laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Diamonds Bill [B 81—86 (GA)]— (Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs).
2. (2) Precious Stones Amendment Bill [B82—86 (GA)]—Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs).

Mr Chairman, in pursuance of the State President’s announcement regarding the suspension of prosecutions and the release of sentenced prisoners and those charged who are in custody, the statutory measures which may relate to influx control and the so-called pass laws have now been identified.

The Attorneys-General undertook and have already issued instructions that there should be no further prosecutions in terms of those measures, and the SA Prisons Service has made the necessary arrangements for prisoners sentenced in terms of those measures to be released as from today.

Hear, hear!

The Attorneys-General and the SA Prisons Service also co-operated in the identification of those charged and detained and for charges against them to be withdrawn in order that they can be released. The SA Police are co-operating in the release action in respect of people detained in police cells.

The identified contraventions include contraventions under sections 10,31 and 43 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, No 25 of 1945, as well as contraventions under sections 3, 6 and certain contraventions under section 15 of the Blacks (Aboliton of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, No 67 of 1952.

The contraventions under the first-mentioned Act include amongst others the 72-hour provision, certain employment provisions, permits and the production of permits on request. The measures under last-mentioned Act include the obligation to produce a reference book upon demand.

The numbers of sentenced and awaiting trial prisoners detained in prison—excluding police cells—on 31 March 1986, in terms of those measures, are as follows, and can give an indication of the numbers that will now be released: For contravention of the 72-hour provision, 25; for failure to produce reference books or other documents, 76; for being found idle and undesirable persons in terms of section 29,64; for permit contraventions, 80. This relatively low figure of 245 follows the reduction in the number of arrests made during the past few months, and also a reduction in the number of prosecutions.

As far as can be ascertained—that is, according to our figures—the only significant number of other prisoners that can illuminate the subject—and I want to emphasise that they do not qualify for release at this stage—are the following: Entry and presence of foreigners, 80; trespassers, 346; prohibited immigrants, 302; those entering the Republic elsewhere than at a port of entry, 122; and prohibited persons, 65.

Foreigners mentioned under some of the above items are already in prison and, as I have said, will not qualify. They represent the vast majority of offenders from neighbouring states. However, the figures do not include offenders from the TBVC states.

The total number of prisoners in custody on 31 March exceeded 113 000. This will show that the repeal of the influx control provisions and the so-called pass measures will have only an insignificant effect on prison accommodation and on activities in our courts.

After completion of the release exercise, the precise number of prisoners released will be ascertained and made known. The exercise should be completed within days.

As I said earlier, the process has already been activated, and I may now announce that up to 2 o’clock this afternoon 182 prisoners had been released. I am sure hon members will have certain questions to ask on these issues. [Interjections.] I notice that the hon member for Houghton is particularly disappointed at the very low figure …

No, I am not; not at all. You should be disappointed.

I though she would be perturbed, but it seems she is pleased. [Interjections.] As a matter of interest, I remember that in 1984 the hon member queried the figure, namely 7%, that I gave as being representative of the portion these prisoners constituted of the total prison population. At the time I invited the hon member to vet our figures, I invited her and her party to audit the figures, but she did not avail herself of the opportunity. Now I want to extend that invitation again.

Okay. I shall accept this time.

This brings me to another matter, because I want to express my special appreciation to the personnel of the Directorate: Justice, and the Directorate: Prisons. Under the direction of the Director-General, Mr Fanie van der Merwe, and Mr Chris van Niekerk as Deputy Director-General and Gen Willemse as Commissioner, respectively, these directorates, under great pressure from an increase in activities, succeeded over the past few months in maintaining an excellent standard. I think there are few hon members who will differ with me. They could even try to match me in my praises of the achievements in this connection of the Directorate: Justice, and the Directorate: Prisons.

In this spirit we take leave of Lt-Gen Du Plessis, one of our Deputy Chief Commissioner, who retires on pension at the end of this month after a colourful career of 36 years. It is a pleasure for me to convey the Government’s thanks and appreciation to him for his valuable services to the Republic and its people.

The gears of the organisation must continue to mesh efficiently and therefore I have great pleasure in announcing the promotion of Maj-Gen Sephton to the rank of Lieutenant-General with effect from 1 May 1986. I should like to congratulate him on this appointment to the top command structure of the Prisons Service where he will have an even greater opportunity, as part of this dynamic organisation, to make a contribution to the Prisons Services’ striving for excellence. In this regard the management of the Prisons Service is already engaged in an extensive pro-active initiating and developing strategy aimed at the demands of the following decade. I should like to wish him and everyone involved in that every success.

The aspect with which Gen Sephton will therefore concern himself, is as Chief Deputy Commissioner: Treatment Services in the place of Lt-Gen May who is moving to the post which is being vacated by Lt-Gen Du Plessis.

Mr Chairman, I would like to welcome the announcement of the release today of all the pass-law offenders. The belated demise of this law will hopefully go some way towards easing the tense race relations which obtain in our country at this time.

I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of appreciation expressed by the hon the Minister to the Director-General and his staff for the work done during this year.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask for the privilege of the half-hour. [Interjections.] I will divide what I have to say today into two parts—one relating to a specific issue and the other relating to a broader juridical canvas. I shall deal firstly with the particular issue.

On page 175 of Section A of the final report of the Hoexter Commission there is stated the following:

The commission which as we all know filed this report over three years ago, then proceeded to expose grave shortcomings in the question of access to the courts. It dealt with the non-White distrust of the services of the Legal Aid Board and it made certain most important recommendations. I would like to read the commission’s recommendations in this regard which are to be found on page 197. They are:

1. (a) there should be set as a goal the provision of legal representation to accused persons of limited means through a comprehensive legal aid scheme available to the accused in all serious criminal cases in all courts (and not merely in Supreme Court trials involving capital offences);
2. (b) after suitable amendments of the Legal Aid Act, 22 of 1969, the means test at present…

I wonder if the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs could keep quiet for a while. It is really very difficult to talk while he is buzzing away. It goes on to say:

1. (c) legal aid be promoted by granting of official recognition to legal clinics; and more particularly that funds for the regular employment of salaried legal practitioners in legal clinics be made available as part of the budget of the Legal Aid Board;
2. (d) active steps be taken properly to inform the public of the existence of the Legal Aid Board and to make if fully aware of the Board’s functions.

Those were the recommendations made by the commission some three years ago. Of course, implicit in all this is the fact that more money would have to be appropriated towards this end.

What has happened since then? Last month, in reply to a question I put relating to the financial position and liabilities of the Legal Aid Board, the hon the Minister disclosed the following:

As was pointed out to me by an employee of the board, this is of course a most misleading answer as the vast majority of cases will be finalised within the next two years—not within the next 14—and at least R10 million of the R12 million outstanding will fall due for payment within this short two-year period. To meet these liabilities, the board has some R500 000 available and an annual State contribution yet to come of approximately R6 million.

Another point not mentioned in the answer given by the hon the Minister is that the demand for legal aid in the past year has increased by over 70 per cent compared to the previous year. According to a board member to whom I spoke recently, this demand will double during the course of this year. It means basically that essential services are being curtailed. At this time, for instance, all assistance in regard to divorce actions has been cut of. It is not available at all through the Legal Aid Board. Criminal and civil appeals are no longer entertained, all briefs to advocates in the lower courts in criminal as well as civil cases are suspended. Finally, the means test—that is the test which enables people to apply for legal aid— is set so low that only the indigent qualify for aid so that three out of four deserving applicants are excluded from assistance.

It all boils down to the truth and the fact that the Legal Aid Board of South Africa is bankrupt; it is insolvent; it is unable to meet its obligations and it is unable at the present time to provide the service which an enlightened society demands. As one member of the board said to me:

That is nothing less than a public disgrace.

I discussed the matter recently with two senior members of the profession and the judiciary, and they told me that the difficulty was that the Minister of Justice was a political lightweight and was not strong enough to influence the Cabinet to address this issue seriously. I argued with them on that point, but I must warn the hon the Minister that this is the view which does prevail among the legal fraternity. What must be done to rectify matters?

Firstly, the hon the Minister must today— if he has the authority, that is—give the firm assurance that the State will pay any and all contingent liabilities of the Legal Aid Board which may arise in the future. That sword of Damocles of which I spoke must be removed, and the board must be allowed to get on with its task unfettered by financial stringencies.

Secondly, the hon the Minister, if he feels he has the authority, should give an undertaking that the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission, which I have read out today, will in fact be implemented without further delay. I believe he should give that undertaking today.

Finally, I believe that the composition of the board must be changed so as to divorce it from the Government-bound image which it has and, as a last point, its finances must be guaranteed so that it is able to perform its enlightened function without fearing for its very existence. In this case I honestly believe that the hon the Minister of Justice has been found wanting.

I turn to a second aspect. What is often crucial to the success or failure of a system or a concept is not so much that that system or concept is good or bad. It is rather that people perceive it to be good or bad. If public perception is negative, regardless of the merits of the concept or system it will nonetheless die from lack of support. That statement can be made to apply in almost any circumstances to almost any concept or system, and it does in fact apply particularly to the administration of justice in South Africa today.

