflection on the Prisons Service. It is a reflection on our South African society and the way society is organised in this country.

I was pleased to read in the report that special facilities are now going to be provided for juveniles and child prisoners, something we have long needed in this country. I believe two such facilities are already operating, one at Leeukop and one at Pollsmoor. I very much hope to visit these facilities some time in the near future.

The statistic which interested me in the report— I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s comment on this because we have had a number of arguments across the floor about this particular figure—was the drop of over 20% in the category of prisoners serving sentences of up to six months. I have always maintained that the majority, or a large number, of those were obviously pass-law offenders and offenders against influx control regulations. It is very interesting that there has been a drop of over 20% in the period which actually coincides with the repeal of the pass laws, that is between June 1986 and June 1987. I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s reaction.

What interested me most of all is a statistic that does not appear in the report at all. There is a strange hiatus in the number of people who are being held in prisons under the emergency regulations. There is not a word in this report! We have certainly been told how many people are being held under the Internal Security Act. We know how many people are or were being held during the period under review under section 28, 29, 31 and 50 of the Internal Security Act. However, there is not a word in this report about the number of detainees who are being held under the emergency regulations. As we all know, the state of emergency was reimposed over the entire country in June 1986, and that position, of course, still obtains.

There are various estimates of the number of people detained over that period. One of the estimates is that of the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee who estimated it as high as 30 000 people over that period. The hon the Minister of Law and Order, who has to give the figures to this House two weeks after the beginning of session, gave a figure earlier this year which showed that the number of detainees between June 1986 and the end of last year was something like 9 000. Why is it that none of that is mentioned in this hon Minister’s report? He is responsible for those people once they land in prison; indeed, he framed the regulations under which those people are held, and of course the regulations were improved some time last year. The point is, however, there is no mention of it in the report, we have no figures of the number of people held or where they are held, we have no knowledge of the number of people under the age of 18, in which case again there are various estimates, ranging from 2 000 to a much larger figure, up to 10 000. I think it would be very valuable, both for the public and certainly for this House, if figures like those could be given to us. Why are we not given those figures in this report?

I want to raise one or two other special points, but before I do that I do wish to say that in my 20 years of experience in prison visiting there have been marked improvements, and I wish to say that right away. There have been marked improvements due to a number of factors, including a change in attitude of the prison administration, and to the work of Nicro, to whom I wish to pay special tribute. They do work looking after people in prison, but also help people when they come out of prison, and they help to rehabilitate them. They make suggestions which I think the hon the Minister takes seriously, because this is a very worthwhile organisation. It may even be that my own nagging over the years has also had some effect. That may just be possible.

It is possible.

Just to get rid of me, the hon the Minister and his predecessors have agreed to certain changes. I have noted changes such as beds being used instead of bed rolls, although, of course, in a private cell there are no beds; they go back to bed rolls.

Other changes I have noted are that there are contact visits allowed for people who are in notch 4, and people may subscribe to newspapers, also if they are in notch 4. More letters and more visits are allowed. I think those are all very important changes, and very important to prisoners.

Last year a new regulation came in terms of which prisoners were allowed to keep pets in prison. Obviously they cannot keep big dogs or ponies, but they may keep birds, for example, and a lot of them in fact do keep pets. That is also something good. A little compassion goes a long way when one is a prisoner and one is locked up, and deprived of all the normal pleasures of life. I appreciate these things. Cinema shows, videos, and the fact that prisoners in notch 4 are allowed to keep radios, all help.

However, a lot of these so-called privileges are regarded as rights for prisoners in other countries, and I think that maybe we could have a little more relaxation as far as prisoners in the lower notches are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I place on record my thanks for the dedicated way in which the hon the Minister and his department have handled what is surely not one of the most pleasant portfolios in the world. Many an exprisoner will have cause to remember with gratitude the extraordinary opportunities for rehabilitation offered by the department. Of course, no prison can be a five-star hotel, but the strong moral guidance, discipline and rehabilitative emphasis of the department cannot be too strongly emphasised. Similarly, the individual dedication of officers and warders is to be admired.

Yet, we are entering an era in common with the rest of the world where the increase in crime and subsequent burden on the service calls for reappraisal and, perhaps, bold solutions in several fields.

It is not the department’s fault that the ANC/ SACP alliance, and its fellow-travellers inside the country, have been the cause of an increase in a certain category of crime; or that disinvestment, boycotts and sanctions have resulted in unemployment and, partly arising from that, an increase in crime. Yet I believe that we should keep more people out of prison than in it. I am heartened by the hon the Minister’s intimation yesterday that active consideration is being given to extending the principle of community sentences even though there are certain difficulties still to be ironed out.

In the first instance far greater use should be made of the principle of sentencing first offenders, where appropriate, to community work that is rehabilitation-oriented. The more people we keep out of prison, the less we shall have to spend on new facilities.

New legislation, namely that offences committed by persons under the influence of liquor or drugs will no longer be regarded in a mitigatory light, will undoubtedly, in the long term, add to the prison population and to the length of a prisoner’s sojourn. This is a complex and sensitive problem with no ready solution, but I believe that an intensive study should be launched as to whether the long- and medium-term prison population cannot be put to better use.

I am thinking of properly established and patrolled settlements with the rudimentary comforts of civilisation, peopled by prisoners of both sexes, and designed to help the country, among other things, to fight the damage caused by soil erosion. Other settlements could concentrate on fighting the encroaching desert, using techniques such as those used in Israel. Yet again, other settlements could be erected for the rehabilitation of drug and alcohol offenders. These settlements could be built by existing prison labour, while efforts could be made to make such settlements totally self-sufficient.

In existing facilities efforts should perhaps be directed at maintaining family ties to prevent the occurrence of anti-social actions. Efforts in this direction are laudable, but I think the time is ripe for a new look at the situation. In addition, I believe the prisoner should not be totally cut off from society, and that information drives should be undertaken in a communal setting.

While cost-savings are a priority, I believe there are areas where real savings can be effected. For instance, too much petrol is used and too many man-hours are spent yearly on carting remand prisoners to and from prisons and magistrates’ courts. Surely small courts of remand, such as already exist in some prisons, should be a feature of every prison. In other words, only when a prisoner is ready for trial should he or she be taken to a magistrate’s court or Supreme Court.

At the moment 21,4% of the prison population sits in prison awaiting trial. This seems a disturbingly high percentage. Almost half the prison population, namely 43,2%, is serving two to seven years. This represents a total of 45 976 prisoners. The daily cost of keeping a prisoner amounted to about R11,29 in 1986—an increase of almost 21% over a period of six years. At the moment prisons are approximately 32% overcrowded. Prisons personnel are working 12 hours per day—clearly an undesirable state of affairs. It is clear that the money voted this year will not be enough to satisfy all the demands of the service, and no amount of money will ever be enough.

I would like to highlight the question of the imprisonment of psychopaths. This House will no doubt recall with shock a recent case where a youngster was murdered by a psychopath. It is virtually impossible for the Prisons Department to identify psychopaths or even build more special facilities to cater for this condition. Facilities for this purpose already exist at two prisons, but I believe this to be a rather unfair burden on the department. One or two special facilities should rather either be converted or built in a remote place to house all psychopathic offenders, such a facility to be run by the department, and inmates subjected to ongoing treatment by professionals.

It might also be advisable to give the Department of Prisons powers to refer a prisoner back to a court of law if, after sentencing, a prisoner exhibits psychotic or other tendencies. In addition, I believe that on the first appearance before any court, any person who either the police, the presiding officer, the prosecutor, defence counsel, complainant or any other person who is a party to the proceedings, believes may be mentally disturbed, or a psychopath, should automatically be referred for psychiatric observation. Where a psychopath has already been jailed for a serious offence I believe he or she should only be released after a period of further quarantine—for lack of a better word—under the close supervision of professionals.

Consideration could perhaps also be given to allow the Department of Prisons to find ways of procuring employment for persons unable to pay heavy fines, at the same time enabling them to continue serving their sentences. In other words, where a breadwinner is perhaps confined for six months and his family is suffering thereby, after thorough investigation the Department of Prisons could perhaps find employment for that person during the day and return him to the prison at night. In that way the needs of justice and of society would be satisfied in a constructive way.

In conclusion, this will obviously not be practical for dangerous prisoners. Difficult times call for bold and innovative solutions. I believe the department will not shy away from these solutions.

Mr Chairman, once again 30 subjects have been discussed and I have approximately 15 minutes to reply to them, unless you find mitigating circumstances and give me a few minute’s grace.

Hon members broached several interesting matters. I shall study their speeches and if I should omit certain hon members now, I shall come back to them later. In this spirit hon members must allow me to touch on a few items which have stood over from the previous debate.

The hon member for Sundays River referred here, inter alia, to the need for the system which will run parallel to, or which will be available as a replacement, with the objectives of economising, speeding up and simplifying the procedure, while still allowing justice to be done, if I may sum it up in this way. This is a subject which was also broached by the Hoexter Commission and which, I think, has not yet been exhausted. Various other academics have also written about this matter, including Prof Van Loggerenberg, who evinced a very meritorious approach.

In view of all these things, I think I must tell the hon member that we have now acquired sufficient experience to arrive at a point where we can say that we have the experience, as Parliament and otherwise, to look at this matter from a particular angle. We must see whether it is possible to introduce a parallel system to the magistrates’ courts for example, that can be utilised as a choice on the part of the litigants in order to obtain quicker judgements. Such a system ought to be open to appeal. It should also be open to legal representation and ought to include the possibility of involving people from outside, for example advocates, attorneys and former magistrates with a specific number of years’ experience, as presiding officers. They will eventually preside over such courts. By omitting unnecessary procedure it will be possible to adjudicate the whole matter more rapidly. I think we must entrust such a matter to our standing committee. In view of the hon member’s representations, which he expressed very well, and also of representations I received yesterday from the hon member for Border in the House of Representatives, I intend making a request to our standing committee to look into this matter very thoroughly.

There were also members who referred to the whole issue of delays in criminal cases and delays in our courts. The hon member for Yeoville also referred to this matter, and so did hon members on our side. I can now inform hon members that this is part of the onslaught on our administration of justice by taking advantage of our procedures. It is also common knowledge that, in the Delmas case for example, it has already cost the police approximately R3 million in respect of court appearances and the necessary attention and services. There were other cases that were only completed after almost two years. In the process it cost the State a matter of a few hundred thousand rands. We do not want to begrudge the accused the right to a fair trial, nor do we want to begrudge the accused access to the courts, but the question which arises is whether our legal processes are not being abused. Should we not, by means of legislation and rules, afford our courts better protection in an effort to expedite cases to prevent practitioners abusing our legal processes?

This is the question which arises, and since we have to look after our own interests administratively, I think it is perhaps time we gave attention to the following aspects by referring them to the standing committee. These aspects are: Delays in disposing of criminal cases and possible ways of shortening the procedure in criminal cases in order to create a more effective system which could lead to optimum use of manpower without wasting the taxpayers’ money. Of course this must be done without detracting from the right of access to our courts. Equal treatment of everyone before the courts and the interests of the individual must continue to be the decisive factor.

The standing committee will agree with me that before legislation or final proposals are submitted to them, the spade-work in this connection ought to be done by a body consisting of experts. We shall then consider to whom we should channel it. Possibly it may be channelled to the Law Commission, which could appoint one of its subcommittees to deal with the matter. In our opinion the indications are that the time has arrived for us to do this.

Hon members will recall that in 1977 we passed the Criminal Procedure Act after a very long debate. The sections following section 100, up to and including section 120, introduced new procedures. These were subjected to vehement criticism in this House which implied that we were detracting from the rights of the accused. Subsequently it appeared that these procedures, in fact, expedited matters, were not to the disadvantage of the accused, and were generally accepted by everyone. We should now give attention to this situation again. That is my reaction to the speeches made by the hon member for Sundays River, and also to the hon member for Border in the House of Representatives.

The hon member for Sandton, who is not here at the moment, referred to visits by judges to prisons.

†He suggested that I discuss the matter with the judges and implied that if there were any coyness on my part—he did not actually use the word—he would take it upon himself to invoke the assistance of the judges president to speak to their judges to visit prisons more often. I appreciate his assistance but just for the sake of the record 257 visits were made to our prisons during the year under review. Magistrates made a further 863 visits that were made unannounced and as of right. Prisoners are also visited daily by heads of prisons, legal representatives and medical officers, and any other party that may have the right to visit a prisoner may do so. Complaints may then follow from such a visit.

Nevertheless, the point I am trying to make, is that we do not harbour detainees in every prison in South Africa. His calculation is therefore patently wrong. Secondly, in most divisions this matter receives the highest priority of the judges and of the Judge President. In some divisions the Judge President has appointed a special judge who monitors the situation on a monthly basis. It is further being monitored by a report back to the judge. If he files a report with us or with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, a report back to him is made on a regular basis. We are so confident that things cannot go wrong, because we have a monitoring system second to none.

Be careful.

Yes, I shall be careful. I said we are confident that it cannot go wrong because we have taken these precautions.

[Inaudible.]

There is always an exception. I concede that there is always a first time and a possibility that something can go wrong, but we have taken the necessary precautions to exclude human error as far as possible.

Your best precaution is to release them!

We cannot be faulted for being negligent on this issue of too few prison visits by judges. We maintain that we have taken all the precautions that are humanly possible.

I say that your best precaution is to release them.

The hon member for Houghton has asked me about figures and I want to tell her that they vary from day to day.

It is actually the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s privilege to table the number of detainees.

It is our right to have the figures!

It is his privilege to table it, and I will leave the matter at that except to say to the hon member that according to my information these figures are correct. They have been given to the hon member, and the figure that she refers to is a figure that was on record on 30 June 1987. It is not a figure which is valid today. The situation has changed.

[Inaudible.]

It is a changing situation. It possibly appears under the heading of people not sentenced, but we are not hiding anything, Sir. These lists are tabled frequently, and she has not succeeded in pinpointing the name of any person who has vanished. That is the situation.

This brings me to hon members on our side who have made valuable contributions to this debate.

*The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred, inter alia, to the whole question of prison labour. It is true that prisoners ought to be kept busy in a constructive way, and it is true that our administration and management is geared to work and training so that our prisoners can link up more effectively with the community. It is true that the Commissioner undertook a study abroad and acquired considerable knowledge about this matter there, it is also true that we have already manufactured commodities to the value of several million rands which are being used by the State. Yet the hon member is correct when he says that this situation can be improved. We must simply know for certain that we will not receive reproaches from that side of the House to the effect that we are promoting slave labour. The danger is always that one’s own dogs can inflict the worst bites, although they know that it is in the interests of such prisoners. I am very pleased that the hon member raised this matter, and we will take his positive ideas further.

His ideas can alleviate the taxpayers’ burden. It could be a contributory factor in alleviating the burden of recidivism, and there is a percentage of recidivism. His suggestion could, in fact, lead to people becoming better integrated citizens of this country. I thank him for his contribution.

†The hon member Mrs Chait gave us a very concise and interesting view on the very important topic of the reintegration of prisoners into society. Although this is not, as she has rightly pointed out, the basic responsibility of the Prisons Service, it is certainly a very important complementary function of the Service. We therefore welcome initiatives by Nicro and other organisations with the same objectives. Specially selected staff are also appointed at the majority of our prisons to assist prisoners in finding suitable employment and to be involved in social work programmes. If, however, the community is prepared to focus more pertinently on ex-prisoners with a view to integration, the rate of recidivism will also drop substantially, and therefore I think that her valuable contribution will serve to assist me when I evoke the assistance of the public to come forward and be counted in our effort to have prisoners reintegrated successfully.

*The hon member for Bezuidenhout is a man with very ingenious ideas. We shall consider them. I do not think this is the first time that his ideas are being tried out. We shall consider them, and come back to him.

When it comes to the whole issue of psychopathy, I want to say that this is an extremely difficult situation. It is also true that we have various institutions giving attention to this matter—at Zonderwater and Brandvlei. By means of treatment, efforts are being made to return such persons to the community as less dangerous citizens.

As I have said, we have these hospitals, but I must emphasise that our facilities are inadequate. The norms for certification are based, to a large extent, on cultural and social factors. That is why it is a very sensitive matter. One has the power to keep a person in prison for longer than his term of imprisonment. This means that his freedom is curtailed for a longer period than initially authorised by the court. That is why this must once again be authorised by the court.

These programmes are similar to those applied abroad, and are based on the acceptance that criminal and psychopathic behaviour is acquired and can be changed by means of behavioural techniques. We have a long programme for these people, one which extends over 200 weeks. Our success rate has not been insignificant. Of the 1111 people committed to hospital prisons, the certification of 62 has already been rescinded, while 13 lapsed into crime again. This means a recidivism rate of 29,55%, which compares favourably with the parole failures of 29,8%. Consequently I want to say that we are grateful for the degree of success that has been achieved. However I am not implying that we have in any way found the final answer. I am not laying claim to that at all. The failure rate of 29,55%, in spite of controlled treatment, confirms the unpredictability of human behaviour. Consequently we must take this into account.

In conclusion I want to thank all the hon members of all the parties here in this House for their participation in this debate. The hon member for Standerton is obviously a man with an eye and a heart for the female sex. [Interjections.] Consequently he did not let the opportunity of talking about women in the Prisons Service slip. He mentioned Brigadier Erica van Zyl, the pride of the liaison section of our Prisons Service, whose skills and competence make her the best communicator a service could hope to have. Consequently I am not at all surprised that she made such an impression on him.

Nevertheless there are many more where she came from. They all receive good training. So much has been said today about the administration of our Prisons Service, and the Department of Justice, that I definitely cannot reply to everything that was said. All I can add is that what was said was correct. The hon members dealt with the matter very correctly by giving credit to Mr Van der Merwe, General Willemse, the Deputy Director-General of Justice, to top management, the general staff—a large number of whom are present today—and also to all other members of the Ministry and of the department who discharged his or her obligations. I thank the hon members for a very good and pleasant debate.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Leader of the House, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Diamant to speak, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs most sincerely. I also want to wish him everything of the best in these difficult times in what he and his department are trying to do for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is always an extreme pleasure to take part in the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is a pleasure because the hon the Minister, I believe, can be proud of himself in that he has, for more than a decade, been at the forefront of putting this country’s case to the outside world.

