Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to address the Committee, I wish to give a ruling upon the matter raised yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton.

The main principle governing debate in committee on a Main Appropriation Bill is that it must be relevant to the items contained in the Vote proposed from the Chair. The same rule of relevancy applies to Votes which are either directly or indirectly charged with Ministers’ salaries, and general questions affecting ministerial policy or administration may only be discussed on such Votes if there is no provision on the subject in another Vote. I must, accordingly, rule that only matters for which the hon. the Minister of Justice is responsible can be discussed under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to react to the statement made yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton and to the amendment which she moved to the effect that the Vote be reduced by R20 000, that amount being the hon. the Minister’s salary. I want to tell the House that we in these benches will be supporting the Official Opposition in this regard. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has not yet really motivated her particular proposal at this stage. Our view is, however, that we have constantly called on the hon. the Minister of Justice to institute a system in terms of which a judicial tribunal should be responsible for putting people into prison without trial. But, the hon. the Minister has taken no notice whatsoever of this plea, to the detriment, we believe, of South Africa. Secondly, the hon. the Minister made certain statements in regard to the Biko affair which were, to say the least of it, most unfortunate and caused South Africa great harm. In this regard I should like to quote from the editorial of The Argus of 23 January 1978. The editorial stated—

Of course, this was quite right. We in these benches believe that the hon. the Minister of Justice, through his statements, made this affair even worse, and thus we will be supporting the amendment moved by the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Do not try to suggest that I was blaming the hon. the Minister for the Biko affair!

Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Pretoria Central blamed the hon. the Minister. However, he did acknowledge that great damage had been done to this country, and when something of this nature happens it is parliamentary procedure—I want to inform the hon. member of that—that the Minister concerned should be censured for it, as we did in the Information debate as a result of the Rhoodie affair, and as, I understand, the S.A. Railways Artisans’ Association has just called for the head of the hon. the Minister of Transport. [Interjections.]

I want to refer also to human rights in terms of the justice situation. The human rights situation in South Africa must be, I believe, considered because there is a worldwide concentration on human rights.

In this regard I would like to quote the maiden speech of the person who is now the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When he made his maiden speech in this House on 20 August 1970, the now hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs dealt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. He said (Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 2165)—

These are the things which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in his maiden speech. He recommended that South Africa should, to a greater extent, identify itself with that declaration of human rights. We in these benches agree with him fully in this regard, and I believe that things have reached a sad situation when a party in opposition to the Government has to have, in its aims and principles, what we in these benches have as part of our aims and principles. I would like to quote from this document of ours—

We use the word “restoration” and not “maintenance”, because we believe that the rule of law has to be restored in this country. I quote further—

That, I think, states our objectives reasonably clearly.

As I have said, I believe we must examine our own consciences in South Africa in regard to human rights and in regard to justice. Human rights go right back to Magna Carta in 1215; they are nothing new. Habeas corpus goes back to 1640, and also deals with human rights. As I have said, we must look at ourselves, and I deny the right of any other country to examine our consciences for us or in fact to bring pressure to bear against us in terms of human rights. I would quote to them the United Nations Charter, where article 2(7) states the following—

In that regard, as I have said, we deny the right of any other country to bring pressure to bear upon us. I would call on Mr. Cyrus Vance of America and Dr. Owen of Britain not to exert pressure on South Africa, because I believe that boycotts themselves are an infringement of human rights. I want to warn the West that if they continue to bring pressure to bear on us, what could result is a new régime in South Africa, a new régime in which human rights themselves would be far worse disregarded than this country currently disregards them. It has happened in Africa many times, and it can happen in Rhodesia as well if the West does not recognize the internal settlement and does not remove its boycotts.

Mr. Chairman, I find that I have only two minutes left. I have really not got anywhere near what I had wanted to put over to the House. I shall therefore come quickly to the suggestion once again that we in this country should have a judicial tribunal in regard to imprisonment without trial. This is vitally necessary as a protection of the good image of South Africa, and also as a protection of that hon. Minister himself, who has put himself in the most extraordinary position.

Unilaterally he decides on who should be arrested. Does he think that he is the only person who can defend South Africa in this regard? Does he not believe that a tribunal of jurists would also have the best interests of South Africa at heart? We in these benches believe that a judicial tribunal should make recommendations to the hon. the Minister in regard to imprisonment without trial. If in fact he has to act quickly in regard to people who have stepped across the borderline and are damaging South Africa, then in that regard he should be able to act unilaterally, but having done so, that particular judicial tribunal should have the right to review the case. In the event of their finding that the hon. the Minister did not act in a way they believe is correct, they should then be able to force him to release the person concerned from prison, or bring him to trial. We realize that in South Africa today tremendous pressures are being exerted upon us. There are tremendous security risks which exist on an almost daily basis. We accept that the situation is not normal, and therefore abnormal things must result. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening the hon. member for Houghton moved an amendment that the hon. the Minister be paid no salary this year and, therefore, that the amount of R20 000 intended for his salary, be not voted. Up to now, however, the hon. member for Houghton has not motivated her amendment, but I am going to talk to her about it and anticipate what it is all about. The NRP announced that they supported her amendment bag and baggage without their having heard why she had moved it, i.e. without their having heard her motivation. [Interjections.]

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

No … [Interjections.]

You are scared.

Order! Did the hon. member for East London North say the hon. member was scared?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, of all the disgraceful things with which the Official Opposition has come up this session, this amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton is probably the most disgraceful. It is the most contemptible motion I can think of, because last year, 1977, this hon. Minister probably experienced one of the most difficult years which a Minister of Justice can expect to experience. It was one of the most difficult years of its existence for South Africa. There was a total onslaught against South Africa. There was a combined onslaught from the East and the West, co-ordinated with forces here in South Africa of which they know full well. It was no picnic. There were clearly identified attempts by Black Power to overthrow the existing legitimate dispensation in South Africa. They were intent on disrupting education, but that was the spark. Soweto had to become a blood-bath and an inferno. The idea was to spread the revolution. We have that document, which we shall call the Biko document, of 18 August. I am not going to quote extensively from it once again, but it ends with the words—

However, there is something else that I want to quote. There is a great deal that I can quote, but I shall content myself with the following—

And elsewhere—

It had to be a revolution. This, in a nutshell, is the situation which the hon. Minister had to deal with last year. And what did he do? The Internal Security Act gives him the power which he may use if he is convinced that the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order is being threatened. And what are those powers? He may ban publications. He may detain agitators and others and he may declare organizations illegal. This is what he did. It is correct that he has a discretion to exercise in this regard. I want to say that he exercised that discretion correctly and timeously.

The Official Opposition knows what the situation would have been if he had not acted as he did. They would have been the ones who would have ranted and raved the worst if this country had been plunged into what the revolutionaries wanted to plunge it. What was the result of his action? It was that the unrest was localized and that order, peace and guilt were restored to Soweto. The adults of Soweto could return to work, the children could return to school, the services were not disrupted and South Africa’s traditional stability and industrial and labour peace were not affected. When the hon. the Minister had done what had been expected of him and had achieved the desired results, he discharged and freed those whom he had previously detained. This is the action which the hon. member for Houghton and her party want to censure now. I want to say that it is an absolute disgrace. The Committee will reject that motion of hers with the contempt it deserves.

I want to tell the hon. member, however, that I am pleased about this motion of hers. I find it strange that some of her colleagues are not here today. I do not know whether the reason for this is that they do not want to associate themselves with her motion. With this motion of the Official Opposition, the PFP has shown South Africa its hand. She has told South Africa here where her party stands as regards the maintenance of internal peace and quiet. We on this side will tell South Africa about this. I shall tell it to the people of Houghton. The industrialists and businessmen of South Africa as well as the inhabitants of Houghton, Rondebosch and Pinelands must take note of this standpoint of the Opposition.

That is why I was returned unopposed.

Every man, woman and child must take note of it. I want to request the Press of South Africa to bring the motion of the hon. member for Houghton and its implications to the attention of the people of South Africa.

We on this side want to tell the hon. the Minister of Justice that he acted correctly and that he acted as we expected him to do. We congratulate him on it. If I had to move an amendment, it would be to insert after the figure “R20 000”: “With pleasure; with gratitude and appreciation”. What is more, South Africa expects the hon. the Minister to act again as he did in 1977, if and when it should be necessary to do so.

I want to refer to another point to which the hon. member for Houghton referred yesterday in the short time she had at her disposal. She said, “You will not be allowed by me and not be allowed by the world to forget Biko”. It is very interesting that she associates herself with the world. There are other events that occurred as many as 10 to 15 years ago in South Africa which the world still commemorates, wrongly commemorates, events like Sharpeville. Does she want the same thing to happen in the case of Biko as what happened in the case of Sharpeville? Is this the effect she wants to achieve? As far as Biko is concerned, I want to tell her that the Biko case has already become old hat in South Africa and abroad, in spite of her hopes, in spite of Donald Woods’ attempts, and whatever else. She, Donald Woods and the English Press have sucked all the venom they possibly could from the Biko case. That hon. member made a very serious remark about the Biko case in the no-confidence debate, a remark which has as yet not been fully debated with her. She said that she did not accept the findings of the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria in connection with the Biko inquest. I hold that against the hon. member.

†I think she was brought up better, Mr. Chairman, than to ignore everything I am saying to her at the moment. However, I shall leave it at that.

*Nevertheless, it is a very serious allegation that the hon. member made. It is a very serious insinuation. However, I do not want to make the Biko case even more hackneyed.

†But I would appreciate it if she at least listens to me in this instance. If she was so convinced that there was something wrong or that something was concealed as far as the Biko inquest was concerned, why did she and all the legal eagles around her not come with a private prosecution in this particular case? There was nothing which prevented them doing that.

That will be done by the Biko family. Do you not know that?

I am telling the hon. member that … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. I challenge the hon. member for Houghton, who has the necessary legal assistance and funds at her disposal, to come with a private prosecution now. The inquest records are available for her perusal.

†If she and her party do not accept this challenge, it will be because they totally chickened out of the Biko matter.

I told you the Biko family is suing the hon. the Minister.

I presume that the hon. member will also have something more to say about the fact that the Christian Institute has been declared illegal. I do not want to deal at length with the Christian Institute. That institute is anything but what its name indicates. It is merely a pseudonym for an organization advocating violence and revolution in South Africa. The representative of the Christian Institute in Holland is a certain Jane Phakati. On 25 September 1977 she read a paper on the Christian Institute in Denmark. In that paper she gave a review of the role of the Christian Institute and other churches in South Africa. She said that first they played a specific role. Subsequently, as from April 1977, the CI reviewed its policy and decided that its supporting role had to be changed into one of active participation in violent revolution. I quote—

This is what has become of the Christian Institute. It is no longer a body used by the revolutionaries for subversive purposes; it has become an active advocate of revolution in South Africa. When the hon. member for Houghton motivates her motion, I shall be very pleased if she would tell the Committee and the country where she stands as regards this matter.

The hon. Opposition must realize that the onslaught against South Africa in the times in which we are living is a total onslaught against all Whites in South Africa. If all hell were to break loose in South Africa—I do not believe it will—it would not help them in any way to stick Union Jacks to their doors or to say, “I am a Prog; go to the other side, to the Nationalists.” That would not help them, because in that case the onslaught would be directed at each and everyone in South Africa. That revolution would not follow a different pattern to the one followed in the known revolutions of the world. The French revolution resulted in a dictatorship and 15 years of flames over Europe. The Soviet Revolution, too, resulted in a dictatorship. It was accompanied by the destruction of everything which had been established before and in addition the blood of many revolutionaries flowed too. This is the law of every revolution.

If there were to be a revolution in South Africa, and if it were to succeed, it would be followed by nationalization. It would not help them in any way to say, “We are Anglo American; do not nationalize us.” Anglo American will be nationalized as well. There would be no difference between the farms, churches and businesses of the NP or of the Afrikaners and those of the supporters of the opposite side. This is what we in South Africa must realize very clearly indeed: The onslaught is against the whole system. It would also be a revolution that will end the present system. The present legal system in South Africa will also be brought to its knees as well as the rule of the law about which those hon. members have so much to say.

As far as this side is concerned: We know what it is all about, the hon. the Minister of Justice knows what it is about and the people of South Africa know that in the hands of the NP and in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice South Africa is in safe hands.

Mr. Chairman, since I want to deal with certain things said by the hon. member for East London North, the hon. member for Waterkloof will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. Today the hon. member for East London North again stressed the issue of human rights and said that South Africa should associate itself more actively with the human rights movement launched by the President of the USA. [Interjections.]

However, the human rights movement started by President Carter is breaking down in many respects throughout the world. The reason for this is an important lesson for South Africa. The reason is that human rights are being stressed without any stress being laid on the corresponding duties and responsibilities of the person. After all, we as a House of Assembly cannot tell the world: “Human rights, human rights” without also, as responsible people, saying to the people at large: “Look, the man who has a right also has a duty and a responsibility because he has that right.” If anyone in South Africa lays claim to rights he must also see to it that he does his duty regarding his responsibilities as a citizen of South Africa, and acts in accordance with the laws of our land. A right, as was also said by the hon. member for East London North, is not an absolute concept. No Government can give the citizens of its country absolute rights. There are circumstances in which these rights are infringed, circumstances in which this is in the higher interests of the security of South Africa. It is in those circumstances and in those circumstances alone that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government are sometimes compelled to infringe rights. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also discussed “the restoration of the rule of law”. I want to ask the hon. member: Does he accept the rule of law which exists and has been developed in South Africa? To be practical: Does that side of the House accept the findings of the magistrate in the Biko case as correct? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for East London North accept them?

In terms of the evidence laid before him, yes.

The insulting implications of the hon. member’s words do not escape us. Every person who had anything to do with the late Mr. Biko was made available to the defence to be called as witnesses by the defence. Every person whom the defence in the Biko case wanted to cross-examine was in fact cross-examined by the defence. What is the hon. member now implying? I think his conduct is scandalous and he owes this House and the country an explanation. [Interjections.]

We talk such a lot about the rule of law. I want to address myself to the hon. member for Johannesburg North and ask him whether he accepts the finding in the Biko investigation.

I did not read the evidence. [Interjections.]

I am not asking the hon. member to answer that question as a judge, because he is not a judge. He is sitting in this House as a member of Parliament, as a politician. I ask him as a member of the PFP: Does he accept the finding in the Biko case?

We shall deal with that.

I put the question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.] The hon. members are not going to evade that so easily. We hear about the rule of law every day and we must now bring this matter to a head. The chief magistrate of Pretoria carried out a public investigation in this case, an investigation in which evidence was taken under cross-examination. The hon. member must not make a finding as a judge now. He owes the country an answer as a member of the House of Assembly, as a member of the PFP, and I now ask him this specific question: Does the hon. member accept the finding in the Biko case, yes or no? I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the other hon. members of the PFP that when they talk about the rule of law in this House, they are guilty of great hypocrisy and South Africa will again penalize them at the ballot-box.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “hypocritical” and must therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

I want to raise another matter, a matter about which I do not wish to fight with hon. members of the Opposition. I think this is a matter of great importance to South Africa. It is a fact that under the provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 the Minister of Justice has certain important powers in terms of which he can restrict the movements of people. As these things have developed in practice, various notices have been issued in this regard, particularly notices relating to the way in which a person’s movements are restricted. We have group A, group B and group C notices. However, it is important to realize that the hon. the Minister issues those notices when he is of opinion that it is necessary for the maintenance of security in South Africa. Nowadays, however, the custom has developed—I did not go into the question of where this custom arose, nor do I want to reproach anyone in this regard—that when a person’s movements are restricted, such a person is referred to as a “banned” person. It is said that “Mr. So-and-so has been banned”. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Opposition and the newspapers today—and it is not always the Opposition alone who are guilty of this; we on the Nationalist side have also used this expression on occasion—not to speak about “banning” again with regard to a restricted person because it is not in South Africa’s interests to do so. The major task of the hon. the Minister of Justice is to act to maintain the security of the Republic. In this regard he has a difficult task. His task is to weigh the security of the Republic of South Africa on the one hand, against the freedom of the individual on the other. Those are the words which the hon. the Prime Minister used many years ago. In the process it is very important that the image we project abroad should be that we restrict the freedom of the individual to the minimum extent, that minimum required to maintain the security of the State. However, what happens? The hon. the Minister of Justice issues a notice which in fact only imposes a limited restriction on a person’s movements. Nevertheless it is said that the person concerned is banned. As far as the words “banned”—and the Afrikaans word “verban”—are concerned, I find in the dictionaries that in a certain context these concepts can have a fairly innocent meaning. The word arose when the church still issued the anathema against a person and excommunicated him. However, when it refers to someone in constitutional circumstances, it means “to drive out”. The dictionary goes on to explain that the word also relates to a person exiled from the country. The problem facing South Africa is that when the word “banned” is used, the impression the world gets is that people have been exiled. That is by no means the case.

We have the details as to the way in which a person’s movements are in fact restricted. The most extreme form of restriction that can be imposed on a person is when he is compelled to stay at his place of residence, together with other restrictions imposed on him. I understand that at the moment there is no one who is banned in this way. In most cases people under B and C group notices still find it possible to do their work and carry on with their daily life in the sense that their movements are usually limited solely to a specific magisterial district. The restriction imposed on them is that they may not read certain information, may not obtain certain documents and in addition, that what they say may not be quoted. However, socially and within the context of his family the person is still permitted major freedoms. But, Sir, the image of a limited, defined restriction is not what the world is given to understand; instead such a person is consistently referred to as a banned person. The consequent problem is that the image of South Africa abroad is that we ban our people and appear to do far more than we really do. Consequently the outside world thinks that the rights of the individual are infringed far more than is really the case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react briefly to one or two things said by the hon. members for Waterkloof and Pretoria Central with regard to the Biko case. The question was pertinently put whether hon. members on this side of the House accepted the verdict of the chief magistrate. The reason why that verdict is unsatisfactory lies in the lack of evidence. That inquest was the equivalent of a criminal trial in which only the accused gives evidence. The hon. members for Pretoria Central and Waterkloof should know what the results are of a criminal trial in which only those who are potentially guilty give evidence. This is exactly what the position was here. Apart from the limited amount of medical evidence there was no independent evidence with regard to what happened to that person. The underlying reason is that the so-called rule of law principle had already been violated long before that case came before the court. That person was not allowed to see a legal representative, he was not allowed to see his own doctor, nor was he allowed to see his own family. It is because the judicial system in South Africa is so limited today that that person no longer has access to any person in the outside world that the inquest was so ineffectual, and exactly the same thing will happen should such situations recur in the future.