The public perception of the administration of justice varies from community to community. The HSRC report on Intergroup Relations, on page 134, found that Whites have the most positive impression of South African law and Africans the most negative, with Coloureds and Indians somewhere midway between the two extremes.

The HSRC did not blindly come to this view. The conclusions were reached only after much careful research. Allow me to summarise a few extracts from the findings. I quote from page 130 of the report, as follows:

That was one of the findings of the HSRC’s study on this issue.

What they are saying is that the judicial enforcement over many years of racially discriminatory legislation such as the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the pass laws etc has not only created a hatred for those laws, but regrettably it has also brought the very administration of justice in our country into disrepute and has diminished the legitimacy of our courts in the eyes of the Black public of South Africa. The criminalisation of racially oriented regulations has had the same effect.

Is that law or politics?

This is a question of the perception of the Black public of the administration of justice. That is what I am talking about. Adverse findings are made in respect of the inequality of access to the courts; in regard to the fact that the civil courts are generally administered almost exclusively by Whites, while the overwhelming majority of accused persons in the criminal courts are in fact Black. These perceptions, unless reversed, bode ill for the future of the rule of law and of the administration of justice in South Africa.

The HSRC, however, is not the only body or person who holds this view. Speaking at the Witwatersrand law school graduation last week, Mr Justice Nicholas said the following:

Discussing this further, Mr Justice Nicholas said the following:

I recently had occasion to read a very fine paper delivered in February 1986 by a gentleman who I think is the dean of the faculty of Law at the University of Stellenbosch, Professor H J Erasmus, in which he pointedly discusses the crisis of legitimacy presently being experienced by the South African courts. He concluded his remarks by making certain suggestions, as follows:

1. (i) die verbetering van onderwys en opleidingsgeriewe vir Swartes;
2. (ii) die verwydering van polarisasie tussen verskillende kleurgroepe in die regsprofessie;
3. (iii) die groter betrokkenheid van Swartes—en daarmee bedoel ek alle “nie-Blanke” kleurgroepe—in die regsprekende proses op alle vlakke;
4. (iv) die herroeping van diskriminerende wetgewing; en
5. (v) die herstel in ere van die Hoogge-regshof as bastion van individuele vry-heid.

I think those are very important recommendations which he made, and I realise that taken all at once, it is a big mouthful for this hon Minister to swallow.

My problem is that I do not believe that the hon the Minister has even begun to appreciate the whole problem of the lack of legitimacy of the South African courts. I do not think he really understands the difficulty that he is facing.

I cannot believe that you mean that! I know you don’t mean it! [Interjections.]

I mean exactly that, Sir. I think the hon the Minister does not appreciate the lack of legitimacy which our South African courts, regrettably, have. In fact, far from implementing the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission, and the Human Sciences Research Council or heeding the advice of Prof Erasmus in this regard, the hon the Minister and his department seem to be travelling in the opposite direction.

Allow me to give an example in this regard. One would think that in these times, and in the light of the weight of evidence, the Government would actively be promoting participation in the system of justice by non-Whites. However, what are the facts? There are 4 000 magistrates and regional magistrates appointed in the Republic of South Africa. Of these, 3 995 are White and 5 magistrates out of 4 000 in the entire country are non-White. In fact, when one looks at the various divisions in the department— from the Attorney-General’s division to the Master’s Office to the State Attorney’s Office—of the approximately 1 700 posts, not one senior post of any consequence is held by anybody who is not White, not one. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, when one looks at the training programmes of his own department—the hon the Minister may scoff but this is true— laudable as they are—and one can read about them in the report—one realises just how far this department is falling short in providing for the needs of the whole country. Of the legal training provided by the department during 1985—I quote the Director-General from a letter he has just written me:

I challenge you to read the next sentence as well.

Well, he said next year at the academic course there will hopefully be three Coloured people, if I remember correctly. [Interjections.] The point is that I am not attacking the letter; I am attacking the fact that the hon the Minister has been indolent and disinterested in the education for legal purposes of non-White people in this country, disinterested in attracting them into his department, and disinterested in creating a situation where Blacks can feel some sort of relationship with his department.

No wonder the face of justice is seen by South Africans to be exclusively White. No wonder Black South Africans are largely alienated from his administration. No wonder Blacks seem to prefer “People’s Courts”, administering their own brand of rough justice, to the established courts of our country. [Interjections.]

That is a reprehensible remark.

It is true. I want to tell hon members that there are … [Interjections.]

Order!

That is all right, Sir, it is a question of who is speaking the loudest. What I am saying is that there are large numbers of Blacks who prefer the justice of the “People’s Courts” to the justice as administered by our society. I do not condone that. I am stating it as a fact and I am asking the hon the Minister to recognise and understand it. [Interjections.] That is what I am asking.

I do not know what more must be said by jurists. I do not know what more must be said by commissions of enquiry. I do not know what more must be said by concerned observers before this hon Minister takes seriously the problem I have outlined. Does the hon the Minister not realise that if the warnings of Hoexter and his commission, the warnings of the HSRC, the warnings of Prof Erasmus, of Mr Justice Didcott and Mr Justice Milne and their lectures, the warnings of other academics, and the warnings of the PFP are ignored, as they have been in the passed, if they are not heeded and if urgent steps are not taken, that the future for civilised and democratic justice in South Africa begins to look rather bleak?

To be specific—and here we would like some answers today from the hon the Minister—what is he doing about the Hoexter Commission recommendation relating to the establishment of a Council of Justice? What is he doing about it? Is the hon the Minister able to answer that question? Nothing has happened to my knowledge as yet. This is a most important recommendation and, once accepted, such a body could play a meaningful role in tackling some of the problems I have mentioned.

Secondly, I should like to ask the hon the Minister what he is doing to give effect to the Hoexter recommendation that all judicial officers in the lower courts be made independent of the public service. This step is vital if the image of the courts is to be improved in the eyes of the public. What is the hon the Minister doing about it, Sir? What is the decision of the Government, and what is going to be done about that recommendation?

Finally, Sir, why is the department doing little or nothing at all to attract, to train or to promote officers in the Department of Justice who are not White? Why, Sir, do we content ourselves with a few token Blacks, probably serving in Black areas, specifically to serve—as the hon the Minister would put it—their own people? Why, Sir, cannot Black people be taken into the ordinary course of the administration of justice in South Africa, play their role just as any other South African and come to feel associated with our system of the administration of justice?

Sir, I believe it is not enough for the hon the Minister to sit on his thumb and say that the doors are open. Black South Africans must be invited in and must play an equal role in the dispensing of justice for all. If the hon the Minister continues to fail in this respect, his credibility and that of the courts will lie in tatters.

Finally, Sir, I ask why all the judges of South Africa are White. Why has the hon the Minister not found it possible to nominate one single non-White person to the Bench of this country, when he knows full well there are silks of great quality who are available and who could possibly be appointed? I believe that the appointment in this country of a judge who is not White is long overdue.

How many executive members of the PFP are Black?

Sir, I do not know how that question could be relevant to the administration of justice, but the crux of the matter is that, as far as I know, one such person was elected at the last committee meeting that was held.

We should ask Helen! [Interjections.]

Sir, I believe that in this area too—the question of the appointment of judges—the time for moralising is over. The time for piously stating that appointments are made on merit is over. The hon the Minister should appoint judges across the colour line without fear of criticism. I believe, Sir, that the new South Africa demands it.

Mr Chairman, since my time is rather limited and since I have my own argument to develope, I unfortunately cannot respond to all the arguments advanced by the hon member for Sandton. However, how a member of the Standing Committee on Justice can allege that the hon the Minister is not implementing the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission simply boggles the mind. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member should know better. [Interjections.] In what I am about to say I shall deal with one aspect of the hon member for Sandton’s argument.

*On the occasion of recent visits to the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom I gained the impression that in each of these countries there was some institution, organisation or “something” which, in spite of political differences, was regarded almost as above criticism. For instance, it is the Constitution in the USA; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada and the Queen in the United Kingdom. In consequence of this I believed until recently that in the case of the RSA in general it was our legal system and our courts of law and the standard of their judicature in particular.

Nevertheless there has recently been an unprecedented and deplorable onslaught on the status and prestige of our legal system, the standard of judicature and even on the legitimacy of our courts of law and the objectivity of our judges. We had an example of this in the speech the hon member for Sandton has just made.

On analysis this onslaught and criticism appear to be neither legal nor juridical but politically motivated and funded. The legal system is not attacked and the judgment of our courts of law not criticised on legal but on political grounds. The actions of our judges are queried purely because they are not prepared to act as political agitators or activists against Government policy, as contained and expressed in specific legislation.

Of course, anyone is free to differ with the Government, to criticise and attack its policy and to attempt changing it. This is actually every South African’s democratic right. Nevertheless it should be done in the political sphere and not by attacks on our legal system and our courts of law. It is alarming and reprehensible to launch political attacks from academic studies and from behind academic lecterns at the legal system and judicature in the name of academic freedom or jurisprudence and under the hypocritical cloak of concern about the RSA legal system and the prestige of the courts of law.

Why is that reprehensible?