It is so and hon members in this Chamber can bear me out that many a time we might not agree with many of the hon the Minister’s views. He is, after all, a member of the NP whose views we do not always share. However, we have always known the hon the Minister to be a person who is sincere when he puts his view.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is also the person who is entrusted with the onerous task of putting this country’s case to the outside world— an increasingly disbelieving world. We in this country—in Southern Africa and in Africa as a whole—have reached a particularly significant stage in our historical and cultural development. We have reached that stage in our historical development as we have seen fledgling republics coming into being since the colonial powers pulled out of Africa. Those republics had great ideas of how they were going to uplift their people and how they were going to throw off the yoke of colonialism. However, Sir, more often than not we have seen instead how one country after another has slid backwards.

I believe it will be fair if I—I do not think it will be inopportune—state quite categorically at this stage that Africa, and especially its economy, is in a mess. In doing so I am not being demeaning, and I do not for one moment begrudge the countries of Africa their right to independence and their right to govern themselves as they see fit. I believe that Africa, like any other continent, will make mistakes. I believe too that it is imperative that they make mistakes, for only then will they become masters of their own destiny and only then will they know the difference between success and failure. Of course, quite a few financial, political and constitutional concepts are going to be thrown by the wayside in the process. As we meet today in this Chamber, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the SA Government in general are standing on the threshold of what can only be said to be historic talks with other interested parties on the whole Angolan question. I believe that this House shares my point of view that we desperately want peace for South Africa and for Southern Africa, and that we are desperately seeking peace for the African subcontinent.

Having said this, I also want to say that over the past couple of years the South African people have shown that they really want peace and are prepared to fight for that peace if necessary.

*This reminds me of the expression vis si pacem, parra bellum. This is true, Sir. We in South Africa believe in our search for peace. We are seeking peace at virtually any price. We are so intent on seeking peace that we have already fought about it. We are seeking peace so desperately that discussions are going to be held between a South African delegation and the MPLA and its allies this weekend. This emphasises the seriousness with which we are seeking peace in this country. On behalf of the party I want to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in these discussions. It is against the background of the envisaged discussions that I want to give the hon the Minister the assurance today that hon members in this House wish him everything of the best, because no matter how hard we try to find peace, we have learnt not to be over-optimistic.

In the first place, I see the task of the Department of Foreign Affairs as that of exercising diplomacy. I believe this task is firstly to win friends and allies for our country. Its second task is to oppose our opponents, the people we sometimes consider to be our enemies, and persuade those people who are neutral to side with us or at least see to it that they remain neutral.

However, let me issue a word of warning. I believe that these discussions must lead to real peace; not capitulation, but real peace. I am talking about real peace not only for South Africa’s sake, but also for the sake of the whole of Southern Africa. We do not want to have a situation in which we have peace for a day and a half and then everything starts all over again.

Let me also say, Sir, that these proposed discussions, and the recent discussions in London on the entire issue of Angola, did not materialise out of thin air. I believe that the foundation for this was laid at two levels. In the first place, of course, there were the continued diplomatic strategies of our Department of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister in particular.

Secondly, Sir, but equally importantly, there was the supportive role of the SA Defence Force. I believe we in this House must seriously ask ourselves why the Angolan MPLA has now suddenly declared itself willing to talk to South Africa. Why, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Diamant is quite capable of making his own speech.

I believe these strategies, including the diplomacy, must not be wishy-washy. Africa—and we are part of Africa—-is a hard continent. It does not respect weaklings. The Government and the people of South Africa have proved in the past that South Africa is more than simply a regional power in its own right. It is a force to be reckoned with in its own right.

I believe, Mr Chairman, that the MPLA grouping in Angola has declared itself willing to talk because it knows that it has failed with its offensive, supported by the Cubans and the Russians, which in the first place was aimed at destroying Unita. [Interjections.] There are many indications that this is the case. However, let us not be over-optimistic and let us hope that the results of this weekend and consequent discussions will be lasting. We will be glad if the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, knowing how sensitive a matter this is, would elaborate on it this afternoon.

Order! The hon members sitting at the back of the Chamber must please lower their voices. The hon member for Diamant may proceed.

I repeat, Sir, we are seeking true, lasting peace for our children and our children’s children. Precisely what South Africa is eventually going to be like internally is something we can fight out in these Chambers. Outside, however, it is a different matter. We believe this peace must come so that South Africa can play its true part in Africa; its true part in helping all the underdeveloped communities in Southern Africa to make the grade economically and socially.

While we are dealing with this aspect let us consider what the advantages of a Cuban withdrawal from Angola are at this stage.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to use the time allotted to him.

Sir, I thank the hon Whip. I personally believe that one would have to be gullible to believe that any Government would allow them to withdraw over a four-year period. However, let us consider the advantages of such a withdrawal to the Cubans. In the first place, Sir, this will mean that fewer Cubans will die. Secondly, such a withdrawal will have an affect on the local opposition to their involvement in Africa.

However, the fact of the matter is that at this stage there are more disadvantages for the Cubans—in my humble opinion—if they were to withdraw from Angola now. It is estimated that there are between 45 000 and 50 000 Cubans in Angola. If these people were to return to their fatherland, in the first place this would aggravate the unemployment prevailing in Cuba at the moment. Secondly, these unemployed soldiers would be a threat in their own fatherland. Of course, the Cuban government also earns foreign exchange which it will lose if it withdraws from Angola because these mercenaries—and we must be honest, they are nothing but mercenaries—are earning money while they are fighting in Angola. In the fourth place, anyone who has been involved in the Angola issue closely and for some time, can attest to the looting which takes place when the soldiers take over parts of the country. Of course, the Cubans are also going to lose their prestige, because at this stage they are considered to be the “champions of Africa.”

†Cuba, which sees itself as the internationalist nation of the world, will lose that role should they withdraw from Angola. Their prestige is going to suffer a grievous blow. It is also very important to note that once it has withdrawn from Angola, Cuba will no longer have access to the oil it picks up so cheaply from Cabinda.

Lastly, it is important to remember that we are living in Africa and that this action is taking place in Africa. Africa has shown us that the danger of Aids is always prevalent; and the Angolan situation is no exception. The fact of the matter is that there are almost 50 000 Cubans without women in Angola, and one must remember that these men are only men. All it takes is for a handful of them to take the Aids virus back to Cuba.

In spite of these negative facts, I am still extremely hopeful that the South African delegation will be successful during their forthcoming talks. I hope that a series of talks will take place. We need peace and stability in Southern Africa. In this regard I want to remind hon members of the words of Clausewitz who once said that war was the continuation of politics through other means. I want to add that war also exacts its price. For how long can Southern Africa afford it?

I strongly believe that South Africa wants to play a stabilising role in Africa. I say this in spite of what has been written in the past about the “great destabiliser” of Africa. Every country, however, always acts in terms of its own interests.

*In spite of the fact that we are constantly being accused of being the cause of all the destabilisation in Africa, it is interesting that 90% of the African states trade with South Africa. Is it not strange that in spite of a boycott which was introduced by the OAU as long ago as 1963, many of these countries still trade openly with South Africa? South Africa’s trade with African countries totals approximately R3 billion annually. Last year 80 000 businessmen from Africa visited South Africa. I believe that South Africa realised long ago that its path to overseas countries runs through Africa.

†Let us take the simple example of power generation. Ignoring the Cahora Bassa scheme for one moment, we find that Malawi sits poised to become an important energy exporter to its neighbours by taking advantage of its network of rivers to launch hydro-electric schemes. In the process they must obviously have close links with Eskom. Eskom is at this stage also engaged in discussions concerning the development of power stations in Swaziland in order to make that country more self-reliant. Discussions with Botswana have also started recently. We in this House are also all aware of the joint committee formed by South Africa, Portugal and Mozambique with a view to planning the restoration of Cahora Bassa.

*In this regard we should like to hear from the hon the Deputy Minister this afternoon what progress has been made with this project and how they see the future.

†Eskom spokesmen were recently reported as having said that they had started talks with no fewer than six neighbouring countries and that the progress in this regard was encouraging. All these countries have noticed what tremendous benefits there are in two-way energy deals.

Who knows, Sir, the day may come when the nine member nations of the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference, viz Angola, Lesotho, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland—and maybe even Zaire—will be engaged in business deals with South Africa on an unprecedented scale. This would, of course, also benefit their own people.

Publicity has recently been given to the work done by South Africa in Equatorial Guinea. There South Africa helped to run a farm on which the people were taught the art of breeding beef. The ultimate intention is that that country should be able to provide sufficient meat to feed its population of 400 000.

*Sir, it is true that not much publicity is given to actions of this kind—specifically because it is usually a sensitive matter to some of the other countries. We respect this. As I have said, Africa needs our help. The continent’s people are becoming poorer and poorer. One is justified in asking how long Africa can bear its present burden. The total debt burden of some countries is as much as 44% of their total gross domestic product and is almost twice as high as their export earnings. It is doubtful, therefore, whether they will be able to make the grade. Africa’s foreign debt and redemption obligations total more than R12 billion. This is between 30% and 40% more than the total value of its export earnings prior to re-scheduling. If one takes into account that this figure was only 20,5% in 1981, and that six years before that, in 1975, it was only 9,5%, one wonders where this all this is going to end. When will these African countries come to their senses?

South Africa has the expertise, trained manpower and, in my opinion, the goodwill to help Africa to make the grade.

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

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

Thank you, Sir.

It is also true that Africa must provide a quid pro quo. I do not think a single hon member in this House expects the countries of Africa to condone our political dispensation. We do not want to tell the rest of Africa what their political systems must look like either. However, I believe we can co-operate in spite of our political differences. I want to assure the hon member for Border that he and I have the same ideals for South Africa.

I am talking about the CP and the LP.

I am thinking, for example, of the good co-operation which exists between Lesotho and South Africa at present. The Lesotho Highlands Scheme is an example of this, but I am also thinking of the co-operation between South Africa and Botswana as regards the proposed Sehopan project. I am also thinking of the agreement entered into last year between South Africa and Swaziland as regards two very important water projects. Other hon members of this House and I were privileged to have lunch with those people, and I know how much they appreciate those activities.

The words of Pres Kenneth Kaunda earlier this year, when he advocated stricter sanctions against South Africa, are in shrill contrast to this. He said that countries with moral objections to sanctions should nevertheless introduce them to protect their investments. This is a good example of a distorted view. Zambia is on the brink of bankruptcy.

†The truth of the matter is that Zambia is now among the poorest countries in the world, especially after its application to the United Nations’ development programme for special aid from United Nations agencies. The position in which impoverished Zambia finds itself should force it to exercise some self-reflection. Zambia’s self-destructive policies, which include sanctions against this country, will in the end lead to its own undoing.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I know it is not normally done, but kindly allow me to welcome the contingent of policewomen on the gallery.

Hear, hear!

Order! Yes, it is not actually a point of order, but the hon Chief Whip is that kind of person. Under the circumstances we shall allow it.

Mr Chairman, I also welcome the ladies in our midst.

†I believe that the time has come for Africa to tell its leaders to wake up to the reality of the situation. Has the time not come for Africa to tell its leaders that it wants development on the human and the socio-economic level? I believe that if one can sup with Russia one can certainly also sup with South Africa.

*We are lepers, but we are not that leprous. South Africa has constantly offered to enter into defence treaties with the countries of Southern Africa. What does this mean in practice? Is this not a way of showing that the politically-inspired accusations of destabilisation are false? As I have said, we are striving for peace, but it must be lasting peace which will continue to exist tomorrow. Once we have peace, we must be able to protect and maintain it. There were signs of rapprochement between Mozambique and South Africa again recently.

However, I found it strange that on the same day on which the report of Pres Chissano’s offer and South Africa’s reaction to it appeared, a report appeared in the same newspaper in which the president of Mozambique slammed South Africa as the destabilising factor in his own country. I want to ask whether South Africa should not absolutely insist at this stage that all allegations and propaganda on the part of the Mozambiquan Government should cease. One can go to Maputo harbour and see who is actually doing something for the people of Mozambique.

†We should remember what was written in The Argus of 8 March this year. I quote:

Indeed, Sir, a sombre picture.

*For that reason I believe in my heart that South Africa must strive to have good and strong neighbours. In the maturing process of Africa it is important for these superpowers to get out, because the superpowers have their own ideological, selfish and power-political interests. Neither the United States nor Russia does what is in the best interests of Africa. In the first place they do what is in their own interests. If one wants to level accusations at the USA, one need only refer to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Nicaragua.

In conclusion I want to say that the lesson for those of us who are part of Africa is that no one except the people of Africa themselves can solve Africa’s problems.

Mr Chairman, I hope that we can change the list of speakers, when I have finished speaking, so that the opposition also has an opportunity to take part in the debate. It strikes me as odd that the opposition is always prepared to come forward with questions and accusations after the debate. I am very sorry that the opposition does not want to take part in this in-depth discussion to promote South Africa’s image abroad. One must have guts to stand up for South Africa abroad, but one must also have guts to say here how one feels about the country’s problems. [Interjections.] Let me continue. I shall give that hon member an opportunity to reply to the debate tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Now that there is a bit of life here again, I shall continue. Firstly, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the peace initiative he is engaged in at present. It is a difficult task, and he needs our best wishes, our prayers and our support. I want to assure him that he can depend on this side of the House. We will carry his bags if he needs people to support him. Our message to him is: Onward! Move onward with your peace initiatives. This is what the LP says. [Interjections.]

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his missions abroad. I recently had the privilege of representing this country abroad. It was a privilege for me to visit our missions. I am grateful for the calibre of the people we have there who are amongst the best in our country. I believe the hon the Minister can have complete peace of mind while those people are managing our affairs abroad.

[Inaudible.]

I can go again at any time. I shall also be making a request for the hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare to be sent abroad again.

I also want to congratulate the department on its new attitude in placing women in the department on an equal footing with men. At the same time I want to congratulate Miss Schmidt and Miss Joubert, whom I know personally, on their appointments. I believe that these two women will be able to manage our affairs abroad.

On several occasions Ministers and members of this House—including me—have carried out the task entrusted to us abroad. I should like to request that we convey to countries abroad the unity which exists in South Africa. Let us show them what we are capable of doing here in South Africa. We are all part of the process of reform and change. I think that sometimes we fail to convey this. Therefore I want to quote to the hon the Minister from a letter I received from the USA:

I want to tell the hon the Minister that in many respects we could perhaps do a better job of representing South Africa and also of communicating the processes of change. Today I should like to advocate that more hon members of this House be given the opportunity to carry out that task. It was a privilege for me to take part in symposiums in various places, but I want to tell hon members that it is national service. If one represents South Africa abroad, one is doing national service. One must be prepared, because one is the first line of defence. Hon members must not think it is a picnic, because it requires real sacrifices and perseverance. After all our suffering in this country, we have the ability to tackle those people. [Interjections.] We can do it and we want to do it too. Therefore I advocate that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare be considered again. [Interjections.] I do not believe we should make a political issue of who must go and who must not go. All those who are capable of doing so, should be used to put this country’s case abroad.

We cannot send the opposition.

We could send the opposition too if they were good enough, but then they should be here to take part in the debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Mamre’s words are virtually inaudible. They cannot be recorded by Hansard. Let us give him a chance.

I should just like to say again today how well I was received by the missions abroad. The staff was very well prepared and very helpful. I was particularly impressed with the professional standard of the work done by the missions. Last year I asked the hon the Minister to set a dynamic marketing process in motion, and I am very glad I could experience it first-hand.

Order! I want to ask the hon member not to repeat things he has already said.

My visit to Canada made me realise once again that there are many people abroad who are sympathetic to South Africa’s case. However, we must help those people to put South Africa’s case. Canada is a major Western power. We cannot ignore it. Canada is very influential in Africa, particularly in regard to the provision of aid. We know that many Western and other countries do not put the interests of the countries receiving their help above their own interests. Many of them have ulterior motives. This is so in most cases. We must guard against weakening our own case in Canada by not having enough staff there.

I feel that Canada consists of two components: A western and an eastern component. I want to advocate that we attempt to get the western part of Canada on our side with the same earnestness that we have applied in Ottawa and Toronto. There is a better climate in which to promote our case in western Canada. I want to ask the hon the Minister to go into this matter.

I was very pleased to see that we are paying particular attention to establishing relations with black Americans. I think the policy of the country has made that difficult in the past. Now that we are involving people from all population groups in politics, however, it is the right time to invite more such groups to South Africa and to use more of them as partners in the process of change in the country.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allotted to him.

Sir, South Africa is facing challenges in international politics. When I think of what is happening in international sport at present, it is clear that we must guard against our partners turning against us as our sporting partners are doing. We must see to it that we put our own interests first when abroad. A report in today’s edition of Die Burger, in which Zola Budd was quoted as saying: “Hulle het my soos ’n misdadiger laat voel”, shocked me. In the Cape Times we read “Banned England does an about-face”. We must be careful that this does not become our fate in international politics. We must put our own interests first. We must put our peace, our security and our people’s needs first. We can no longer permit the world to challenge us. We must go ahead and challenge the Western World too. We must challenge them to come up with solutions to the violence.

Sir, Israel finds itself in the same position as South Africa. When we see how pressure groups are forcing Israel to abandon its own security, we must make sure that we do not fall into the same trap and abandon our security in order to meet the requirements of the outside world. We cannot but question the morality of the world powers. Nor can we avoid asking how we in South Africa differ from the Eastern bloc. What about the riots there?

What about the morality of Western powers in the face of the riots by the nationalist groups in Russia? What about the work-stoppages in Poland? We must challenge those countries to accommodate them too.

Then we must also challenge those countries which support the peace talks in Southern Africa or which support negotiations in South Africa. We must challenge them to call upon certain political groups in this country to give the Black people the opportunity to exercise their democratic right when the local elections take place. We must put them to the test. We must see whether they are prepared to give democracy in this country a chance with those elections, or whether they will dismiss them as “irrelevant” too.