As regards the latest report of the department, it is good to see what a great effort has been made by the department to maintain and improve the high standard of the administration of justice in South Africa by means of continuous training. I myself had the privilege of doing a training course offered by the Department of Justice, and I can testify to the fact that these people really perform a great task in maintaining high standards in our administration of justice and to providing practical suggestions to supplement the academic training staff members have received at university. They deserve credit for their contribution in maintaining a high standard of court practice. At the moment our courts enjoy enormous respect inside as well as outside South Africa. Why should we approve the expenditure of such an enormous amount on our judicial system, especially to keep our court practice at a high level? In my opinion it is necessary to examine clinically the role which our courts in South Africa are actually playing and what sense there is in having a court system. Is it correct to regard our courts merely as institutions which concern themselves with criminals, as a necessary process a person has to undergo from the moment he is arrested or accused until he is punished for his crime? Unfortunately that is the way some people regard a court system.

†If I had to classify a court of law in terms of its use and necessity in a community, I would say that it is essentially an instrument of civilization. It is an instrument devised through the centuries to deal with conflict between individuals and organizations, between the State and its subjects and between anti-social elements and the law-abiding citizens of this country. This instrument of civilization has come in the place of the crude law of the jungle. It operates according to a strict system which is known to the people so that everybody should know in advance what may be done and what may not be done, and that everyone may know that if he or she is wronged, he or she can turn to an independent and objective authority to see that justice is done for them. The independence of the court system in any country is in my submission perhaps the most telling and distinguishing factor to judge whether a country is truly civilized or not. In South Africa it is clear that our courts have acquired a standing sufficient to mete out justice and to deal with conflict in a satisfactory way.

However, there is a disturbing side to this situation. If we have to isolate the most important area of conflict in South Africa, I would say that it is obviously the area of conflict of politics, the area of political conflict with all its racial overtones. In this area of conflict our courts have been completely emasculated. In this most important field of conflict a South African citizen can no longer look to our courts for the final meting out of justice. The courts have become emasculated, because the Government has bestowed upon the hon. the Minister of Justice the powers to deal as he wishes with anybody whom he may consider to be a danger to the State.

In this way the hon. the Minister, who is after all a party to the political conflict in South Africa, has acquired the power and has taken unto himself the right to punish and to judge as should be done by a court of law. Today the hon. the Minister of Justice has the power to remove anybody in this country and to lock him up anywhere and for any length of time without having to account for that to a single other individual. [Interjections.] This situation, which has come about over years of NP rule, has removed from the field of politics a vital element which has often in the past been a channel of justice. In that way he has removed a guarantee for order. [Interjections.]

*This is something that hon. members should keep in mind. They should remember that order is not in the first place dependent on coercion. Order is not in the first place dependent on the continuous suppression of certain activities. Order is in the first place dependent on the existence of an authority, an independent authority to which the citizen of the country can have recourse when he feels that he has been done an injustice.

The right of the court to intervene has been removed from the arena of political conflict. This is unfortunately a self-perpetuating process. It is a process that never ends. The more it is applied, the more necessary it becomes. There are many examples to prove this in South Africa. [Interjections.] From the moment there was a movement away from the independent right of our courts to judge what is right and what is wrong, this so-called security legislation has had to be strengthened time and time again. [Interjections.] These methods offer no permanent solutions and furthermore they give rise to serious doubt, about the purpose and continued existence of our criminal courts.

What is the point of allowing someone who has been accused of murder, rape or robbery the privilege of an independent trial, the privilege of acquiring a legal representative and of defending his case, if we do not allow the same when someone is accused of a political crime? [Interjections.] If hon. members on the other side keep singing the tune they have been singing up to now, they will definitely accuse hon. members on this side of a lack of patriotism. [Interjections.] Once again they will ask how the outside world will interpret the things we say in this House. People abroad whose opinions count do not have to be told about the situation in this country. They do not have to be told what the word banning means. They know about all these things. That is the tragedy. The tragedy of the whole situation is that they know too much. They do not know too little; they know too much. [Interjections.] To be quite honest, what the outside world says about us in this regard does not greatly concern me. These things happen in other countries as well. It happens in every country behind the Iron Curtain, and even in quite a few countries this side of the Iron Curtain. [Interjections.] What does concern me, however … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has made an extremely irresponsible speech here this morning. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Green Point is having a good laugh. What he is doing, however, is to laugh while our enemies are closing in on South Africa. He is providing the enemies of South Africa with information and ammunition. What is he doing here today? He is criticizing the high standard and the good name of our administration of justice in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. member alleges, amongst other things, that the independence of the courts in South Africa has been destroyed, that is in fact no longer exists, and that the people abroad whose opinions count know exactly what is happening here. What is that hon. member now telling the people abroad? He is telling them that the independence of our courts has been affected. But he goes further and makes the disgraceful allegation that all the evidence in the Biko case was not available to the outside world or to the advocates. This is the allegation which the hon. member made. However, what is the factual situation? All the police officers involved in the Biko trial were available for giving evidence. But, Sir, they were not only available for giving evidence; they were available for cross-questioning. Now I want to ask that hon. member a question. He alleges that he is an advocate. I want to ask him whether he admits that cross-questioning is the recognized manner in which our legal system can be used to find out whether someone is telling the truth. Does the hon. member accept this?

Yes, I accept it.

Those people were thoroughly cross-questioned in the Biko trial by a person whom those hon. members allege to be one of the best advocates in South Africa today. They even paid him to do so! He cross-questioned these people for days, and what are the facts? He could only get one of two things out of those people. The first alternative was that they told the whole truth. If this is so, I cannot see how those hon. members can stand up in this House today and say that they are not prepared, on the basis of the evidence, to accept the ruling in the Biko case. The other insinuation that they are trying to make—and this is even more serious—is that there is something wrong with the finding of the chief magistrate.

Yes. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton says “yes”? In other words, she says that the chief magistrate of Pretoria, on the basis of the evidence, deliberately (“willens en wetens”) gave an incorrect ruling in this case?

Yes. [Interjections.]

That is a disgraceful statement to make. I think the hon. member owes South Africa and our administration of justice an apology. I ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether he agrees with that allegation of the hon. member for Houghton. Does he agree with it?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is a rule in this House that the position of the Bench as such may not be criticized. Criticism in this regard has been ruled out of order in the past. I am referring to an interjection which the hon. member for Houghton made. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg asked her whether she sought to allege that a magistrate had deliberately returned an incorrect verdict. To this she replied “yes”. I think it would be a tragic day if an hon. member of this House were allowed to reflect the integrity of the Bench.

I want to point out to the hon. member that that specific rule does not apply to magistrates’ courts. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the question which I asked the hon. member was whether she was deliberately alleging that the chief magistrate of Pretoria, who made this finding, deliberately gave an incorrect ruling on the basis of the evidence which was submitted to him. To that the hon. member replied “yes”. We on this side of the House take the strongest exception to this. I asked the same question of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is a former judge, and he chooses to ignore it. He does not want to answer me on it. Therefore we draw the logical conclusion ourselves in this regard. We on this side of the House are sick and tired of these noises which we have to hear when they plead for the enemies of South Africa. No one who is a friend of South Africa is being detained in this country. Now those hon. members are pleading for these people today, people who cannot be considered anything but enemies of South Africa under any circumstances. What happened after 17 October last year? After that, decent people could lead normal lives again. Now those hon. members are pleading for those people. That is why we say that it fills any South African who loves his country with aversion and repugnance. I want to tell those hon. members that one day the history of South Africa will show that they were pleading for the enemies of South Africa.

We shall see.

History will show that when South Africa was in trouble, they were not on the side of the people who wanted to maintain justice and law and order in South Africa.

However, I want to raise a much more positive matter in the few moments I have left. The matter which I want to raise concerns the training division of the Department of Justice. It is a pleasure for me to be able to say that after this division was established in 1957, I also had the opportunity of attending a course presented by it. After the humble beginnings of that division, it grew to such an extent that 20 years later, during 1976, the hon. the Minister could announce that a full-fledged justice college would be established. Many lawyers of statute have been trained in this division, people who are taking their place today in the administration of justice in South Africa. I even hear that an advocate who was trained there is practising in Australia today.

However, this is one part of the importance of this training. The other is that that division trains officials of the State. I could mention many examples of the courses which they have offered over the years, academic courses for B.Iuris, the Public Service Law Examinations, etc. This takes place in the closest co-operation with the University of South Africa. From 1971 to 1976 they trained 728 prosecutors. There are also legal courses through which many magistrates have already received their training.

In this community in which we are living today, however, it is true that people must have the best training both academically and in practice. It is essential for the officials of this department to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of the public. That is why they must be able to hold their own in the face of the very best opponents which can be used against them, and here I am thinking in particular of our magistrates and our prosecutors in the courts. It is essential that the administration of justice in our courts be kept on the very highest level, and that is why it is such a disgrace that hon. members are criticizing it this morning and attacking us on this point, because it is one of the highest priorities which this Government lays down in South Africa. We want to continue to ensure this, and that is why it is right and essential for us to use the best trained lawyers in our courts, because we dare not allow the administration of justice in South Africa to fall into the hands of poorly trained magistrates and prosecutors. The mere possession of legal qualifications, like those of the hon. member for Green Point, is not enough to make a man a good lawyer. [Interjections.] It takes a long time to refine one’s skills, and a lot of work remains to be done on that hon. member. [Interjections.] It is very clear to me that this important task of looking after the lawyers in the service of the State rests squarely on the shoulders of this division of the department today.

I note that in the annual report of the department there is a matter in this regard which may give rise to problems in future, and I am referring to paragraph 2.4.4. on page 11 of that report. The problem is that lecturers who obtain higher qualifications like a LL.B degree cannot stay on as lecturers. I have already sketched to hon. members the importance of this division, both inside and outside the Public Service. Therefore, if we want to ensure that the high standard of our administration of justice in our courts in South Africa is maintained, we must look into this matter, this important matter which is the essence of the training of our lawyers in the Public Service. We must ensure that highly qualified but at the same time experienced and knowledgeable lecturers serve in this training division at all times, people who have been sharpened by experience and who have learned the technique of lecturing over the years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Verwoerdburg on the very fine speech which he has made. It really came like a breath of fresh air after the sounds which have beset us from the other side this morning.

I have actually risen because I want to address a few requests to the hon. the Minister on this occasion. They concern the provisions of section 10 and section 11 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1975. Section 10 inserts a new section 15A into our Deeds Act, and the new section provides that the Registrar of Deeds cannot for instance register a deed of transfer before a certificate is submitted to him by a conveyancer, a certificate in which certain relevant facts are certified. Section 11 provides for the introduction of section 50(1) in proposing an amended procedure for the registration of bonds.

Since the hon. the Minister has been prepared from time to time to postpone the commencement of these sections, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to tell him, on behalf of the profession, that we appreciate his insight and appreciation for the problems of our practice. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider not promulgating sections 10 and 11. I make that request for three important reasons. The first is that the really urgent and serious circumstances which forced the hon. the Minister, his department and the House to lay down these two sections at the time have actually fallen away completely. Our deeds offices were going through a serious crisis at the beginning of this decade. It was so serious that the hon. the Minister appointed the Prins Commission at the time to investigate our whole deeds system. Arising from the findings of the Prins Commission, new legislation was passed, including sections 10 and 11. The objective of the new legislation was to make our deeds system more streamlined, to lay more responsibilities on the shoulders of conveyancers, to lay fewer responsibilities on the shoulders of the Registrar of Deeds and to eliminate unnecessary duplication of documents. However, the economic circumstances of the world and of South Africa have changed, our deeds system has been modernized to a large extent, and that is why I want to allege that the real urgent reasons which existed at the time have now fallen away.

A second reason why I am addressing these requests to the hon. the Minister is that the new legislation is making excessive demands on the conveyancers. In terms of section 3(1)(b) and 4(1)(a) of our existing Deeds Registries Act, great and far-reaching responsibilities are entrusted to the Registrar of Deeds. For instance, he must investigate the deeds, he may reject them, etc. Then there is a very important provision in terms of section 99, viz. that should the Registrar of Deeds be guilty of neglect in carrying out his duties, the State can be held responsible for such neglect. On the other hand—and this is important—great responsibilities are also imposed upon the conveyancer in terms of our common law. We can easily identify these responsibilities: The conveyancer can be charged ex delicto if he is guilty of neglect; he can also be charged ex contractu, if, for example, he exceeds the powers which he has in terms of a power of attorney. However, there is the additional problem that these new sections place another statutory responsibility on the shoulders of the conveyancer. As a result of this, as a result of the fact that he has to submit a certificate to the Registrar of Deeds when deeds are registered, the liability of the Registrar, and therefore of the State, for compensation which may emanate from a faulty certificate from the conveyancer falls away. Then the aggrieved person can only appeal to the conveyancer himself. I want to suggest—and I think this is true—that as a guarantor, that the conveyancer is not a good substitute for the State. The conveyancer is even less able to accept the real responsibility now imposed upon him by sections 10 and 11, often under very difficult circumstances.

There is a third reason why I am addressing these requests to the hon. the Minister. It concerns our deeds system itself. Conveyancing in South Africa is as old as our history itself. That is why we have succeeded over the years—and I think I can say this this morning without fear of contradiction—in developing a deeds system in South Africa which is one of the best in the world. It is so effective that our registered deeds and our deeds of transfer in particular have been held in such high regard by our public and especially by our financial institutions over the years that their correctness, their value and their authenticity, and more specifically the real security and certainty which they offer, have never been doubted. Having said this, we can allege that the public has always been very proud to say that the deed of transfer is the genuine written proof of its right of ownership. Having said all this, I also want to allege that we cannot make far-reaching changes to this excellent deeds system at the moment because the urgent, real and compelling reasons which forced the hon. the Minister, his department and this House to make these far-reaching changes at the time have now fallen away completely.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park spoke about the Deeds Office. I agree with a great deal of what he has said. I, too, sent written representations to the hon. the Minister’s department with regard to this matter, in which I asked him to delay the implementation of some parts of that Act for some time. I hope the hon. the Minister will attend to this matter.

†The office of the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons is one that carries enormous responsibility. In the difficult times we live in it places tremendous stresses and strains on the occupant of that office. The occupant of the office and this entire family must of necessity operate under terrific tensions. We have made representations to the hon. the Minister and his department on many occasions. I can say quite objectively that we have enjoyed the greatest possible assistance and co-operation at all times. Having said that I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister which, I believe, will ease his burden in regard to detentions and bannings. In this regard we welcome the announcement made last night in regard to the jurists who will be visiting detainees. This is a very difficult issue and it causes a tremendous amount of heartache for all who are concerned with the matter. We would like to see a new approach to this very complex matter. We feel that an Act of Parliament should be passed, making the Attorneys-General completely independent and providing that their appointment in terms of that Act, will be made by the State President. I am not saying that the Attorneys-General are not independent at the moment, but we would like to see that they have the same independence as the Auditor-General. In other words, they will have a special status commensurate with the extra responsibilities that I believe they should receive. At the same time their decisions, like the decisions of the Auditor-General, must be free from political controversies. We hold the view that matters relating to bannings and detentions, should be referred to the Attorney-General to prepare reports on each case. Thereafter the decisions can be taken by the Attorneys-General. Alternatively, the hon. the Minister could decide after recommendations have been made by the Attorneys-General. We think that if the Attorneys-General took the final decision, it will not be subject to political trafficking as is the case with the present decisions. I would like the hon. the Minister to investigate this thought and I shall be happy if he advises us during the course of this debate that he wants time to consider this concept because obviously one would like him to think deeply about the matter and would want him to discuss the matter with his department and also possibly the Attorneys-General. That is why I do not anticipate that the hon. the Minister should react immediately to this particular request. If the concept is acceptable, I believe that the details can be worked out later. The effect will be that the Attorneys-General will not be responsible to the Department of Justice, but directly responsible to Parliament. The Attorneys-General will only be removed from their office under very stringent conditions in the same way as the Auditor-General can only be removed under very difficult circumstances as prescribed by the Audit and Exchequer Act, No. 66 of 1975. Parliament is recognized in regard to the dismissal of the persons concerned in the case of the Auditor-General and it would be the same should the hon. the Minister accept the proposal we make in regard to the Attorneys-General. The Attorneys-General will thus be responsible to Parliament and they will be servants of Parliament.

In 1926 the then Minister of Justice introduced legislation which to a certain extent curtailed the powers of the Attorneys-General. The Minister then tried to follow the middle course in regard to the powers of Attorneys-General. SESA talks of the Attorney-General and I should like to quote certain portions—

I quote a further portion—

Further on it is stated—

The administration of justice, the way we see it, is a different ball game from the one it used to be. The professional politician and certain sections of the Press used this as their favourite weapon for character assassination. “The world at large is not concerned that a large part of the world is still half slave and half free.” This remark was made by Mr. Moynihan, the former American Ambassador to UNO, who went on to say—

That South Africa is judged on the highest standards possible, is often said and we regard it as a compliment. Our judiciary is probably amongst the finest in the world. What worries me, however, is that judgment is often passed by nations who have no concept of the rule of law and allow no opposition whatsoever in their countries. They who sit in judgment are the people who often are the worst offenders of the rule of law. However bitter a pill this is to swallow, we must adjust and adapt our system to the requirements of today. The only way in which a South African Minister of Justice can operate without extreme pressures from both inside and outside is to allow the Attorneys-General to become an even more important cog in our machinery. I know they are an important cog, but they must become an even more important one in relation to the suggestion I have made earlier in this debate.

As far as the late Mr. Biko is concerned, the hon. leader of the SAP expressed the views of this party during the course of the censure debate and I am not going to deal with the matter again. The views expressed at that time still apply and we still stand by them. The Official Opposition has decided that certain Ministers must stay while others must go. They are entitled to such views, but what they ought to bear in mind is that when a Minister takes a major decision in his department, he has probably done it in consultation and under collective responsibility with the other members of the Cabinet. In other words, the Ministers favoured by the Official Opposition are as responsible for any major action as the hon. the Minister who announces the decision and puts it into effect. In the circumstances we shall not vote against any salary reductions.

Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker said, there can be little doubt that the standard of administration of justice in our Supreme Courts is very high. I should like to address the Committee on what I feel to be the chief reason for these high standards: The fact is that there is a dual Bar in South Africa. There is a Side Bar which involves the attorneys and a Bar for the advocates. In recent times a number of people have advocated the merging of the Bars in the country, on the one hand, and on the other, advocated that a third court be established in which the attorneys would have the opportunity to do some of the work now being done by advocates. Far be it from me to maintain that there should be no modifications and changes in the role of the Bar and Side Bar respectively. What I do want to say is that the system of separate Bars is an institution which has stood the test of time, a system which has developed over hundreds of years and of which we can be proud, and that nothing must be done to endanger the basic separate structure of this system.

Although there was a system similar to ours as far back as Roman times, according to which the counsel and the principal or agent had diverse functions, we can hardly deduce our system from this system because the history of the origin of our system is so vague. What we do know, is that advocates and attorneys practiced separately as long ago as the 11th century in England, that these professions had separate professional bodies in the 14th century and that in 1402, an act was passed in England which regulated the training and admission of advocates and attorneys. Even at the beginning of the 14th century, there was already a distinction between senior advocates and junior advocates. These two professions were further shaped in the 16th to 17th century in that the attorneys were not allowed to practise in the Inns of Court, and the rule that advocates could not render services without the mediation of an attorney was also confirmed. At that stage, the status of advocates was so high that in theory they could not claim any remuneration for their work. They could not issue a summons for their money at all. The only reason that I could find for this, is that the quality of work was so high that money could not pay for it. We should probably be grateful that the status of advocates has dropped to such an extent that they can at least earn a little money now. Perhaps it would be a good idea to increase the status of the attorneys so that they would earn less money. [Interjections.]