If those condemning our judges because they are supposedly inclined, as it is put, to be upholders of the status quo, not to do sufficient in protecting the individual against the devastation of apartheid and to remain inextricably part of an evil system if they do not resign their posts, have the courage of their convictions, let them resign from their comfortable posts and in the political arena defend the contentious political statements they utter and standpoints they recognise. What do such people think would remain of the exalted norms and standards they demand of the legal system and courts of law if those against whom action is taken in terms of the execrated safety measures were to have their way? Circumstances in and about the RSA are far too serious to give in to the naïve plaints of liberal academics, self-appointed saviours of our legal system and guardians of the standard of our judicature.

Even if it were accepted that all legislation was not fair or not always applied fairly, this could in no way serve as justification for casting doubts upon the character of our legal system and the standard of our administration of justice. The basic norms and requirements a legal system should comply with are certainly far beyond fairness—however important considerations of fairness may be—not to mention fairness as it is subjectively perceived by bigoted political opponents of the Government. Surely the South African legal system is not one of equity for its own sake.

In the case of The State vs Adams, 1979(1) of the SA Law Reports Justice King put it as follows:

The South African legal system in addition comprises infinitely more than a number of so-called apartheid laws. One only has to think of the comprehensive and highly regarded South African common law on which Prof Honoré of the University of Oxford expressed himself as follows in the preface to the 1984 edition of his standard work The South African Law of Trust:

In addition, think of the mass of legislation with no colour or so-called apartheid implications; think of the independent, autonomous and impartial courts of law and of the high professional qualifications and personal integrity of our judges. Think of the validity of principles and rules such as that of audi alteram partem, the rule that no one is guilty before he is proved to be so, that no one may stand trial twice for the same offence and the accepted view that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I could mention many others. Think of the available legal aid as well and other supporting services to make the courts accessible to all as well as of the high professional standards and ethical norms with which attorneys and advocates have to comply.

Does all this have to be denigrated and belittled as an inferior legal system merely because the courts are also bound inter alia to apply legislation about which some people have a political perception that it is unfair? [Time expired.]

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

I immediately wish to dissociate my party and myself entirely from what I want to call a disgraceful and humiliating comment on the credibility of the courts made by the hon member for Sandton here this afternoon. One certainly did not expect this of an hon member with his legal background. [Interjections.] I wish to tell him he once again illustrated this afternoon that an unbridgeable chasm exists between the ideological standpoints of our party and his. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is the political and administrative head of the Department of Justice. In his capacity as the administrative head the hon the Minister controls all the administrative powers, activities and duties of his department. We should like to extend an exceptional word of appreciation to the hon the Minister for the good work he has done in that capacity in his department over the past year. In his time the hon the Minister was a good attorney and, like all good attorneys, he also does good work. I should like to make special mention of the fact that the hon the Minister is always most helpful when one approaches him with specific problems.

Nevertheless the hon the Minister is also the political head of his department and I believe that the disquieting situation of unrest has not facilitated the hon the Minister’s task as the Minister of Justice over the past year. I also believe political decisions of the hon the Minister’s Government contributed greatly in aggravating the situation of unrest in our country. In consequence of the Government’s frequently wrong political decisions, an enormous additional burden has been placed on the present staff of his department. We therefore contend that wrong political decisions have not only aggravated the situation of unrest but also placed an additional load on his staff.

I should like to cite one example in support of this statement and I quote from paragraph 2.47 on page 74 of the Director-General’s report:

We therefore say the abolition of Black courts which was an out-and-out political decision, as we said previously in debates on that subject, placed an additional burden on the staff of the department. The Director-General confirms this. He confirms that certain adverse consequences of that decision have given rise to the situation I have just presented to hon members.

The hon the Minister will certainly often be vexed in the year ahead by additional obligations which will also fall to his department as a result of the situation of unrest dragging on.

We wish the hon the Minister a more peaceful time and therefore recommend that he make every effort that a general election be held. By doing this the hon the Minister may be relieved of these obligations so that he may go farming in peace. [Interjections.]

I also wish to add the thanks and appreciation of my party and myself to that of the hon the Minister in his expression of thanks to the Director-General and all the officials of that department. We fully associate ourselves with the hon the Minister. I also wish to take the opportunity of thanking Advocate Rudman in particular who often explains the essence of legislation to us and we feel free to approach him. Not only he but all the other members of that department are helpful; we greatly appreciate the work done there.

One of the most illuminating chapters of the annual report is chapter 2 in which the functions and activities of the officers at head office are described. There are different branches and divisions there each with its own sphere of activity. As we all know, the overall objective in these divisions is a striving for maximal efficiency in the department. This can take place only if officers are academically well instructed and if intensive in-service training takes place daily. I shall revert to this subject later in my speech.

In addition to seeing to the academic and the daily in-service training of officers, and effective and efficient level of administration can be maintained only if constant care is taken in the provision of effectual courts, good office accommodation and similar facilities. Under this head I should like to refer to a portion of this report dealing with the accommodation subdivision. I shall quote the relevant paragraph from the annual report:

to combat this situation.

As an ex-practitioner in Pretoria I take pleasure in referring to the 14% of accommodation in poor condition. The very famous Palace of Justice in Pretoria undoubtedly falls into this category of the 14% of buildings in poor condition. We are aware of all the efforts made over the years to renovate and maintain this building properly. All inhabitants of Pretoria and legal practitioners are very proud of this building and are eager to have it in good condition but its condition is not good. I should appreciate further attention being paid to that accommodation. With the hon the Minister’s permission I should like to discuss this matter with him personally when an opportunity presents itself.

I wish to revert to the activities of the Legal Training Branch which does excellent work. If one studies the annual report and examines the achievements of officials trained by that department, one is certainly deeply impressed by the very good work done by that branch. There was a pass rate of 90% and higher in seven of the subjects offered by the branch, 80% and higher in six subjects and in a further six subjects the pass rate was 70% to 79%. This is evidence of good work by the Legal Training Branch and I think it is necessary that we mention and give credit to that branch for its very good work. As regards its work, thorough academic and practical training is essential in the light of the enormous task and responsibility resting on our prosecutors, public prosecutors and magistrates among others.

If one merely examines the extent of the work, if one thinks that in the year under review more than 2 200 000 criminal cases and almost 1 million civil cases were recorded in our magistrates’ courts and one notes the fact that almost 56 000 cases were heard in our regional courts by only 134 regional magistrates, this is not only evidence of exceptionally hard work but also of outstandingly well instructed and exceptionally trained officials thanks to the good work done in the department.

Let it suffice for me to say that all departmental officials carrying this enormous burden on their shoulders—not only the judges, magistrates and prosecutors but everyone from the Director-General to the incumbent of the humblest post in the department— have and deserve this Committee’s full thanks and appreciation. Our thanks and best wishes go to them for the future.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon member Mr Theunissen for dissociating himself and his party from the attack launched on our courts by the hon member for Sandton. I also wish to thank him for expressing his appreciation to the hon member the Minister in his capacity of the administrative head and for what he does in this regard. I shall not hold his efforts to drag politics into it against him but I do not think they were very successful.

The hon member for Sandton made a very serious personal attack on the person of the hon the Minister this afternoon. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

It was one of the unfairest attacks I have ever heard in this House. The hon member says it was not a personal attack but what did he call the hon the Minister? [Interjections.] He used the words “political lightweight” and said that in consequence of this the hon the Minister did not have the courage to carry out certain reforms in the legal field. [Interjections.] It was one of the unfairest attacks ever launched in my presence in this House.

What are the facts? They are that in the period in which he has held the post of the Minister of Justice we have seen some of the most far-reaching reforms in the legal sphere in this country. I shall enumerate a few of these to hon members quickly.

Firstly, there is the Hoexter Commission. Nearly all the recommendations of this commission have either been carried out or addressed. In this regard the hon member raised the question that magistrates should be independent. That matter has been addressed and, if the hon member is not satisfied with the way in which this was done, he should tackle its merits and not attack the hon the Minister personally.

Great changes have been brought about in the courts. Here I need only refer to the commissioners’ courts and to the enhancement of the jurisdiction levels of magistrates’ courts, to the broadening of the variety of sentence, to the changes in divorce legislation and to the fact that family law and the law of persons have undergone enormous reforms. In addition I can mention the accrual dispensation as well as the abolition of marital powers and the institution of small claims courts by this hon Minister. Appeal procedures have been changed fundamentally and we now see the benefits of this. Further, estate procedures have been greatly improved and we are seeing the advantages of this as well. Judges’ benefits have also been improved appreciably. These are all matters I jotted down rapidly while the hon member was making that personal attack. [Interjections.] I wish to suggest that it was really a most unfair attack by the hon member.

I actually wish to refer to the report of the Smuts Commission on the inquiry into the appearance of advocates in the Supreme Court of South Africa. This Commission was appointed on 1 June 1984 and issued its first report as early as 12 July 1984, in other words only one month and twelve days after its appointment. I think we are greatly indebted to Justice Smuts for issuing this report so speedily. Two further reports were issued after the first one and a final report is pending.

The Bar Associations also deserve thanks for their speedy assistance. I think that, if they had not been prepared to furnish this, the judge would also not have been able to attend to this matter so expeditiously. The registrar also deserves thanks for his assistance in this.