We must guard against always being the ones to make the sacrifices. We must not always forfeit security, stability and the assurance of a future in order to meet the challenges presented by the West. We must start pressurising them to offer higher rewards for successful negotiations and for the broadening of the democratic base, as well as for the continuation of discussions in this country.

Nobody can convince us any longer that sanctions are the desired solution to our problems. Nobody has to convince us that sanctions harm only the undeveloped countries and communities in our area. We must also guard against encouraging further sanctions by actions such as those restricting the Press. We must also make sure that nobody can say that there is no morality in the inconsistency of our actions against the AWB, who protested at the Union Buildings, and those who held a protest march in the vicinity of Parliament. The Western World must have seen the difference. We cannot condemn a protest march at Parliament when we allow the flag to fly at the Union Buildings when the AWB is there.

When we do not act consistently we damage South Africa’s image and complicate the task of our diplomats abroad. They cannot defend such actions. We cannot then ask them to go ahead and oppose negative legislation and negative perceptions. We must make sure that the process involved in creating new structures in South Africa is continued here. We must, however, see to it that one Minister does not undermine the powers of another Minister. When I say this, I am referring to the matter of pensions in this House, in respect of which one Minister’s project was terminated by another Minister, namely the Minister of Finance. We must not destroy what we ourselves have built up here. We should rather add what we have built up to a larger unit. We must not allow small political differences to destroy the overall structure.

We in South Africa have no home other than the one we have here.

All of us should now realise that the new South Africa we are building up should be marketed in a dynamic way. This should, however, go hand in hand with just action on a national level. For this reason I want to wish to hon the Minister well and assure him of our support in what he is trying to achieve for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is with great interest that I listened to what the hon member for Mamre had to say. He linked up very effectively with what the hon member for Diamant had said. The hon member for Diamant asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to engage in diplomacy abroad in order to enlarge our circle of friends in a hostile world. The hon member for Mamre went further, however, and said that we should put our case to the outside world and that the department should make greater efforts to improve our image abroad. I agree wholeheartedly with this, but it is also important for a country’s internal situation to be sound, since one is normally appraised on the strength of what is happening locally.

I also want to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed by my colleagues, firstly to the Director-General for the discussions held in London. The foreign Press referred to those discussions as a good starting point for eventual peace in Southern Africa. I also want to wish the hon the Minister every success in the discussions he is contemplating in Brazzaville. It is also a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon member for Border on his birthday today. [Interjections.]

Order! I had begun to wonder why the hon member for Border was being such a nuisance today. The hon member Mr Douw may proceed.

Sir, earlier on the hon member convinced me that he was an old man, old but definitely not cold, because today he received a present from no fewer than 16 women.

At the very outset I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department, and in particular Mr Johan Grobler, for the extremely interesting visit other hon members and I were able to pay to Transkei and Ciskei last year. I can assure hon members that I came back with a positive attitude towards the two states, having held discussions with the leaders of those states and having come to realise that we are engaged in the same freedom struggle. The leaders of those two states still feel that they are a part of a greater South Africa and that in time to come they will be incorporated in a geographic federation.

What struck me, however, was the fact that there was conflict between Transkei and Ciskei. I asked myself what the underlying reason for the conflict between the two states was, since they have very close ethnic ties and also have a great deal in common from a cultural point of view. It was clear, however, that the authorities of the two states refused to acknowledge each other’s sovereignty. At one stage last year the two countries were on the brink of war. South Africa’s timely intervention, and the subsequent signing of a regional security and co-operation agreement on 10 April 1987, caused an abatement in the conflict which had been raging between the two Xhosa states for some years. I use the word “abatement” because I am aware that the problems have not really been solved. During my visit it was clear that Transkei, in particular, wanted to amalgamate with Ciskei and form one large Xhosa state. The Ciskeian authorities, however, completely rejected the idea when we made enquiries about this. I realise that the Government does not want to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, particularly Transkei and Ciskei.

The events surrounding those two neighbouring states not only affect those two states mutually; they have a significant influence on all the states in Southern Africa. South Africa therefore cannot and dare not be detached or aloof in the face of events taking place in and between neighbouring states, since its own interests are also directly affected.

The struggle between the two Xhosa states affects both the South African land area and the industries in the East London-Berlin-King William’s Town complex. It is also important to note that this can have an influence on the stability of the politically explosive Eastern Cape. I therefore want to know from the hon the Minister what justification there is for a policy of non-intervention if this would amount to nothing short of the escalation of conflict, tension and violence in Southern Africa.

I also want to mention that in the budget before the House, provision is being made for an amount of R74 million with a view to industrial incentive bonuses to the TBVC states. It has become increasingly evident that foreign industrialists in particular are exploiting this scheme for their own personal gain. The scheme itself is a very noble one and can only benefit the inhabitants of the TBVC states. It is being exploited, however.

Mr Richard Haines, a lecturer in development administration and political science at Unisa, recently published a report in which he dealt with that problem. From the report it appears that the industrialists do not use their incentive bonuses to train labourers and to augment their salaries. According to Mr Haines, hundreds of gardeners, part-time workers and even fictitious individuals, are listed as employees. I would really appreciate it if the hon the Minister would react to this and would indicate what steps are being taken to ensure that incentive bonuses are efficiently utilised.

The hon the Minister could also react to the following item from The Star of 30 March:

There is also the following quote from Mr Haines’s report:

That is what the report states, Sir. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would react to these allegations.

I also want to refer to an extremely interesting report which I read in Die Burger on Monday, 9 May. If the events at the 25th anniversary celebrations of the UN’s special committee on apartheid are correctly reported, it appears that Soviet Russia has definitely had a change of heart towards South Africa. I quote:

Order! Unfortunately the hon member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon member for Opkoms. Mr Oudowenko added that pressure exerted by the special committee on apartheid had greatly contributed to the changes. For me that is very clear proof of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of “perestroika”. I have learned that the Department of Foreign Affairs has established a Soviet desk. I hope that is true. The policy of “perestroika” is based on the fact that the recovery of the Soviet economy is largely dependent on its ability to import Western technology. This means that conflict with the West has to be scaled down over the entire spectrum. Soviet experts in South Africa contend that against the background of being better informed, Gorbachev has adopted a new policy towards South Africa. If Russia wants to depend on Western economic support, it will now, more than ever before, have to start playing a role in preventing the South African conflict from escalating.

I think that Mr Gorbachev should be concerned about hot-headed revolutionaries in South Africa committing acts of uncontrolled violence under the communist banner. People could gain the impression—particularly those abroad—that Russia was fanning the conflict. During the visit of Pres Chissano of Mozambique to Russia, Mr Gorbachev clearly spelled out his positive attitude towards a political settlement being reached in South Africa, a settlement which would serve the interests of all South Africans. For me this is sufficient proof of the fact that Moscow realises that the possibility of a full-scale revolutionary war in South Africa is out of the question.

Russia remains a revolutionary power, however, in spite of what I have said, and it will continue to attempt to make the objectives of the SACP acceptable to Whites in South Africa. It is still Russia’s goal, in the long term, to change the whole world in terms of its ideological convictions. Now, more than ever, it is necessary to find solutions for our constitutional problems. [Interjections.]

The tricameral Parliament has its merits, but as long as the White-dominated, non-elected President’s Council has to decide about contentious legislation, there is no question of democratisation. [Interjections.] Amongst other things the HSRC has ascertained that no reform has taken place in South Africa over the past 18 months, and one is not going to be able to bluff the outside world simply by publicising cosmetic changes and not implementing them. As long as the majority of South Africans are excluded from central Government, foreign ideologies will continue to feed on these justified grievances. I know that the hon the Minister will concede that his task abroad would be made much easier if internal solutions could be found. What is also important is that I know that the hon the Minister, like hon members in this House, believes in majority Government.

The hon member for Mamre again confronted the spectre of sanctions today, as he has done on several other occasions, locally and abroad. It is not without provocation, however, that sanctions and other forms of pressures against South Africa are advocated, simply because people do not like South Africa. What is involved here is the semi-democratic set-up in South Africa which is being propped up by structural violence. I reject sanctions and disinvestment, however, as methods for bringing about political change in South Africa. I reject them precisely because I know that the majority of South Africans suffer as a result.

Alan Paton was once asked why, as a sworn opponent of the Government, he fought sanctions tooth and nail. His reply was:

Mrs Margaret Thatcher, one of our few friends abroad, is equally outspoken in her opposition to sanctions against South Africa, because she knows that it is the ordinary worker who is going to suffer, who is opposed to sanctions. She also knows, however, that those who would not be affected by sanctions are the ones who are advocating them. I think involuntarily of the deciduous fruit industry in the Western Cape. No fewer than 200 000 people are directly affected by that industry. Then there are people in the Western Cape—I need not mention names—who would not be affected by sanctions, yet propagate them. I am therefore in full agreement with Mrs Thatcher when she says—and I quote:

More sanctions, extended over a wider field, for example those in terms of the envisaged Dellums-Wolpe legislation, do not reduce me personally to sackcloth and ashes; on the contrary, more than ever before they present South Africa with an opportunity to promote local industrialisation. I also know that many countries which are in favour of sanctions against South Africa are going to suffer as a result.

During the recent meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Lusaka, Canadian journalists wanted to know from Pres Kaunda why so many South African products were available in his country. His reply, as reported in The Star of 5 February, was as follows:

I now want to ask pres Kaunda: “Who is fooling whom?”

The Warton Econometric Forecasting Associates in America ascertained that sanctions by their government against South Africa had a detrimental effect on the world economy, and in particular on that of America. Their study indicated that the American coal industry had lost approximately $250 million between 1985 and 1987 as a result of sanctions against South Africa. They also warned, however, that extending sanctions would have more detrimental effects on the USA. Even Australia, one of our major trading competitors, has run the gauntlet because it could not compete with the aggressive marketing of South African coal in the East.

The positive effect of sanctions against South Africa lies in the fact that it is going to emphasise the element of self-sufficiency in our economy. As long as South African products are of the right quality and price, they can be sold throughout the world. A country such as America, however, has not given any thought to the consequences of sanctions. South Africa virtually has a world monopoly as far as vanadium and uranium are concerned. America cheerfully imposed sanctions on the importation of South African iron and steel, but it would appear that they have given no thought to the by-products.

The same applies to gold exports. If they do not want to buy our gold, we must tell them: “You will not get our uranium either, because the two minerals go hand in hand.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this Vote. In doing so I also want to wish all those involved in the forthcoming talks on Southern African problems, under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, godspeed. Their mission is a worthy one, viz peace and stability in our region of Southern Africa.

Indeed, these goals and those of sound relations internationally are what foreign affairs are all about. I have no reason to doubt the ability of the hon the Minister to achieve a very large measure of success in his endeavours in that direction. As the political head of that department for the past decade—I think a little longer—the hon the Minister has done wonders to sell South Africa abroad and to defend it. At the best of times it was not an easy task, as he himself will admit.

In searching for an approach to foreign policy I lighted upon a point of view which I believe should be the basis of all foreign policy everywhere in the world. It is a point of view that one would quite easily find in the columns of the great newspapers of the Western democracies. It has a familiar ring about it, a quality that one usually associates with the great liberal movement in international relations generated by post-World War II developments. Those developments are the worldwide reaction to the horrors of global conflict, the liberation of the Third World from colonial bondage, the intense rejection by the ordinary man in the Western democracies of big-power intervention in foreign conflict, especially the disasters of the American intervention in Vietnam—as was mentioned here earlier—and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and, finally, the threat of total extinction of life on earth by nuclear warfare. Let me quote this point of view which attracted my attention, and also the source and author which, to some of us at least, may come as quite a surprise—the more sophisticated will obviously recognise the authorship. I quote:

These are words taken from a book mentioned by my colleague, the hon member Mr Douw, Perestroika: New Thinking for our Country and the World. The author is none other than Mikhail Gorbachev, head of the Soviet State.

To some people, such as the Hawks who are extreme right-wing elements of the American conservative establishment and who believe that the threat of Soviet expansionism can only be removed by pre-emptive war—ie getting in first with a crushing nuclear attack on the Soviets— the Soviet leader, Gorbachev, is the devil incarnate whose words are solely to deceive and never to be believed.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Marxists of all kinds are foaming at the mouth at this unforgivable heresy on the part of the Soviet leader. When Gorbachev writes that “the persistent traditions of pre-nuclear political thinking impedes co-operation between countries and peoples, and there is a need for new political thinking; that politics should be based on realities,” he strikes at the very root of the Marxist ideology of world domination.

When he writes:

This is the arch Communist talking—

One wonders what has happened to scientific socialism, Sir. He goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, when Gorbachev writes these things, he is wrecking the whole edifice of Marxist/Leninist revolutionary thought. He is indeed—to use a favourite Marxist expression— relegating to the ash-heap of history all the hallowed doctrines of communist thought. Gone is the doctrine of class division and class struggle. Gone is the doctrine of revolutionary warfare. “War is the locomotive of history,” said Lenin, “glorifying violence.” All that is gone, Mr Chairman. Gorbachev should watch his back.

Glasnost, his open admission of fundamental weaknesses in Soviet society, and Perestroika: Restructuring, which he describes as having been “largely stimulated by our dissatisfaction with the way things have been going on in our country in recent years”, must certainly elicit the accusation from the extreme left against Gorbachev of “revolution betrayed”.

But what do we say, Sir? What do we as reformists say? What I have touched upon in Gorbachev’s book forms “a vital part of the basis of new Soviet foreign policy” says Gorbachev. Can we believe him? Or are the Hawks right that “this is another Communist trick to deceive the world into believing that the Soviet Union’s intentions are peaceful in order to steal a march on us and advance along their real road of expansionism?” But this is 1988, 71 years after the stormy and exciting “ten days that shook the world” in 1917 when the workers of Russia created their revolution. People get tired of marching behind streaming red banners shouting slogans and calling for world revolution year in and year out. They want to settle down and enjoy the fruits of their victories—if indeed they are victories. They want a good home for their families, a good job and good education for their children. They want peace and security.

If we look a little closer at Gorbachev’s new basis for Soviet foreign policy, we will see that he is asking for just those things for his people.

He writes further:

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to utilise the time allotted to him.

Order! The hon member for Southern Cape may continue.

Sir, I thank the hon Whip. †Gorbachev is clearly reflecting the present mood of the Russian people—a desire to have peace and stability in their lives.

It is against this background of a clear dropping off of violent revolutionary ardour on the part of the Soviet leadership that we must judge the remarks of André Brink when he comes out in support of ANC violence. He is behind the times, Sir; he is an anachronism.

George Bernard Shaw had this to say of creative spirits—he was referring to Ibsen—who “meddle with matters outside the domain of their art”. He wrote:

If we were to apply this judgement to André Brink, we would be doing him a kindness.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other Government spokesmen are to be congratulated on their early recognition of this very definite shift in Soviet foreign policy which could be of great benefit to South Africa in terms of the achievement of regional stability. While of course they have not embraced the Russian bear with reckless abandon, our foreign affairs people have firmly grasped the nettle of the risky business of talking to communist governments. Of course, South Africa has also seen to it that most of the safeguards against disaster are in place. I say “most of them” because when one sups with the devil one must have a long spoon.

First of all, then, South Africa is talking from a position of formidable strength. The May 9 issue of Time magazine—a publication which is far from friendly to South Africa—had this to say about this country’s military might. I note also that Die Burger of yesterday commented on the military achievements of South Africa. Indeed Sir, South Africa’s military strength is quite remarkable. I quote from Time magazine of 9 May:

What is the position eleven years later, however? I quote further:

That is the equivalent of about R10 000 million. I quote further:

That, Mr Chairman, is the basis of strength from which this Government of South Africa is going to negotiate for regional stability.

The second point is that the Government’s policy of internal reform is steadily making an impact on the world outside. The Ivory Coast is the most recent of the African states to have acknowledged this.

The hon member Mr Douw mentioned what the Russians themselves had to say about the hon the State President’s new direction regarding reform. While it is absolutely true what the hon the Minister for Foreign Affairs says about the American Congress, and indeed about many other countries as well, viz that they would not be satisfied even if certain laws were removed from our Statute Books, and while it is true that they will be satisfied with nothing less than complete capitulation by the South African Government, it remains of crucial importance that the people of South Africa be satisfied.

Military strength should go hand in hand with a united people to back up that bargaining power. The removal of discriminatory laws and practices will bring about that unity.

Reform should not take place simply to please the outside world, which in any case, has proved largely to be made up of a bunch of double-dealing hypocrites. Reform must serve the people of South Africa first. I used the words “double-dealing hypocrites” and here I want to refer to Australia. The other day this country was in the forefront in its demand for sanctions against South Africa and it instigated coal export boycotts. Why is this so? It is so simply because Australia wants to be the world’s leading coal exporter. It nevertheless boomeranged on them—to name a weapon which originated there—because they lost close on, if not more than, R500 million worth in lost exports because they were unable to compete with South Africa’s cheaper coal. Canada is the last country which can afford to take up a high moral attitude towards South Africa considering their treatment of their Red Indians.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is keenly aware of the role positive change plays in assisting him to succeed in his task. We all remember his famous comment when informed of the reprehensible removal from a White railway carriage of a West Indian cricketer. He said, “I need this like I need a hole in the head.” Whether the world likes it or not, South Africa has emerged in recent times as a regional power to be reckoned with. Our foreign policy clearly reflects a break from the past, that of a small country stringing along behind the coat-tails of the big powers, a pawn in their chess game of global politics.

Certain sectors of the media are trying to make much of big-power discomfort at this country’s strong show of independence as far as international diplomacy is concerned. This, however, is something they will have to learn to live with. If this morning’s news is correct, America is already acknowledging this maturity on the part of South Africa on the world scene and is prepared to accept that South Africa must be given its head when it decides to negotiate on its own initiative. In this historic phase of the existence of nation states, all foreign policy is firmly rooted in the reality of the “national interest”. I know that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the national interests of South Africa at heart. His goal is that South Africa should finally take its rightful place—a place of pride—among the nations of the world. Success in achieving this goal, however, rests heavily on all of us who claim to be South Africans to strengthen his hand by pressing ahead with the task of democratic reform in our common fatherland. I have no doubt in my mind that very soon the composition of the negotiating teams representing South Africa in world forums will reflect more accurately all the peoples of South Africa than is the case at present.