My argument is not that this system of ours should be retained because it has been in existence for so long. My argument is that since this system has withstood the test of time for so long, we should take a careful look at its merits. The first advantage of the system is that it affords a group of lawyers the opportunity to prepare themselves as specialists in trial work within a professional context and to be known as such. In this regard it is worth drawing comparisons between the situation in different countries and taking a look at the standard of trial lawyers in different countries. Here I should like to refer to what the Chief Justice of the USA, Mr. Justice Warren Burger, said when he gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Legal Services. He said—

I also want to refer to what Mr. Justice Burger said in 1973. I quote from a summary of what he said, which was quoted by Mr. Justice Mostert in a speech at the annual congress of the Law Society in Johannesburg—

This statement can be applied with equal validity to our system because our system is practically the same as the English one.

Another benefit of our system is that it offers the client a larger variety of legal proficiency. The client can choose the advocate for his case, whereas in one common Bar the attorney will be inclined to do all court work himself because he would be afraid that, should he refer the case to another attorney, that attorney would take over his client. There is the additional advantage that the Bar affords ideal training possibilities. In this regard I should like to refer to what the hon. Mr. Justice Mostert had to say on the above-mentioned occasion—

However, a Bar not only provides legal training; it also builds character. The special nature of the Bar, and especially the fact that its members are not allowed to enter partnerships, has resulted in the profession demanding a high degree of perseverance and promoting independent thought. It is an absolutely indispensable requirement for the sound administration of justice and good judges.

The argument often advanced in favour of a common Bar is that the cost of separate Bars is too high. I cannot give proper attention to all these aspects. However, there are various authorities that are of the opinion that the contrary is true. Natal had dual practitioners until 1943, after which the system was changed. One can assume that this would not have been changed if it had led to increased legal costs. Another aspect which I want to refer to, is that there are few professions in which the market mechanism applies so vigorously as in the legal profession.

In view of the aspects which I have pointed out, I feel there is little possibility that the Bars could merge. However, what we should consciously guard against, is injudicious undermining of the Bar as an institution by allowing attorneys to take over too much work from the advocates. I am convinced that this could lead to some items of legal costs skyrocketing. For instance, at this stage opinion work is largely subsidized by those cases which, according to the proposal, must be given to the attorneys. The Junior Bar will also be very hard hit by this, not only financially, but also professionally. No professional man can expect to jump in the deep end and handle highly complicated cases from the start. He must be afforded the opportunity of training and gaining experience by means of simpler cases. However, should this be the case and if this proposed arrangement were implemented, it would also have a serious effect on the number of people admitted to the Bar. It would affect the younger members of the Bar. There is no more effective way to undermine an institution than by checking the flow of people being admitted to it. This would result in the Bar being undermined as an institution, with the inevitable result that the standard of our legal administration would be lowered.

Mr. Chairman, this morning the hon. member for Waterkloof pointed out what a demanding year 1977 was for the hon. the Minister. I want to make a few remarks relating to one specific case which contributed substantially to that work load borne by the hon. the Minister in 1977, namely the Criminal Procedure Act which was placed on the Statute Book last year. Before coming to that I just want to refer to one specific item in the budget for Justice which, in my opinion, everyone concerned with the practical administration of justice was very pleased to see, and that is that it has been possible for the hon. the Minister and his department to appropriate a larger sum of money for legal aid this year. This matter was discussed last year too. At that stage, however, it was not possible for the hon. the Minister to allot a larger amount. This year the amount has been substantially increased from R1 million to R1,509 million. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that this is something which is very greatly appreciated.

Together with that, of course, there are the representations—such representations go direct to the Minister so I am telling him nothing new—for further increases, because it is still not quite what is being requested and I only want to express the hope that it will in fact be possible for the hon. the Minister and his department to increase the amount further, perhaps even next year, to the amount requested by the judicature. This is a service of which we can be very proud, a service which is very greatly appreciated, and rightly so. I can only mention one aspect of it, namely that the extension at Athlone has now become a reality, and I can attest to the fact that it works exceptionally well. This is a section which is manned entirely by Coloureds and I want to express the hope that it will be possible to expand it further to other centres. A request to this effect has been made by the law society and I hope it will be possible to give effect to this sooner or later.

The Criminal Procedure Act which was placed on the Statute Book last year was an extremely controversial measure when it was discussed but, as has been proved in practice, it was undoubtedly unnecessary that it should have been so controversial. The hon. the Minister made certain claims in regard to what was envisaged by this legislation, and what it ought to achieve, and although, in the nature of the matter, it is somewhat early to express a conclusive opinion on it or subject to a full test, all indications are that it is an outstanding measure, that it works outstandingly and that it fully vindicates the Minister in regard to the claims he made here last year. For example, he said (Hansard, 31 January 1977, col. 439)—

It is particularly in regard to this claim, and on the strength of the evidence one receives from all quarters, that I want to argue that the hon. the Minister and Parliament have certainly succeeded in placing on the Statute Book a measure which works exceptionally well. The testimony of all legal practitioners and servants of the law, prosecutors and presiding officers indicate that there is virtual unanimity that this measure works outstandingly well. An important point made by the hon. the Minister is the more rapid disposing of cases and this is in fact what is happening in practice. This is due in particular to the procedure prescribed by section 112(1)(b), which has resulted in a reduction in Bench hours. In that regard I should like to provide a few data. As regards the regional court in Cape Town, for example, it has been found that since 22 July 1977 when the Act came into operation, the bench hours have dropped by approximately 12% as against the previous periods. This shows further that the average time taken by cases dealt with by magistrates has been reduced from an average of 1,5 hours to 1,37 hours per case. Another place providing illuminating statistics is Benoni, where the average court hours per month were 128 before July 1977, whereas the figure is now 86 per month. Another example I could refer to is that of the A court at Bethlehem. This, too, is mentioned in the annual report. In that court, 295 cases were disposed of during the six months in question in terms of section 112(1)(b). This means an average of 11,98 minutes for disposing of each case. What is important here is that the trial time which is saved in this way can now be utilized more effectively by presiding officers for the consideration of sentences. Some of the consequences of this legislation are that although the same number of cases can still be handled, the time spent on each case is reduced and consequently it is also possible to utilize the same staff even for other administrative work.

According to information at my disposal it is the case at present that at certain centres, 2,5 magistrates are required to handle the work which formerly had to be done by three magistrates. This probably also means that the increase in staff need not be so rapid.

I should also like to quote a few additional statistics relating to Cape Town, statistics which are very interesting and illuminating. Looking at the analysis for 1977, and specifically at the period of six months preceding the date when the act came into operation, we see that 945 review cases were disposed of up to 21 July 1977. From 22 July to 31 December 1977 only 194 review cases were disposed of. If we contrast the year 1977 with the year 1978 we see that during the period 1 January to 10 April 1977, 461 review cases were disposed of in Cape Town, whereas during the corresponding period this year, only 174 review cases were disposed of in Cape Town. I believe that this comparison ought to give the hon. the Minister a very satisfactory indication of the success of this measure and the way in which the basic aims he put forward are being achieved thereby. As far as preliminary investigations are concerned, during the first three months of last year—under the old dispensation—23 investigations were disposed of whereas during the rest of the year there were only 22 preliminary investigations. The latter investigations were all in terms of section 119.

The fact that cases are now being disposed of more rapidly is also reflected in an interesting fashion in the following figures. During the period 1 July 1976 to 31 March 1977, the courts in Cape Town handled 3 284 cases whereas in the period 1 July 1977 to 31 March 1978, they dealt with a total of 4 374 cases. The number of cases in which evidence was led was 2 852, whereas the cases heard under section 112(1)(b) totalled 1 542. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. I hope the hon. member for Algoa will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. I have a lot to say in a short time. I would have liked, however, to hear from him the number of cases, in the reviews he has mentioned, in which the findings of magistrates were upset by the judges. This is very relevant to the question which was asked me by the hon. member for Pretoria Central on the Biko case. I stated unequivocally in an earlier debate that I disagreed entirely with the finding of the magistrate at that inquest.

You said more.

The hon. member behaved as though I had in fact insulted Moses coming down from the Mount. Many magistrates’ findings are in fact upset on review, and I believe—and I want to say this quite unequivocally—that any reasonable person who has read the court record would also disagree with the findings of that magistrate.

Absolute nonsense!

Now, Sir, I want to correct one thing. I did not quite gather, when the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was speaking, that he had asked me if the magistrate had “willens en wetens” … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am sorry; I was not listening very carefully. I want to say unequivocally that I disagree with the findings of the magistrate on the Biko inquest. [Interjections.]

You said a wrong finding was given “willens en wetens”.

No, I am not talking about “willens” or “wetens”. It is the finding that I disagree with. The man made a bad judgment as far as I am concerned, and that is all I am prepared to say. I want to say that as far as instituting prosecutions is concerned, the Biko family has instituted a civil prosecution, and that is OK as far as I am concerned. What is not OK as far as I am concerned is the hon. the Minister’s silence on the question as to whether or not he has instituted any sort of departmental inquiry into the whole way in which the custody of Biko …

That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Very well; the hon. the Minister is sticking to his guns and says it has nothing to do with this Vote. I am simply saying I believe the hon. the Minister is the one who should have set up a departmental investigation into this matter. If he will not answer me on this Vote …

Order! The hon. member must bring the matter up on the Police Vote.

I will do so, Sir. I shall bring the matter up on the other Vote.

The hon. the Minister told us that he had appointed two jurists who are going to go around and pay surprise visits to detainees. They are going to be very busy gentlemen indeed. According to the last figure the hon. the Minister gave me, 240 people were being held in terms of the Terrorism Act. That was in February of this year, and I would like the hon. the Minister to give us a more updated figure so that we can have some idea of the volume of work which these jurists are going to have to do. It is better than nothing, certainly. I want immediately to thank the NRP for saying that they are going to support …

The SAP.

No, it was the NRP who said that they were going to support my motion to reduce the hon. the Minister’s salary. I must say, however, that I do not believe that a judicial tribunal can in any way substitute for the normal processes of the courts of law. I do have that reservation about the speech the hon. member for East London North made when he said that he was going to support us. As I have said, I am very glad of that support. The SAP’s attitude is equivocal. The hon. member who spoke on their behalf used double negatives. I think he said they would not vote against any salary reductions, which I should think means they will vote for us, but we will see what they do when the time comes.

I wonder why it took the hon. the Minister so long to get around to taking even these steps to protect detainees in custody. He is about 35 deaths too late, of course. He is especially too late as far as the Steve Biko death is concerned. It is a great pity that he did not see fit to do something about this earlier. We have been hammering at this year in and year out and pointing to the lack of protection afforded people held in custody by the Special Branch in solitary confinement. We have been asking him for years to do something about the alarming number of deaths in detention. But at least, Sir, he has appointed the jurists …

That has absolutely nothing to do with this Vote.

Sir, the hon. the Minister brought it in under this Vote.

Why do you not bring it up under the Police Vote? You can make your speech then.

Then why did the Minister mention the appointment of the jurists …

You just want to make a speech because you have an audience.

I always have an audience; I am sorry to disappoint the hon. the Minister. I have no problem about an audience; it is the hon. the Minister who has trouble about that. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, the hon. the Minister could have done this long ago, just as Judge Steyn, when he brought in emergency measures in South West Africa, immediately laid down regulations to ensure that doctors would visit detainees at least every three days and that a magistrate would visit detainees every fortnight. Most important is the fact that Mr. Justice Steyn has laid down that the families of detainees will be informed about where they are being held.

The detention of detainees in South West Africa is based on section 10. It is virtually the same and they have exactly the same things as the section 10 detainees.

Preventative detention.

Exactly the same.

It is not exactly the same.

Doctors, radios, the lot!

Anyway, I believe that the one thing the hon. the Minister must do unequivocally is to tell us that the families of detainees are informed when they are arrested and are informed about where they are being held because there are innumerable people— there were, anyway; the situation is certainly better now—who ran around frantically from police station to police station trying to find out where their relatives were being kept.

Now let us come to the preventive detention section, 10(1)(a)bis, of the Internal Security Act. I have a few complaints to make about that. The hon. the Minister appointed a review committee, nameless and anonymous, need I say—we have never learnt their names—in terms of the provisions of this Act which he told us, when he introduced it originally, was suitable for “small-scale” detentions. As we know, in 1976 something like 135 people were held under the preventive detention section of the Internal Security Act. Then came the October 1977 crackdown and some 61 people, I think, were taken into preventive detention, some of whom have now been released. Others, however, are still in detention. There were also others prior to that date, 1977, who were in detention, and it would be useful to know how many such people are now being held under the preventive detention section. In reply to a question to the hon. the Minister, I received the information that he does not, in fact, issue any warnings to people, as he can do in terms of the provisions of this Act, before they get dragged into preventive detention. Some of them, of course, were held there for many months. Nor does he bother to give them any information, when they are in preventive detention, about the scant rights they can enjoy in terms of section 10(1)(a)bis of the Internal Security Act. He says they know all about it because plenty of publicity was given to it I believe that it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister …

The regulations are pasted up in the prison itself.

Then why did the hon. the Minister reply in this House, when I asked whether information was given to these people telling them they could give their written evidence and representations to the review committee, by saying “No”?

Prison regulations …

But he did not say that. His answer to me was “No”. He said the matter was sufficiently well publicized in the Press and other media. The hon. the Minister also said that in any case many had, in fact, made representations, so therefore they must know about it. I say that there may also be people who do not know about it because I do not believe that everybody made representations. I also want to point out to the House that the hon. the Minister has scored an all-time legal record. I say this because there were 135 cases reviewed, and in all 135 cases there was an endorsement of the hon. the Minister’s decision to detain these people. That must be an all-time legal record. The review committee did not disagree with the hon. the Minister on a single one of the 135 people that he arrested.

What are you insinuating?

I am insinuating that it is an all-time record. It is most extraordinary! [Interjections.]

Now I want to raise the question of Peter Jones. The hon. the Minister will remember this gentleman. Peter Jones was arrested at the same time as Steve Biko, and they were to be charged. We have heard over and over again of all sorts of crimes against the State, treacherous pamphlets that were to be issued and all sorts of dreadful, nefarious deeds. Steve Biko has of course been judged by members on the Government side as guilty of all kinds of serious crimes although he has never been charged for any one of them. He has been charged in court on several occasions and he has been acquitted on every charge. I think there was only one on which he was found guilty, and that was on the charge of breaking his ban. Peter Jones was arrested at the same time. Those who have read the court record or who have followed the inquest of the Biko case will remember that the evidence was given that it was Peter Jones’s confession with which Biko was confronted that drove him into a frenzy and subsequently led to the struggle that led to his death. Later, of course, it was pointed out that the confession that was allegedly shown to Biko was dated several days after his death. Then, of course, that piece of valuable evidence was withdrawn. The next thing I heard about Peter Jones came as a result of a question I put to the hon. the Minister. I asked when he was going to be charged, where he was, how he was and what was going to happen to him.

The hon. the Minister told us that he was no longer being held in terms of section 6 but in terms of the Internal Security preventive detention section. Is he still being held in terms of that? If so, will the hon. the Minister tell us how long he is going to keep him there, because apparently there is no evidence on which he is going to be charged?

On whose instructions are you asking those questions?

What has happened to that man? The hon. the Minister gave me a very interesting reply when I asked him how long he keeps people in terms of section 10. He said that that would depend upon the restoration of peaceful conditions within Black society generally. It is an absolutely new principle in our legal system that people are detained against the actions of people outside over which those detained people have no control whatsoever. I think it is an absolute scandal that it now depends on how people behave outside whether or not the hon. the Minister is going to restore the liberty of people he has arrested under the preventive detention section. All these are part and parcel of our grievances against the hon. the Minister.

There are other grievances. I refer, for instance, to the widespread bannings he has gone in for …

Leave out the word “bannings”— you know it is wrong.

… let alone the events of 17 October against which I have many objections. I believe that the bannings of that time and the Biko case have done inestimable harm to South Africa. We will never recover from that.

You played a part in it!

The hon. the Minister is now going further. He is banning young people who have been engaged in educating Black people. I refer specifically to Clive Nettleton and David Adler who were recently banned. He has, of course, taken in all the leaders of the Black Consciousness Movement, and all Black political movements will now be driven underground. The crime of the two young White men to whom I have referred has been, as far as I know, that they have been running an educational course, which was well supported by responsible businessmen in South Africa. It was a business college which went as far as the JC and matriculation classes. They have helped literally scores of young Africans to get their matriculation and JC certificates. All of a sudden these two young men have been banned. We are never given any reasons and the people who are banned are not given reasons for that either.

Leave out the word “banned”.

They are just told that it was done in accordance with the Minister’s opinion.

Do not be so touchy! What is wrong with the word “banned”?

It is like “passes”. They do not like “passes” either.

It is a false word.

It is not false at all.

It is false and you know it.

You are running away from it.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue like this to be carried on.

It is done because in the Minister’s opinion these people are advancing the aims of communism, etc. These people were engaged in a teacher upgrading course in Bophuthatswana. They were chucked out there. No doubt, words were whispered in the ears of the people concerned in Bophuthatswana that they should get rid of them. They had 500 teachers they were teaching there. The one thing the hon. the Minister has so far disclosed is that there was an article which, he said, was published in The World with reference to the so-called “World at School” series. He said that that article taught all about communism, Marxism and so on. As far as I could establish, that article was never published. A watered-down version was used in the history course given in the Bophuthatswana teachers’ course. One should know something about these systems. If one is to oppose them, one must at least know what they stand for. However, the hon. the Minister banned these two young men. I believe he is undermining the morale of all the young people who are deeply concerned about race relations in this country. He is driving them out of South Africa. We are losing expertise as a result of this.

Like Woods?

Yes, like Woods, if you want to know. I am going to have a lot to say about Woods at a later stage because the hon. the Minister has made some scandalous allegations about Woods. He has allowed some answers to be published in this country, but I am sure that it was not the whole story by any means.

I have all these complaints against the hon. the Minister and perhaps I have now motivated why I have in fact moved that his salary be reduced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton asked for the privilege of the half hour but did not use all of it.

I cannot—we are short of time.

This afternoon I should very much like to talk to the hon. member for Houghton a little, but first I want to come back to a remark made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I say in all friendliness that we in this House cannot permit that certain comparisons be drawn between the Side Bar and the Bar, or that insinuations be made. For the sake of the Side Bar I just want to say that I do not agree with that.