The commission’s terms of reference were very wide; they were to inquire into an report on, firstly:

It was found as regards this that this person had never been admitted as an advocate and that he had practised under the name of J W Pienaar. He was a member of the Society of Advocates of the Orange Free State and of Natal.

The commission was also requested to give a decision on the question of whether negligence could be attributed to anybody because this person was permitted to practise in this way. In this regard, the finding was that no negligence could be established. Here it should be stated in all fairness that, although the person concerned practised under another name, he himself had an LLB degree. He passed the Bar examination and the finding was that he had an above-average knowledge of criminal law and procedure. I think it also deserves mention that this is the first time such a case has come up in history.

The judge also had to decide on the question whether justice was done in the relevant circumstances. We are awaiting a further report on this.

It should be stated that proper provision was made for those persons affected by this. Unfortunately one of the accused defended by this person was given the death sentence and the sentence was carried out. In the OFS he defended 10 people of whom four were found not guilty and six guilty. In the Transvaal he defended 11 people, of whom four were found not guilty and seven guilty. Of the 12 persons involved, five indicated they wished to appeal, five that they were satisfied and two could not be traced.

The last question on which the Commissioner had to report was of especial interest. It runs:

It was recommended that overregulation be guarded against. The case which came to public attention was one of pure fraud. A person who wishes to lay himself open to fraud will do so even if his identity numbers have to be furnished because he will merely ensure that they are the right identity numbers—as Mr De Jager made use of the right name in this case.

There is a recommendation that the prospective advocate shall satisfy the Society of Advocates that he is a fit and proper person. I find this an unfair recommendation because it means that the Society of Advocates involved, just like the court, will have absolute authority in deciding whether a person is to be admitted or not. It is preferable that the Society of Advocates should only satisfy itself that the applicant is indeed the person concerned. I agree with the recommendation of the affirmed declaration by the dean of the faculty and I consider this reasonable and acceptable.

The great advantage of this report, as I have indicated, is that certain deficiencies in the profession have been brought very clearly to light in it. Whereas nearly all professions, including attorneys, fall under the control and supervision of a professional body, it is not the case with advocates. It is quite possible for a person to practise as an advocate in the Supreme Court without his falling under the control or supervision of a professional body.

I wish to cite the examples of the practitioner, academic or public servant admitted as an advocate without being a member of the Society of Advocates. This holds the further implication that the same qualifications do not apply to the same profession. For those who are members of the society a qualification applies that they have to serve articles and also sit the examination, but this does not apply to the other persons.

It is a very important profession to practice as an advocate; it is important to that profession as well as to judicature in general that this matter cannot proceed in this way. Divergent standpoints were also recognised before the commission and I wish to request that the hon the Minister pay attention to this matter so that a statutory body may possibly be instituted for all advocates to regulate professional standards. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I can understand that the hon member Mr Schutte has a certain problem with the goings on at the Free State Bar. There is no doubt that the profession is very glad to have had that sorted out tidily and put away.

Our input in this respect is very much along the lines of that of the hon member for Sandton in respect of legal aid. I must say, however, that I think it is a fortunate thing that the hon member came to this House as a politician. It is fortunate for this House, because there was always just the slight chance that he might have ended up on the Bench. That would have been a very unfortunate thing for South Africa.

There was no chance of that happening whatsoever!

Well, one never knows. The hon the Minister is a great fan of Murphy’s Law, and these things do happen.

I must say, having listened and learnt from the hon member on the standing committee—he has a nimble and imaginative mind—that his submissions concerning the matters before the House today under this Vote leave one simply feeling that it was an exercise in sensationalism. It depicted a volatile, unstable observer of law, which he is not. It was therefore purely a political exercise. Really, to use the logic of analogy to try to link the “people’s trials” to the political system to indicate that that is discrediting the courts is a very, very tenuous sort of logic and reasoning which one can only see discredit and misfortune coming of. I should say that…

Is this not the right place to discuss politics?

Does the hon member not know that?

I would have thought it was.

I would have thought that the link between this department and the Bench and the administration of justice requires of all hon members in this House to do their utmost to discuss this Vote with decorum and give it the benefit of their philosophy towards how justice should be administered without trying to drag it right down into the mud.

He would not understand that.

To get away from the point, I may mention that I have been on the receiving end of the hon member’s very sharp tongue on occasion, so perhaps this was my opportunity. I mean well, of course.

Just be careful, he has another turn to speak. [Interjections.]

The hon member might do even worse next time.

A synopsis of the Hoexter Commission’s main findings on the Legal Aid Board is contained on page 22 of the fifth and final report, as well as on pages 4 and 5 of the report of the Legal Aid Board for the period 1 April 1984-31 March 1985. This latter synopsis makes very clear the feelings of the Legal Aid Board in regard to its functioning and its shortcomings, particularly as regards its financial capability. We in this party believe Parliament should increase the allocation for legal aid since the proper administration of justice is a prime duty of the State, and indigent litigants should be helped to obtain qualified legal assistance.

As a consequence of the Legal Aid Board’s shortage of funds, legal aid is sometimes not even granted in respect of divorce proceedings. Counsel is then asked to appear on an in forma pauperis basis, that is totally gratuitously, without their even being reimbursed for expenses actually incurred. This work is done essentially by advocates starting out in the profession and not the “fat cats”, the made men.

We believe that the Legal Aid Board’s rates should be increase considerably in order to enable the board to negotiate a resonable adjustment of tariff items with the Bar so as to be able to furnish the legal aid in all appropriate cases, including divorce cases, and to enable it to conduct capital trials on a legal aid basis. I refer here to the pro Deo system. It is the practice in South Africa at present that where an accused person is arraigned on a capital charge—that is, one in which the death penalty can be imposed—that person will, if he so wishes, be assigned counsel who will defend him at no cost to himself. Such a person does not have the right to choose his own counsel and must therefore accept the counsel assigned to him.

With the vast increase in the volume of criminal work in the Supreme Court, the selection of counsel is normally done by the local Bar itself. These people are then called “Counsel pro Deo“. As I have said, they are normally very junior members of the Bar, except in special cases; and it is the duty of such counsel, once they are appointed, to defend, pro Deo, the person accused of committing a particular offence, unless of course such counsel has already has been engaged.

Those hon members who are in the legal profession will recall that the last increase in pro Deo payments came into force—this is quite interesting—on April Fool’s Day, 1983! Since then the cost of living has increased by two thirds. Many of the counsel who appear pro Deo are highly competent men who have worked in other fields before being admitted to the Bar. They include attorneys and teachers of law. In fact, my research has indicated that in recent pro Deo cases three convictions for murder were set aside on appeal, and a sentence of five years imprisonment was reduced to a caution and discharge. These are not light matters. Indeed, they are matters of considerable concern as regards the whole question of the administration of justice, and I see my appeal in that light.

In the case of an appeal to the Appellate Division in respect of a murder conviction, for instance, the issue is often one of credibility, and invariably a tremendous amount of evidence has to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb. I understand that in one case the record was almost 1 000 pages long and that it took a whole working week to examine. Yet the fee for this amounted to a mere R100.

There is no doubt in our minds that, without the lofty traditions of the pro Deo system being done away with, the time has come for this matter to be looked at very carefully so that the Legal Aid Board can arrange for an accused in a capital trial to be assisted by counsel. [Interjections.] As a temporary expedient, counsel should receive fair remuneration.

There is another situation prevailing which gives cause for concern about the availability of justice and the administration of justice. That is the question of the application of Rule 43 of the Supreme Court Rules which provides that an advocate may not charge more than R15 if such an application is unopposed, or R25 if it is opposed. This is in respect of legal costs in relation to divorce proceedings or in cases in which efforts are made to obtain maintenance from the other spouse before divorce proceedings can be heard or to obtain a temporary order for custody or for access to a child. These fees were laid down in 1964, and the Supreme Court Rules were promulgated on 12 January 1965. Despite amendments to certain subsections of Rule 43, this particular subrule—Rule 43(7)—which governs the fees has never been amended in order to cater for the dramatic fall in the value of the rand since 1964. It is suggested therefore that a far more realistic but nevertheless modest fee should be considered and that the Government should be in a position to bring this about by way of notice.

Sir, we believe that these are important matters in respect of the administration of justice. As I said initially, the efforts to take the administration of justice along with us into our new reformed society, in which a far greater awareness of these matters is indeed present, and a concomitant awareness on the part of Government of the necessity of extending the availability of justice to the man in the street would be a parallel and a commitment to making people aware of and involved in what is no doubt a crucial element of the reform process.

Mr Chairman, I have no swords to cross with the hon member for King William’s Town whom I believe made a very positive contribution. I wish to put it to the hon member for Sandton, however, that I honestly believe it a great pity that he made the statement here that Black people should compare the action and method of judicature of the People’s Courts with their method of action and favour this in preference to what we are accustomed to in our legal system. I honestly believe that comment was in very poor taste even in the light of the fact that this House accords us specific liberties as members.

Let him have it, Willem! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the hon member for Sandton’s attack on the hon the Minister. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that he should not take any notice of such an attack. I can assure him that this House and his directorates greatly appreciate the balanced way and the clear and very fine manner in which he has taken the lead in this department for many years.