Mr Chairman, when my time expired a short while ago, I was pointing out that many countries which impose sanctions on South Africa do not actually consider the consequences. The truth is that the sanctions imposed on South Africa have made no significant contribution towards eliminating racism in the country, hastening the process or, as was hoped, punishing the South African Government. In fact, it has become more difficult to convince the Government to act responsibly as far as the human rights question is concerned. It has become difficult to convince the Government to accelerate the negotiating process, in particular. Instead, the effect of sanctions has been to drive the Whites into a laager. We have encountered more inflexible attitudes among the right-wing elements in particular.

What South Africa needs is a strong and growing economy which could prove to be a powerful force for change. My plea to all overseas investors is therefore not to withdraw from South Africa. There are no instant solutions to our country’s problems. We in this House, emersed as we are in the struggle, realise that the dismantling of apartheid is a painfully long-drawn-out and even frustrating process. Nevertheless we shall relentlessly pursue this holy war against injustice and racism, because we know that there can be no peace in South Africa until justice has triumphed. In faith we shall strive to achieve new constitutional order for a united South Africa with equal political, economic and social rights for all South Africans, regardless of race, language, origin or religion.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by saying that it is a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this House once again—particularly in the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote. In point of fact, it is always a privilege to encounter the wonderful sense of humour that prevails in the midst of the seriousness of a subject such as this.

I also want to take this opportunity of wishing the hon the Minister every success with the efforts at negotiation which lie ahead. Several hon members also referred to that aspect. I also want to state in this House that it is a very great privilege to work with the hon the Minister and gain experience from him.

I also want to say—hon members also referred to this—that it is a privilege to work with officials of the calibre of those in Foreign Affairs. They are people who really devote their entire lives—all their energies—to their work in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and who act in the interests of our country and all its people. They are frequently called away to countries I have barely even heard of at short notice and under very difficult circumstances. They nevertheless make those sacrifices. I really owe it to our officials to thank them very sincerely—if I may, on behalf of this House too—for the excellent service they render.

I should like to associate myself with what certain hon members said here. I want to repeat that I was impressed with the quality of the speeches made here today by the hon members for Diamant, Mamre and Southern Cape and by the hon member Mr Douw. All the speeches attested to thorough and fundamental knowledge of the functions of the department and the problems of the present situation.

I found it interesting that quite a few themes were touched upon.

There are a few themes in particular with which I should like to link up. The hon member for Diamant referred to South Africa’s role in Africa. The hon member for Mamre referred, amongst other things, to image-building. The hon member Mr Douw specifically referred to the TBVC countries and to certain problems he had experienced with the incentive scheme.

†The hon member for Southern Cape talked about a basis for foreign policy and I should like to leave that in the capable hands of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

*I want to begin by referring to what the hon member Mr Douw said about the TBVC countries. I want to tell hon members that yesterday I had the privilege of representing the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the hon the Minister was still engaged in the discussion of his Vote in the House of Assembly—on the occasion of the inauguration of the new second President of the Republic of Venda. Today I want to attest to the fact that it was a very great privilege. The inauguration of the new president, Pres Ravele, as the successor to the late Pres Mphephy—during the Republic of Venda’s eighth year of existence— was a wonderful, dignified religious ceremony, and I think Venda can be very proud of its new leader, as I think we can also be proud of the quality of the present-day leaders in our neighbouring states. There is frequent criticism of the money spent on the so-called TBVC countries, the independent states. I have little doubt that we in South Africa cannot make a better investment than that in our neighbouring states. In this country, which is a relatively prosperous country, although it has its problems, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves on an island in the midst of the poverty and suffering in Africa. We therefore have to do everything in our power to help people who are prepared to help themselves.

The hon member Mr Douw also referred to this. He and several other hon members visited Transkei and Ciskei last year, and other hon members visited Venda and Bophuthatswana. I think they will be in a position to attest to what they saw there. There is tremendous development in regard to the infrastructure, training facilities and industries. It is lovely, in fact simply wonderful, to see what people are prepared to do there. Frequently overseas investors are prepared to invest in industries in these TBVC countries. Unfortunately it is true, as the hon member Mr Douw said, that here and there problems crop up in regard to investments and industrial incentive measures. The development corporations of the TBVC countries and their respective governments decide jointly on the nature of the industries that can be established there. If the industries are established in accordance with the manual for industrial decentralisation, the Government demands from the relevant TBVC countries a contribution equal to that made by South Africa, in other words a rand-for-rand system. It is therefore not only South African money that is spent; the expenditure occurs on a rand-for-rand basis. Control is exercised by the South African Decentralisation Board before payments are made. If there are problems with the scheme, such as corruption, this is brought to the attention of the South African Decentralisation Board which takes the matter further with the relevant TBVC countries. If corruption or theft can be proved, normal legal steps are taken to investigate the matter. That is very important. I am afraid that stories and rumours frequently arise, without ever being properly assessed. If they were properly assessed, and it were proven that corruption or fraud had taken place, this would inevitably be followed up. At present the whole scheme is being investigated by an independent panel of experts under the direction of the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I also just want to tell the hon member Mr Douw that quite a few of the instances he referred to are instances that occurred many years ago, instances which we are quite aware of and which we did give attention to in the past. I nevertheless thank the hon member for having brought this problem to our attention.

I also want to refer briefly to the remarks of the hon member for Diamant about South Africa’s situation in the African context. He mentioned a few other things which I want to highlight because I regard them as extremely important. In our negotiations with Africa—within the next few days there will be negotiations with the West Coast of Africa and negotiations are pending with the East Coast of Africa and other countries—we have no option but to ensure that we negotiate from a position of strength.

Secondly, it is our specific task in South Africa— as we view it in the overall context—to stabilise this subcontinent and not to destabilise it. The stories which are bruited abroad about this aspect simply leave one dumbfounded. I want to quote from an interesting document that came to my attention the other day. It concerns a visit that a very prominent journalist paid to Mozambique. He specifically went there to investigate the Renamo situation. Hon members know what stories are constantly disseminated about this. He is a French journalist writing for Agence France-Presse. He stated:

That is where their headquarters are—

He went on to state—and hon members who have been on the border will know what he is talking about:

So he goes on in this very interesting article.

The hon member also referred to the question of an island of prosperity or relative prosperity in a sea of poverty. Fourthly he said that South Africa would have to solve its own problems. This applies not only to South Africa, but also to Southern Africa. As far as I am concerned this is the very positive aspect of the envisaged discussions to be held during the next few days. They are going to be held by countries in Southern Africa, not by foreign powers.

The hon member referred to Cahora Bassa. It is my privilege, as chairman of the South African delegation, to be involved with the efforts at re-establishing that project. It is not merely a question of the re-establishment of a project which will give South Africa an additional power-supply capacity of 8%, which will give Portugal revenue on an investment of R2,5 billion and which will give revenue to Mozambique. It goes much further, because what is at issue here is the stabilisation of Southern Africa as a whole. It is a fantastic project with tremendous potential, if only we could guarantee the security of that line.

That power must be fed, by way of high-tension transmission lines, through Mozambique to South Africa over a distance of 900 km. To be able to do so, 9 000 power standards are needed, and if only one were blown up, it would not be possible to feed that power through to South Africa. At the moment 522 of those power standards are down. A major effort is going to be made to have them erected once more, and it is going to cost a great deal of money. The second objective will be to see how we can prevent those lines from being sabotaged again. This is a fine example of an effort that is being made in Southern Africa itself in the interests of Southern Africa.

The hon member also referred to the further possible implications. I wish I could take all hon members to that hydro-electric project at Cahora Bassa. It is an engineering marvel, but on the other hand it is the biggest white elephant I have ever seen. It cost R2½ billion and furnishes no revenue. That project has great potential which could be tripled and even quadrupled with the present dam wall. Then the whole of Southern Africa, however, would have to be linked up to that electricity grid which Escom is working on and to which reference was also made here. Ultimately Escom will manage to supply the whole of Southern Africa with power. This would mean interdependence, and that is our department’s ideal, ie to join people together through economic interdependence. We do not want countries to be dependent upon South Africa.

†We do not want countries to be dependent upon South Africa. We want all the countries of Southern Africa to be interdependent. There is a major difference between those two concepts. I think that is of the utmost importance.

*I should also like to reply to the hon member for Mamre who specifically referred to efforts that have to be made to convey our image to the outside world. Once again I should like to make use of this opportunity—I have done so in the past too—to ask hon members of this House who frequently travel abroad and in South Africa on guest-exchange programmes to help us to convey our image. There are many hon members here who have been involved or are involved in this, and I sincerely want to thank each and every one of them. There is no better way in which to convey the complex nature of the South African situation to the outside world than by bringing international opinion-makers to South Africa or sending leaders or various spokesmen abroad to tell the world what is really happening in South Africa. I am inundated by visits from overseas guests, from both the East and the West. Some are the guests of this Government and some are businessmen who take the opportunity to come along for a chat. I have not encountered a single visitor, even amongst the most critical of them, who has not had a slightly more positive attitude about South Africa after discussing matters with me for an hour or more. It really is something to come across people who are so critical about South Africa that they can hardly look one in the eye. They are so difficult about what is going on in South Africa, because our problem hinges on the fact that unfortunately there are certain things in South Africa which are wrong, but they are things we are working on. After all, that is what reform is all about, and the sooner this takes place, the better. I want to say, however, that for every thing that is wrong in this country—I am sure hon members will agree with me—there are ten positive things happening here. It is the task and the calling of all of us, as members of Parliament, to communicate these positive aspects. Unfortunately we are living in an age of the mass media for which good news is no news. Bad news and sensationalism hit the headlines. That is a tremendous problem which we all experience, and hon members who have had to go abroad to describe the new South Africa which is coming into being know about this problem we have.

I want to thank hon members sincerely for what they have done. I am aware of the positive feedback after the hon member for Mamre, the relevant Minister and other hon members spoke on South Africa’s behalf abroad.

By the very nature of things we are not only engaged in arranging guest programmes. There is also a comprehensive publication programme. Last year more than 10 million editions of publications were distributed in countries abroad. For example, the journal, This is South Africa, appeared in Italian, Hebrew, Chinese and Danish for the first time. One is dumbfounded when one sees how much this does to give a better perspective of the realities of South Africa. One actually grows excited and optimistic at the prospect of what one can achieve by telling people more about the positive aspects in South Africa. People know everything about the negative side of things, about the ugly things in South Africa. It is our department’s task to convey to the outside world the positive things that are actually happening in South Africa.

In conclusion I should like to put things in perspective for hon members. There are hon members sitting here who serve on the Standing Committee on Finance, and they know that the Department of Foreign Affairs’ overall budget is 4,4% of the country’s total budget. What is more, 87% of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ overall budget comprises transfers in the form of development aid. This leaves 13% of the budget for the department’s actual task, that of conveying South Africa’s image. This is ultimately 0,6% of the country’s total budget, and with this sum of money the hon the Minister, the officials in the department and I myself have to try to convey the positive aspects about South Africa.

I should like to thank the hon members to whom I referred for the knowledge they displayed and for the in-depth study they have made of the subject. I also want to thank the House sincerely for a very friendly reception.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to thank you sincerely for the way in which you welcomed me today when proceedings commenced in the House. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the compliments hon members paid me, the hon the Deputy Minister and the department, and in particular I appreciate the understanding which emerged in each speech of the difficult conditions under which the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs function abroad. It is true that this is a difficult task. Our representatives often do their task in silence. Seldom, if ever, are they praised in public, because the nature of their work means that they have to suffer in silence, struggle on and plan as well as they can. I can assure hon members, however, that those who serve in this department do so out of love for South Africa. They do so in the interests of all the people and communities of South Africa and regard themselves as representatives of our country’s people. Once again I want to thank hon members for their encouragement and compliments.

It is true that, aware of all one’s shortcomings, one appreciates such words of understanding and sympathy and that they encourage one when the problems often become too much for one, and one feels alone and does not know what to do. Then one realises that there may be more people supporting one than one thinks. Hon members will understand that the people with whom I have to negotiate and whom I have dealings with are not as friendly as hon members in this House. Nor do they have as much understanding as hon members.

One of the hon members here gave an enlightening and interesting explanation of the requirements and functions of a diplomat in the diplomatic service. I think it was the hon member for Diamant. If the hon member does not mind, I should like to add that it is a diplomat’s task to get along with people he cannot stand. [Interjections.] Consequently his task is not always an easy one.

The hon member for Diamant as well as other hon members referred to the situation in Africa. It is true that we are an inextricable part of this continent.

†We are an African-rooted people and nation. We are not situated somewhere between the Netherlands and Belgium. We are not. We are an African-rooted nation, and that is why events in Africa must affect us directly, although we do not always seem to appreciate that.

There is a tendency in South Africa to regard European news and American news as more important than African news. It is a tendency that does exist. When a princess from some royal house of a European country—I would rather not mention names now—does something extraordinary or even ordinary, it is news. Hon members know that. Yet when a Swazi princess gets married or officiates at some function, no one takes any notice of the event.

The Zulu king.

Yes, to some extent the same applies in respect of the Zulu king. I thank the hon member for mentioning that.

It is also the task of my department, therefore, to try to make our people more Africa-orientated. In my department we have gone out of our way to establish better relations with our neighbouring states. Within the past two years we have managed to establish representatives in Maseru in Lesotho, representatives which we have never had before. We also have a representative in Mbabane, Swaziland, and a representative in Maputo. We still have one in Harare, and we are planning various forms of representation in other African countries. It is not necessarily representation according to the old Western diplomatic style and form. We will adapt to the circumstances of Africa and tailor our requirements to the realities of our situation. There is nothing wrong in doing that.

We can never divorce ourselves from this continent, we cannot escape the ravages and the retrogression and we cannot be insensitive to the hopes and aspirations of this continent. We can share in, and contribute towards, the progress, stability and prosperity of this continent. We possess technical know-how and we possess knowledge of this continent’s conditions in many disciplines. I am sure hon members will agree with me on this. I may point out that in the field of road building we can build roads as well as any European or other industrialised country.

So, too, we can build airports and run our railways and ports equally well. Our agricultural products are produced under difficult and often adverse climatic conditions. Yet, in spite of these circumstances, we are still able to produce enough food to feed our people and even export some.

In the field of mining, we are experts. We manufacture petroleum from coal. We are experts in that field. We have constructed—all over South Africa—110 000 km of Eskom power lines. I believe there are about 35 000 km of railway lines in the country, almost half of which are electrified, and some 45 000 km of hard-top roads. We have in this country, as hon members know, established universities and technical colleges. We have built dams to store water to provide in times of drought.

We can look also at how our towns have expanded in recent years. The one important thing every visitor from Africa tells me—unfortunately I cannot mention all their names, but in the past two months alone we have had representatives from some of the most important African countries—after they have had a bird’s eye view of the Johannesburg/Witwatersrand/Pretoria area, the Cape Peninsula up to Atlantis, etc, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban, is that they did not know we were so advanced. [Interjections.] This is a fact.

Another aspect which I think will interest hon members is that there is almost a longing, a desire, on the part of our African friends from the north to visit Cape Point. They want to see where this southern point of their continent is, where the two oceans meet. It is a dream and almost like a pilgrimage for them. It has struck me how much they want to see Cape Point. Maybe in time to come, this would be another form of pilgrimage for our African friends. Just as we cannot divorce ourselves from the rest of Africa, so I believe the rest of Africa cannot divorce itself from us without inviting disaster for all of us. Just think how much, if we could get closer together, we could complement and assist one another in building up at least a Southern Africa which is full of hope for the future for all our children, our people and our communities.

*The hon member for Diamant also referred to the dangers that are threatening South Africa. That is what bothers me most about the so-called industrially developed countries in the West, and I can include other countries in this too. I am not saying this pointedly about these countries, because they have their own interests, as hon members rightly said earlier. Nevertheless I want to ask hon members to read an article in a certain German magazine, called Stem. My department translated an article which appeared in this magazine on 10 March this year. It was written by a woman by the name of Amma Ogan, from Lagos, Nigeria.

She is a well-known personality in Nigeria. It is not I who am giving these facts and judgments about Africa; I am giving them to hon members as they appeared in this German magazine. If hon members are interested, my department would be happy to make a translated version of the article available to them. I only had certain excerpts translated. In the leading article of this edition of Stem, Africa is referred to as the “sick continent”—“der kranke Kontinent”. The article begins as follows:

This article describes Africa’s situation very strikingly in terms of seven plagues. Naturally hon members are familiar with the term “seven plagues”. Plague One, according to this article, is “War and Fugitives”. The article ascribes this mainly to the way I which this continent has been cut up by the colonial forces, who paid no attention to the natural boundaries of the peoples of Africa. I am referring to those communities which belonged together in a culturally historic sense, but were simply split in two. Perhaps hon members are more knowledgeable in this regard than I am.

Plague Two has a striking heading: “Assistance that does not assist”. The article reads:

Sir, hon colleagues must listen to this, because—

That is every German mark that enters Africa—

This is an interesting statement. This is not what I say; it is what this article says. This happens as follows—

Plague Three is called “The New Masters”, or if I may use the German word, “Herren”. It is interesting to see what they say here. In Zambia they are called the “apawambwa”, which means “those who are higher”. In Tanzania they are called the “wabenzi”, according to their status symbol, the Mercedes Benz. [Interjections.] Once again I say I am not the one who said this. [Interjections.] I could get into trouble if I said such things! I am quoting from a well-known German magazine. The article goes on to say the following about these “new masters”:

That was Plague Three. Let us take a look at Plague Four—“Exploitation by the World Bank”. That is how they see things. I quote again:

I want to point out to hon members that $200 billion is equal to $200 000 million, and that is R400 000 million. That is the debt burden of Africa. They go on to say:

Today, however, 24 kg cotton has to pay for that same barrel of oil. That is a striking example. A while ago 8 kg of cotton could buy a barrel of oil. Now 24 kg is necessary to buy one barrel of oil. According to the article, the distance between the poor countries of Africa and the industrial world is growing.