The hon. member for Houghton made two admissions today which I wish to dwell on. It became very clear to me today why the Official Opposition did not use one of the lawyers in that party as the shadow Minister …

That is nonsense.

Wait a moment. That hon. member might be about to repeat that she did not hear properly. It is clear to me why they did not use one of their lawyers on that side as a shadow Minister of Justice. I concede that the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Green Point still occupy junior positions in that party, but surely there are other lawyers in that party who occupy more senior positions. I have in mind, for example, the hon. member for Musgrave, the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Groote Schuur and the hon. member for Yeoville. Not one of those hon. members is used as a shadow Minister of Justice, however, and today it became clear why this is so. When you are dealing with justice the hon. member for Houghton and that party are not interested in debating matters that really concern justice. According to them justice has to be used for the political purpose which those hon. members have in mind.

She is a smear politician.

Order! What did the hon. member for Worcester say?

Mr. Chairman, I said that she was a smear politician.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw those words.

The hon. member for Houghton made a remark today which, to say the least, impugns the dignity of this House. Unfortunately there are no rules in accordance with which one can act. The hon. member made a remark when the hon. member for Verwoerdburg asked her about the post-mortem investigation into the late Mr. Biko and the magistrate’s findings in that regard. After the hon. member for Verwoerdburg had made the statement that she wished to maintain that the magistrate had deliberately made an incorrect statement, the hon. member for Houghton replied “yes”.

She never said that.

I can understand why that hon. member should try to back out I can understand it, because no lawyer of any stature would be able to sit in those benches after such a reply on the part of an hon. member of this House.

We shall see in Hansard tomorrow.

I have her Hansard before me. I am not a lawyer who only comes along with the facts the following day. I come up with my facts immediately. [Interjections.] After the hon. member for Houghton replied in the affirmative, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said the following. (Hansard, 12 May 1978, col. 6783)—

To this the hon. member for Houghton again replied in the affirmative. This is a scandalous statement to make. Subsequently the hon. member for Pretoria Central raised a point of order and said the following—

She said “yes”. [Interjections.] That hon. member can maintain that she understood the hon. member for Verwoerdburg incorrectly, but how can she maintain that she understood him incorrectly three times in a row? [Interjections.] The question was put to that hon. member three times, and three times that hon. member replied in the affirmative. Now, however, there is a climbdown. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton to repeat this statement as it stands in Hansard, outside this House. Let her repeat it outside this House. I now want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave whether he agrees with the reply furnished by the hon. member for Houghton in this connection. [Interjections.] I accept it as such and I want to appeal to the hon. member to look at Hansard when he has a chance and then to reply to my question. I also ask the hon. member for Yeoville—it is his birthday today and I therefore excuse him for not being here—whether he agrees with the reply furnished by the hon. member for Houghton. I shall not put the question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North again because he shook his head a moment ago and said that he had not read the evidence. Perhaps I could just ask him whether, after reconsideration, he could not tell us whether he agrees with the reply furnished by the hon. member for Houghton.

The question is …

No. I only want to know from the hon. member whether he agrees with the reply furnished by the hon. member for Houghton. Does the hon. member for Sandton agree with it? [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member for Sandton laughing? Why does he not just say yes or no? Surely the issue is very clear. Let us go further. The matter is now on record and I am pleased that that is so.

In the third place, the hon. member for Houghton told the hon. the Minister that the two lawyers he had appointed to investigate the situation of restricted persons and visit detainees would have a very busy time. At the same time the hon. member told the hon. the Minister that 135 review cases had come before the reviewing commission. This reviewing commission comprises jurists who are magistrates.

We do not know who they are.

The hon. member should just wait a little. In her speech the hon. member insinuated that it was very strange to her that all 135 cases had been confirmed. The hon. member said that this was an “all-time record”. Surely, however, there is nothing strange about an all-time record. What the hon. member finds strange is the fact that all 135 cases were once again confirmed. That is what is strange to that hon. member. Twice today the hon. member for Houghton and her party have placed the officers of the lower courts of this country in an impossible situation by way of the allegations they have made relating to this section of our legal administration that deals with the greatest volume of legal work in this country. I find this exceedingly strange, to say the least. There is still more I can say about these hon. members.

With regard to the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton concerning the finding of the magistrate in the post-mortem investigation of Biko, I want to tell the hon. member that it was not only the magistrate who adopted certain standpoints. That document was submitted to the Attorney-General of the Eastern Cape and the Transvaal. Those two Attorneys-General refused to institute any legal proceedings as the result of what they had found in the investigations they carried out. The hon. the Minister also gave the assurance that he had had certain aspects of the matter investigated, but the hon. member for Houghton and her party are not satisfied with that either. Two of the most important people in our legal system, viz. two Attorneys-General refused to institute any legal proceedings, but those hon. members are not satisfied with their findings. One thing has been confirmed beyond all doubt and that is that for the rest of the period during which those hon. members comprise the Official Opposition, we on this side of the House can sit back when they ask for a judicial commission of inquiry, and tell them that we are not interested in arguing with them about the matter, because they did not want to accept the findings of any officer of justice. Those are the facts of the matter. [Interjections.]

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

No. I do not have time for questions now. Unfortunately I cannot deal with what that hon. member said. I should very much have liked to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal explanation. Apparently there was some misunderstanding as to what I said at the conclusion of my previous speech, and I should like just to correct the record. I should like to put it on record that we shall vote against any salary reductions.

Mr. Chairman, when I was last on my feet I mentioned the human rights situation as outlined by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also said that we in this country should in fact, if we wish to put away in prison anybody without a trial, at least rely on the findings of a judicial tribunal to do so. In regard to human rights I want to say that we in these benches feel very firmly that we in this country observe human rights better than most countries, or indeed any country, in Africa. Unfortunately, in the light of what happens in Africa today, this is not saying very much. So, I would go further to say that we believe that in terms of human rights we in this country observe human rights better than 75% of the countries of the world. However, this does not necessarily mean that we are 100% right and where we go wrong is by the violation of the integrity of the person, and by arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Let us ask ourselves the question: Does our present situation justify the present violation of the rule of law? In this regard I should like to refer to Mr. Justice Steyn in South West Africa I think we must agree that in South West Africa the situation is even more serious than it is here and, yet, Mr. Justice Steyn did not go as far as this Government has gone. He, in fact, made it quite clear that he would act on the recommendations of a judicial tribunal and that there would be the right of inspection the whole time in terms of detainees. Furthermore, I should like to point out that even during the Second World War the UP did not go as far in terms of there violations as this Government has done. One cannot deny that tremendous damage was done to South Africa as a result of the Biko death, and what has done almost as much harm was that hon. Minister’s statement that Mr. Biko’s death left him cold. I would recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should get hold of John Donne’s poem, “For whom the bell tolls”, and study it sometime because perhaps he might learn a lesson in regard to the involvement of the individual in mankind.

We must accept the fact that we are in a difficult situation. If the law does not give us sufficient protection we must amend that law. If we still cannot legislate for sufficient protection—and I believe that is in fact the case in South Africa today with the onslaughts which are being made against us— the very worst that we should do is to have administrative power to detain which must not be abused and which we should only carry out on the recommendation of the judicial tribunal. As I have said before, I believe it is in the hon. the Minister’s own interest that he should have such a tribunal. Let us add some measure of respectability to our system because the hon. the Minister with his ill-judged comments and wholesale bannings and detentions, will have a question mark against his bona fides for years to come and I believe we should put this situation right in this country.

The next item of human rights which I should like to refer to, concerns the right to enjoy civil and political liberty. Having dealt with imprisonment and the rest, I should now like to deal with the banning situation. Obviously, one of the foremost cases in this regard was the banning of Mr. Donald Woods.

He has not been banned and you know it!

He was confined.

Yes, he was confined and was not able to carry out his job and in that way earn his daily bread. I shall freely admit that I have no sympathy with Donald Woods.

Tell us why not.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister right now. Mr. Woods of course did live in the constituency of East London North. I believe the remarks he made in the UN about sanctions against South Africa were traitorous remarks. It was a statement which could do immeasurable harm to South Africa, not only to its White population, but also to its Black population, the people who will be hurt first. [Interjections.] However, where did Mr. Woods get his platform from?

Did you say that his remarks were traitorous remarks?

I said Mr. Woods’ remarks in the UN in regard to sanctions against South Africa were traitorous remarks.

But he was already saying that in this country.

No, he did not.

To my knowledge and as far as I am aware he did not call for sanctions against South Africa at any stage while he was in South Africa. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has information I do not have—perhaps Mr. Woods said that in private. However, I do not believe any public statements were made by him to that effect. I have said that these were traitorous remarks, but it is the hon. the Minister who gave him his platform and who put him into a situation in which he had the ear of the world and was in fact invited to address the United Nations. This is incredible. Here we have a small town—basically East London is a small town—newspaper editor who was elevated to the position of an international celebrity, because of the fact that he was in fact banned. He had had a running fight with the hon. the Minister of Justice for a number of years.

He was served with a banning order at Jan Smuts Airport. He was on his way to America.

His audience was far greater after the banning than it would ever have been before. I do not think there can be any doubt about that.

There are a number of people who have said that they agree with Donald Woods. I have made it quite clear that I do not agree with him. I want to bring to the attention of the House another statement that has been made in this regard. Perhaps hon. members on that side of the House will enjoy hearing this particular statement. The statement reads—

I wonder what the viewpoint of hon. members on that side of the House is concerning that statement?

I told you in my speech. Did you not hear?

I read this in the Cape Provincial Council’s Hansard of 2 March 1973. The member who was then talking, was the hon. member for King William’s Town.

Read my Hansard and you will see that I explained it to you.

I do not really think it can be much of an explanation. One wonders whether he changed his mind because of an editorial in the Daily Despatch after this date, an editorial which was headed “Mr. Bangbroek Coetzer, MPC”. I wonder whether this was what upset him in regard to this particular instance.

I told you why I changed my mind. [Interjections.] I even had respect for you once upon a time.

The hon. member says he changed his mind. There are perhaps other things he changed his mind about When the hon. member was standing for the Provincial Council in Queenstown, he made certain references to dagga in a speech on that particular occasion. I should like to get hold of that cutting—I am still waiting for it—but I shall not refer to that any further until such time as I do obtain this cutting.

To sum up, we in these benches totally reject outside interference in South Africa’s affairs, but at the same time we call on the Government to restore certain freedoms which we believe to be part of the whole human rights issue and that, at the very least, we should give these particular freedoms some judicial respectability. We appreciate the difficulty of the situation, but we do not believe that it is necessary to completely do away with judicial respectability. We have mentioned some of the rights.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I wish at the outset briefly to refer to the amendment which the Official Opposition has moved, which enjoys the support of the hon. member for East London North, and which is aimed at the non-payment of the hon. the Minister’s salary. I wish to express the view, together with the hon. member for Water-kloof, that this has probably been one of the most difficult years for any Minister of Justice in South Africa. Secondly, I wish to express my personal tribute to the hon. the Minister for the manner in which he has handled requests which have come from my constituency and matters which I have raised with him during the course of this year. The fundamental issue which has been raised in the course of this debate is the question of the justification of executive action in the curtailment of civil liberties where national security is at issue. This was the reason given by the hon. member for East London North for the support of the amendment of the Official Opposition. This was also the guts of the speech of the hon. member for Green Point, a speech which, I must say, contained a series of unbelievable remarks, inane remarks, given the fact that this hon. gentleman is a practising lawyer.

I want to approach this whole question on a fundamental basis. I wish to look at it in terms of principles, principles not derived just from the South African situation or from the practice of law in South Africa, but from major democratic countries. I wish to start, first of all, by referring to the fact that in all the major democracies, the USA, the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, primary responsibility for national security is very clearly vested in the executive. It is the executive’s responsibility, the executive has primary responsibility for national security. This can be illustrated in terms of the constitutions of those countries, or constitutional conventions in the case of the United Kingdom, and it can be illustrated in terms of the case law of those countries.

In the second place, it is generally acknowledged in those societies that there are situations and circumstances which justify preventive action by the executive which infringes the rights of individuals, despite the fact that those rights may be constitutionally guaranteed or may be guaranteed in terms of a bill of rights, as in the case of the USA. I wish to illustrate this point with reference to a particular Supreme Court case in the USA, the case of Dennis v. The United States, 1951. This case dealt with the question of the “clear and present danger” doctrine. It was part of the Internal Security Act which was introduced about that time to prevent communist conspiracies that the executive had the power to interfere with organizations and individuals where their activities constituted “a clear and present danger” to the security of the USA. This question came before the Supreme Court, and in an important judgment in the Supreme Court one of the justices dealt with the particular question in these terms. He said that this prosecution …

Prosecution, yes, but not detention without trial.

This was a case of a clear curtailment of individual liberties without any reference to a court of law. That is the point that I am making.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense, as the hon. member for Groote Schuur says, as I shall presently show. In dealing with the right of courts to intervene, he said that this was what the courts would do—

That is the view of the United States Supreme Court, and that view has been held consistently right down. The attitude of the Court is that this is a matter which lies with the executive and that the executive is in the best position to take a decision of this kind. It has the facts before it.

The same applied in an important case in the United Kingdom which dealt with the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 and with the well-known regulation, known as Regulation 18B, which allowed the Home Secretary to detain people without resort to courts of law. This was taken to the various courts. It ultimately ended up in the highest court in the country, the House of Lords, and the decision, as summarized in Wade and Philips, was as follows—

That is the case in the United Kingdom, a case which, one hopes, will be acceptable to hon. members of the Opposition. However, the hon. member for East London North, in his speech, referred to the South African situation and remarked that the powers taken by the Smuts Government during World War II did not go as far as this.

In this respect I wish to refer to the Government Gazette of 14 September 1939, and to the various powers which were set out therein, powers which the executive took. In a subsequent debate in this House, on 29 January 1940, when the War Measures Bill was being debated, the following exchange took place, which is really reminiscent of the debate which is taking place in this House today. In that debate Mr. Tom Naudé put a question to the then Prime Minister, Gen. Smuts, and the following was said (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 574)—

The Prime Minister: Yes, they can all have an opportunity.

Mr. Tom Naudé: I am glad to hear it, but however competent that official may be, hundreds of people have been locked up and it will take years before he will be able to deal with every case. Would it not be better for the Minister to give instructions to magistrates, judges or similar officials so that they can make an investigation?

The reply of Gen. Smuts to this was (col.688)—

Mr. Conradie then asked him why not, and Mr. Eric Louw asked him why it could not be dealt with by a special court, to which the Prime Minister replied—

But regarding the possibility of an appeal to the ordinary courts, this was denied by that Government, and it was denied on precisely the same grounds as this is denied in the case of the United Kingdom and in the case of the United States. Nobody claims that the measures which this Government has taken will solve the political problems of South Africa. The political problems must be solved by political means, and we have the political policies in that regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to the speeches which have been made so far in this debate. It has been a very interesting debate. In many respects it has been a very positive debate; in some respects it has, on the other hand been rather negative. The hon. member for Houghton thought it proper to want to deprive me of an amount of R20 000 of my salary. That leaves me with a mere R4 000 to try to make ends meet. I must say that in this respect I find myself in very good company. I find that on 18 June 1963, many years ago when the hon. member for Houghton was still very young and perhaps not as irritable as she is these days, she also wanted to reduce the salary of the then Minister of Justice. On that occasion she wanted to reduce the Minister’s salary by R5 000 which would have left him with a mere R6 000. The Minister of Justice at that time was the present Prime Minister.

Do not be too excited about your own chances!

It seems to me she is now reverting to her old tricks. She wants to reduce the salary of the Minister of Justice. The hon. member tried to kick off, but unfortunately her heel got caught in the seam of her dress, so she missed the ball completely. You headed her off, Mr. Chairman. She was very keen to smell my blood; she very dearly wanted to draw blood from the police. You headed her off, however, and brought her back to the subject of this debate. Unfortunately that took her completely by surprise, until twelve o’clock this afternoon, when she realized that a visitor was listening to her. Then she realized that she had to do something.

Who was that?

Many aspects were referred to in this debate. The hon. member for Houghton was keen to talk about everything under the sun. That reminded me of something I read in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll. It is a short quote which is applicable to the hon. member. It reads as follows—

The hon. member was very keen to ramble on in that way. I must congratulate you, however, Mr. Chairman, on having succeeded in putting that hon. member in her place to some extent. It is not easy to put such an hysterical shrew in her place.

Order!

Why do you not answer the debate?

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that word.

With great respect, Mr. Chairman, it is a very beautiful word. If one translates it, it means the same thing.

I am asking the hon. the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that in my humble opinion this is the first concession you are making to the hon. member. You are going to regret it, for she will use the advantage to throw open the debate again.

He has not withdrawn the word yet, Sir.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please withdraw the word?

I withdraw the word “shrew”. I notice the hon. member for Houghton is very grateful that I withdrew it. Is she not a shrew? Does she not feel that she is a shrew?

Order! The Minister must withdraw the word unconditionally.

Then I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. The first attack which came was a joint attack from the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for East London North. It revolved around “human rights”. Those two hon. members implied that human rights was a kind of legal rule. That is not true of course. It is an ideal that every nation has, and I do not think the hon. member wants to imply that South Africa does not or cannot satisfy the concept of human rights.

There is an Afrikaans word for that concept!

The idea of human rights is to be found at the United Nations, but Russia is also a member of that body. There are many countries which are members of the UN and which cannot comply with the definition which the hon. member for East London North gave us. When one talks about human rights, one is talking about one’s conscience. That is actually what one is talking about, one’s conscience as it responds to one’s treatment of other people and also the State’s treatment of its own people. I want to tell the hon. member for East London North straight away that this Government need not yield to any other Government in the world when it comes to so-called human rights. We need not yield to any other people when it comes to the defence of our people and the safe-guarding of our children. We are people who know how to treat others, but we also know how to fight for our own survival. We have no intention whatsoever—let me say that to the hon. member now—to forfeit our survival for what he might consider be the human rights standpoint. We shall take both these aspects into consideration, but we shall not neglect the one and not do the other. I can assure the hon. member of that.

Hon. members said that I had detained too many people and that my salary should therefore be reduced. Those hon. members have never really sat down and thought about what was going on in South Africa. They will state vaguely that we find ourselves in a dangerous situation, but they do not have the faintest notion of what it all means when they say that. I have to make it my business, for it is my job, to find out what it means, and I must do it in concrete terms so that I can take the necessary measures to keep South Africa safe.

It is all very well for those hon. members to come and sit here and write a little composition on human rights, but it is a different matter to sit in this bench and to have to take certain decisions which makes it possible for our people to sleep safely at night. It is easy to argue a debating point here. It is easy for the hon. member for Houghton to be acrimonious from morning till night, but it is another thing to deliberately ask oneself whether this person has to be restricted and whether that person has to be detained and to decide which norms one should apply.

Why do you not have help?