Mr Chairman, we also wish to thank the Director-General and his officials—each an excellent official in his own right—for their very, very good contributions and their advice and support—in the sphere of the standing committee as well—which we receive from their side from time to time.

Moving slightly closer to my own constituency, however, I must say I am delighted to see in the annual report of the department that the Roodepoort magistrates’ office is on the five-year priority programme. We had hoped, from all the correspondence over the years, that construction on this would have been started by now but I notice that nothing has happened yet. We hope construction will commence shortly.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time at my disposal but I should again like to refer briefly to an aspect I have raised before. The activities of this directorate as well as of the Directorate: Prisons cover an enormously wide spectrum and are one of the pillars of good government. I believe the limited time allowed in this House for a discussion of the activities of these directorates is totally inadequate and we shall really have to do something about having it extended.

There is a single fact which I find reasonably upsetting in the annual report of the department—a fact I link to a few others. This is the increase in the number of serious crimes in the years between 1980 and 1985 from approximately 57 000 to 67 000 cases in which sentences of two years’ imprisonment or more were imposed. When one notes the criminal cases for the year under review, they appear to have increased from 1,17 million to 2,2 million in comparison with the preceding year. This was also related in some measure to the economic downswing phase we experienced but it remains disquieting that so many offences are committed in our country. We shall have to examine the cause of crime very seriously.

I wish to praise our magistrates; it emerges very clearly from the figures and statistics of the annual report that bench hours have increased sharply and that these people work very hard. I am able to declare from personal experience that judicature is of a very high standard almost throughout.

In the light of the very large Black component of our population we shall also have to devote a great deal of attention to training. Here I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Sandton but I think one of the other hon members will go into this in greater detail.

It is a pity that in some cases we have to make use of officials to serve in legal posts without their having certain minimum legal qualifications. Nevertheless I think that owing to the current composition of the department, the lack of finance for training and the handling of problems the directorate has to combat, one has to accept that there is no other way out at present.

I wish to refer briefly to a further aspect. Over the past year in particular numbers of people have died violently. Our people in South Africa are all worried about this and also concerned for their safety. I think people in Black communities in particular are concerned for their lives and property. It is dangerous for a member of the public to kill a person outside clearly defined legal principles and he cannot merely arm himself and take the law into his own hands. People should guard against taking a fellow human’s life.

This matter received a great deal of attention during the unfortunate incident at Uitenhage on 21 March 1985. The action of the police was sharply criticised in spite of Justice Kannemeyer’s clear judgment. After very thorough consideration of the circumstances in which the police found themselves, the judge stated very clearly that they acted altogether within their rights in firing those shots.

The position of justifiable homicide is covered firstly by section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 and secondly also in common law cases of self-defence, a state of emergency and in lack of culpability for instance. If one looks at only a single item of section 49(2), one sees the deceased would have had to commit a “Schedule 1 offence” before action may be taken. How many members of the public are aware of a “Schedule 1 offence”? Consequently it is very dangerous for a member of the public merely to act. Unless such a person really finds himself in a situation in which his life is at risk or he is actually being very seriously threatened, he should not act lightly. One may also commit justifiable homicide in self-defence but then it has to be against unlawful attack upon one’s life, body, possessions or honour.

Delete section 49(2) altogether.

The attack has to be unlawful, the threat still exist, the attack need not be aimed at the defender and it has to be aimed at the defender’s own life or that of a third person or, with certain qualifications, against property and honour. The defensive action has to comply with specific requirements. My time has unfortunately expired and I cannot go into the matter any further.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I would like to reply to the hon member for Sandton but unfortunately I did not bring my copy of the publication Book of Insults, Part Two with me this afternoon. The result is that I am not in a position to deal with the hon member in the unsavoury manner of which he is so deserving.

I must say that some of the comparisons that he sought to draw speak of a warped mind.

I am not sure that you are allowed to say that.

It is a mind boggled by too little reading and too much travelling overseas perhaps. If ever a person has supported the concept that unjustly prevails in certain quarters that our courts are not independent and objective, then the hon member for Sandton is that person.

For a Minister you are very limited! That is the problem.

He is that person.

I think that the hon member for King Williams Town dealt reasonably adequately with the caustic tongue of the hon member for Sandton who, as we all know, has a direct link with certain elements in the media. I can forgive the hon member for attacking me—there was a time when it was believed that he was being paid for doing that—but by discrediting justice in this country at this very delicate stage he has rendered a disservice not only to the country and to this House but also to his party.

Time will tell!

Furthermore, addressing us on “the particular” as he called it he referred to the issue of legal aid. He said that he had spoken to an employee of the Legal Aid Board. Let me say immediately that that employee will not be discharged, prosecuted or persecuted. I therefore challenge the hon member to name that employee now for the simple reason that the Director for Legal Aid says that neither he nor any of his officials spoke to the hon member for Sandton. I leave the matter at that.

Secondly, addressing us-on the budget of the Legal Aid Board the hon member deliberately sought to present statements to the House as facts although they were not.

Can you say that?

I beg your pardon?

I was wondering if you are in order in saying that.

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am giving the hon member a lesson.

Order! Does the hon member for Sandton wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Chairman, I thought you heard it clearly yourself. You should take it mero motu.

Order! Does the hon member for Sandton wish to address me on the point as to what he regards as unparliamentary?

Mr Chairman, I am accused of deliberately presenting to the House facts which are not facts. That is roughly what the hon the Minister said. He used the word “deliberately.”

Order! I do not interpret “deliberately presenting facts which are not facts” necessarily amounting to suggesting that the hon member knows them not to be facts. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I abide by the ruling of the Chair, Mr Chairman.

The hon member sought to establish that we are dealing with a diminishing budget for the Legal Aid Board. What nonsense! Just a glance at the relevant statistics can disprove that. The board spent R2,341 million on legal aid in 1982-83, R3,386 million in 1983-84, R3,9 million in 1984-85 and R5,979 million in 1985-86.

What is more, there was a sharp increase in the demand for legal aid as from the beginning of 1985. This increase of almost 60% threatened the board with a deficit for that financial year.

I do not wish to attribute to myself any extraordinary power or give myself credit. I do not need those things, especially not for the benefit of the hon member for Sandton. I must, however, explain that I telephoned the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs who was acting Minister of Finance at the time and told him about my predicament. [Interjections.] He in turn telephoned the State President and within an hour I had a firm commitment of R1 million for the Legal Aid Board as well as the possibility of a further R500 000 which was granted later.

Why is the hon member for Sandton blushing and lowering his head in shame?

I am making notes, not blushing. [Interjections.] I am listening to rubbish … [Interjections.]

The Act pertaining to legal aid also provides for the possibility of funds being obtained from sources other than the Government.

There are those who assert that the Government should provide for every possible litigant in this country. The hon member for Sandton demanded a rearrangement of priorities and an increase in expenditure, yet he voted against the Budget. If his demands were acceded to, it would not be possible to provide for any litigant at all. What is more, no other sources have as yet been tapped. I am therefore grateful to the fidelity fund headed by Mr Eric Liefeldt. I almost said “the hon Eric Liefeldt” because he deserves some commendation.

I have received a note from the Director-General which reads as follows:

This is vast progress, and it has been achieved without the assistance of the hon member for Sandton!

Well, you know I have spoken on this subject…

Oh yes, the hon member has spoken on many issues!

You know I have often spoken on this particular subject.

Now he is trying to enter into …

Don’t be so childish!

I am not childish.

You are being petty and childish!

Order!

I am not childish. I do not need to be.

And you are supposed to be a Minister. Act like a grown-up!

Order!

I would like to say something about the R12 million that will be required during the coming years. Over the past couple of years, the Government has not let the Legal Aid Board down. As with any building programme we have a budget method for a particular year. We may plan ahead, and we do, but that is the issue. Tapping our resources is very relevant, but I cannot commit the Government in an irresponsible way or unduly to expenditure on legal aid, unfettered and not according to a particular policy. Now, I do not apologise to the Opposition for having drawn to the attention of the Legal Aid Board the fact that in this particular financial year—as we did in the previous one—we are battling to make ends meet. I have asked them to consider a policy tailored to this difficulty. I am not apologising for that. The Department of Justice is known and recognised as one of the more—if I may say so to my hon colleagues—conservative departments when it comes to budgeting. We do not apologise for that. We have to be conservative in that respect and set an example. We will not squander State money. We will not squander the taxpayers’ money. I am not apologising for that attitude either. [Interjections.]At the same time, there are other sources for funding legal aid. The universities have come forward with their legal aid clinics and they are rendering a service in such an admirable way that I want to commend all universities with these clinics for filling the legal aid gap in some way. Therefore I think the hon member for Sandton was somewhat unreasonable. However, I am already beginning to forgive him because he looks so pale and apologetic.

You said I was blushing just now, and now you say I look pale.

The hon member also sought to disparage our courts but the hon member for Mossel Bay dealt with him adequately, and I am not going to belabour any of those particular points although I want to return now to some other matters he raised.

As to the issue of employees, the hon member said there were thousands of magistrates in South Africa but only a few of them were Blacks. I should like him to produce those thousands of magistrates this afternoon because we could perhaps do with them. Perhaps we could even attend to some of the needs of the hon member for Sandton. The fact is that we have 807 magistrates nad another 25 regional magistrates, giving a total of 932 magistrates.