I now come to Plague Five—“The Aids epidemic”. The article reads as follows:

To aggravate this decadent situation, the deterioration of Africa, Aids is spreading in Africa, where it is called the “thin disease”. According to the article, it is spreading much faster than in Europe or America. I quote:

Then there is Plague Six—“Hunger and Poverty”. There are droughts, floods, bad harvests and plagues of locusts. At the moment a catastrophe is threatening the continent of Africa. According to reports by the United Nations’ agricultural organisation, the FAO, approximately 25 million people in Africa will starve in 1988 if foodstuffs cannot be supplied to the distressed areas soon.

Plague Seven—“Loss of Culture”:

I have purposely quoted an article from a magazine from another country, just to direct attention once again—also in South Africa—to the threat that is facing South Africa in every sphere of life. I do not think our people always realise this. Unless something dramatic or drastic can be done about these plagues—of course some of the plagues have natural causes which one cannot do much about—the training of Africa; employment creating industries; a better rationalisation of its yield of raw materials and prices; standardisation; its transport system; agricultural and food production and the combating of diseases with reference to humans, animals and plants, it is almost inevitable that our continent will be struck by a catastrophe. Where do we stand with regard to such a catastrophe?

That is why I regard it as a challenge to serve in a department which makes it its task inter alia, where we can, to grant assistance—assistance with training and industrial establishment so that the people who are helped, can continue the work themselves afterwards, thus retaining their human dignity. That is assistance that helps. We heard here about assistance that does not help, but South Africa gives assistance that does help.

I want to thank hon members in general for the high quality of participation in this debate. I shall ask my department to send the speeches that were made here today to all our offices overseas, firstly to inform our representatives of the great appreciation there is for their work in this House, and secondly to tell them to use some of the standpoints that were put here today in their information material, because this is useful. I found it useful today to listen to the competent summaries of divergent ideas in the sphere of our relations with foreign countries and with reference to South Africa’s problems.

What also struck me about the hon member for Diamant was his insistence that whatever differences we may have, we must not permit the outside world to come and dictate to us. What they dictate to us—if hon members ask me—is going to have the worst possible consequences for all of us. I am grateful to know that a number of hon members in this House constantly receive and entertain foreign visitors and explain our circumstances to them, and also do excellent work abroad in the interests of South Africa.

I know, for example, that according to our ambassador in Canada, the hon member for Mamre did excellent work in Canada. I have newspaper cuttings which testify to the excellent work the hon member did, and I thank him sincerely for that. We are proud of his patriotism, his diligence and his ingenuity. It is not an easy job. As someone rightly said here, one comes up against a wall. Who would know that better than I do. It is a wall of prejudice which has been built up against all of us, including hon members in this House and all Black leaders who do not want to swallow the communist story or are not prepared to condone the anti-South African attitude of certain church leaders. I shall not mention names today.

Mr Chairman, I agree with all the things mentioned by the hon the Minister, but may I ask him whether he does not think that the South African Government is also responsible for a lot of what it is being blamed for today?

I can only tell the hon member that he knows just as I do how complicated South African internal politics is. I experienced that in Pietersburg myself, and I shall invite him when I hold a meeting there again. [Interjections.] It is a complex situation, but what one should ask oneself is whether the graph of improvement and development is moving upwards. As long as the graph is moving upwards, we must stand together and strengthen one another. The hon member must know that if we allow the outside world to dictate to us, there will be nothing left to correct. Then we shall be done for.

Like other hon members, the hon member for Diamant showed insight in dealing with the situation in Mozambique and relations in Southern Africa. I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who wished me the best of luck in our planned discussions in Congo-Brazzaville. I have no illusions about that. An hon member rightly said here that we should not become over-optimistic, that we should not unnecessarily arouse expectations which may not be realised. We shall have to be very careful, and I realise that. When matters of this nature are at issue, one is suspicious. One asks oneself what the intentions of the other side are. Are they sincere? Can it be true that the Cuban troops are really being withdrawn? What is the truth and what are the objectives? One must keep that in mind when one reflects on the speech made by the hon member for Southern Cape here today in which he gave his evaluation of the new Russian leader’s thinking. Naturally one does not know yet whether it was really a change in direction. One is a bit suspicious about that too. When he was here, Dr Franz Jozef Strauss told me that he had met Mr Gorbachev personally and that after a discussion lasting three hours, he had told him that according to their discussions the idea in certain Western countries that Gorbachev was no longer a communist seemed to be wrong. Gorbachev replied that of course he was still a resolute communist, but that he wanted to improve his system. He wanted to ensure that his system worked better and more efficiently, that his factories produced more efficiently and that better control was exercised. He still wants to prove that his system is better than all the others.

There is something that alarms me. When I went out for a moment a little while ago to discuss a matter with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I heard the unfortunate news that the advancement of Cuban forces in the southern part of Angola at the moment was seriously increasing the tension. We shall inform the USA on this clearly and urgently and request that when Mr Schulz has discussions with the Russian minister of foreign affairs in a few days’ time, he will discuss the matter with him seriously. I shall also put it to our friends, the representatives of Luanda, within a day or two. We cannot permit that.

The London consultations—to which hon members referred constructively and positively—took place with difficulty and literally months of sweat and delicate negotiations, sometimes between the devil and the deep blue sea. The planning of the negotiations almost collapsed every now and again, but ultimately they did take place. As hon members know, there were Cubans in the Luanda delegation for the first time. The Americans chaired the meeting and played a neutral and encouraging part. Our representatives returned and reported to me and the Government that they thought there was a change in people’s attitudes. I received messages from certain African leaders—who are close to Luanda—that they had received calls from important African leaders who said they should let me know that the Cubans were serious and were willing to withdraw.

This afternoon, while this debate was in progress and I had to go and pack for my departure to Brazzaville, we received news that there is a serious and dangerous build-up of Cuban forces in the south of Angola which is moving further south, closer and closer to the northern boundary of SWA, and that possibly Swapo elements are hiding behind them or moving along with them. A question arises. The question is not whether or not I should proceed to conduct discussions in Brazzaville. I shall go, because this is the time when one should try to get rid of the thornbush that is in one’s way. The fact is, however, that this is the kind of conduct that arouses suspicion. It creates renewed mistrust. It is the kind of conduct that can ignite a new spark of greater conflict all at once, immediately after the constructive London discussions. These events are developing between the discussions in London and those that are to be held in Brazzaville. This is the kind of thing that requires patience, but also firm action on our part. As an hon member rightly said: Beware of over-optimism. I am in full agreement with his view.

Mr Chairman, there was reference here to the morality of the outside world in the campaign of sanctions against us. The hon nominated member Mr Douw gave an excellent explanation of the sanctions against South Africa and the motives behind this. Other hon members did so as well. It is true that there are people in the country who say they are disappointed because we have not made quicker progress in breaking down racial discrimination. I do not want to say in this House this afternoon, among these friends of mine, that what happens in other countries should be used as an excuse. I associate myself with what hon members said in the debate about the morality of the struggle against us.

This is no excuse for us not to do our own thing as quickly as possible and in our own way. Hon members must not misunderstand me. I am talking about the morality of foreign action against us. Hon members referred to Australia. It is true, Australia does produce many of the same products as we do—such as the deciduous fruit of the Cape, wine, certain minerals, coal and agricultural products—and they hope that eventually our products will be pushed aside so that they can get an easier market and higher prices for their own products. Let me tell hon members, however, that this could have a boomerang effect, because we shall be forced to offer lower prices for our products. They will then be forced to charge lower prices as well, and before long their own industries will not be able to produce at those prices and that may create an unemployment problem for them.

Let me come back to the morality of the sanctions campaign, however. I have with me a booklet that was published by the Urban League of the USA. It is an organisation which has campaigned over the years for the upliftment of Black Americans. Hon members must read the organisation’s latest report. I think it is called “The State of Black America, 1988”. An alarming picture is presented there.

In 1988, decades after civil rights and—legally speaking—the equality of fundamental rights were established, one out of every three Black Americans still lives under the breadline, whereas only one out of every 10 Whites in America lives under the breadline. What I find most alarming, however, is that the number of Black students at colleges—Black students on “White” campuses, as they say—who drop out, who cannot make the grade, is increasing constantly, whereas the number of enrolments of Black students is decreasing throughout America. There is other information in this book which leads one to reflect deeply about the moral basis of the action of the American Congress against us. I quote:

†Can hon members guess who forms the lower one-fifth and who forms the top one-fifth?

*It is frightening that between 1979 and 1986 the income per family of the lower fifth of the American population dropped, whereas that of the top fifth increased by $12 000. I want to use this to illustrate only one point, viz that discrimination must also be removed from the hearts and minds and deeds of people. The USA, Canada and Australia, which are always at the forefront when it comes to boycotts against this country, which reduce our people’s employment opportunities and are going to leave us with less money to implement the development of our less developed communities to a greater extent, which I know is important to hon members in this House, must remember that we in South Africa acknowledge that we still have a long way to go. We admit that we have shortcomings and have made mistakes. They, however, stand sanctimoniously on the rostrums of the UNO and their Congress and want to punish us, whereas the evils and abuses that exist in their own countries should compel them to look at South Africa with greater humility.

What we need is encouragement, not punishment. We need others to give us credit for all the positive steps that are being taken to provide our people with stability, prosperity and employment opportunities. If that happens, we can move faster and reduce the tension in the hearts and minds of our people that has been roused against us by the world onslaught.

The hon member Mr Douw warned that there were no instant solutions to our problems. That is quite true, and that is how we see things. I want to thank the hon member for his balanced argument.

I have referred to the speech of the hon member for Southern Cape already. One could call it a learned lecture, as it were. The hon member referred to Gorbachev’s objectives, as well as the changes he advocates. We do not know what effect these will have, but Angola is an ideal chance for them to be consistent in a situation similar to that in Afghanistan, where they said the conflict was a regional one and that they would withdraw from the country if a neutral, central government was established. We have a similar situation in Angola. We shall never have peace in Southern Africa—and I must put this unequivocally, because there is no point in living under an illusion—unless warring factions are prepared to denounce violence to attain their political objectives. Those who come into power by means of violence will have to be kept in power by means of violence. That is a fact that has been proved throughout human history.

Hon members referred to the deterioration in Africa today. I told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a moment ago that I was worried, because under normal peaceful conditions Africa has hardly any hope of development in comparison with the industrial countries, and I am talking about normal conditions in complete peace. If, in addition, Africa is afflicted by disputes, dissension, waste of money, corruption, diseases, plagues, war and conflict, it will no longer be the plagued continent, but the doomed continent.

I want to thank all hon members for their contributions. I also want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who took part here with me. As a regional power, with the knowledge and relative prosperity and technology which we have built up, we shall do our best to save our part of Southern Africa and to encourage growth and development. We are still prepared to speak to and deliberate with any leader who denounces violence. There is no way of attaining peace other than by talking. The warring factions in Mozambique will have to talk, and to the extent in which I can play a part there, I shall do so. The warring parties in Angola will have to talk, and to the extent in which I can play a part there, I shall do so. We shall also have to talk in South Africa. [Interjections.]

With the ANC, yes!

We shall not have peace or make any progress in our deliberations in any part of our subcontinent unless we can trust one another’s motives and denounce violence as a way of attaining political objectives. I know that hon members in this House are advocates of what I have said, and that is why it was a pleasure for me and my department to be here today. I thank hon members for their contributions, and I wish them everything of the best and God’s richest blessings.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! I have to inform the House that the draft resolution of which the hon member for Reservoir Hills gave notice yesterday (see Order of the Day No 10 on today’s Order Paper) is in effect embraced by the draft resolution of which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gave notice yesterday (see Order of the Day No 7 on today’s Order Paper).

The Secretary has accordingly been instructed to remove from the Order Paper the draft resolution standing in the name of the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a matter of privilege?

Order! The hon member for Stanger may proceed.

Sir, I should like to draw attention to an incident which occurred on 9 May 1988. On that day I was in conversation with a colleague. Mr S Ismail, an official of the Administration: House of Delegates, joined the conversation. He used rude language and uttered serious threats against my person. I have approached Mr Speaker in writing to allow precedence to be given to a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into and report upon a breach of privilege allegedly committed by the said Mr S Ismail when he uttered the words and threat that I have referred to. [Interjections.]

Order! I have been informed by Mr Speaker that the hon member for Stanger had submitted to him a statement setting out the circumstances of the incident and that he was prepared to allow precedence to be given to a motion for the appointment of a committee.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I was not aware that this was being done. Could I have the privilege of presenting certain facts to this House which would not prejudice any investigations that were to take place?

Rubbish! Sit down! [Interjections.]

The official concerned, since a onesided view might appear in the media…

What are you afraid of?

Order! I think I must advise the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it would be the task of the committee that would be appointed to establish whether or not such words were uttered.

You can serve on that if you want to; if you have the guts! [Interjections.]

Order! That is the situation. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to address the House on whether or not a committee should be appointed, that is his prerogative.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition given notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a committee?

Order! It is a question before the House since Mr Speaker has allowed this privilege, and it does not require notice. I have been advised to that effect by Mr Speaker.

I might mention, Mr Chairman, that this side of the House may also…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I respectfully enquire from you whether the words “if you have the guts” are parliamentary or unparliamentary?

Order! I am afraid I am not in a position to allow any explanation on the question asked by the hon member for Rylands. I want to advise the hon member that such words are not permitted.

Are they permissible, Sir?

Order! Could the hon member advise the Chair who used those words?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills said by way of interjection to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council: “If you have the guts”.

Order! Did the hon member for Reservoir Hills use such words?

Mr Chairman, I did say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council…

Order! I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills must either say “yes” or “no”. Did the hon member utter such words?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rylands knows what guts are, whether a man obeys instructions or not.

Order! I think the hon member must either reply “yes” or “no”.

Well, Sir, I believe that the hon member for Rylands has no guts.

Order! Did the hon member say so or not?

I did so.

Order! The hon member must kindly withdraw the words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I will support the motion…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, Sir, I want to point out that whilst you were questioning the hon member for Reservoir Hills he said that I did not have any guts.

That is true.

He says it is true, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I shall not tolerate such remarks any longer.

As the Chairman pleases.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I shall support the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition because, in fact, the Director-General received a complaint that the hon member for Stanger had interfered with his official in the presence of witnesses. The truth will therefore be established.

Nonsense!

Order! There is a request that a committee be appointed and therefore I do not think we can pre-empt the workings of such a committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as part and parcel of my responsibilities as Minister of the Budget, hon members will appreciate that I am also responsible for two Votes, namely Vote No 1—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services” and Vote No 5—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”. I must therefore address hon members on both these Votes.

Hon members will recall that during my Budget speech on 21 March 1988, I indicated that my Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services requires an amount of R13 713 000 for its activities during this financial year. This is R2 294 000 or 20% more than the amount voted last year. I have already touched on some of the reasons for this increase and I do not wish to repeat what I said previously. However, I consider it appropriate to give this House a resumé of my department and its functions.

Should one turn to page 1.1 of the printed Estimates which have been tabled, it will be clear that my department’s aim is to render administrative and auxiliary services to the entire Administration: House of Delegates. These services cover a wide spectrum of support for the various actions executed as line functions by the Administration. Very limited services are rendered directly to the public. I know that on various occasions suggestions have been made that these services should be performed by the other departments themselves. I wish to assure hon members, however, that rendering these services centrally obviates quadruplication thereof and really no longer requires justification. The resultant saving releases funds for other essential services.

My department’s officials very seldom catch the eye. They go about their duties without fanfare and are indeed, like good health—you only become aware of it when it fails. Hon members will, I am sure, allow me to touch on a few of the services rendered to the other departments, and to say that the failures are really few and far between.

Personnel Management

An organisation’s most valuable assets are its human resources. A uniformly high standard of work performance is expected of every staff member, but at the same time each is an individual with his or her particular needs, strengths and weaknesses. Staff work must be impartial, but never impersonal. The Directorate: Personnel Management renders services in which suitable staff are recruited, appointed, trained, evaluated, promoted, awarded their dues and in general are taken care of during their entire public service careers. Offenders amongst them must also be dealt with under administrative law. This wide-ranging service, as hon members will appreciate, is no easy task and the fact that complaints are minimal is evidence of effective performance.

During the 11 months ending 29 February 1988, 703 appointments were processed, of which 422 were educators whilst the rest were appointed to the various other occupational groups serving our community. During the same period 531 promotions, of which 278 were educators, were finalised. Contrary to mischievous newspaper reports, only 31 White staff members were appointed or promoted. May I draw the attention of hon members to the fact that these latter appointments and promotions were necessary because suitably qualified Indian candidates were not available. Only 247 or 1,7% of this Administration’s employees are White.

I reiterate our policy that in all appointments and promotions only the relative merit, efficiency and suitability of the candidates are taken into account. If we believe in non-racialism—which I believe both sides of this House do—this should not take up our time in debate. In a nutshell, the Ministers’ Council is colour-blind and wants no part of tokenism.

Questions were raised in this House—and I trust adequately answered—about vacancies, appointments and promotions. May I, nonetheless, call hon members’ attention to the fact that three of our four departments, including by far the two largest, namely the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Education and Culture, as well as the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, are 85% salary intensive, because of the very nature of the services they render. Only the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture spends significantly on capital works, again because of its purpose and structure.

Taken as a whole, the Budget devotes 46% to personnel and related expenditures, but critics of the so-called public service Frankenstein monster, growing out of control, apparently lose sight of the fact that our administration is only now finding its feet. We inherited an establishment designed for us, without cognisance being taken of our communities’ needs. Before the introduction of the tricameral system, we had little chance of modifying the structure, but since then my department’s work study teams, in close collaboration with aligned departments, have been revising the organisation and establishment with a view, primarily, to improve services to the public, but secondarily, to brighten the career prospects of staff, consistent with sound administrative principles and available funds.