It is my unpleasant task to have to detain certain people, but it is pleasant thought, as hon. members on my side indicated, that it is appreciated, and that the people and the world outside can see that South Africa is a safe country. Those hon. members go overseas and it is they who boast and tell people that they can safely invest in South Africa because it is a stable country. They do not know however that in my office, in the office of the hon. the Prime Minister and in other offices of the Government there has to be planning to keep South Africa safe as a safe country for investment They merely talk in vague terms. It is easy for them to criticize and to say what they will do if they get into power. But they do not even have a policy for getting into power. Yet they go around bragging about what they will do when they get into power one day. In the meantime, while the dogs are barking this caravan must continue on its way and we are prepared to pull this caravan. We are prepared to keep South Africa safe.

Let us just come to a few of the hard facts of our situation for a moment. Those hon. members know about them, but they forget too easily. That hon. member is sitting in Houghton. This afternoon she demanded the blood of the S.A. Police again, and later in the afternoon she will get it. But she can come with her attack. She does not realize, however, that while she and her friends in Houghton were bragging about how they would put the “Nats” in their places and on what she should do in the House to create a front for the leftists to embarrass us, policemen were preventing the rioters in Alexandra from spilling over into Houghton and murdering a number of people there.

We should have left them.

And she does not even know about it. We do not brag about it you see.

When are you going to answer the questions?

The hon. member must not feel hurt now. I shall answer the questions when I want to. The hon. member can make his own speeches. He has not yet had the courage to make a speech today. Then he should not try to stop me when I am trying to reply to the allegations which were made here.

Give him 10 minutes of your time.

I have in my hand a publication entitled Amnesty for Terrorism. It is the answer to Amnesty International. Let me just say that I am not putting in a good word for the Department of Information. It is not necessary for me to do so. I did not have anything to do with the debate on that department, because I have nothing to do with the activities of the Department of Information. However, I have received the most sympathetic co-operation possible from that department. Here they have now drawn up a reply to the scandalous document which Amnesty International issued and which is so often quoted by the leftists on the opposite side of the House. In it a few of the things which happened are told. Let us just review them again. I know the hon. member for Houghton cannot stand it when we read such things. It hurts her to think that we pay attention to this kind of thing for she does not care what happens in South Africa. All she wants to do is to oust the Nationalist Government. That is all she wants. And she does not care how it is done. She is completely biased as far as the problems of South Africa are concerned. In this publication one reads—

I shall quote another example. These are things we read about in the newspapers, but they did not register. I quote further—

They were overpowered by the S.A. Police— not by members of the PFP.

How do you know which party they belonged to?

I give you another example—

So I can continue to point out real examples which did not take place in 1963, when that hon. member wanted to reduce the salary of the hon. the Prime Minister, but which took place now, last year, in South Africa and in the biggest cities of our country. That is not all, however.

I warned you about it.

Yes, she warns one about everything. She warns one about absolutely everything. She knows about everything and she knows how to govern. The only way in which she can govern is by concession and surrender. [Interjections.] The first thing she wants to do when she comes into power, is to go to Mr. Kapengbo and Mr. Buthelezi and to talk to them so that those hon. members can surrender as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

Here in my hand I have details of the true terrorist onslaught on South Africa. The number of sabotage incidents we have had amounts to 31. Six persons were killed in them, while 41 were injured. A total of 91 trained terrorists have been arrested. They were trained terrorists and not children with toys. They are people who can fight. As far as recruiters, recruits and collaborators are concerned, we have arrested 594 of them. It is about those people that the hon. member is quarrelling with me. Let us look at the atrocities which have been committed by those people in the Bantu areas since 1976. Firstly the Jabulani police station was attacked. Railway lines were blown up.

Is this the Police Vote or the Justice Vote?

The Bantu beer hall at Kathelong was attacked.

It is the wrong Vote.

Hampshire House, in Soweto, was attacked. The terrorist strikes at the heart of the Black people, but the hon. member creates the impression that it is the White people who are becoming afraid and that it is the White people who are the culprits. Why, then, are they shooting their own Black people to pieces? Surely there is no reason for that. Furthermore, shots were fired at the Koloketsi High School as well as the Pelican night club in Orlando. At Border Gate there was an incident which hon. members already know about.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order and in view of your earlier ruling, may I ask whether this should be discussed under the Justice Vote?

Order! The hon. the Minister is not discussing anything under the Police Vote at present. He is just giving examples of what happened. The hon. the Minister may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am just sketching the background.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: I would like to point out to you that the hon. the Minister has been referring to the fact that it is the police that have been preventing these events or intervening in them. Surely it is the police he is talking about?

Order! The hon. the Minister is only giving examples of what happened.

But he is talking about the work of the police.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the hon. member for Pinelands is becoming irritated. I can well understand it. I can understand it and he can understand it.

What do you mean by that?

He knows what I am talking about and I know what I am talking about.

I have nothing to hide. [Interjections.]

He knows very well and I said this last year already. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us look into this a little further, however. On the railway line between Grasmere and Stratford stations plastic explosives were used. In Goch Street, on the premises of John Orr, there was an incident, as well as in Winterveld, Pretoria. The railway line on the Umlazi section and the one at Kliptown on the New Canada section were blown up. The same goes for the railway line on the Tshiawelo/Midway section. The line between Horizon and Princess stations was also blown up. The same goes for the line between Georginia and Roodepoort.

At Vereeniging a substation was blown up; at Dobsonville a shot was fired; in the Trust Area in Pongola a shot was fired; there was an incident at the Carlton Centre; at the Irene railway station a mail-bag exploded. At the Germiston police station, the Benoni railway station and the O.K. Bazaars in Van Wyk Street, in Roodepoort, the devices failed to explode. There were similar incidents at 50 6th Avenue, Alexandra; at Trust Bank, corner of Eloff Street and Bree Street, but the device failed to detonate; damage of R7 000 to the Daveytown police station; an incident at Cawood Street, Port Elizabeth; damage in the backyard of the Bantu Administration Board, etc. These are the bombs bursting here in South Africa, but I am expected to sit back and listen to little compositions on human rights.

Nobody suggested that.

Let us take a look at the explosives which the police have so far found in our country. We already have 82 kg of TNT, plastic explosives, commercial explosives and an unknown explosive of Russian origin. We have found 127 detonators; 74 electrical detonators; 10 connector cap fuses; 443 percussion fuses; 35 metres of safety fuse and 50 percussion delayers. As far as switches for explosive devices are concerned, we have found the following: Pressure switches; time switches and pull switches. We have also found chemical substances, from which bombs can be manufactured, by the ton. We have also found the following arms and ammunition of Russian origin: Seven AK automatic rifles; 15 Scorpion machine pistols; one Czech model of a hand carbine; one Petersen hand carbine; five Tokarev pistols; one Walther pistol; one Makarov pistol; one Czech pistol and one revolver. So I can continue mentioning the various terrorist arms.

Rubbish.

I can understand the hon. member’s saying it is rubbish, for he does not want to hear it. The hon. member wants to close his ears to it. [Interjections.] Let us see what else has been found: 39 offensive hand grenades; 34 defensive hand grenades; four makeshift hand grenades; 56 hand grenade detonators; two personnel mines; defensive and aggressive booby traps; Makarov cartridges; pistol ammunition and hundreds of other cartridges. See how the hon. member for Houghton is smiling about that.

Try answering a few questions.

In the light of the attack by the hon. member for East London North here in the House, the question is: Are we acting like civilized people or not? I am going to repeat what the English have to say about the matter, for those hon. members do not want to hear it, they do not want to listen to it and they do not want to understand it. Lord Denning made the following statement in a case in which the security of his country was involved—

That does not apply to these hon. members, however. For them these concepts take priority, no matter whether the security of the State is involved and whether our people, the public, are in danger because of these bombs. As long as one adheres to the rule of law and as long as human rights are adhered to on paper, they are satisfied.

We never said that.

The hon. member for East London North would now like me to appoint a legal tribunal. Let us see what the English law has to say about that. The English law very clearly states—as long ago as 1916 in an appeal case by Lord Parker and Samora that—

No one but the executive council of the Government, is responsible for national security and must determine what is necessary for national security and how it should be done. Hon. members must not expect me to delegate that task to the judiciary, which has an entirely different function. It is in no way the function of the judiciary to govern a country and to have to determine at particular points in time without evidence, whether a dangerous situation is existing in the country or not. The judiciary, without evidence, is not in a position to know what the Cabinet knows. It is simply not possible for them.

Why do you quote judges then?

I only quoted judges to give you the principles involved, principles which you do not accept in any event. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the hon. member does not accept the Western ideas of the rule of law. [Interjections.]

*I want to state categorically that it is an unpleasant task for me …

I thought it all left you cold?

Some things leave me cold, and some things do not. I may tell the hon. member that he leaves me cold.

Order! I should not like to prohibit interjections, but it seems to me hon. members want to compel me to do so. I want to ask hon. members for their co-operation so that we may conduct a proper debate, and they must give the hon. the Minister a chance to complete his speech. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, but I might just tell you that I shall not allow myself to be put off by the hon. members. They do not frighten me. Sir, I understand the situation in South Africa very well, because I live with it day and night. The hon. member who clings to little clichés for getting in little pinpricks at people, does not bluff me at all. I know he is always ready with “It left me cold”, to try to score a debating point off me, but it will not prevent us from continuing with our task of safeguarding South Africa. I will come to the hon. member’s little party in a moment.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me to furnish her with statistics. She always makes a great fuss, as though I do not furnish the necessary figures. I want to tell her that there are at present 66 terrorist cases before the courts. The hon. member may write that down so that she can go and give it to her leftist friends.

I do not… [Interjections.]

The hon. member may write that down so that she can send it or signal it over to her leftist friends in America and Britain, and Donald Woods in London can broadcast it. [Interjections.] The hon. member must take down these particulars now, for her leftist friends are waiting for them. That is why she asked the question. She is the front here in Parliament for obtaining the required particulars for her leftist friends. [Interjections.] That is true.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to make the assertion that I am the front here for “linksgesindes” outside Parliament? …

I said your “linkse vriende”.

… and that I am acting against the interests of the country?

Order! It is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member told me in all sincerity that Mrs. Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela were her friends, but now she becomes angry when I tell her that she gives these particulars to her leftists friends. She should not get cross about it.

You do not allow me to go to Robben Island.

Order! The hon. member must not carry on with a continuous stream of interjections.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but can you ask the hon. the Minister to stop being so insulting? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member was being insulting to me, I did not run away. I had to sit and listen. But the hon. member cannot run away from her friends now. We know that she went to celebrate a commemoration day at the University of the Witwatersrand on 16 June. She was the speaker at that occasion.

Well?

What commemoration was that? It was a commemoration of an uprising!

And she was the one who was extolled there. The hon. member must not run away from her friends now; I am not running away from mine. I am furnishing the hon. member with more figures so that she can convey them as well to her leftist friends.

You talk such nonsense.

Order! If the hon. member continues with her interjections, I shall have to take steps against her.

In terms of section 6(1) of the Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967, 168 people are being detained. The hon. member can write that down.

I shall.

That is good. In terms of section 22(1) of that Act, five people are being detained with the consent of judges. In terms of section 12B a total of 111 witnesses in 66 cases are being detained by the Attorney-General so that they cannot vanish, be intimidated or be murdered if they are released. It is for that reason that they are being detained in prison, and not because I have no feeling for human rights—I do have a feeling for human rights—but because I cannot throw those 111 people to the wolves. That is impossible. But the hon. member wants me to let them go. I have all the details of the court cases, and I could give them as well to the hon. member so that we can again hear them over the foreign radio stations, even though we do not hear them over our own radio.

There are many people who are again trying to commemorate the 16th of June. I really hope the hon. member for Houghton will refrain from attending that type of commemoration festival. She would do well to leave that to the younger people like the hon. member for Pinelands. He will not be unwilling to attend that.

You would like to get me, would you not?

I have received a letter from the principal of a Black school in which he thanks me for what has been done to safeguard them so that they can carry on with their examinations. I shall read out this letter during the discussion of the next Vote. It is not relevant now.

Let us look at my own position in respect of detentions. People are being detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. It is not I who detain them. If hon. members had taken the trouble to do their homework and had looked at the Act, they would have known that an officer above a certain rank may detain any person. I, as the Minister of Justice, have inserted certain safeguards for those people in the Act. The first one provides that a magistrate must visit those people every two weeks. He is a person from the Department of Justice. If there are any complaints, they are immediately investigated. The other precautionary measure which we have adopted—that is also contained in the Act—is that the Department of Police should report to me every month why people are being detained for longer periods. That is a safeguard for those people. I went further and appointed two erudite legal men of status—I have their qualifications in writing. Mr. Willem van den Berg is known in the Cape, and Mr. Braam Mouton is known in the Transvaal. Both are people whose integrity is unquestioned. An agreement has also been reached with the S.A. Police that these two people must know where every person is being detained and that they can pay surprise visits at any time. This is not being done because the policemen are under suspicion—I shall still come to the Biko case. It is precisely because I want to protect them against the continual attacks of the Official Opposition sitting opposite me here, who have a policy of running down the Security Police, and that plays right into the hands of the enemies of South Africa. The more unpopular one makes one’s police, in the highest council chambers and at meetings, the more the enemies of South Africa will try to overwhelm us.

You have given them more ammunition than anyone else.

No. I am giving that ammunition only because that hon. member forces me to talk about those things in debates. I do not want to talk about them.

It is your own actions which give them ammunition.

I do not want to talk about that. But if I do not do so the leftist Press pounces and wants to know what is going on. Then they ask: How many people are you detaining now? The Minister is perhaps detaining thousands of people, but we know nothing about that. They rake everything up, ask questions, they debate, and they disparage. As far as the Terrorism Act is concerned, the detentions are done by the police. I am going to give a perfect, classic example. Section 10(1)bis gives us the power to remove people from a situation when we know that they are instigating unrest. We have the evidence, but we are perhaps unable to charge them.

Why not?

Because there is not sufficient evidence. I shall come to the British position in a moment. They are in precisely the same position. It is a good thing that that hon. member made his interjection from the back benches. It was necessary for us to introduce an ordinary internment section. But the moment I did that, I felt that I also wanted a safeguard for my own position, and I had a provision inserted in the Act that there should be a review committee and that what I have and on the grounds of which I must exercise my discretion, should also be given to the review committee because we were going to put people in prison here. I shall come to the restrictions in a moment. But I felt that in connection with those people who would be put in prison for a period—people who would not immediately be charged—I should prefer to submit all the particulars to other people. But what happened today? What was the evidence last year? The hon. member for Houghton said scornfully as an allegation against the three jurists that all 135 people who were detained last year had their detention orders confirmed by the review committee. She asked how that could be possible. I shall tell her how that can be possible. My discretion was correctly exercised. They saw the evidence and said it was correct. At present there are 68 people in this category. Periodically the review committee reviews the situation. The review committee has requested me to release nine people. I immediately agreed and released the nine. What is more: Even before the review committee had looked into the matter, I had already released nine on the basis of reports which I had received. The hon. member for Houghton also alleged that I am indifferent. I am not indifferent about this; I went to take a personal look at the position. But what puzzles me now, is an interesting situation which has arisen. When the situation in South West Africa deteriorated, one of my officials went there at the request of the Administrator General. Because this legislation had been so well prepared, exactly the same legislation was adopted in South West Africa. It is legislation which does not differ at all from this Act The hon. member for East London North, who is hiding in the back benches again, said to me: “Mr. Justice Steyn acts only on the recommendation of the judiciary in South West Africa”

†But the hon. member is wrong. He is entirely wrong. Mr. Justice Steyn does things exactly the way I do it. All his decisions, too, are submitted to a review committee. He does it in exactly the same way and under exactly the same sort of legislation as I do it. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. [Interjections.] But now I find a very peculiar situation here. We are dealing here with exactly the same legislation, and when the judge in South West exercises his discretion, hon. members of the Opposition are satisfied; but as soon as the Minister of Justice exercises his discretion there is hullabaloo. What is the reason for that? One asks what the reason for that is. The reason is purely a political one. There is no one in this House who has not known me long enough to know that my integrity is above suspicion. Just because things in South West fall outside the sphere of influence of their politics, they endorse those actions, but as soon as it happens here in South Africa, it is another matter. Then I may not detain people. Then detention is a sin, in conflict with human rights, something terribly arbitrary. Then I simply act, and my salary must be reduced. Then I am denigrated in the Press and it is said “It leaves me cold”, and I do not know what else. The reason for that is that those hon. members are pitiably politically-orientated. That is the only reason. They are only interested in one thing, and that is to break the NP. If South Africa is harmed in the process, it leaves them cold. That is the crux of the matter. [Interjections.]

Now I come to the restrictions. There are Black Power movements throughout South Africa. Last year, we had to impose restrictions on them. Hon. members can go and look at what is stated in the Act. The hon. member for East London North has never read the Act. Here we are up against organizations that were the subject of a prior investigation by a committee. The committee arrives at a finding and makes a recommendation to me. Only then do I ban a particular organization. That is laid down in the Act. The hon. member for East London North does not have the faintest notion of the Act, and yet he came here from the Provincial Council. He knows nothing about the Act. [Interjections.] There are jurists who investigate these matters and report to me. In the cases under discussion, they gave me detailed and well-founded reports in which they recommended that the organizations concerned be banned. I then banned these organizations.

But now my action is being branded as wrong. I am supposed to have acted arbitrarily. When it comes to the restriction of a person, a recommendation is first done by another department to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice correlates the facts, processes them, and submits them to me. If, then, for whatever reasons, I have to restrict the person concerned, I do so.

Now I am being asked why we do not charge him. It often happens that the people who are concerned, are young people. In many cases, they are people whom we do not even want to charge. When one wants to charge the person concerned, it is often necessary to obtain information from certain sources close to him in order to obtain evidence. Sometimes this cannot be done. We do not simply want to put a person in prison. We would prefer to put a stop to the mischief in which he is engaged. We merely restrict him in order to put a stop to the mischief in which he is engaged. It is as Dr. Chris Barnard said: When a man has a latent illness which may infect other people, one must isolate him; one has no choice. Let me point out to the hon. member that I do this as humanely as possible. There are many people who come to me and say that they are no longer able to work. When that happens, I try to obtain work for them or I try to alter the restriction order in such a way that they can do their work, but no mischief. We try to judge every individual case on its merits. The hon. members do not know how often the family of some of those people come and chat to me in my office. How many times have I already said to people: Look, if you are prepared to exercise control over the person concerned, he can do this, that and the other. We have tried our best to act humanely at all times in these cases. We are however not prepared to have irreparable harm done to South Africa by subversives in South Africa.

As far as this question is concerned, I want to point out, in conclusion, that the British have precisely the same thing. In Britain, they also have terrorist legislation.

Do hon. members know how far the Home Secretary in Britain can go? He can go much further than I can. He can ban an organization without making use of the services of a committee. That is something which I cannot do. He can proscribe an organization. He can expel people from the United Kingdom. He can ban them from the country for 20 years. He can even ban British subjects from the country for 20 years. That can be done by means of his signature only. That is something which I cannot do.