Your report discloses 4 000 or more.

I am talking about the position as of today. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to all the positions we have in the Department of Justice. Even so, he was well off the mark because 1 113 people working for the department in various positions are Blacks. [interjections.] They are working in various official positions. The hon member must give me a chance; I did not interrupt him. As a matter of fact we do not have enough legally qualified Black people entering the service. That is true, but we are encouraging people to take courses. I have records here of numerous courses that will be presented this year. However, in his calculations he deliberately omitted—I am not saying deliberately contorted the facts— to refer to the fact that the national self-governing states are still also part of our system. We also dispense justice there with the assistance of 190 magistrates, 136 prosecutors and 1 570 interpreters, giving a total of 1 896 people. They are all part of the system.

Why was this not disclosed to me when I asked for it?

They are all part of the system. What is he trying to establish?

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

No, I am not answering questions now.

The hon member said that he thought that we should appoint people of colour. That was what he said to me. I think that the hon members of the other Houses will shy away from this idea because they insist on appointment on merit.

So do we!

Then why do you not come over to us? [Interjections.]

I want to assure the hon member that I will not shy away from the concept of appointment on the grounds of merit in the Department of Justice. If every we want to discredit the dispensation of justice, we must appoint people on the grounds of colour and colour alone! [Interjections.]

I immediately concede one point, namely that we should have a plan for drawing more and more Black people into the system and making more and more courses available to them. We are doing that at present.

Are there no Black people of merit at the moment? Is that what you are saying?

The hon member asked a question concerning the Judicial Council. This hon member was, however, a member of a standing committee which accepted a Bill on the Rules Board, and he supported the concept of Rules Boards. I was very explicit in my Second Reading speech on these issues. The Rules Boards will be performing some of the functions which the Hoexter Commission wanted the Judicial Council to do. The Rules Board will be implemented in time to come. Perhaps it will come into being in months to come, but it will be implemented. It is already on the Statute Book. I think that disposes of the hon member for Sandton adequately.

*That brings me to the hon member Mr Theunissen. My thanks to him for his words of support to the Department of Justice. The men appreciate it, and they deserve it.

The hon member referred to the situation in Pretoria. We should like to confirm that the Palace of Justice merits everyone’s support. The repair and restoration of the Palace of Justice has been receiving attention for some time now. I paid it a personal visit some time ago, the year before last, when we discussed the renewal programme. Because the courts are in session every day, it is being done in various phases. One of the phases is being carried out at the moment and another will be put out for tender in July 1986. I can assure the hon member that the feelings which we all share about the Palace of Justice, are reflected in the fact that we and the department of my colleague, the hon Minister for Public Works, are giving this matter our undivided attention.

I also want to reply to the speech made by the hon member for Roodepoort in which he mentioned the magistrate’s office in his constituency. It is correct that Roodepoort, Vereeniging and that area are now high on the priority list and that further attention will be given to those buildings. The same applies to Kimberley, Mitchell’s Plain and Secunda. Potchefstroom’s magistrate’s office will be commissioned shortly.

I want to return to the speech made by the hon member Mr Theunissen. During the time when the personnel were under pressure to cope with the increasing number of court cases, the Department of Justice once again proved that it could be done. For example, they arranged for personnel officers to render interim services in other centres. That is how we succeeded to a great extent in causing the proceedings to take place in such a way that there was no noticeable disruption. There is not doubt that there was pressure. I should like to express my personal appreciation in this connection. I want to mention the example of the Eastern Cape regional division for which the president of the regional court in Johannesburg made some of his personnel available to man various additional courts in Port Elizabeth and East London. Prosecutors from elsewhere were used on a relief basis.

Here in the Cape Province the Attorney General employed his prosecutors in such a way that it was possible to keep the services going until our permanent personnel could be transferred. The Chief Magistrate of Cape Town has been monitoring and handling this matter for us on a special co-ordinated basis since October last year and I think that he in particular deserves our appreciation for this.

With regard to the district courts seven magistrates’ and six for public prosecutors’ posts were created on the magistrate’s establishment and officials from other centres were assigned to those courts to render this essential service. If there are any other points to which I still have to reply, I shall do so with pleasure.

This brings me to the hon member Mr Schutte and I trust he will understand when I tell him that I think that he handled the Smuts Report very well and when I inform him that we are at present studying the recommendations of the various reports. I also want to express my thanks to Mr Justice Smuts who brought out a report with dispatch, as well as to the various leading members of the Bar—I am thinking of Advocate Beckley, Advocate De Villiers of Pretoria and all other leading members of the Bar who were affected by it—for their involvement and the manner in which they dealt with this very delicate matter. If they had not dealt with it in this manner, we might in fact have had a crisis in South Africa. We might have had a crisis, but they dealt with it extremely well.

It is interesting to note that with regard to the opportunity created for those already serving sentence in prison, a few of them appealed on the grounds that an unqualified person had acted on their behalf. I have four names here. I am not going to mention the names, but one of the more sensitive cases who previously indicated that he would appeal, has indicated in the meantime that he is withdrawing his appeal. I think he realises that justice was done in the first instance and that things may not go so well for him the second time around.

What are we going to do about these recommendations? In the main we have implemented all the factual recommendations in regard to persons and we are now awaiting the results of appeals. However, how are we going to prevent it? The answer to that question is contained in various recommendations and I am not going to react to that in detail now, except to tell the hon member Mr Schutte that we are now going to study his speech and suggestions in conjunction with the report and that we shall announce the Government’s standpoint in due course.

That brings me to the hon member for King William’s Town whom I have already replied to indirectly in connection with the whole question of legal aid.

He made a very important point in regard to the services that are being rendered in cases involving capital crimes—viz murder, rape and other cases—by pro Deo advocates. He made the point that this service should rather be transferred to legal aid and added that attention should meanwhile be given to the determining of advocates’ fees. I want to tell him with regard to the last point, viz the consideration of advocates’ fees, that this has already been done in a positive way and that we shall be implementing it in due course. I therefore want to react positively to the hon member for King William’s Town.

With regard to the whole pro Deo matter, I want to explain to hon members who do not know what it is all about, that the hon member for Sandton needed a pro Deo advocate today to save him from the NP. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the system is as old as the hills. For these young advocates in the main who make themselves available for pro Deo cases, this is of course a great opportunity to gain experience. It must also be pointed out that when it comes to more advanced cases, more experienced advocates can be appointed to take charge of certain complicated cases. That is how the present system functions.

In the Department of Justice I have learnt that unless one can offer a better system to replace the old one, one has to think twice. One must not drag one’s feet, because that is just as bad as blundering into something which has not been properly considered and tested and of which one has no certainty that it will succeed. So if we are ever going to meddle with the whole pro Deo concept, we shall have to be sure that we can indeed replace it with a better system. [Interjections.] As for the standpoint of the hon member for King William’s Town, therefore, I want to say that it is positive, sound and to the point and we shall take another look at the suggestion he made.

That is all I wish to say at this stage of the debate.

Mr Chairman, I think it was Langenhoven who once said we make more of our rights than of our privileges. I want to add this afternoon, however, that when one has limited, few or sometimes no rights, one later fails to notice one’s privileges.

That is why I briefly want to put in a good word this afternoon for the legal rights of Black women. There are thousands of Black women in our country who, as mothers, have to take care of and bring up their children alone, and have to earn a living by the sweat of their brows. It has become imperative for the legal status of Black women to be brought into line not only with the very great responsibilities they have today, but also with the demands made on them by a modern community.

Thousands of single parent families are seeking residential security, and I am sure that family stability goes hand in hand with residential security. Such Black families can only get this residential security if the mother has the right to register property in her name, regardless of whether or not she is a partner in a customary union.

That is why it is appropriate for the Government to give a high priority to the reforms in respect of the legal rights of Black women now. The measure that was passed last year by way of the amendment of the Black Administration Act, 1927, to give Black women legal rights in respect of leasehold, is a first step in the right direction.

I should like to raise a very important matter this afternoon. I am referring to the legal position of Black women and the recommendations of the Law Commission in its interim report about marriages and the customary unions between Black people. From conversations with Black women, it appears they accept these recommendations, but with certain reservations. The proposal that customary marriages be recognised as long as they enjoy equal status with the common-law marriage, is accepted only as an interim step. They feel the common-law marriage should enjoy preference, and that customary unions be recognised only to protect thousands of women who are involved in such unions.

The formalising and the registration of the customary union is welcomed, but the women come out very strongly against the recognition of polygamy. According to them it is a cultural practice which may as well become obsolete.

The further recommendations in the report are welcomed. It is clear to me, however, that Black women need guidance in understanding what this means, and that the emphasis will have to be placed on the protection of traditional practices. It will also have to be ensured that thousands of women are in fact not excluded in the improvement of their legal position.

A matter they emphasised very strongly in discussions, was the interest of Black women in the national states. I therefore request the hon the Minister also to refer the legal reforms, which will eventually be passed, to the multilateral technical committee dealing with legal matters. Black women would like to see all women included in these legal reforms.