Since last year we have also had to contend with the moratorium imposed by the Cabinet on all establishment expansion. Where Ministers are able to certify that a new post is absolutely essential, and my work study team agrees, we are able to approach the Commission for Administration for authority to create a post. However, at the same time we have to offer a post of equal grading for abolition. Hon members may therefore rest assured that vacancies are only filled if absolutely essential services are involved and new posts are created on a quid pro quo basis.

The establishment is, as can be seen, very tightly controlled. As a result, the establishment increased by only 3,8% during 1987-88, and is planned to grow by not more than 1,6% in 1988-89. In our situation, I submit that this is entirely justifiable, as it meets with the hon the State President’s wishes.

However, some vacancies which have been identified for filling, could not be filled due to a lack of suitably qualified candidates. These vacancies occur mostly in the Department of Health Services and Welfare and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I therefore appeal to scholars and students to make use of the information available on careers in the public service, and offer themselves for training and service in these fields. Numbers of substantial bursaries are available. Young people should be innovative in their thinking on careers and should take note in advance of crowded professions which might not guarantee jobs after completion of their studies.

The public must disabuse itself of the notion that the State is the employer of last resort of persons with even the least marketable qualifications. It is not.

One hundred and twenty officials of the administration retired during the period under review. Of these, 56 were occasioned by continued ill health. In our service to the community, we must continuously strive to improve productivity and increased efficiency. One of the most universal methods employed to attain these aims, is daily in-service training.

However, in addition, during 1987, various formal courses were conducted by the training division of my department to improve the effectiveness of staff. These covered a wide spectrum including courses for instructors and management and were attended by 782 officials from all departments. Feedback from the departments indicates positive results.

The Cabinet places a very high premium on training. This led to the creation of an institute for training at the Commission for Administration. This Ministers’ Council subscribes to this approach and personnel are encouraged to utilise every opportunity to attend courses and seminars. Staff not holding post-matriculation degrees or diplomas, increasingly essential to quality for promotion to the higher echelons, are given bursaries for part-time study. Bursaries have been awarded since the inception of the administration. During last year 127 bursaries and this year 150 bursaries were awarded largely for studies in public administration. All students are contractually bound to service in repayment of the money invested in them.

Regrettably I must report that all departments are having to consider an increasing number of charges of misconduct against officers in their employ. My Directorate: Personnel Administration does not initiate such charges—they only attend to the mechanics of the operation after the Director-General has decided to proceed. It is that directorate’s job to ensure that charges are based on a correct interpretation by heads of departments of the Public Service Act and Indians Education Act, as the case may be. It also assumes responsibility for the preparation of charge sheets and the subsequent handling of the statutory enquiries and all that flows from them. Our legal officer works in close collaboration with the law advisers and State Attorney to ensure compliance with the law. A total of 10 officers were charged in 1987-88 of whom 6 either admitted guilt or were found guilty whilst the other cases are still under investigation. Hon members should be aware that discipline is being tightened up and the statistics may get worse before getting better. The vocal minority of recalcitrant officials, particularly those biting the hand of the tricameral system which feeds them, should take note that they are in for a rough ride. I must add to this House that those who actively influence such maladministration on the part of officials in the House of Delegates and its administration, will also be subject to this harsh reality.

Financial Administration

The receipt and spending of every cent must be supervised as it is public property. This, hon members will appreciate, requires thorough knowledge of the statutory and regulatory provisions and constant vigilance from the Directorate: Financial Administration. The continuous process involves advance planning with the Treasury guidelines in mind, submission of a coordinated funds requisition to the Treasury each year, keeping computerised records from the time of the Votes, through commitments and payments to eventual final Appropriation accounts. Planning for a particular year starts thus some eighteen months before this House is approached for appropriation. Small wonder that additional estimates are virtually unavoidable. The Budget of a single financial year, in fact, spans four years during which, please note, the same generic process is under way for earlier and later years.

The uninitiated and critical are largely unaware of these very demanding procedures for guarding the taxpayers’ money, but we owe a vote of thanks to the faceless “back-room boys” who so diligently keep the books.

It is interesting to note that after this House’s consent is given the collections and expenditures are minutely controlled and recorded. During the past year approximately 266 000 transactions were recorded which included plus minus 248 000 payments, inter alia incorporating the paying of emoluments of approximately 14 700 educators, administrators and other staff over a spectrum of 79 staff categories.

To enable the accounting officer to discharge the duty imposed upon him by the Exchequer and audit as well as other Acts, support services including procurement administration, accounting and internal auditing are rendered. In his most recent report on the affairs of this Administration the Auditor-General has had occasion to bring to note one case of unauthorised expenditure and one of expenditure which is potentially fruitless. Before these two matters have been considered by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts it would be improper for me, or the House, to deal in detail with either and I mention them solely as a background to an otherwise clean Bill of Accounting in which defalcations amount to a truly insignificant R2,3 million.

Seen against the 1986-87 Budget of R759,857 million on Votes and R129,028 million on the Housing Development Fund this represents only 0,26%. I believe this is a very satisfactory result in a new organisation such as ours. Needless to say we hope to improve and run an ever tighter ship as we gain in experience.

My department is responsible for assisting all departments in order to determine their organisational and establishment requirements, to determine the utilisation and efficiency of subdivisions thereof as well as to determine the necessity for mechanisation of services.

The subdirectorate Efficiency Services, even though staff suitable to render this valuable management service is limited, undertook an assorted number of investigations of varying complexity during the past financial year. Fifty seven investigations could be completed of which nineteen can be classified as major investigations. These latter investigations covered aspects of procedures and methods, organisation and establishment requirements and the determination of standards.

Moreover, the heads of departments of this Administration are continuously rationalising procedures and methods so as to eliminate unwarranted overlapping of duties and to remove unnecessary impediments. To this end new procedure manuals are being complied and legislative restrictions are scrutinised to ensure maximum efficiency. In this regard I may mention that the commission for administration is fully aware of our efforts and has, as a matter of fact, expressed its appreciation for this administration’s co-operation in ensuring the promotion of productivity.

Laborious and detailed world-study investigations are presently focused on all departments in pursuance of the call to promote productivity in service rendering. Procedures and methods, form design and control as well as work measurements are some aspects that are being dealt with. Furthermore, hon members will appreciate that this administration does not intend to stay in a rut and is wholeheartedly participating in the Function Evaluation Programme to determine which functions can be abolished or privatised. The perception of Cabinet of a smaller, more efficient public service with a high degree of productivity will serve as guideline for future investigations.

With regard to stores administration I want to say that, apart from emoluments, the procurement and maintenance of stores and equipment compose the largest single expenditure function of this Administration. Not only the requisites of the Department of Education and Culture but a variety of components ranging from spatulas for the Department of Health Services and Welfare to computers for the Administration as a whole is obtained, provided and maintained according to the various requirements under direction of Parliament and its delegates. During the past financial year more than R40 million’s worth of stores and equipment were effectively handled.

An amount of R29 911 000 alone has been included in the printed Estimates of Expenditure for the 1988-89 financial year on Vote 3—“Education and Culture”. The procurement administration of this Administration will reach new heights in this year.

Data processing services, utilising seven major computer systems, are at present rendered to all four departments of the Administration. Information in respect of salary payments, financial management, social pensions, teacher information and other related systems is captured locally, transmitted and processed on various computer facilities at the Administration’s disposal. This ensures high technology facilities to be at managers’ disposal, timeous payment of accounts, emoluments, pensions, grants and contributions and it sustains the efficient records which contribute to this Administration’s effectiveness.

In addition the programmers have developed a number of new systems catering for the specific needs of this Administration in order to enhance the quality of services rendered to the Indian population throughout the RSA. Hon members will appreciate that during this debate all services rendered by my department cannot be highlighted. I would therefore now like to call hon members’ attention to the fund requirements of my department.

My Vote “Budgetary and Auxiliary Services” consists of two programmes, namely Programme 1—“Administration” and Programme 2—“Associated and Supporting Services”. The reasons for the increase in both programmes have been dealt with in my Budget Speech, consequently I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon members how I intend utilising the required funds for the financial year 1988-89.

The funds required under Programme 1—“Administration” amount to R9 153 000. Under the subprogrammes “Chairman: Ministers’ Council”, “Minister” and “Ministerial Representatives” provision is only being made for salaries and allowances. Administrative, transport and personnel expenditure are provided for under the subprogramme “Administrative Auxiliary Services”. The subprogramme—“Management” provides for all expenditure relating to the Director-General and the Chief Director: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services.

The subprogramme “Administrative Auxiliary Services” provides for the emoluments, administrative and other expenses of approximately 300 officials rendering personnel and financial administrative as well as other auxiliary services to the Administration. All administrative and other expenses in respect of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Ministerial representatives and myself are also provided for under this subprogramme.

The funds required under Programme 2—“Associated and Supporting Services” amount to R4 560 000. As its name indicates, this Programme caters for various associated and supporting services subprogrammes. Firstly, under the subprogramme “Services to Citizens” provision is made for the rendition of services in respect of electoral matters. Secondly, under the subprogramme “Computer Services” data processing services are rendered by my department to all four departments in the Administration: House of Delegates. Thirdly, there is the subprogramme “Stores Administration”. Funds required will be utilised to provide stores and equipment to all four departments and to render a supporting service to schools in respect of school supplies.

Fourth is the Subprogramme: Ministers’ Council Secretariat. Provision is made for personnel and administrative expenditure of officials rendering general auxiliary services to the Ministers. The fifth is the Subprogramme: Pensions. Provision is made for pensions payable to former members of the South African Indian Council and their dependants. Sixth is the Subprogramme: Study Assistance to Officials. Provision is made for class and examination fees in respect of officials in all four departments of the administration enrolling for tertiary courses. The seventh is the Subprogramme: Fiat Lux. Provision is made for personnel and administrative expenditure in respect of media services to the community. The eighth is the Subprogramme: Audit Fees. Provision is hereby made to compensate the Auditor-General for services rendered to the Administration: House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, I shall now present particulars of the other Vote for which I take responsibility.

As I have previously explained in this House, Vote No 5: Improvement of Conditions of Service, is an umbrella provision catering for expenditure resulting from improvement of conditions of service.

Hon members are aware of the fact that officers and employees of the State are not to receive a general increase in emoluments during the financial year 1988-1989. An amount of R6 749 000 has however been earmarked for allocation to the Administration: House of Delegates to cover the estimated costs stemming from the revision of service dispensation for various occupational classes and for improvement in salaries for those groups who have not yet reached parity.

The Commission for Administration has as yet not disclosed details and I am unfortunately not in a position to furnish members with further information regarding utilisation of the aforementioned amount. It is intended to be utilised to cover deficits on the other Votes arising from such increases which cannot be met from internal savings and exact appropriations will not be known until the next financial year. That is how the system operates.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council for their co-operation during the previous financial year in guarding against overruns on their allocations. I do want to repeat to this hon House, however, that the allocation of funds to the Administration: House of Delegates has not been what we require ever since we came to this tricameral Parliament. It falls far short of our requirements, particularly in the fields of welfare and education.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and my hon colleagues on the Ministers’ Council are endeavouring to motivate a case to the Exchequer and the hon the Minister of Finance to consider our request to increase our funds.

Having said that, I want to conclude by reiterating that we are very happy indeed to have acquired the services of Mr Peter Wronsley as our Director-General and Mr Kruger as the Chief Director in my Ministry of the Budget.

I should like to pay tribute to the staff under the Director-General and the Chief Director for their hard work during the course of the year, and I do believe that the future is positive.

With these words I conclude my address.

Mr Chairman, my speech this afternoon is going to be directed at the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but unfortunately I see that he has abdicated his seat! [Interjections.]

In my capacity as PRO for the Peoples Party of South Africa, I was approached by the leader of the National Peoples Party and Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to attend a meeting between him and the representative of my party in Parliament. This meeting was held last night at the home of the hon the Minister of the Budget at Pelican Park.

The Leader of the NPP expressed the view that members of my party were once the members of the National Peoples Party family and that as such we ought to return to the National Peoples Party’s fold. He said that he was doing this in the best interests of the community and the country.

However, after listening to him, our national chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, informed him that since he had arranged a Press conference for Friday 13 May at Malgate House in Durban my party would be prepared to discuss the matter, as well as his Press conference, after Friday 13.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was visibly upset at my national chairman and burst out rather irrationally and became threatening and abusive by warning us that he would bring the whole House down if we refused to come to terms with him. [Interjections.]

The attitude of my party, of which I am extremely proud, was that that could be his right. I do not wish to delve into details about the other abusive statement he made, save to say that members of my party have decided to stand firm and will not give in to any form of threats. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has seen fit to insult every hon member of Parliament by claiming that he can dangle carrots in front of hon members to regain his lost majority. [Interjections.] Subsequently he issued a Press release claiming that he had not said so but the newspaper has firmly claimed that their reporter stands firmly by the original report. This is the contempt in which the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council holds Parliament as an institution and perhaps the best advice we could give is the advice that was given in the editorial in the Pretoria News of 9 May, and I quote:

[Interjections.] In the light of this type of behaviour I want to ask the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, who accompanied him to this meeting last night, whether he was not uncomfortable with the attitude of his hon Leader. The hon the Minister supposedly enjoys widespread support in Zululand, where he has rendered yeoman service, but let him be warned that he will be judged by the sort of company he keeps. [Interjections.]

To add insult to injury, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council still had the audacity to telephone us back at the home of the hon the Minister of the Budget and when I answered the telephone he said: “Tell Pachai that there will be an efficient execution of him tomorrow.” However, I see the hon the Deputy Minister is still here. [Interjections.]

Ah, I see the abdicator has returned to his seat. [Interjections.] He telephoned back 10 minutes later and asked me whether I had conveyed his message to the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, to which I replied that the hon the Deputy Minister was ready to pack his bags.

When I returned to my sleeping quarters he telephoned again and asked me to tell Ismail Kathrada that he would fire him, and when I asked …

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

I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I cannot take a question. There is very little time. I have to deliver a message on behalf of my party and I am delivering it. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is most welcome to reply.

But you must sit here when I reply!

Yes, I shall sit here and listen to you.

He telephoned me again and said to me: “Tell Ismail Kathrada that I will fire him.” When I asked him whether he really wanted me to tell him, he said: “Yes, tell him.”

You suggested that to me.

Around midnight he drove over and hooted at my sleeping quarters. When I went out, he requested me to do something to save the situation for him. When he was told that the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture had already resigned, he insisted that I call the hon the Minister of the Budget, who was at my quarters for discussion. The hon the Minister of the Budget stated that he had already told me by telephone to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he had resigned and that he had nothing further to discuss.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows that he does not command the majority support in this House. He is acting irrationally and has become an embarrassment, not only to Parliament, which has strong traditions, but also to the community at large, consisting of all shades of opinion and colour. My advice to him is to quit now before it is too late. My party will not bow down to any threat or blackmail. I want to add that hon members can see that we, on the right side of this House, command the majority support and I humbly ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to resign and …

Why not just fire him?

You should sit on the crossbenches. What are you doing on the opposite side of the House?

Mr Chairman, I want to place certain things on record, in the light of the utterances of the hon member for Isipingo. I wish the hon member for Isipingo had presented the facts this afternoon. I wish he had indicated to the House that he was apologetic to me before the commencement of this afternoon’s session, saying to me that he was forced to read a statement prepared by his party in his capacity as a public relations officer.

Why do you say these things?

I suggest to the hon member for Stanger to ask that of the hon member for Isipingo.

Do you mean that he is a child and that he does not know what to do?

I do not want to say to this House that the hon member for Isipingo says, in general, to hon members of this House that he calls the hon Ministers “tsk, tsk, tsk”, like little puppies, and they run to him. [Interjections.] I have a witness.

What witness do you have? You manufacture a witness.

The hon member for Moorcross was present with me. [Interjections.] I say to this House that the hon member for Isipingo said that he calls certain hon members “tsk, tsk, tsk” and they run to him.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I am not taking questions.

Mr Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. I would not ask a question of a man like that. [Interjections.] I am rising on a point of order. I would like to know whether it is proper for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to refer to hon Ministers as persons who are called “tsk, tsk, tsk”.

Order! I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is insinuating here …

I am not.

Order! He is insinuating the sort of expression which we know to be an expression which is used for dogs. I request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, can I explain? I did not mean that. I was conveying to this House what the hon member for Isipingo told me.

Order! I would like to request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council kindly to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I will kindly withdraw it, but I will check the records. I will obey your ruling and withdraw it, but I indicated to this House that it was the hon member for Isipingo who indicated that to me in the presence of witnesses. I do not accept that.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is the biggest fabricator out!

Mr Chairman, did I hear correctly? Did the hon member for Isipingo say the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a fabricator? Does he know the meaning of that?

Order! Will the hon member for Isipingo kindly rise? What did the hon member insinuate by saying that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a fabricator?

He is the biggest manufacturer.

Order! I cannot rule the word manufacturer out of order.

[Interjections.] Did the hon member for Isipingo use the word fabricator originally?

Yes, sir. I withdraw that. He is a manufacturer.

In any case, I know the hon member for Isipingo is a manufacturer. He manufactures exhaust pipes. Most probably he was thinking that he was emitting what an exhaust pipe emits. Nevertheless, the hon member for Isipingo is right. I do not want to pre-empt that which is on the Order Paper. The hon member for Isipingo is right to realise that that which is on the Order Paper, is in consequence a motion of no confidence in the full Ministers’ Council. Legally, any motion against a Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a motion of no confidence against the entire Ministers’ Council. I express the wish that when Parliament assembles here next Wednesday, somebody will give notice that precedence be given to the notice of motion that was submitted by the hon member for Lenasia Central.

Why did you not do it in May last year?

I expressed that wish. We had something on the Order Paper which was moved by the hon member for Stanger. It is still on the Order Paper, but the hon member for Stanger has had the opportunity of determining priorities of the notices of motion of his party. He roared the loudest when the hon member for Lenasia Central moved his notice of motion. The hon member for Stanger did not give priority to his own notice of motion, because there are certain people who believe that we must shout and cry aloud for an election only for public consumption. Let us put that to the test. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to allow the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to proceed with his speech.