The British law has safeguards.

Ah, now I have said something about the beloved British again, and so she jumps to her feet! [Interjections.] What happens in Germany? Listen to this—

That is to say, without the intervention of the courts—

But it is only in South Africa where this can be done and where criticism must be expressed. When those people do it, everything is in order and not a word is heard from the Opposition.

We are not the Opposition in the British Parliament.

I now come to the Biko affair. I am not going to say much about that, because this debate is concerned only with the inquest. I should like to read what the advocate said according to the court records. The advocate to whom I am referring, is not Mr. Van Rooyen, but Mr. Kentridge—

Now we come to the presiding officer.

It is always being held out to us how excellent our administration of justice in this country is, but when the finding of a court is such that the hon. member for Houghton does not agree with it, it is no longer a court of law. Then the presiding officer has deliberately given a finding which is different to what it should have been.

What you say makes it worse.

In other words, the hon. member for Houghton is only satisfied with one thing, viz. with a court of law which is so prejudiced that it would send a policeman to the gallows or which would get at a policeman and say that he is responsible. That is the only court which will be fair, and no other!

To the hon. member for Johannesburg North I want to say …

The “sheriff".

… that I stood before him for many years, and I am telling him this afternoon that I understand his position. He need not do so in public, but he should definitely repudiate what the hon. member for Houghton said in this House about this magistrate, otherwise I can have no respect for him. I want to tell him straight out that I have very little respect for him in any case.

I stand by everything I said. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton says “I stand by everything I said”.

Of course, I do not agree with it…

She will stand by it because in this House she operates under a parliamentary system which makes it possible for her to say the things which she says here.

Of course, I am entitled to do it.

I grant her that. It is her right, but her little voice must not go up the scale when we also criticize her. That is all. That she must clearly understand.

I now come to the speeches of some of the other members. The hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Pretoria Central have in fact replied to the allegations made here. They did this very well. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke about training in the Department of Justice. He pointed out—and in my humble opinion he was absolutely correct—that the people in charge of training in the Department of Justice, are people who must be transferred in order to get promotion and he has asked me whether we could not build up a stable training structure. I shall look into that. That was a sound proposal.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about the registration of deeds. With reference to his proposal that the amendments to the Deeds Registry Act which confer greater responsibilities upon conveyancers, should not be put into operation, I want to say that I am quite prepared to accede to that request by the hon. member for Newton Park. The provisions concerned were placed on the Statute Book when there was a great flow of work to the deeds registry, and serious staff problems were being experienced. In the meantime, the number of deeds to be registered has declined considerably, and there is a noticeable improvement in the staff position. The deeds registries are therefore now able to cope with the work and the Government is, in the nature of things, always prepared to accept responsibility for the principles on which our sound system of registration is built. Moreover, it now appears that the provisions are giving rise to practical problems which could not have been foreseen at the time. If circumstances should subsequently develop which may again give rise to the consideration of provisions of this nature, the entire matter will of course again be looked into.

I come now to the hon. member for Walmer. He made an interesting speech and submitted a number of interesting ideas to me. I appreciate that. I think that I have virtually replied to his questions already. He suggested that restrictions, etc. should be handed over to the Attorneys-General. That was his first request. It is not possible for me as a Minister to divest myself of the responsibility which Parliament has conferred upon me. I am prepared at all times to bear that responsibility myself.

Another proposal which the hon. member made was that the Attorneys-General should apparently be completely independent of my department. Of course that cannot happen either. There is no complaint against the Attorneys-General. The status of the Attorneys-General is very high. I want to assure the hon. member that I as the Minister do not, under any circumstances, meddle in the activities of the Attorneys-General. The Act provides that the Attorneys-General can handle certain cases after they have discussed them with me. I can tell the hon. member that it hardly ever happens that an Attorney-General asks for my advice about what he should do. What he does do, is merely to inform me. He does that for the protection also of the hon. members on the opposite side and not only for the protection of hon. members on this side. I have decided—and I do not apologize for that—that in the case of prominent public figures, I just want to satisfy myself that prosecutions should be instituted. As far as that is concerned, the Government has a record. We have not withheld prosecutions. Many people have been prosecuted who were close to the Government. We have never withheld a prosecution. However, I should like to have the right to make sure that when the hon. member for Houghton, for example, is charged, if it should ever happen, it is not merely a matter of complaints made by people.

You would love that.

I must satisfy myself that it is quite in order that the case may proceed.

I can see your mouth watering.

For that reason I say that the present system works well. Attorneys-General enjoy the highest status in the country. We need not tamper with this matter. It is a fundamental principle with me not to tamper unnecessarily with something which has been working well for years, and the position in respect of the Attorneys-General is an example.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North gave a very interesting and illuminating elucidation of the double Bar system in south Africa He indicated that it is a good system, and I agree with that. As is the case with all systems, our system is growing, and developing its own character. We started off with a double Bar system like the one the British had. But today we do not apply it exactly like the British Bars and Side Bars. We have built up a South African Bar and Side Bar tradition, and it works extremely well. It has already been working well for 60 to 65 years, and I should not like to tamper with it. Why should we now go and search for court specialists among the Side Bar who have a wider field of movement than the advocate? I do not wish to refer to legal writings and the pronouncement of sentences, but if hon. members compare our decisions and judgments with those of any others in the world, they will see that the South Africa law and jurists have produced very profound arguments and that our decisions are firmly founded on the Roman Dutch law. That is a tradition which we value very highly, and we shall not easily tamper with it.

The hon. member for Algoa discussed legal aid. That is an important part of the South African administration of justice. But I should like to make it quite clear that legal aid does not exist simply to be given to every person who wants it. That is not the idea behind legal aid. The idea behind legal aid is that when a person cannot afford the costs of legal proceedings because he does not have the means and he has a good case—and I want to stress that—a case which he ought to bring before a court, the richer sector of society helps the poorer sector of society to allow the administration of justice to take place. But that is not what they do in other countries. I have made a study of legal aid; in fact, my maiden speech in this House dealt with legal aid. I made a study of legal aid in other countries, and I can assure hon. members that I do not want legal aid as I saw it there. I do not want legal aid which is available to all and sundry. We are surely not a socialistic society. One should do the things for which one can pay, and if one cannot pay and one has a good case, one must be put in a position to bring one’s case before a court. Our systems are of such a nature that just about every person who needs legal aid, can obtain it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how a person who has no knowledge of the law is able to judge whether he had a case or not? Surely that is why he needs help.

When a person applied for legal aid, his case is discussed with the attorneys, and they look into it. The jurists therefore see whether or not he has a case. I want to assure the hon. member that we cannot simply give every person legal aid. Surely we are not a welfare State. [Interjections.] This year we made provision for an additional R500 000, apart from the R1 million which is normally budgeted for this purpose. We shall, however, try to make still more money available for that purpose so that legal aid can be even more effective.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, with good reason, quarrelled with the hon. member for Houghton in connection with her statement about the inquest in the case of the late Mr. Biko. I honestly think that the hon. member for Houghton should state in very plain language that she did not intend the “deliberately” at all. The question has been put to her three times.

You have already said that.

There is no doubt. Her about-turn came only after her fellow members had started to argue with her. She should realize herself that these blows which she metes out to our judiciary, are wrong. She must not run away from that. I know the hon. member will never concede that she was wrong, but in this case she is wrong, and she must admit it.

She has rectified the matter.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a very enlightened speech and gave a fine exposition indicating that South Africa was not the only country that is experiencing problems. Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me a few more minutes, I should just like to touch on a few problems which my department and our courts are experiencing with the administration of justice. For many years already, the charge has been levelled at the Government that it acts against subversive elements by means of administrative measures. It is ostensibly a disregard for human rights to try and thwart a person in his subversive activities in any way but through the intervention of the courts. On our part, we regard it as the primary task of any government to ensure the security of the state in its country and to maintain law and order, and that it can also do so by way of administrative action against persons, organizations and publications if circumstances so require. That is a view which is part of internationally recognized standards. But those norms nevertheless prescribe that arbitrary tampering with the freedom of the individual in the interests of the security of the State, is only permissible when abnormal circumstances make that unavoidable. Because we subscribe to those standards, we constantly try to restrict the activities of subversive elements by intervention of the courts. But such a policy has already cost South Africa dearly over the years, because the revolutionary also has his creed. To him nothing is sacred, except the revolution. He even uses students and scholars, as we have seen only recently. Furthermore, he uses labour organizations, and we know that the classic Communist revolution must be a workers’ revolution. He uses culture, from whence we get the so-called counter-culture, which is primarily a consciousness movement. He uses the church, religion; from whence we get Black theology and the theology of revolution. Then, too, the revolutionary uses the democratic legal system. He insists on trial in an open court, but the moment he enters that court, he will flagrantly—what I am saying here, I say deliberately because these are all things which we have experienced—break every sacred legal rule, as long as it is in the interests of his revolution. That is why in Germany, for example, a concrete bunker courtroom had to be built and measures had to be introduced to keep collaborating legal practitioners away from their clients. We here in South Africa have for a long time been aware of how our legal system and our court procedures are being abused, but the problem has become so serious in recent times that it can no longer be ignored. When one looks at the problem, it is always good to keep in mind a revolutionary and what I call his credo. He has been taught that the democracies are vulnerable precisely in those very fields where the most typical basic rules are applied. The problems we are encountering with the trials of our security cases in our courts, fits in neatly with this pattern. There are five aspects of the problem in particular which can be distinguished. In the first place, it has become clear over the years that, during security trials, delaying tactics are very often resorted to. Our democratic court procedures can easily be abused for this purpose without the presiding judges or the judicial officers being aware of that and without their being able to do anything to prevent that. The benefits inherent in such tactics are that witnesses can vanish or can be influenced, that the memories of witnesses will become vague, and the longer a trial lasts, the longer it can be used as a subject of propaganda. Every application for a remand, every objection to procedure and every allegation of improper conduct by the police, offers an opportunity for political demonstrations and for news coverage. The longer the trial lasts, the longer there is the opportunity for demonstrations in and around the court. In that way, a considerable number of police officers and court officials are kept so busy during such a trial that it makes it impossible for those policemen to do other counter-subversive work in the meantime. While a court, with its local staff, is kept busy with one particular case, the next trial cannot take place.

Demonstrations in and around the courts are yet another aspect of our problem. During the past few years, this phenomenon has increased to a perturbing extent. Supporters of the accused or supporters of their particular line of action are brought together and driven to the court-room. They take up their seats in the court-room in good time and normally occupy all the available space. The accused then enter the hall singing and with clenched fists, take their places in the dock and, standing, turn to the audience, whereupon all of them—accused and audience—then sing inflammatory songs. Brief speeches are also made. Only when the tumult has subsided can the court session commence. When the hearing is adjourned, the accused and the audience all leave the court-room singing, and the entire procedure is repeated with every adjournment and resumption of the trial. The supporters frequently continue their activities outside the court building and in the adjoining streets. To accompany the singing and the clenched-fist salutes, there is dancing, slogans are shouted and posters are displayed for the express purpose of attracting the attention of the Press, film and television photographers. These court demonstrations obviously serve a propaganda purpose, but also entail that large numbers of police officers have to be withdrawn from their normal duties to control the situation at the court and to protect the public against the real danger of violence which may arise from such an inflammatory situation.

A third aspect of the problem is the intimidation of witnesses. Those people who can give evidence in connection with offences against the security of the State, are often able to do so precisely because they have, in some way or another, had access to the inner circle of the subversive elements, or even because they have been a part of that inner circle. They know that others who, in the past, have testified in such circumstances, have become outcasts. They also know that the homes of others have been burnt down and that their families have been injured, that others have already been assaulted and murdered. When the first day of the trial arrives, they have heard and witnessed what, has been happening from the outset, and often they have had to live through the strained circumstances surrounding the trial for days, or even months, while they await their turn to testify. On the day on which they enter the witness box, there is an oppressive and hostile atmosphere. From the audience, signs are constantly being given to them, and sometimes a member of the audience draws his finger across his throat to let the witness know what is awaiting him. It must truly be a strong witness who does not waver under such circumstances, and there are many examples of witnesses who had made statements and who were prepared to testify, but whose courage forsook them at that moment. The pattern which normally follows, is that the witness refuses to testify, deviates from his evidence on important points, has suddenly forgotten everything, or alleges that the police assaulted him or forced him to make a statement.

Another aspect of the problem is that a few advocates and attorneys repeatedly appear in security cases. I want to make it clear here that this does not refer to advocates and attorneys in general, nor to all the advocates and attorneys who appear in security cases, but to those individuals who are begining to associate themselves with the objectives of the subversive elements to such an extent that misgivings are begining to arise about the confidence which can be placed in them as officers of the court. It is not in the interests of sound administration of justice if an attorney or an advocate collaborates in what are clearly delaying tactics, or if an advocate connives at court demonstrations; or if an attorney constantly turns to the audience, together with his clients, and shouts Black Power slogans while giving a Black Power salute; or if an attorney makes it his business to act as the local agent for funds earmarked for security cases and, in the process, seeks clients and reasons to spend that money; or when an attorney uses such money, not to defend the client, but for the means of transport and conveyance of spectators to the court; or if an advocate accepts that it is obviously, in his own interests to drag out a case and to act in accordance with the wishes of his open-handed paymasters; and so on. I have been informed that in one particular case, an advocate was paid a fixed amount of R10 000 per month and another advocate in another case, R8 000 per month, and that those advocates boasted to their colleagues about it and about the possibility of their cases being remanded.

We had a Bram Fischer who was the underground chief of the Communist Party while at the same time he was defending communist subversives in our courts. Probably very few of us know that long after Bram Fischer had vanished from the scene, continuous transcriptions of trial proceedings were still being sent to Moscow so that the evidence could be analysed there to find out the working-methods of our security police or to find out what security police knew and to use the information they obtained in that way, when prospective subversives were taught how to deal with the situation if they were arrested by the police.

The last facet of the problem which I want to state, is the vast amounts of money which are made available for the defence of accused persons in security cases. At first glance this seems to be a commendable project. It is only when one asks oneself whether it is only accused persons in security cases who need the assistance of legal representatives, that one begins to smell a rat. If what had been involved was merely the principle of the matter, then why the terrible concern about them only? Why be concerned at all when pro Deo advocates who are paid by the State are available to defend the accused persons in terrorist cases and when there is a Legal Aid Bureau? The Defence and Aid Fund, which was declared an unlawful organization in 1966, was also engaged in activities of this kind, and it is interesting once again to listen to what a man from the inner circles of that organization said about the objectives of his organization. Canon Collins said about the Defence and Aid Fund in 1963—

In 1966, the same Canon Collins said as a witness before a UN organ—

The major portion of the vast amounts of money which are provided for legal representation in security cases, does not come from welfare organizations; it comes from political organizations which donate money with a political purpose. A man can be persuaded much more easily to undergo training as a terrorist or saboteur if he is assured that if he gets caught his legal representation will be paid for, and that if he has to serve a term of imprisonment, his studies will be paid for and his wife and children will be cared for. Consequently the instigators of revolution in South Africa are therefore trying to provide this type of service in support of those who have to run risks as a result of their subversive activities. Apart from that, those who supply the funds, can prescribe who must be defended and also by whom and how the defence must take place. A prolonged trial offers excellent propaganda material which can effectively be used against us. On the other hand, fund raising campaigns are handled in such a way that they are nothing but propaganda campaigns. Money is asked for on the basis of the most gruesome stories which are dished up to a gullible public. Another privilege for the instigators of subversion, is that the people concerned need not make use of the available Government aid. They need not accept Government aid which is made available to needy persons. They need not make use of pro Deo advocates who are paid by the State. That is an important psychological manoeuvre in order to alienate the revolutionary from the existing dispensation and to make him dependent upon the revolutionary authority for his needs. I just want to emphasize that we have no objection to money being made available for the defence of accused persons. On the contrary. We welcome that. But it is an entirely different matter if such money is used in a clandestine way to undermine the country.

I now just want to point out briefly the most important aspects of the problem confronting us. The problem has been deliberated on at length. Numerous measures have been proposed as a solution. But the subverter has chosen his field well. As democrats we are vulnerable, because preventive measures must necessarily be of such a nature that even in favourably disposed quarters, they may be described as a negation of the basic principles of law. We are dealing here with an important facet of an onslaught, not on the Government, but on a Government system and a way of life. Essentially, we are up against a deliberate subversion of our democratic legal system.

During the recess, I shall again have the entire matter looked into in order to ascertain what can be done about it, and in the meantime I feel at liberty to ask for the co-operation of our entire legal community in our efforts to withstand the onslaught against us. I have the fullest confidence in the controlling bodies of the legal professions. Possibly they can see whether there are not ways of preventing individual members of the profession from contributing to the subversion of the legal system which we know and in which we believe.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, before he sits down, whether he is aware of a meeting which took place yesterday on the campus of the University of Cape Town and which was addressed by two leaders representing the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Churches of South West Africa? Is he aware of the fact that one of their leaders is supposed to have given a Black Power salute on entering the hall? Is he aware of the fact that serious allegations of torture and intimidation were made against officials and soldiers in South West Africa? Is he aware of the fact that inciting pro-Swapo speeches were made to some 800 students who were present? If he is aware of it, does he have any comment to make?

Mr. Chairman, from Press reports I am aware of the fact that it occurred yesterday. I have not had an opportunity yet of having a look at any police reports in the matter. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that I shall look into the matter. If anything has to be done about it, we shall do it. I want to tell the hon. member that we are aware that this type of agitation does go on in South Africa and that these agitators are trying to use cultural institutions for this type of insidious undermining of South Africa’s efforts to stay alive in a very difficult world. If the hon. member for Houghton would stop smiling, I also want to appeal to her to work with us in this effort to maintain what we consider to be a democratic system under which all in South Africa can live in peace together.

Mr. Chairman, in his report to the Minister, the Secretary for Justice devotes an entire chapter to the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 which was officially promulgated on 6 May last year and which has been implemented in the courts since 22 July 1977. That was the culmination of a long process of consideration and thought, and it was initially the target of sharp criticism from various quarters. The implementation of this Act, which contains several new principles of criminal procedure must, in the nature of things, have been a highlight in the activities of the department in the past year. The fact that this Act could be implemented so smoothly and so successfully in our criminal courts so shortly after its promulgation, entitles the Minister and those of his staff who were concerned with this, to the highest praise and appreciation. Once again, this has shown what can be achieved with dedicated and well-trained professional staff under the able guidance of an hon. Minister who is worthy of this portfolio.

By now this Act has been applied for nine months, and one can agree with the hon. member for Algoa that it is not yet possible to give a final judgment on it at this stage. Nevertheless, it is perhaps as well to look back at certain aspects of the Act as they have taken shape in practice, and to ascertain what their effect has been. As we all know, there are certain provisions which are intended to curtail the hearing time of cases and to bring about a resultant saving in cost, in that unnecessary evidence need no longer be led in the courts, unless those aspects are placed in issue by the parties concerned.