In conclusion, one matter is very clear to me. In respect of the legal rights of Black women, the legislature can make good Acts; he can amend the Acts to address problems, but the crux of the matter concerns the introduction of the knowledge necessary to the Black women concerning the rights they are getting, and how they can utilise these to the benefit of their families and their communities.

In this connection I should also like to refer to the legal capacity Black women have obtained. It appears from 41 000 sales that were concluded that 35% of these were concluded by women after a very active advertising campaign. It therefore appears that guidance about their legal capacity, their legal position and the reforms that are taking place, should be given on a consistent scale. These reforms must get a very much higher profile so that the largest possible group of women can become aware of them. Even while the legal investigation is in progress, it is necessary for women to take cognisance of what it is all about, how it affects them and in what way the Government is concerned and is acting in the interests of Black women. I therefore request the hon the Minister to involve Black women in the legal investigation.

It has become fashionable these days to speak about the shortcomings of reforms. If the most important recommendations of this report are accepted, there will be a great improvement in the legal status of Black women. I want to support it with great enthusiasm this afternoon, and in conclusion, I cherish the expectation that Black women will be released from their minor status so that they will be able to take action in the interests of their children.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Venter has raised a matter of considerable importance and considerable interest, namely the question of the legal rights of Black women. We, like her, will await the report of the Law Commission and also the discussion on this matter and what follows that report with a great deal of interest.

I want now to come back to the hon the Minister and I want to say that I am absolutely amazed at the total supersensitivity which he displayed this afternoon in response to the speech made by the hon member for Sandton. Does the hon the Minister belive that he is above all criticism? Does he believe that it is not the function of the Official Opposition to deal with matters which we believe are of vital interest to the country of South Africa, namely the whole question of the legitimacy of our courts in South Africa?

The hon the Minister in his indignation was preceded by the hon member for Mossel Bay and by other members on that side of the House. He was also preceded by a very unctuous and cringing speech by the hon member for King William’s Town in the same vein, because the hon member for Sandton had dared to raise the question of the crisis of legitimacy which faces our courts in South Africa. What does the hon the Minister say? He talked about the unsavoury manner in which the hon member for Sandton had spoken and dealt with the issue. He talked about his warped mind; this coming from a Cabinet Minister! He said that the hon member for Sandton supported the view that our courts were not independent and objective etcetera. He then went on to accuse the hon member of discrediting justice in the country. Now, Sir, what absolute non-sence! The hon the Minister should realise that when one is dealing with the question of justice one is dealing with a department which has a vital role to play in society because its functions touch the lives of every single individual in society since it is supposed to be the custodian of their rights. In South Africa at the present time the Department of Justice has a particularly onerous responsibility. We concede that.

It is in that sense, Sir, that I want to make certain comments in relation to the whole concept of the legitimacy of the courts because, as the hon member for Mossel Bay said in quoting the old adage, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. In other words, Sir, one is looking at the image of justice, and this absolutely vital. In those circumstances, Mr Chairman, the relationship between the system of justice and the people must be treated as a matter of highest priority. The people must have the highest respect for the system and for all those who administer it if it is to fulfil its function as the custodian of the rights of the people in society. In a society such as South Africa this is a very difficult image to acquire and to maintain.

Sir, the hon member for Sandton referred to the HSRC report. Let me remind the hon the Minister and the hon member for Mossel Bay that the HSRC is not a body of liberals. It is also not a body of overseas academics. It is a body of scientists and they, in their report, made the following comment:

This is what the HSRC says. They go on to say:

Now, Sir, that comes from the HSRC, and the hon member for Sandton dealt with other aspects of the HSRC report. I want to deal, however, with specific examples of what contributes to the crisis of legitimacy for justice in South Africa.

Firstly, there was the whole question of the emergency regulations last year and the effect they had on the legitimacy of the courts as the guardian and custodian of the rights of the people of South Africa, in particular the indemnity provisions granted to the SA Police and to the security forces from prosecution for unlawful actions. If anything contributed to the crisis of the legitimacy of the courts, this particular provision in relation to the emergency regulations did. Nothing could bring the system into greater suspicion or contempt than that sort of provision which clearly separates the rights of the State and its agents from those of ordinary people.

If the hon the Minister is going to attack me for making that statement or if other hon members are going to talk of liberals and academics and so on, I must say I am in very good company indeed, because the hon the Minister will know that the Bar Council of South Africa made very similar criticisms. The Bar Council of South Africa at the time expressed considerable concern at the emergency regulations, and particularly at the indemnity provision. I want to quote some extracts from the statement issued by the Bar Council, as follows:

The statement goes on to say:

Therefore, Sir, the onus of proof, in terms of that provision of the emergency regulations, was placed on citizens seeking redress, and the regulations specifically excluded the rights of citizens to ask the courts for relief. In relation to that matter the Bar Council said in its statement:

The statement says further:

That is the point. We here are accused of undermining the authority of the courts and of discrediting the administration of justice in South Africa but it is this hon Minister and his Government who, by regulations of that nature, do more to discredit the administration of justice and to discredit the law courts of South Africa than anything else. After all, why should the Courts be excluded in matters of this kind? We boast of their independence and we boast of their competence. Why exclude them? That type of revision places a very considerable question mark against the legitimacy of the courts in the eyes of the general public of South Africa.

There is a second issue I must raise in respect of the legitimacy of the courts. That is the very distressing and unfortunate incident which occurred in Durban at the end of last year when magistrates and prosecutors were briefed via a Defence Force film on the whole question of unrest. In this regard, let me say immediately before I go any further that I commend the hon the Minister for his reaction when that situation arose. I commend him for that. I maintain, however, that it should never have come about. That sort of thing, too, attacks the credibility of our courts.

When that incident occurred, that is, when a briefing of some 40 to 60 magistrates and senior prosecutors had been convened—by an official of the hon the Minister’s department—so that they could view a film on the unrest situation, the hon the Minister requested the Judge President of Natal to consider ways and means of evaluating the information received by the magistrates at the meeting and giving guidance as to how they should act in the light of the Judge President’s findings. At the time the hon the Minister publicly stated that he condemned any attempt to influence the course of justice in this country. He said:

The judges then held that those magistrates should not preside at any hearings or trials relating to the unrest in the country. This was a totally unfortunate situation, and it cast suspicion on the whole operation of the legal system in South Africa that that sort of incident should have been allowed to occur.

There are only a few minutes left at my disposal, and I want to end on a more complimentary note. I do not think we should lose the opportunity of paying tribute to the operations of the South African Law Commission. The Law Commission’s annual report, for instance, is a catalogue of considerable positive work done to assist the whole question of the administration of justice in South Africa. When one looks at the reports which have been studied by the commission and at the reports which they are still studying, it is quite clear that this commission is doing a very valuable job indeed in South Africa. We on these benches would therefore like to pay tribute to that commission.

In a very uncomplaining way the commission outlines the tremendous task which lies before it. It is quite clear that the commission’s secretarial services are extremely limited. They talk about a number of tasks which they would like to undertake but also mention that they cannot undertake these because they are not properly equipped to do so. I put it to the hon the Minister that the operation of the South African Law Commission, particularly at the present time, in trying to review and codify laws is of the utmost importance for this country. I hope, therefore, that the hon the Minister will ensure that whatever assistance, within reason, is required by the Law Commission is given to it and that he will exercise his influence on his hon colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that assistance.

When one looks at the enormity of the task which the Law Commission has undertaken, and one then looks at the Budget to see what funds it has been allocated—I think it is R1,5 million or perhaps a little less than that—to finance the operations of the Law Commission, one acknowledges immediately that the Government should look kindly on any request that comes from this commission which is rendering such a valuable service to the people of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to turn in general to the hon members for Berea and Sandton and, please note, their liberal arguments. We on this side of the Committee are getting sick and tired of those hon members’ arrogant attacks on the NP, our Government and our hon Minister every year, and of their indirectly dragging our legal system and South Africa’s name through the mud. [Interjections.]

They usually quote old matters which are really hackneyed, and present these as being new. On the other hand, they usually pay lip service in praising our Bench, but in the same breath they drag the Bench’s name through the mud.

There are two reasons for this action of the PFP. The first is that they hate our party and our Government to such an extent that they are blind to the facts and aspects of reality. In the second place they are caught up in their liberal philosophy in which they absolutise the freedom of the individual, the libertas, to such an extent that they do not see the essential facts. In the end they do not really want any authority and as a result we have lawlessness, anarchy and chaos. I want to support my statement with a whole number of examples—approximately 10 examples, if there is time.

The PFP ignores the Government’s reaction to the HSRC investigation into intergroup relations—apparently the hon member for Berea has not read it since why else did he not quote from it—in which the following is stated clearly on page 3:

The PFP is conveniently ignoring the Government’s fundamental standpoint on page 4 that an uninterrupted programme be pursued to eliminate discriminatory measures about which the Cabinet receives regular reports. Matters that entail disruption, uncertainty and frustration also enjoy preference so that valid grievances can be eliminated. Examples of this have been seen in South Africa recently.