I want to say to the hon member for Isipingo …

You are my boss!

… that I have listened to the statements he has made during the past few seconds. I know what he has stated this afternoon in this House. However, that does not come from his heart.

It comes from his head. [Interjections.]

It does not come from his head, either! The hon member for Isipingo cannot disagree with me on that.

Mr Chairman, I challenge him to an open debate on an open platform!

The hon member for Isipingo may not be able to repeat 5% of those notes that he has just torn up. I know the hon member is not serious about what he has stated. It is not his work. I want the hon member to stand up and admit that he is not serious. It is not his work.

I am not going to state what the hon member for Isipingo told me outside this House before he came in. [Interjections.] I shall answer no questions.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Is this a question or a point of order? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not prepared to take any questions. Is the hon member taking a point of order?

I deny whatever the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

It is my word and I will tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he can go back to Arena Park and I will deal with him there.

Order! The hon member for Isipingo must resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Isipingo is bringing the debate into disrepute and he is openly flouting your rulings. I call upon the Chair to take the necessary disciplinary action regarding that hon member. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I will come back to the hon member for Isipingo later on, so as to give him sufficient time to reflect on what I have stated. I know that he is not serious in respect of what he has said and he might privately admit that to me outside. [Interjections.]

This particular Vote also covers the office of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, relating to the staff and structures contained in that office. However, this is also a department of auxiliary services where the personnel section of our administration is housed. Recently we have been engaged in lengthy negotiations as a result of the salary position and as a result of the freezing of posts. I want to place on record that although we have been in existence for a period of approximately four years, we have not properly developed our infrastructures in certain departments. The reasons are varied, one of which is our inability to get suitably qualified and experienced staff. Although we are an Indian administration we do not restrict taking on employees to members of the Indian race group only. However, because of the history of the civil service a large measure of preference is given to suitably qualified and experienced members of the Indian community. In another Vote I did indicate that it is sometimes very difficult for us to get suitably qualified and experienced members of the Indian community to man posts in our administration.

This department provides the necessary auxiliary services to the various departments and it is also our own Treasury. I would like to join the hon the Minister of the Budget in paying tribute to the Chief Director of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services and all the officials of that department. I also pay tribute to our new Director-General, who is a person tremendously experienced in financial matters. Ever since this new Director-General has joined us, we have shown tremendous improvement in our financial matters.

We have integrity from the DG for the first time; also from the administration.

I do not think we want to deal with what the hon member for Reservoir Hills emits from time to time. Maybe if we had been able to observe where he was during his lunch break, we might have found the reason for the difference in his performance this afternoon. However, I do not want to worry too much about that or cross swords with him as far as that is concerned.

The DG is not corrupt.

Does that mean that the previous DG was corrupt?

I did not say so, but we have a DG who is not corrupt.

Nobody in our administration or in the political section is corrupt. As I said yesterday, if anyone talks of corruption, that may mirror what he is unto others.

The Director-General has been a tremendous asset to us, particularly with regard to our negotiations on financial matters. That is where the success of an administration or a department lies.

During the debate on the Department of Education and Culture we referred to our staff problems. Of course, we do not have staff problems in the teaching arena. We indicated that we might run over our Budget by R10 million if we do not devise ways and means of acquiring the necessary funds by January. Some people misconstrued this to mean if the R10 million is not found by January there is going to be a massive retrenchment of staff. In my capacity as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I want to give the assurance that under no circumstances will we allow the retrenchment of staff.

I want to come back to the hon member for Isipingo. There are certain people who threw a little banana peel and are now beginning to realise that the banana peel that is Order No 7 in today’s Order Paper affects the whole Ministers’ Council.

Order! A draft resolution in this House cannot be a banana peel. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that, but I am likening the action and not the resolution to a banana peel.

Not realising that this action legally …

We are prepared to bear the consequences.

The hon member for Camperdown only became aware of it this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

No, I will not take any questions. Not only has this action a consequential effect from a legal point of view on the entire Ministers’ Council, but it also has a consequential effect on those who cheer when requests for an election are made, but have silent trepidation in their hearts, because that if this particulation draft resolution on the Order Paper is passed …

We must accept the inevitable.

We must accept the inevitable, but there is no doubt about the fact that there are men seated on the other side who will never return. [Interjections.]

Order!

I therefore want to suggest to the hon member for Isipingo that we put the matter to the test at the ballot box.

At the carrot box!

Let us not put this to the test at any other type of box where respect for long established values no longer holds—and I want to repeat this—where respect for convention and traditions are thrown overboard.

I know that the hon member for Southern Natal may be gloating temporarily. When I use the word temporary I know why I am using it. To some hon members in this House it is meaningless which side they take and like flags they fly whichever way the wind blows.

I want to say something in response to the hon member for Isipingo. If we respect long-established values which people hold near and dear, then I will respond positively to the calls that he has made this afternoon. I want to refer to item 7 on the Order Paper. Let there not be trepidation about the consequential effects that I have referred to.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer to page 9 of the presentation of the hon the Minister of the Budget. Under Programme 1—“Administration” and the subprogrammes “Chairman: Ministers” Council, Minister and Ministerial Representatives”, provision is made for their salaries.

Before I come to that, I would first of all like to reply to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. When one analyses his words, one can only come to the conclusion that he is uttering idle threats to frighten any hon member who is afraid to face the public.

With regard to the draft resolutions on the Order Paper, we on this side of the House did not act unilaterally—it was decided in a joint caucus of 25 hon members, and we adhere to Section 39 and all its subsections up to number 6 in the Constitution. We are prepared to face the consequences of dissolving this House to get rid of something that is simply not right. We are quite prepared to raise the dignity of this House to the standards of decorum that it deserves. We are not afraid to face the ballot box. [Interjections.] To say that we do not know the consequences is a veiled threat. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is trying to retain hon members so that he can still sit on this side of the House as the possible Leader of the Official Opposition. That is what he is struggling to achieve.

I would like to remind the hon the Minister of the Budget of a certain deal that was concluded by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. They bought a cinema in Durban in March last year for R1,1 million—this was unauthorised expenditure.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to refer to a matter that is before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts? A ruling was given by you, Mr Speaker, that the matter cannot be discussed until it has been put in printed form.

Order! If that is the decision, the hon member must please keep to that decision.

Mr Speaker, I am not referring to any standing committee rulings or decisions. I am referring to a Press statement of a fortnight ago. How does the hon member for Laudium plan to silence the media? The media exposed the matter of the squandering of public funds in front page reports. The hon member for Laudium cannot silence the media. What I am discussing today is a public matter.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and I will not discuss matters prematurely. What I am discussing now, appeared in the media. The public of South Africa could read about it too.

The property that I am referring to was up for public sale for a number of months for R780 000. There were no takers. Moreover the owners had an option—an offer—for R750 000 put forward by a church group. The owners brought in two valuators to value this before they could conclude that deal for R750 000.

This is unique in the history of South Africa! Two independent valuators from different parts of Durban—of Natal—valued that property, one at R700 000 and the other at R710 000. That is the established value of that property. The owners were negotiating for a draft deed of sale to be prepared for the church group. Instead, the House of Delegates, using unauthorised public funds, bought that place for R1,1 million—an inflated price, within three weeks, of 30% higher than the price at which it was originally offered, or 40% more than it was valued.

I do not know how to answer my constituents. Perhaps the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is the Minister of Housing, has no constituents; I do not know. Perhaps he does not contact his constituents. However, I and my colleagues on this side of the House are answerable to our constituents. The question asked after the appearance of the Press article is this: “How do you, my member of Parliament, whom we read of as serving in Parliament, allow such a thing to happen?” They want to know that, as do I; in fact, the entire world wants to know into whose pocket that R400 000 went.

I know that it was stated in this House by the hon the Minister of Housing that he had very ably, subsequent to buying the place and spending R1,1 million of the taxpayers’ money on it, brought in valuators to value the place at R1,5 million. Who are they trying to fool? [Interjections.] No, I do not have time to answer questions.

Did you read that in The Farmers Weekly?

[Inaudible.]

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to dispute that, it is on record. It has been debated in this very Chamber, and it was stated that independent valuators valued that property at R1,5 million. Those were his very words! I have the memory of an elephant, and I do not forget things! I recall it clearly. There are several people on this side who have retentive memories who will never forget the statements that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council makes, which are improper because they are not true.

The point that worries me, as well as the hon members of this House and the people of South Africa—not specifically the people of my race group, because that money is that of the taxpayers of South Africa—is that South Africans pay their tax, and that money was squandered! An amount of R400 000 which could well have been used to build houses for people, was squandered. These were public funds that were squandered; we do not know why.

The point here is that I have conclusive proof which I am not allowed to present at this moment, in line with the objection to my raising this matter that was advanced by the hon member for Laudium. However, our suspicions are growing by the day. Somewhere along the line someone has committed the greatest blunder, which I say smacks of gross incompetence and inefficiency.

It is easy—to use the word employed by my hon benchmate—to fabricate evidence. It is easy, after having made a blunder, to cover up, to get a friend who is a valuator to confirm, in response to the suggestion that the building is worth a particular amount, that it is so. It is possible; the probability exists. It cannot be denied.

However, the main argument I should like the hon the Minister to look into—the hon the Minister of the Budget must investigate this possibility—is why it is that in respect of a property which was valued at R700 000 and R730 000 which is very close to the valuations made by two separate valuators prior to the House of Delegates stepping in, that deal was virtually concluded for R750 000 by a church group? Was it simply because the sellers did not append their signature to that valuable document that the sale fell through? The House of Delegates went and bought that property for R1,1 million and squandered, or wasted, or let someone pocket R400 000. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the word “democracy” is derived from the Greek word “demos” and when one talks of parliamentary institutions which are democratic in intent or supposed structure, one always harks back to the people, that is to say the people who elect members of Parliament.

Regrettably, Mr Speaker, this House has fallen upon—I am going to use a word deliberately— awkward times and those awkward times have resulted in a perception, not only within the Indian community but in the wider community as well, which is not complimentary to this House.

The only way to restore to this House the dignity which ought to belong to it is for this House to be dissolved and for the electorate to decide who shall be members of this House. That is the view that we in the PFP subscribe to, and I might say that today my colleague the hon member for Springfield and I met with our other colleagues in the House of Assembly and we unanimously agreed in our caucus that the only way to bring dignity to this House was to ask for elections to be held.

One recognises that it may be practically difficult for the elections to be held before 14 or 15 June, when this House is destined to adjourn, but there is no reason why elections could not be held in July or August so that the people to whom we are all supposedly answerable can have the right to decide who shall and who shall not represent them.

We have a few problems. In 1984, because of the boycott syndrome, a large number of people of high calibre and of great integrity who might otherwise have offered their candidature for election to this House and who might well have been represented in this House, stayed away. I am not referring to the hard-core die-hard radicals who had their own programme but to people of liberal, moderate and even centrist persuasions who stayed away from participation. I believe it would be a good thing if that significant and, I believe, major element in the community were given the opportunity of deciding now.

As far as I am aware there are only three hon members of this House who have not been seeking the fruits of office and who have not tried to rearrange the gravy train so that the coaches may be shuffled and changed around. [Interjections.]

Certainly the hon member for Springfield belongs to that category. I will confess unashamedly that we have declared unequivocally that we do not seek any position or perquisites of the office or portfolio. I believe the hon member for Isipingo falls within that category, although he belonged to the National Peoples Party. Even though he was a member of that party, he made it clear, generally, that he was not seeking any office …

He crossed over to Solidarity in his first year. He drew the pension for that.

The hon member Mr Nowbath is the gentleman who told this House that he supports the National Peoples Party because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House gave him his job and he is obligated to support the National Peoples Party.

That is the PFP baggage boy talking.

The hon member Mr Nowbath may well be completely at home …

PFP-baggage boy!

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath must contain himself.

He may be completely at home in that part of Hamburg where that kind of individual practices his or her profession. However, he must not bring that into this august assembly.

The hon member for Isipingo made it quite clear, right from the very beginning, that he was not interested in any kind of office. I am not denigrating other hon members when I single out three hon members of this House. Certainly, the Progressive Federal Party members of this House do not seek any office. Because of the principles of our party, we could not. Indeed, last year, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’Council hinted to me that he would give me a higher office—not because I would support him—if only I and my colleagues would be absent from the House when a particular Vote occurred, I indicated to him quite clearly and categorically, in the presence of a witness … [Interjections.] … that we were not interested in that kind of nonsense, because we are here …

Mr Speaker, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Speaker, I have very limited time and I cannot take a question.

The only question is, of course: Where is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House?

For the last three days?

Maybe the last three days, maybe longer … Ah, he is coming in now. At last! An important debate is taking place and I am pleased to see that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has at last come into this assembly, so that he may participate in the discussions which are taking place.

He was here all the time. You probably did not see him.

He is not listed among the speakers. One would have expected the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to present himself to make his own contribution to the debate this afternoon.

The hon the Minister of the Budget referred to the salaries paid to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon Ministers as well as the Ministerial representatives. A Ministerial representative, notwithstanding the fact that he may be nominated for appointment by a politician in power, is a Government employee and he is, by definition, not permitted to take part in party politics.

It is a political appointment.

It may be a partypolitical appointment, but he draws a salary. He is not an elected politician. Therefore, a Ministerial representative, by definition, should not be involved in party politics. He should not concern himself in electoral matters on a partypolitical basis.

If he is involved in electoral matters at all, he should not campaign for any particular individual.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has denied that he is a gardener. He has denied that he has proffered carrots. I believe that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been reported in several newspapers as having said that he will win over political support by dangling carrots before hon members of Parliament. Such a person does a tremendously grave disservice to this House, because by saying something like this, he denigrates every single hon member of this House. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it was not my intention to raise any matters outside the ambit of the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget, but since the hon member for Reservoir Hills has chosen to cast aspersions upon me, I should like to remind him that it was not I who camped on the steps of Tuynhuys in September 1984, wanting to become the Minister of Education. It was not I.

Anyone who says that is a liar!

I am saying it, and the facts are there!

Order! Is the hon member referring to the hon member for Reservoir Hills as a liar?

I did not say that. My recollection is that the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that anyone who says that, is a liar. I responded to that. I cannot recall my precise response at the moment, but I may have said that if he says that, then he is a liar. It is a consequential statement.

Order! I do not know who is a liar now! [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

I see the hon member for Reservoir Hills is now acting as the baggage boy of the PFP.

Oh, come off it. Grow up!

He is acting as a courier and he has brought a certain message into this House.

Order! Will the hon member please come back to the Budget.

The hon the Minister of the Budget has given us a lengthy statement which unfortunately is a whole lot of verbiage. Stripped of all this verbiage it reduces itself to a mere statement of certain figures, which could well have been presented by any petty clerk in his office. First of all I should like to know from the hon the Minister of the Budget …

Mr Speaker, if the hon member Mr Nowbath …

Is that a point of order?

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence as I want to make a point of order.

Order! The hon member is making a point of order.

The hon member Mr Nowbath referred to my speech, saying it could have been delivered by a petty clerk in my administration. I take exception to the expression “petty clerk”.

There are no petty clerks.

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon the Minister serves on the National Priorities Committee and I should like to know from him precisely what work he has done there.

Ask the leader of your party.

Has he, during the course of his last administration, made any positive inputs into that committee? Can he tell this House what submissions he made to the committee? What reply did he get?

At the end of the last financial year our community, namely the community which is being served by the House of Delegates, lost something like R49 million. That was money that was not expended during the year for which it was budgeted. Had it been spent we would not have been in the situation that we are now. When this House is allocated money for the administration of its work in this current year, the amount of R49 million will be deducted. It will be taken away and we will get so much less and yet in this House there is the cry that if we can get R10 million we shall be able to employ all the teachers …

Mr Speaker, will the hon member take a question?

No, Sir, I will not; I will proceed, as quite a lot of my time has been taken up.

We have the question of R10 million which is required for teachers and the hon the Minister of the Budget and his colleagues say that they will try to find the money. However, we do have the money and the hon the Minister must explain why he was not able to spend the money during the year concerned.

Ask the Minister of Housing.

There is the question of pensions, where R11 million could have been taken from the R48 million if there had been proper financial anticipation and administration; proper financial thinking and brains. That R11 million could have been appropriated earlier to provide in the coming year for an increase of R10 per month per social pensioner. Now there the hon the Minister and his department must be faulted for having lost the community R21 million plus the difference from R48 million.

Perhaps I may point out that somewhere during his speech this hon Minister did say that he is going to run a tighter ship. I presume that if he had a whole lot of Irishmen on board, that ship would indeed be pretty tight.

Getting back to the submission which the hon the Minister made, he suggested that more and more of our people should train for the Public Service. If this call is taken literally, what provision has he made now for the years to come in terms of planning to take in how many people who train?

We do not want to land up in a position where we train 360 or 365 young people who, when they have completed their public administration degrees and diplomas, are then told, like the teachers: “Sorry, we do not have the money”. We do not want the hon the Minister to hold out false hopes.

I should also like to make reference—this was done earlier—to the position of ministerial representatives. I want to know from the Opposition which the hon the Minister and his colleagues now purport to lead, whether they will dismiss all the ministerial representatives. One of the most vociferous of those people has been telling this House and the nation that the appointment of ministerial representatives was a waste of national money … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have been listening in this debate to various hon members talking about various issues. It is unfortunate that some of the issues that were raised were not totally related to the debate itself. However, it was very relevant that they were raised because we need to restore some credibility in this House.

I believe that hon members in this House who speak about convention—and I am referring to the hon member who spoke just before me— made a long speech and subjected this House to a lengthy speech on the question of convention. May I ask him where that convention is today?

One day the hon member sits on the crossbenches and the next he sits on the benches with the ruling party, a so-called ruling party which is in the minority.