From personal experience, observations, and discussions with judicial officers, I can state without fear of contradiction at this stage that since this Act came into operation, no unnecessary wastage of hearing time has been taking place. In many cases, the volume of work per case has drastically declined. As far as the submission of evidence is concerned, there has been a shift in emphasis from the quantitative to the qualitative. The focus is on what is essential. Before the commencement of the substantive trial, the wheat is sifted from the chaff, as it were. Because the issue between the State and the accused is clearly established, there is more penetrating argument on the essence of the case—without the danger of digressing into irrelevancies. Because no time is now wasted, it has also entailed the additional benefit of productivity. This benefit has become manifested in respect of three aspects of the administration of law in particular.

In the first place, the normal volume of cases per day is disposed of sooner and in many cases, the volume could be increased. Secondly: In many cases, the presiding officer now also has more time to dispose of the administrative work entrusted to him under the Act; and at the same time, it has enabled the public prosecutor to prepare himself for the next day’s criminal roll. Lastly, it has also had the result that because the prosecutor has studied his case properly, further waste of time has been minimized. This improvement in the administration of justice is in sharp contrast to the last phase under the old Act, when an overworked and unprepared prosecutor touched on this and touched on that and ultimately missed the mark completely— and in so doing pushed up the blood pressure of all people concerned with the case, while the clock ticked on relentlessly. The productivity which this Act has entailed is not only confined to the department, but it has indeed also extended to the sphere of the private practitioner, who can now work more productively and render services without some of the frustrations caused by the old Act.

The Secretary also points out that in a sound administration of justice, time and costs are not the predominant factors. I want to go further by pointing out that no limitations must be placed on the sound administration of justice. Then, too, I want to add at once that the saving in time and costs which is the necessary outcome of certain of the provisions of this Act, has not shown the least sign of violation of the principle of sound administration of justice. According to the critics, it would especially have been section 115, and to a certain extent sections 112 and 144, which would have posed the greatest threat as regards a possible infringement of the rights of the individual. To a certain extent, this has introduced the inquisitorial basis, which is implemented in the hearing of criminal cases in Western Europe. In spite of the initial fears, practice has shown that this principle does not prejudice the accused.

When an accused person admits his guilt in terms of section 112, the elements of the definition of the offence are put to him, and he is afforded the opportunity of either admitting or denying them. Only thereafter does the presiding officer decide whether the accused person is guilty in law. This state of affairs has resulted in people who had previously admitted guilt in error, now enjoying the privilege of the decision of the presiding officer, so that it is less easy for them to be found guilty erroneously. Section 115 has found great favour with the legal profession. Formerly, the profession basically approached the representative of the State at the time of the trial to try and come to an agreement as to what allegations were at issue between the two parties. The purpose was that the conduct of the case could be limited to those issues. As a result of a suspicion which arose with certain public prosecutors, they did not always want to make use of this concession—which was applicable in terms of the old Criminal Procedure Act—from fear that the defence was possibly misleading them, and also because in certain cases it was a requirement that evidence had to be led even though the facts of the case were in no way at issue.

This state of affairs made it necessary to listen for hours to unnecessary, eliminable and time-consuming formal evidence—evidence on which the defence did not put a single question during cross-examination. Now that the accused has to disclose his defence at the commencement of the case, great progress has been made in favour of the accused in comparison with how trials were conducted in the early years and as we know it today, since the accused could only be seen but not heard. Until very recently, in terms of the English law of criminal procedure, an accused could adduce evidence to prove his innocence on the charge brought against him, but he could not give evidence himself. This method, whereby the issues of the case must be clearly ascertained, corresponds to a great extent with the ways and methods required in civil cases.

The mistake which critics made in connection with these sections, was that they read them as meaning that the accused had to disclose his evidence—which is indeed not the case. Only the points at issue must be ascertained before the commencement of the trial, and in practice, therefore, there is no derogation from fairness or justice. It has also been shown in practice that the accused has a clearer grasp of the charge against him, and of the precise allegations made against him. From the nature of the case, this facet is of great practical assistance in the preparation of criminal cases. Apart from that, he retains his right to obtain fuller particulars in connection with the allegations on the part of the State— just as was the case in terms of the old Act A last aspect to which I want to refer, is that the increased jurisdiction of the lower courts, where the vast majority of cases are disposed of, has in turn given rise to a new phenomenon in the Supreme Court. Whereas in the past, the judge had a reasonably balanced count roll of complicated and so-called simple cases, the roll now consists almost exclusively of technically complicated and long-drawn-out cases which require the highest degree of attention and concentration on the part of the bench throughout—with the exception, perhaps, of the so-called judgment cases. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a special matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I already indicated to him that I would be doing so. Before I get on to that subject, however, I want to make two things quite clear. The one is that I said in public during the election campaigns that I believed Soweto was a place which was in a state of revolution. With that I meant a real, genuine, historical revolution. It appears to me that by this time we have managed to contain the situation. I stand back for nobody when I stress the seriousness of the situation which we are in in south Africa. I think anybody who has studied the tactics of revolution in our time can see events which took place elsewhere being duplicated step after step. The classic situation, of course, is Algeria, but those events were also duplicated in Vietnam. I am of the opinion that we are in a situation the seriousness of which the public does not quite realize.

Nevertheless you want to vote against the Minister’s salary.

I shall tell the hon. member about that in a minute.

The hon. the Minister set out in some considerable detail the way in which the security legislation is executed. I am glad he has done so because he has clarified certain points. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for East London North that the hon. the Minister should make use of a judicial tribunal is on the right track; we certainly have put this proposal before. The hon. the Minister has now indicated that he is using a judicial tribunal of this nature post facto, since the tribunal can take decisions which the hon. the Minister has made into review after he has made them. What I cannot understand—I hope the hon. the Minister will clarify the position—is why it is that he is not able to rely on the decisions of the tribunal before he takes the decision if he can rely on the tribunal after he has been taking decisions. If he should rely on the tribunal before he makes a decision, it would appear to me that he would protect himself in the sense that he would give an aura of respectability—if I may use such a phrase—which he could use for his own purposes and to protect himself against the attacks which are made on him. I think this is something which he should take into reconsideration.

The hon. the Chief Whip asks why we are then voting against the hon. the Minister’s salary. I want to make it quite clear that the attitude which the hon. the Minister adopted and the phrases and expressions which he used at the time of the death of Steve Biko we consider as being absolutely unforgivable. I know that the hon. the Minister himself regrets very much indeed the phrase that he used at that time. I think that that phrase did South Africa a great deal of harm. The second thing is the banning of Donald Woods. As the hon. member for East London North has said, the banning of Donald Woods made a martyr out of a man who was essentially a small-time backward newspaperman. He could not have attained the stature which he did attain later in the world outside had he not been banned. His banning put him into the position to exploit shamelessly the name of Steve Biko. I think what Donald Woods is doing with the name of Steve Biko beyond the borders of this country is inexcusable. However, I believe the hon. the Minister has contributed largely to the fact that he is able to do so by giving him a status which he certainly did not have before.

I should then like to come to a situation which is a particular situation related to my constituency. I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter which is very familiar to him and before hon. members say that I am talking on the wrong Vote since it is a matter for the Police Vote, I wish to say that relates to the activities of a young policeman. What I want to comment on is the court proceedings which followed on the activities of the young policeman. I should like to sketch the situation for hon. members because I hope that members of the legal profession may be interested in the matter.

A young man, Peter Nicholson, a member of a very respectable and well-liked family in the Underberg area, was shot by a young policeman who was off duty. The young policeman was out of uniform, was using a police vehicle and carrying his police firearm. The events took place on the premises of the Drakensberg Garden Hotel in Underberg. He had been warned by his superior officer to stay away from the hotel. There had been a considerable party going on in the course of the evening. The policeman, remember, was there off duty, but nevertheless armed. I believe he was not entitled to be armed at that time. He was creating a considerable amount of trouble at the hotel. He was asked by the manager to leave and when he did not leave, somebody came in to Peter Nicholson, who was sitting perfectly innocent, having had no part in this at all. Peter Nicholson was told that there was trouble outside and he went outside. He got involved in an argument with the young man and pushed him. The policeman fell over and took out his pistol. He shot Peter Nicholson, who eventually died after lying paralysed in hospital for 38 days. A court case followed. I wish to make no comment on the court case. I have not read the evidence and, furthermore, the person who heard the case is a great friend of mine. I have absolute confidence in him. [Interjections.] Just listen. I want to ask the hon. the Minister—I am a farmer, not a legal man, so I do not know the procedure that have to be adopted—to consider whether it is not possible, when a trial is being held in which it can clearly be shown that there is an aggrieved person—as I think the father is in this case— to make provision for such an aggrieved person, with the consent of the court or by agreement or arrangement with the court, to be represented as a party at the trial. Hon. members may say that that might introduce into our court procedure an element of vengeful feeling or something like that on the part of the aggrieved person. I do not, however, think so. In this particular case, for example, I think there is an earnest endeavour to see that the truth is arrived at and that justice is done. The prosecutor is there to represent the State and the community and the advocate is there to defend the accused. In the course of the trial it appeared on several occasions that the father of Peter Nicholson was able to present the prosecutor with evidence which would not otherwise have come before the court.

The hon. the Minister has had as much correspondence on this matter as I have had, and the hon. the Minister knows the father’s attitude. The father feels that there is still evidence that could have been produced at that trial, evidence which might have had an influence on the eventual finding of the court, and evidence which I believe the hon. the Minister would say justice required should be brought before the court. My plea to the hon. the Minister and hon. members of the legal profession is whether we should not consider, in proceedings of this nature—I say specifically with the consent or agreement of the court—an advocate could not be brought into the proceedings before the court to represent the aggrieved person. The hon. the Deputy Minister is shaking his head.

I am shaking my head because of the emotion involved in cases like that.

I have put the point to the hon. the Minister. I have said that people may say that there is a feeling of vengefulness on the part of the aggrieved party in cases like this, but I believe that there is a principle involved here, and that is that a person who is affected in this way should have a hearing before the court because for one reason or another he may be able to introduce evidence, and surely the aggrieved person has a right to be satisfied that all the evidence which is relevant to the case is produced in the court. If somebody who is able to represent him could appear before the court and be briefed or instructed by him to lead evidence or to guide the thinking of the court, I would think that that would be an improvement in the administration of justice as we know it here in South Africa. I should simply like to put this before the hon. the Minister. I believe that this is a situation which calls for redress, and I think it could be done in the manner I have proposed. I do not think anyone in this chamber—in fact, I am certain of it—does not have the deepest sympathy for a father in a situation like that. I think that if something good can come of it, the principle I have set out here might be some kind of compensation to a family in a situation of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I am not going to comment on the first two aspects mentioned by the hon. member for Mooi River. It is, in any case, old hat, matters in respect of which adequate replies were furnished long ago. The case of the police officer that he mentioned is a case for the hon. the Minister to deal with.

The question to which I actually want to confine myself is a question of principle. We are dealing here with an unfounded motion by the Official Opposition that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced. The question which occurs to me, as a question of principle, is whether a party that, by its own admission, has no clear policy and does not know where it wants to go or what it wants to do, has the moral and political right to move such a motion in this House. By its own admission that party has no clear and alternative policy. I want to quote my authority for this so that no one can claim that I have sucked it out of my thumb. I want to refer to a meeting held very recently, which was reported in several newspapers, inter alia, the Eastern Province Herald of 3 May 1978. With your permission I want to quote just one extract from the report—

I note that it is not a national convention—

Still in support of my statement, I quote the following from the report—

The report states further that this meeting instructed the hon. member for Rondebosch, as chairman of a particular committee, to take it further.

What has this got to do with the Justice Vote? Have you got a speech?

I quote from this—

Mr. Chairman, is this relevant?

—

As I said at the outset, the question is whether a party that admits itself that it has no policy, can come up with a motion like the one at present before the House. The report from which I quoted, is confirmed in the Sunday Times, from which I only want to quote the following—

I think this can safely be regarded as the understatement of the year. Now we also realize why we have been unable to get any replies for quite a long time on questions we have put in this House. I want to submit that the PFP, in the light of this damning evidence, this self-admitted evidence, has no moral or political right to request in this House today that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced.

Because we have had a long debate and because we have had several long debates during the past week and still have to do a fair amount of work, I shall leave the second part of the speech I prepared which deals with patients of the State President, for another day.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not apologize for not following on what was said by the hon. member for Albany.

The hon. the Minister has misunderstood the PFP’s argument in the House today. The Minister is not being censured by the Opposition for any actions he has taken in the interests of South Africa. He is being censured because of the lack of protection which is afforded to the individual in almost every act initiated by this Minister in terms of security legislation. He is being censured because of his ineptitude and even his arrogance as evidenced by his actions and by his public statements connected with the Biko affair. He is being censured because of his apparent inability to distinguish between political opponents and subversive elements. That is what the censure is all about.

In this late stage of the debate I wish to refer to another matter. I find scant mention in the report of the department of what is happening in regard to international hotels. At the end of 1977 there were 1 444 graded hotels in South Africa, of which fewer than 7% had been accorded the status referred to in section 81(3) of the Liquor Act, namely international status. This system has now been operating for several years, and I think the time has arrived for us to look at it again in a spirit of reappraisal. I think it is fair to say that certain benefits have derived from the system of international hotels and also certain advantages.

Firstly, it has enabled foreign tourists, visitors, diplomats and businessmen who are not White and who visit South Africa, to do so with less embarrassment and less inconvenience as was the case in the past. This is the plus factor. The system has provided some relief to a small section of South African Blacks, businessmen, politicians and officials who require and who can afford the facilities provided by five, four and three-star hotels in the main centres. This too is helpful. The third advantage is that the resultant inter colour contact—admittedly at wall-to-wall-carpet level—has helped to create an atmosphere of near normally for those who visit South Africa and who stay in these establishments. Finally, it had an educating effect on South Africans, especially Whites, who for the first time in many years, discovered that the sky is not going to fall on our heads if we sit at a table with a Black family eating nearby.

So far, so good. However, this method of normalization has also heralded certain disadvantages, and I would like to mention these. The first of these disadvantages is inherent in the system itself. I refer to the conditions imposed by the hon. the Minister of Justice in granting international status. I want to mention some of them. Male White bars in these hotels remain restricted to Whites. No dancing by non-Whites is allowed at all, be they American or be they Zulu. There are, furthermore, restrictions in regard to the hotel’s swimming pool and also the condition that not more than five to 15% of the beds in the hotel may be allocated at any one time …

International Black people are excluded in terms of the Act.

The conditions which apply to people who go into those hotels may have served a purpose some years ago. They may have served as a cushion for South Africans who were afraid of change. Is it not possible to persuade the hon. the Minister on two points? Firstly, that provisions of this nature, whether they apply only to South Africans going into the hotels or exclude certain foreign people from going into the hotels, are seen as discriminatory.

It does not exclude foreigners from any international hotel.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister must allow me to complete what I have to say. He can reply later. They are discriminatory; they are demeaning and downright humiliating. Secondly, they are no longer necessary for or relevant to the promotion of this policy. If the international hotel system is to be retained, it is time to take another step forward by ceasing to impose conditions of this nature at all when the conditions of licence are changed.

The second disadvantage relates to how applications are dealt with. The refusal rate of people who apply for this type of facility is very high, and, furthermore, applications are often refused on grounds which are not understood by the person concerned in terms of normal criteria. Coupled with this high refusal rate is the policy of refusing ad hoc permits to accommodate guests when there is already a so-called international hotel in the city. This particular policy and method of operation favour some hotels above others and constitute an unwarranted interference with the free enterprise system. Thirdly, the number and type of hotels having been granted this status are such that the benefits which derive therefrom are derived only by a small, well-heeled section of South African Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. The limitations are such that the problem of accommodation for the ordinary Black tourist or businessman remains as acute as ever before. Fourthly, the section of the Liquor Act in terms of which applications of this sort are made, apply only to White establishments. Black hotels have no chance of applying for this status. This is a discriminatory provision, and the hon. the Minister should move to equalize the situation.

Finally, there is the question of the system itself. It has admittedly, helped South Africans to break the ice in regard to normal interracial contact, but has the time not come to take progress a step further? A developing society needs more than a web of applications, ad hoc permits and revocable permissions to be able to project real change. One of two things should now happen: either the international status which is granted to hotels, should be granted across the board to hotels who apply for them based only upon the question of a certain standard of facility being available or, if that is not acceptable to the hon. the Minister, restrictions in terms of the Liquor Act should be lifted so as to allow hoteliers to admit guests and to conduct businesses as they see it fit, without being limited in an artificial way by racial legislation.

I would also like to say a quick word about legal costs and legal aid. The access by the ordinary man, Black or White, to a defence in the criminal court and to litigation in the civil courts, is reaching critical proportions. Costs have escalated beyond all reasonableness, particularly in the case of advocates who in many cases charge exorbitant fees today. This state of affairs is debilitating to an otherwise proud system of justice. I would like to offer four suggestions to the hon. the Minister in this respect. In the first place the hon. the Minister should approach the legal profession to consider voluntarily limiting their fees and charges in cases involving clients in the lower income brackets. In the second place the hon. the Minister should, in regard to the introduction of intermediate courts—the hon. the Minister has already announced this—see that this system should be expedited as quickly as possible. In the third place the hon. the Minister should look again at the suggestions made by me last year under this Vote in regard to the introduction of, what I then called, small-claims courts. In the fourth place, a considerably greater amount of money should be spent on and appropriated for legal aid in these difficult times. The cutback on funds for legal aid on divorces—it was confirmed in answers to questions in this House—and the question of the shortage of funds for legal aid is one area in which it is not in the interest of South Africa, nor in the interests of the traditions of the judicial system of South Africa to depart from.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind the hon. member for Sandton that in 1975, a Select Committee of this House deliberated on the amending legislation in terms of which the international hotels were brought into being. If the hon. member would take the trouble to check the debates of that year, he would see very clearly what the motivations were for international hotels. I shall come back to that just now. I first want to raise a few other matters.

In the first place, I should like the hon. member for Johannesburg North to listen to what I have to say. It is surprising—not only to the House, but also to the whole of South Africa—that a man like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, an hon. judge, has not participated in the debate on Justice, in which he could have made a tremendous contribution in the interests of South Africa. As a former judge, he created expectations, but I must tell him that in the eyes of this side of the House, he will from now on be branded as an out-and-out “flop” because he has not lived up to those expectations. However, the hon. member still has the opportunity of repudiating the hon. member for Houghton for her statement this afternoon that she does not accept the findings of one of our courts. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is not ashamed that he does not support his former colleagues, presiding officers of the courts, and does not repudiate the hon. member for Houghton. He is letting them down now. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North ought to reconsider this whole matter.

In the second place, I want to touch on a matter which effects the entire Opposition. During the past few days, the Opposition has attacked not only one of our most important departments in the Government, but is now also going so far as to attack our courts and our Ministers. I wish to say once again that it is a very clear pattern which the Opposition has manifested here. We shall now observe carefully to see what they are going to do in future. We are waiting to see what their next attack on the interests of South Africa is going to be.