Anybody who has lost the support of the majority in any organisation whether it be in a social club or in a parliamentary structure, is honour bound to step down and gracefully remove himself from office. That is what convention is all about. I thought the hon member Mr R S Nowbath was going to give us another lecture on convention today, but no, he did a complete about-turn. Having listened to his speech today, I believe he has decided what he said before meant nothing. I also want to tell the hon Mr R S Nowbath that when he spoke the last time he gave great accolades to the hon the Minister of the Budget when the Budget speech was presented. Today, however, he tells a completely different story. He calls him a petty clerk.

He is on a different side!

It is just a matter of sides. Sides change his thinking; the truth is out. It depends on which side people are sitting. Has he come to Parliament to serve the community or to serve sides? [Interjections.] He says he is serving sides here.

Grasshoppers!

I also want to let the hon members know that we on this side of the House—I mean the combined Opposition in an alliance—are not afraid of elections. I want to place on record that none of us are afraid of elections. However, we are not going to allow people to use elections. [Interjections.]

Order!

We do not want people to use elections as a bogeyman. We do not want elections to be used as a feeler to entice members to come so that they can qualify for pensions. We do not want people to use elections to entrench themselves in office for yet another few months. They have come to the end of their tether and they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Even that skin has broken and yet they want to stick there.

By calling for elections and dissolving the House tomorrow morning the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can continue to hold office. Is that what he wants?

I support the idea that we should go for elections, but let the hon the State President appoint a caretaker committee or government here in this House to look after the day to day affairs and dismiss the current Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I accept the fact that there may be no provision for this in the constitution, therefore allow this committee established by this alliance to be the caretaker. Let a commission of inquiry be appointed to inquire into all sorts of malpractices, and have one in connection with land deals and education. We know how the teachers feel, and we have read the various newspaper headlines. Recently even the company that helped advertise have indicated that they have been used.

Let us have a commission of enquiry to investigate these matters and let us have elections. If the NPP were not afraid of a commission of enquiry, why did they not support the request for one in the past? [Interjections.] The less I say about the hon member for Lenasia Central, the better, because to me he displays a wealth of inexperience. I know I have to make allowances for that because he only joined us in the recent past.

Not so long ago he moved a motion asking for all hon members of Solidarity to resign from office because the flags of the NPP were flying high. [Interjections.] Today the hon member says that we should dissolve the House. What is the reason for this? Is it because he now belongs to the minority party? There can be no other reason. The same situation occurred previously when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was in danger of losing his majority in this House. He then brought up the possibility of an election as a bogeyman. [Interjections.]

I want to say that we on this side of the House believe in public accountability and that is why we have been calling for commissions of enquiry. We do not believe in hiding. We believe in a democratically elected organisation—we have no problems with that. Let us therefore not use elections to entrench our own positions.

Let a commission of enquiry be appointed first. We can have an election afterwards. Let the commission of enquiry first complete its job and give us its findings. Then the public can elect persons who are free from any kind of abuse, corruption and malpractices. [Interjections.]

Unseat him first!

He is already unseated. He is only here by somebody’s courtesy. [Interjections.]

I now want to get down to some of the issues raised in the debate on the Budget.

[Inaudible.]

The question of ministerial representatives was raised here.

Will you fire them?

Is that hon member looking for a new job? [Interjections.]

I would suggest that the hon the Minister of the Budget—regardless of who will be appointed as this Minister—should give us details of the functions of these ministerial representatives. I would like to know what sort of work they do. They should not be used for the promotion of any political party. They also should not be used for the purposes of serving any Minister, eg to transport the children of a Minister to school and back. [Interjections.] That should not be the function of a ministerial representative. I want to know more about this matter. Maybe these people were put under pressure and told that they would be fired if they did not obey all orders.

We on this side of the House will not put a sword of Damocles over the head of anybody. We believe in merit and the carrying out of assignments of duty in the interests of the public. That is what matters. The interests of an individual should not matter here.

I would also like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget to examine the relevant details with regard to the establishment of regional offices. What rentals are being paid and what leases are entered into by the House of Delegates and the various landlords? I would like to know whether these rentals are market-related in relation to the local conditions in those towns. What is the association between the NPP and the landlords of these premises or anybody associated with these landlords? I want to know the answers but the investigation will reveal them.

I know of premises where the rental that is paid is far in excess of the market-related rentals in that particular area. I will be prepared to give evidence on this before a commission if it should be appointed.

This is what we have been complaining about in the past. There is a great deal of patronage and nepotism and it has taken over in the House of Delegates. It has brought the name of this House into disgrace and disrepute. I want to know whether hon members of the apparent ruling party are prepared to get down to some serious work in the interests of the community, or are they going to stay in their cosy seats and allow themselves to be manipulated by just one individual?

Mr Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the hon member for Stanger, who represents the new coalition alliance in this House, support the call made by my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, for an early election to put to an end all the uncertainty and all the instability that obtains in this House at the present time.

The hon member for Isipingo and the hon member for Reservoir Hills as well as other hon members have referred to the dignity of this House and how, from the time we came here, it has been impaired by the behaviour and the irresponsibility of hon members of this House.

I should like to take this opportunity to remind all hon members that they stood on public platforms and told the electorate that they were coming here to Parliament to remove the nuts and bolts of apartheid. All hon members who are elected to this august Chamber in fact made that promise. Very few, however, have been able to fulfil those pledges.

I make this point precisely because I should like to inform this House as to why we in the PFP— the hon member for Reservoir Hills and myself— support the call for the resignation of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We support this call—I have said this publicly—for several reasons.

Firstly, we believe that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as the Leader of the NPP in this Chamber, has failed miserably to remove the nuts and bolts of apartheid.

He has tightened them up.

Quite apart from tightening those nuts and bolts of apartheid, I believe that the leadership of the NPP has led not only this country but in particular the Indian community to disaster. They have done this by aligning themselves very, very closely to the Nationalist Government of this country. I believe that that spells disaster for this country. This is why we support any call to have that gentleman removed.

And the National Party’s People!

Secondly, we support the call for his removal because he in particular has brought this House into grave disrepute. He talked this afternoon about the conventions that apply, and about respect for long-established values. This House has been brought into disrepute for two vital reasons: Firstly, by all the allegations and all the counter-allegations of corruption, nepotism and irregularities that have taken place in the allocation of sites, in the allocation of petrol station sites and the allocation of stands, as well as all the other matters. I believe that if that hon gentleman really believed in the dignity of this House he would have asked the hon the State President to appoint a commission of enquiry right in the early stages. Only then would all this instability that has been caused by these allegations have been put to rest. The community, this House and, I believe, the Government would then have known exactly where the truth lay.

In this regard I also lay blame on the doorstep of the hon the State President. In terms of the Commissions Act the hon the State President in fact has the right to call a judicial commission of enquiry, provided that the interest of a community requires it.

When hon members of this House request it; when editorials in the community request it, and when entire sections of a community such as teachers request it, then I believe it behoves the hon the State President to in fact have such a commission of enquiry. When he fails to do that, it is a reflection on him as well. I have a grave suspicion in this regard, and my suspicion is that the hon the State President relies solely on advice in this regard from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is where he has failed us. Quite obviously, the hon the State President has the support of his loyal colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and quite obviously he will take his advice.

However, my hon benchmate made the point that quite apart from the hon member for Isipingo, himself and myself, there has been a great deal of talk about carrots being dangled. It is recorded in the Hansard of previous debates that we, who at that time belonged to the Progressive Reform Party and who now belong to the Progressive Federal Party, have never asked for, have never sought, and have placed on record that we will never accept any position or any office in this Chamber under the present régime. We say this because we believe that this entire structure of Parliament needs to be changed first. [Interjections.]

I should like to react to something which the hon member Mr Nowbath, who is now absent, raised in this debate earlier on. I should like to tell this House, and the larger community outside this House, why we decided to join the PFP. Those of us who have publicly stated that they wish to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid must, in fact, be seen to be doing that, and at the present time the only non-racial party that exists in this country and that is represented in this Parliament is the PFP. [Interjections.] That is why those of us who believe in non-racialism decided to join the PFP.

However, we also did so for another reason, namely because we believe that non-racialism is going to be the future of this country. We believe that we must start now to set the scene for a post-apartheid society. We believe that we must start here and we must start now. That is why we would like to place on record that, unlike what the hon member Mr Nowbath has indicated, we were never led by the leadership of the PFP before we joined it but we most certainly fully support the leadership of the PFP at the present time.

I was going to talk about an item in the Budget in respect of which the hon the Minister has indicated that an amount of money is to be set aside for the Fiat Lux. I want to tell the hon the Minister that at a time when such serious inroads are being made on the freedom of the Press in this country; at a time when newspapers are being shut down; at a time when a community is wanting impartial news, here we have a Minister of the Budget who is supporting a propaganda piece. He supports a propaganda piece not only of this Chamber but also of the National Party, and I would request the hon the Minister, if he has in fact budgeted for this … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to react to the hon member for Isipingo and the noble remarks he made earlier on. Firstly, I want to make it very clear that I do not have the right to sit in judgement of any hon member of this House.

We have the right to sit in judgement on you.

Secondly, no hon member of this House helped me to come into this House. I have been sent here by my constituency.

Who helped you with their problems.

I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills understands his utterances in this House. I want to make it very clear that, with all his knowledge and experience, the community had expected the hon member for Reservoir Hills to play a better role in this House … [Interjections.] … than the cynical remarks he makes. The time has come that this House is suffering from disrepute and the people who should give this House some guidance are people with the knowledge of the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

How many carrots did you get?

I have never interjected or criticised, and yet he has the audacity to make these statements, when this House is labouring and the masses outside are crying out for services for the community. Does the hon member for Reservoir Hills ever go out into the field?

To plant carrots?

I have planted carrots. I know what it is to plant carrots. The hon member for Springfield must also understand that he comes from a constituency. Does he know his constituency?

It is in Springfield.

Whichever constituency it is, go, and understand that it is a different thing to represent the Indian community. The Indian community is looking for a practical contributions, not for rhetoric from those people here. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

Order! The hon the Minister is not taking any questions.

I am standing on my own feet. I am sent here by a constituency, and I am not going to be manipulated by anyone. That I make very clear.

Tell us about the carrots.

Mr Chairman, I do hope the hon member for Springfield will write a thesis about carrots. I belong to a different brand. [Interjections.]

I will talk to you about carrots.

Yes. I belong to a different brand.

Order! I call upon hon members not to interrupt the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister gave everybody else a hearing.

Yes, I did that, Mr Chairman. I never reacted to them. I will not be manipulated by anybody in this House. I want to make this very clear. That will never happen. I have my own mind. I have respected those two hon members there. However, it is unfortunate that there is a manifestation of attitudes in this House. Let us look at the masses of the public who are crying out and looking to this House.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Order! The hon the Minister has said that he is not taking questions.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills stood up in this House this afternoon and mentioned that he did not seek any position. Has he forgotten that in 1982 he sat in a White Minister’s house and claimed positions? It has never been my intention to speak about all these things.

Anybody who says that is a liar.

This man speaks no lies, Mr Chairman.

If you say so, you are one too.

That was a factual situation, and today, for the sake of politics, they are prepared to make all kinds of loose statements. The people and their destinies are involved.

They have tongues like ravens.

Yes. The hon member for Stanger spoke about rental linkage with the National Peoples Party. We are here, understandably, to protect the interests of our community. If the hon member for Stanger is aware of any specific instance …

I brought it to the notice of the Ministers’ Council. You were there.

… I would like him to write to the relevant bodies.

It was done. I sent a letter.

Explain to us what this all means.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister …

Order! I regret to inform the hon the Minister that his time has expired. [Interjections.]

That is for sure.

Mr Chairman, not very long ago the NPP was in control of this House.

When they were in control, everything was well and good. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had given the hon the State President the assurance that he did not want an election until 1992. During all these days there was no talk about an election next month, during the next six months, or even during the next two years! All of a sudden there is so much talk coming out of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council about what the views are of hon members on this side.

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

I am sorry; I have limited time at my disposal, and can therefore not answer any questions. I would like to know from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council why he is clutching at straws. Three of his hon Ministers have left him. One hon Deputy Minister has left him. Several hon members have left that party, and that party has been put to shame.

I would like to know what the purpose is of holding on to the last straw? Is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council playing for time? Is his dignity at stake, perhaps? I am of the opinion that he has a duty to the electorate. If it is his wish and desire to call for an election, we are prepared to go for an election tomorrow! Let us come back to this House and start with a clean slate. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the NPP come back into this House with a majority, they will be the most respected people in the Indian community. Why should they deny the electorate the right to put the right people into this House?

We do not want to take control of the House. We only want clean administration, and that has been the call of this party all along! I think it is a shame on the part of a party that has no dignity in the first instance. They do not have the majority. Why can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council not step down honourably and say that if the House of Delegates wants a clean administration, that is what they will get.

Sir, I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must be feeling embarrassed at this stage to have lost his party’s hierarchy of lieutenants. I think this clearly demonstrates that every other Ministry was more or less controlled by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself. This must have built up frustrations in the minds of hon Ministers for them to have left en masse.

It is not the wish and desire of other hon Ministers to hold office. They are quite prepared to go for an open election tomorrow.

Are you sure?

The electorate will decide if those hon Ministers who have come over to this side, will be taken up in their posts again.

Bring me a caucus resolution of your party.

Sir, I will now confine myself to the debate itself.

I challenge you!

The type of challenge that has been thrown at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has been the order of the day for the past four years.

Order! I would like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to permit the hon member to complete his speech. The hon member did not make any interjections when other hon members were speaking.

He appears to be challenging every hon member on this side. He is even challenging his very own members! I now want to confine myself to the debate proper. I would like to address myself to the hon the Minister of the Budget.

In the last two years, the House of Delegates employed some temporary clerks at a rate of R8 per day. Some of them were employed at the regional centre in Phoenix, whilst others were stationed at the Chatsworth regional office. It was shocking to note—and this caused much concern—that 12 of those clerks who were employed in a temporary capacity at Phoenix and Chatsworth, were dismissed all of a sudden. The irony is that, whilst these temporary clerks were removed or retrenched, other temporary clerks were appointed. They were based on a selective level and they replaced those who had been in office for two years.

I would like to know what was the reason for the dismissal of those clerks? Who made the selection of those clerks that replaced those who had been entrenched? Was there any need for this? I would like to know whether they were recruited, how they were recruited and who recruited them, and at whose instruction?

This is a sad state of affairs. When people hold public office, they must be able to respect people who are put into office by an administration.

It is also a shame that we, as public representatives, are answerable to our people and yet when we are questioned on aspects of this nature, we have to hang our heads in shame. I would like the hon the Minister of the Budget to give me a very positive answer in so far as the dismissal of this large number of temporary staff members is concerned, as well as the fact that they have been replaced by inexperienced temporary staff. There is widespread speculation and a thorough investigation is necessary as regards the appointment of clerks in the House of Delegates.

The other issue was highlighted by the hon member for Stanger when he very ably amplified the work of the ministerial representative. Under Programme 1: Administration, the funds required come to more than R9 million, part of which is to promote the image of the NPP. Their representatives are certainly not doing the work as one would expect of them and it has on occasion been brought to my notice that they are very extensively engaged in promoting the party’s policies. Does the taxpayer have to be burdened with the promotion of a political party? I feel there should be an investigation into this particular aspect.

On behalf of the clerical staff employed by the House of Delegates I would like to make the submission that there is a situation—which I believe also prevails in the other Houses—where the clerical staff are allowed but a limited number of air tickets to travel to and fro, between Durban and Cape Town. If my information is correct, they are given three tickets per year while they stay in Cape Town for up to six months. This is a very sad state of affairs, because these people have famihes back home—both the males and the females. Especially the Indian community has a large number of religious functions and cultural activities in which the staff would like to be involved. I believe the department should look into this and my view is that where possible provision should be made for these clerks to enjoy the same benefits as members of Parliament as far as concessionary tickets are concerned—even if it is not based on 20% of the fare but then at least 50%. If this could be arranged, perhaps it will bring much joy to those staff members who have to be here, not because it is their wish and desire, but because it is the desire of the House and the department to have them here.

Mr Chairman, I would like to reply briefly to the various speakers who contributed to this debate. I must say that, looking around me, I feel very good to see such a galaxy present in the public gallery.

The force is with us.

Perhaps if they had come earlier, we would have had more law and order in this House. [Interjections.]

They were needed today.

Various speakers made certain points in relation to the Budget itself and I shall give some answers to these.

Firstly, as regards the approximately R49 million that was unspent, I believe the hon member Mr Nowbath should do his homework before coming here and making utterances in this august assembly. At the beginning of this year and also last year I explained that the R49 million was voted for housing and for local authorities. If this money was not expended, that does not necessarily mean it goes back to the Treasury. It remains in our kitty for future use.

The hon member for Stanger raised the point about rents that are repayable at Stanger and I will reply to him in writing.

I would like to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and my colleagues as well as the hon members who participated for their contributions.

However, in fairness to my hon colleagues on this side of the House I want to say that we have taken the step that we have after very serious deliberations and discussions amongst ourselves and there was no persuasion other than the interests of this House, the community at large and South Africa as a whole.

It is in that spirit that we took this step and we believe that it is the right step, simply because as I said in one of the debates there have been allegations and counter-allegations and the only way that we can clear the air and bring back sanity, dignity and respect to this House would be to deal with draft resolutions Nos 8 and 9 on the Order Paper. I believe that if we were to adopt the draft resolutions as they appear in Nos 8 and 9 it would make way for any ultimate decisions in relation to the elections.

I am convinced that I and my colleagues on this side of the House have nothing whatsoever to hide. Therefore we have taken this bold step. We are not afraid of being subjected to any kind of enquiry, but what we do not like is the reflection and the inference in the community at large that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Ministers’ Council have something to hide. Furthermore, they are tarring the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and all my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council with the same brush. What we need is to clear this up and the only way that this can be done is through draft resolutions Nos 8 and 9. Then we can walk the streets with our heads held high instead of at all times dodging questions that are put to us because we as Ministers do not know, or are unaware, of the allegations that are made and we need to prove this to the people outside. This is the only way we can do it.

I have a time restraint as I have to see one of the Ministers on a very urgent matter. I want to say again that I shall reply in writing to the questions that have been raised.

Debate concluded.