The hon. member for Houghton made some of her funds available to Steve Biko, and with those funds he probably had some of his inflammatory pamphlets—of which the hon. member for Waterkloof has made mention—printed. [Interjections.]

But I gave him the money about three years ago.

I think the whole vendetta which the hon. member is conducting at the moment is due to the fact that she is disappointed that that investment of hers has not yielded dividends, because the hon. the Minister was too strong for that.

Time passes rapidly and I should also like to dwell briefly on the liquor laws, the distribution of liquor and the supply of liquor in South Africa. Last year we consolidated our liquor laws by means of the Liquor Act, Act No. 8 of 1977. Last year, there was also an amendment to the Liquor Act which regulated numerous other matters in connection with the granting of licences etc. As I have already stated, the Liquor Amendment Act, which laid down provisions in respect of international hotels, was passed in 1975.

Liquor and its distribution is a very important item in the economy of the country. This year, and amount of R387 700 000 was budgeted for excise revenue from liquor alone. If one bears this in mind one realizes that liquor plays an immensely important role in the economy of our country. Since the classification of hotels, started in 1965, a great improvement has set in in the country’s hotel industry. In my view, these improvements have been excellent. The hotel industry has been developed and we have entered a new era The people have obtained many privileges and our entire drinking pattern has been placed on a new basis.

The hon. member for Sandton has referred to international hotels. Unfortunately, I cannot go into the whole debate again, but I want to point out to him briefly that international hotels were brought into being specifically with a view to meeting a need in the country. During the debate on this question, it was stated that not all hotels were going to be thrown open, but that it would largely be the big cities, which are gateways to our country, which would be concentrated on, as well as the main traffic routes of our country. That was mainly why international status was given to hotels. I want to point out to the hon. member that this request was compiled with, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Liquor Board on that. In Cape Town and its suburban areas alone, applications for international status were granted to eight hotels, one theatre, one restaurant and one club. Eight applications were granted in Johannesburg; six in Durban, three in Port Elizabeth, three in Pretoria, two in Kempton Park, and two in Bloemfontein. Then, too, there are 18 more such hotels throughout the country in our larger towns and cities, as well as on the borders of our homeland areas. I think the need which existed at the time, has been met. But at the same time—in contrast to the appeal which the hon. member for Sandton has made—I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister. At the moment, the Liquor Board has 193 applications by hotels for international status. 52 applications have already been granted. These 52 applications are included in the 193 applications for the next year. I request the hon. the Minister that he and the Liquor Board should use their discretion with very great care and circumspection in the further granting of international status to hotels. I believe that there is a need for more such hotels, and I do not wish to oppose the idea. But I do request that this discretion should be exercised with very great care and circumspection. From inquiries I have made, I understand that the system works very well in the case of already existing international hotels. One is very pleased about that. There has been the odd incident when it did not work so well, but these problems will probably be ironed out as time passes, because our liquor trade and our hotel industry have entered an entirely new phase in this respect.

I should like to dwell on the question of our liquor laws. As I have said, last year an amendment to our Liquor Act was effected to usher in a totally new era in respect of the supply and distribution of liquor in our country. One can look at the statistics of the past. I have merely gone through the reports by the Secretary for Justice for the past five years. During those five years, 1 840 applications for new liquor licences were considered at interim meetings in terms of section 22.

That is a very large number, but only 955 of those were granted. That means that almost 52% of the applications were granted. There is therefore an annual average of 368 applications for new liquor licences. I think this is a very large number of applications to be received every year. On average, 191 of those applications are granted. One just wonders whether our population growth has been such that so many new licences have to be granted every year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to react to the speeches made by the hon. members and to reply to questions put by them.

In my opinion the hon. member for East London City made a very interesting speech in connection with the Criminal Procedure Act. I think it is clear to all of us that he has made a very thorough study of the Act. I am pleased to hear from him that he agrees that the Act is a good one and that it is a resounding success.

†As far as the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River is concerned, I want to say that I have received numberous letters from Mr. Nicholson. Even if I convey nothing else in the House today, I still want to say that I am terribly sorry about what happened to his son. I can only describe his letters as cries of anguish from a father’s heart. I can tell the hon. member that reading them has tormented me personally. I do not think the suggestion of the hon. member is a feasible one. I do not think that in a criminal case one can have another advocate or even people present telling the prosecutor what evidence to lead and how to lead it. I have gone into the facts of this case very carefully, and there is no doubt in my mind that the case was well run from the prosecutor’s point of view. There is absolutely nothing that we can say here that will satisfy Mr. Nicholson. I can understand how Mr. Nicholson feels. The more letters I write to him, telling him that there is nothing more that we can do than accept the result of the court case, the more letters he writes to me asking me to do something about it. As I say, these are letters that pain one deeply. However, the fact remains that, as in any country where there is a Supreme Court, where trials are held, where there is a prosecutor and where there are defending advocates, all the facts were brought before the court in this case. I know that this person was a policeman, but that particular night he was off duty. The circumstances that led to the controversy—the fight that these two young men had with each other—were properly before the court. With regard to the fact that a service revolver was fired, obviously the man was not entitled or allowed to have a service revolver with him while he was off duty. He contravened the regulations by having one. Whatever the sentence of the court was, I cannot criticize it. I can do nothing more for Mr. Nicholson, except to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that I can understand how he feels. I am terribly sorry for him. I think it is correct that the hon. member mentioned it here in the House this afternoon. Nothing on earth will satisfy Mr. Nicholson for the loss of his son. This we can understand, and I hope that he will feel a little better after hearing that we have given the case an airing in this House. All I can ask the hon. member for Mooi River is to convey our sympathy to Mr. Nicholson and to tell him that we must rest here. We have no other option, but to accept on the findings of the Supreme Court of Natal. I cannot do anything more.

*The hon. member for Albany defended my salary, and I am very grateful for that. I cannot imagine what would have happened if the hon. member for Houghton had convinced the hon. members on my side of the House that I was not worthy of the salary. In that case I would have had to turn to—as someone here suggested—the secret fund of the hon. member for Houghton.

Then you would have been one of “those”.

I am quite convinced, however, that she would not have helped me, or that the assistance, if she did in fact help me, would have been so meagre that I would not have been able to live.

If you resign she will give you all the money in the fund!

The hon. member for Sandton asked me what the position was with regard to international hotels. I think the hon. member for Sandton is mistaken as regards the purpose of an international hotel. From the point of view of his party, he sees it as the first step in the direction of a multiracial society. That was by no means the intention with the legislation. The intention with the legislation was that where it was essential to do so, facilities should be created for those people where they did not have them, i.e. in White hotels. But there are Black hotels and Coloured hotels which strongly object when Black people go to an international hotel. That is why I say to the hon. member that where there is a non-White hotel close by, it is a factor which the Hotel Board will take into consideration. They will certainly take that into consideration in deciding whether another international licence should be issued. International hotels already have sleeping facilities for non-Whites to the extent of 10% to 15%. Naturally, international hotels cannot be fully occupied by non-Whites. The non-Whites may occupy 10% to 15% of the sleeping facilities at the utmost. In practice their occupation of sleeping facilities does not come anywhere near that figure.

Why do you need that regulation at all?

Because the hotel is essentially a White hotel, and we do not want to change the hotel’s character. We merely want to create the facility for Black people to enjoy the facilities which the Whites enjoy where these facilities do not exist for them, or when they need the facilities where they can meet Whites on a social basis. This is the whole idea. The idea is not to have a multiracial society or to make all hotels, as the hon. member wants, international hotels. This is simply not possible. The hon. member makes a mistake when he says that the conditions regarding hotel accommodation apply to foreign non-Whites. This is just not so. Foreign non-Whites are excluded in terms of the Act. They can go to any hotel in South Africa If he is a Black Frenchman and has his passport, he simply goes to any hotel.

Transkeians as well?

We have a special arrangement as far as they are concerned. The hon. member knows that. We have no intention, I may tell the hon. member, of increasing the international hotels holus bolus. The policy is to create an international hotel only where the need really exists for an international hotel, and nothing further. We want to develop the hotels of the Black people and of the Coloured people and we want to give them their own facilities in their own areas. As far as the hotels for Black people are concerned, they can, of course, apply on an ad hoc basis for the suspension of their conditions to enable Whites to go there. This has already happened in the case of one or two Natal hotels. As far as we know there is very little demand from Whites for accommodation in non-White hotels. We simply do not get this type of request. So there is no sense in creating facilities where there is no need for them. I think the system of international hotels has been a great success.

As far as the legal costs are concerned, I heartily endorse what the hon. member says and I shall look at his suggestions. They sound to me feasible and good suggestions and I shall have a look at them. As the hon. member knows, of course, there is a commission of inquiry sitting on this very matter at the moment, and I must await the findings of that commission before I can do anything.

*The hon. member for Potgietersrus made an interesting speech on the international hotels. This hon. member is, of course, the person best qualified to make such a speech since he was the chairman of the Select Committee which established international hotels. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall bear his request in mind that we should not issue too many of these licences. I am fully aware of this. As far as the other licences are concerned, the hon. member should realize, of course, that bottle licences are not the only ones involved. There is a whole variety of licences. The figure quoted by the hon. member relates to malt and wine licences issued to ordinary restaurants. As the restaurant industry develops, more and more of those licences will be issued. The wine industry is doing its very best to sell its wine as an outlet for the farmer. But it is doing even more. It is elevating wine to a social drink, and a pattern is developing. The wine industry is spending large amounts of money in order to place the eating and drinking pattern in South Africa on a sound footing. For that reason we should assist by ensuring that restaurants have facilities—especially for wine. I want to repeat that I think the hon. member made a good point when he said that one should be careful not to issue too many licences and not to promote liquor to such an extent that it ultimately became an evil instead of an asset. I got his message.

I think this concludes the debate, and I just want to thank all hon. members for their contributions to the debate.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—22: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Noes—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Olckers, R. de V.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, S. F. Kotzé, J. P. A. Reyneke, N. F. Treurnicht, W. L. van der Merwe and V. A. Volker.

Amendment negatived.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 27.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, before the start of the debate I wish to make a few statements. In the first place the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Prinsloo, will be retiring at the end of the month, and I should like to say a few things about him on this occasion.

Gen. Prinsloo was born in the Queenstown district and joined the S.A. Police on 18 October 1934. In 1950 he became an officer. He served in Cape Town and in Port Elizabeth and in Pretoria since 1956. He even did session service for a few years as a staff officer to one of the previous Commissioners of Police. For the greater part of his career as an officer he was attached to the Security Branch of the S.A. Police, and he may be regarded as one of the founders of the Security Branch as it exists today. He progressed through all the ranks, as they then existed, i.e. second-class sergeant, first-class sergeant, chief constable, and then all the officers’ ranks until, on 1 December 1975, he reached the highest rank, i.e. that of Commissioner of the South African Police, with the rank of General.

Gen. Prinsloo has won several medals and decorations, including the S.A. Police Star for excellent service and the S.A. Police medal for fighting against terrorism. Although Gen. Prinsloo had already reached retirement age when he was requested to take over the responsible position of Commissioner of Police, he was immediately prepared to make that sacrifice. His term of office in that position, a term of office which expires at the end of this month, was not easy. Shortly after he took over the reins, the riots broke out in Soweto, unrest which spread throughout the country and continued so indefinitely that he never had a moment’s rest. However, he never complained. He is, in fact, not a man of many words, but a dedicated policeman with remarkable judgment and the gift of not getting worked up about trifling matters.

Gen. Prinsloo has served the Police Force and South Africa faithfully for a period of almost 44 years. On behalf of the Government, on behalf of South Africa and on behalf of the S.A. Police I wish to express appreciation to Gen. Prinsloo for the unselfish service which he has rendered. As far as it concerns me personally, I should like to say that from the nature of our work and from the nature of the times in which we live, Gen. Prinsloo and I weathered quite a few storms together. During all the years that he was Commissioner of Police, we never experienced any problems of any kind. His calm, balanced outlook and his years of experience in the Police Force always supported me during difficult times, and to such an extent that in the course of time he was not only the Commissioner, but also became a friend of mine. Now that he is retiring, I wish him and his wife, who has assisted and supported him all these years, a very long and pleasant retirement, a well-earned retirement in which our good wishes go with him.

As has already been announced, Gen. Prinsloo is to be succeeded by Gen. Geldenhuys with effect from 1 June 1978. Gen. Geldenhuys needs no introduction, as he himself has already made his mark in the Police Force. He is one of the most versatile policemen because he has served in practically every branch of the Force in all the provinces. For a few years he was seconded to the Bureau for State Security where he rose to become deputy Chief. Like Gen. Prinsloo, he is taking command during a very difficult time in the existence of the S.A. Police. I have known Gen. Geldenhuys for many years as an untiring worker and as someone who maintains strict discipline and who is not a clock-watcher. I do not doubt that he will lead the S.A. Police well.

Now allow me to say something about the uniforms of the S.A. Police. It is a fixed principle with all employers that the employee should purchase the necessary clothes for himself at his own expense during his period of service, whether it be ordinary, clothes, a specific kind of dress, or even a uniform. Therefore it is also a principle that the wear and tear and the replacement of such clothes form part of the costs which he incurs to make himself available to the labour market. Over the years, this principle has also applied in respect of the S.A. Police, who, in spite of their special circumstances of service, also made this sacrifice.

However, the Police have increasingly been finding that due to the long spells of duty without overtime pay, night duty, out of office duty, duty during weekends and on public holidays, outside duty in poor weather conditions and duty with police dogs, this sacrifice has become a particularly heavy financial burden. A member of the S.A. Police is compelled to be neatly and cleanly dressed at all times, as he serves the public and is always in the limelight.

In order to do this, members are compelled to purchase enough items of uniform and to replace these regularly, so much so that it goes far beyond the normal principle which I have just explained. It causes frustration and financial burdens, because members are compelled to serve in circumstances which of necessity damage and spoil their uniforms without their being compensated for this.

After thorough consideration and taking into account the present economic climate, the Government has decided that—

1. (1) as from this year, training dress, as well as a first set of free winter and summer uniforms, will be issued to members of the S.A. Police; and
2. (2) as from the financial year 1979-’80, methods will be investigated of supplying members who qualify with the necessary duty wear.

With the necessary permission, I should now also like to make a statement on the academic training of the S.A. Police. The Department of the S.A. Police has decided to replace the internal promotional examinations with a system which will confer academic recognition upon the examinations. After negotiations with the Department of National Education, the latter department agreed to take over the promotional examinations in a diploma course which, taking into account promotion to the next rank and the period of service in that rank, will be taken in three examinations and will mean that a policeman who obtains the full diploma will qualify for promotion to the rank of lieutenant. This diploma will be called the “National Diploma (Police Administration)” and will have the same contents in broad outline, as the prison promotional examinations. Only serving members of the Force will be allowed to take this course, with the result that it will also confer professional status upon the Police.

The Department of the S.A. Police is sincerely grateful to the Department of National Education for its cordial co-operation in making this new scheme possible.

Finally, I should like to say that I have received a telex about the mobile police stations which we have already introduced. I have issued a statement on this matter. The system has been in operation since 25 April. The unit takes up a position at a few strategic places in an area and is manned by three White and three non-White members who are relieved in rotation, including the patrol leader and the members of the unit, on a 24-hour basis.

Experience has taught us that it is better to keep the mobile station for at least one week at every stand to vary the stands as seldom as possible so that the public can become used to it. This is now being done. Initially the stations were poorly patronized. As the stands become known, however, the reaction is improving. Complaints received through the radio station in respect of that area are transmitted by radio to the unit and the vehicle for attention. We have also installed one of these units at Pacaltsdorp, a Coloured town near George. That unit has been in operation since 8 May 1978. The station is kept at Pacaltsdorp from 06h00 to 18h00 and for the rest of the time in Rosemoor, a neighbouring Coloured township where a specific stand is also used. It is manned in precisely the same way as I have explained in respect of Yeoville. Right from the start, this station was very successful. The unit is welcomed by everyone, especially in Rose-moor, where no telephone facilities exist as yet. In respect of both units it has been proved beyond any doubt that the crime rate in the area where the units are stationed has definitely dropped. This can largely be ascribed to the area patrols with the vehicle, but certainly also to the fact that there is a police station in the vicinity. Early indications are that the unit will be very successful as its existence becomes known in the area.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to talk for just a short while at this stage to round off one part of the discussion we had earlier today and which was referred to the Police Vote. But before doing that I should like to associate this party with the remarks the hon. the Minister has made about Gen. Prinsloo, who is due to retire shortly. We wish him and his wife a very happy period of retirement. Despite everything the hon. the Minister has said about me and my feelings towards the police, I want to state that Gen. Prinsloo and I have always had a cordial relationship. At least my feeling towards him was cordial. I hope the feeling was mutual!

He is a ladies’ man.

As far as uniforms are concerned, obviously we welcome very much the announcement by the Minister that the police are going to be given financial relief in that uniforms are now going to be provided by the State. I shall say no more about this now. When we resume the discussion of the Vote on Tuesday, my colleagues will be talking about the salaries of policemen, about mobile police stations, etc.

I want to round off very briefly a contentious aspect which I was not permitted under the rules of the House to discuss during the Justice Vote. This concerns the method being used by the police in implementing section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I want to say categorically that I believe that this Act, which by its very nature lends itself to abuse, is being used in a much wider way than was ever intended by Parliament. Those members who were here, will remember that when the legislation was originally introduced by the then Minister of Justice, he stated that it was very difficult indeed to pursue terrorists under normal processes of the law, because the terrain consisted of dense bush. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police said in the Committee Stage on the Bill, that there were areas where one could be within two yards of an elephant and not know he was there. As we have seen during the urban unrest, the Terrorism Act has been most widely used by the police in areas which did not, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, in any way conform to the descriptions used in the House at that time. I want to say that I am informed by lawyers who have been dealing with large numbers of cases, that it is a common tactic of the police to arrest young people en masse in for instance an area where a school has been burnt down or where some other act of public violence has taken place. Those children, or young people, are then held under section 6 of the Terrorism Act and are held for months on end. Some of them are used in order to get statements incriminating the remainder. This is the method being used. I do not believe that it was ever intended that the normal processes of the law should be circumvented for crimes such as public violence. It is my belief that the police have turned hundreds of youthful stone-throwers, whose actions I do not condone, into a sort of statutory definition of terrorists. This was never intended when section 6 was passed in the House in 1967. I think there has been a gross abuse of power under section 6. The police are avoiding the normal and more tedious, perhaps, procedures of the law. I think the hon. the Minister should re-examine the whole manner in which this section has been implemented. We can never get information from the police of the exact number of so-called child terrorists under the age of 18 who were arrested and detained during the crucial months of the unrest from June 1976 until the end of 1977.

I hope the hon. the Minister will also now take the opportunity of replying to the question I put to him earlier, viz. whether he is instituting a departmental investigation in respect of the Biko case.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.