The PFP, along with the English Press, is also fond of referring to South Africa’s so-called draconian legislation. Once again they are ignoring a basic fact: We and the rest of the world are not living in normal conditions. A revolutionary battle is raging as a result of a conflict of the spirit among the peoples and countries of the world, and South Africa is part of it. We are deeply involved in it. We are not dealing with normal and civilised enemies. They are stirring up revolution.

Once again the PFP is ignoring a basic fact. If we had not had the anti-communist legislation and then the security legislation in 1950, South Africa would have been a victim of communism today. The Official Opposition’s liberal predecessors as well as certain PFP members of today fought the legislation in accordance with which the Communist Party in South Africa was forbidden their right to organise and their right to have an own Press. The PFP is blind to these dangers and does not see them. They ignore another reality, however. In his time, Adv Vorster said South Africa had the greatest conflict potential in the world.

And now, is it better or worse?

The HSRC Report—why did the hon member for Berea not quote it—reads on page 136:

The PFP members deny the truth and, even more, they are even opposing the legislation. When it is placed on the Statute Book, they denigrate it. Apparently the PFP has no knowledge of the HSRC’s Report on page 135 either. It was found that certain kinds of conflict occur in all communities and not only in South Africa.

An all-time low in the arguments of the PFP is their constant effort to question the status of our courts. A classic example of this is the way in which the PFP runs after the English Press and wants to compare certain sentences. The hon member for Sandton, who is a lawyer, should know one cannot compare any judgement or any sentence in the world with another. In addition, they ignore the guidelines set by our courts for balanced and effective administration of justice, judgements and sentences. In the case of The State versus Holder (1979(2) S A 70 (A), page 81) Chief Justice Rumpff said:

Let us compare this with page 97 and further sections of the Department of Justice’s annual report. There are statistics of thousands and thousands of cases and sentences passed with great responsibility by magistrates and judges after hours of preparation. This conduct of the PFP draws a line right through it.

The PFP also ignores the fact that South Africa is a constitutional state with political participation and civil liberties—so much so that our so-called “system” tolerated an advocate’s practising in South Africa, building up a large practice, becoming a senior advocate, and becoming the leader of the Johannesburg Bar, but also becoming the leader of the Communist Party in South Africa.

Does the PFP never see anything good in our system? They ignore another great fact, and that is that we are part of a civilising process based on Christian principles. The law and its application in South Africa are therefore constantly subjected to revision and adjustment in striving towards such a civilised order. They know of the steps that have been taken: The Rabie Commission on security legislation, the Hoexter Commission on the structure and functions of our courts, and the SA Law Commission. They must also realise that civilising development process does not take place in leaps and bounds, but is a steady process of development.

Mr Chairman, I do not this afternoon intend to reply to the somewhat personal attacks that have been made on me. [Interjections.] I must say, however, that I was particularly disappointed by the speeches of the hon members for Roodepoort and King William’s Town. I expected better arguments from them. I honestly do believe that no matter whether one likes the style of a speaker or not when arguments are advanced the very least that one can do is to consider those arguments and the points that are made seriously and with the intention of trying to convince one as to a point of view.

To say that in making a statement relating to the legitimacy of courts that I am trying to destroy the status of the courts, cannot be further from the truth. Surely hon members should realise that the very reason for raising these issues in Parliament is to try to convince the Government that a problem does exist, that there is a legitimacy crisis as far as the Black perception of courts is concerned and that urgent steps should be taken to counter that. That is the reason for raising these issues.

I do believe that when hon members look past the arguments and try to find some deeper hidden motives of the hon members who raise these arguments, then it becomes futile to speak in this House. One then realises that whatever one says—no matter what arguments one advances or how strongly one puts one’s case—what members are doing is to make quick notes to see how they can shoot down not one’s arguments but oneself as a speaker. [Interjections.] Without wishing to be personal I honestly think that the hon the Minister did himself no favours in the way in which he approached this subject this afternoon.

For the first time in this Parliament today the issue of the legitimacy of our South African courts has been drawn into question and discussed and certain positive suggestions have been made with a view to restoring that essential confidence which I believe is presently lacking. It should hardly be necessary for me to convince the hon the Minister but if the courts are seen as enemies of the people and not as protectors of our society’s values, then that very system is at risk.

In arriving at the conclusion that our system of the administration of justice has lost ground in the eyes of many South Africans— particularly Black South Africans—it is not difficult to pinpoint some of the causatory factors. Mention was made of some of them by my hon colleague and myself earlier today.

There is one aspect, however, which I touched upon but did not develop earlier. That aspect relates to the role of the courts in society. I have always believed that the superior courts should be the final arbiter and the guardian of the rights of the individual—the buffer to look to against the excessively used might of the State.

In the first instance the role of the courts should not be to protect the State but it should be to afford justice to those citizens who seek it. In the USA despite many racially contexted disputes over the years, the part played by the courts in that country has ensured their continued respect and legitimacy across the board in their society. In truth, it has been the constitution of the USA which has made this possible for the constitution is geared to the fulfilment of personal human rights. Regrettably we cannot say the same of our own shabby Constitution—it is an abortion of a document—which except for the non-enforceable preamble makes no mention of human rights at all. [Interjections.] In fact, under this Government the Republic has taken a completely different road in the development of its laws. Oh, the hon member Mr Schutte looks terribly screwed up about that! [Interjections.]

In particular our country has moved away from what I would term as being habeas corpus and has allowed of detentions without trial, bannings and the like with virtually not recourse to the law or the courts being allowed to people affected by these detentions and bannings. It is not available at all.

Other branches of the law relating to the power of the administration to take final decisions affecting the rights of individuals and excluding court intervention have followed this trend. Allow me to quote from the work Law and Order and Liberty in South Africa. I read from page 163:

In Afrikaans this reads: “… Dit wil sê, die akkusatoriese verhoorstelsel”—

The whole system is destroyed. It goes on to say:

Without laboring the point, I say that the end result has been a diminution of the efficacy and status of the courts in the eyes of those affected.

I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that the time has come in South Africa when he, as a concerned and aware Minister of Justice …

When did you discover that?

I am stating it now. I am describing the hon the Minister as he should be. He should be an aware and concerned Minister of Justice, and he should consider persuading the Cabinet to adopt a bill of rights which would have the force of law and which would serve to protect the basic human rights, not of groups but of individual citizens.

When I say the time has come, I fear that the time may already have come and gone, but I pray not. A White minority Government with an unenviable record of suppression of basic freedoms trying to include a bill of rights in its body of statutes at a time just prior to a change away from the all-White regime may well be seen by the majority as merely trying to protect minority racial privilege under a future new dispensation. If that is in fact the feeling of the majority, a bill of rights will be doomed from the outset.

However, the bottom line is this: If, under a new, non-racial and hopefully enlightened Government in a new South Africa, we are to retain a civilised and liberal system of justice in which independent courts enjoying the confidence of the public may operate, then one of the things which must be done now is to start to rid this country of the evil laws which have destroyed human freedom and done so much to bring our courts into disrepute.

I believe that we will have taken a big step in that direction by enacting a binding bill of rights. The hon the Minister should give this matter his serious consideration.

Mr Chairman, it truly grieved me to have to listen to some of the statements made by the hon member for Sandton. It grieves me that a lawyer can make absolutely unfounded statements here. He maintained the perception exists that the courts have no status. In South Africa the courts have to apply the law as it is. Perhaps that is different from courts in other countries, but that is the position in South Africa. In attacking the conduct of the courts, the hon member is in fact proclaiming the kind of philosophy adhered to by the people who attack the authority of the State and speak of “institutionalised violence” and use propaganda methods which are utilised by organisations which propagate violence inter alia. That is not a philosophy I expect of a lawyer.

It is very satisfying to take part in the debate on the Department of Justices Vote today. We are living in a time in which old established statements and values are being attacked and questioned throughout the world. The hon the Minister said the Department of Justice was conservative, for when one is dealing with interpersonal and intercommunity rights one is actually dealing with old established statements, old established rights and old established duties. The questioning of many established rights has not gone unnoticed by the Department of Justice, and that is why it is a special privilege for us to be able to take part in such a debate at this particular time.

We have an hon Minister and a Government who are aware of this questioning and challenging of established concepts, and they move along with it. Centuries ago there was a great reform of the legal system and that is where our legal system has its origin. I am referring, of course, to the Roman law and to the appointment of Ulpian by Justinian who had to codify the law of the time.

We are living in a period in which the Minister of the day has appointed a commission under the leadership of the capable Mr Justice Hoexter, not necessarily to codify our law, but to study our law and to make recommendations regarding the improvement thereof. We are fortunate to be able to be part of this. If we look at the reports that have been tabled, it is indeed a privilege to be able to take part in a debate such as this one at this particular time. Time does not allow me to deal with the reports, but I am extremely surprised that the hon member for Sandton looked for venom in them rather than the honey they were supposed to reflect.

I want to confine myself to a particular aspect. We have to adjust to the new constitutional dispensation in our country. We have a tricameral Parliament, but if I look at the number of people of colour who have been involved in the Department of Justice thus far, I have to express my disappointment about the small number. In that respect I agree with the hon member for Sandton, except that my motivation differs from his.

I have enough knowledge of circumstances to know the government is not to blame, but there is a shortage of suitable candidates. That shortage of suitable candidates is not found only in the department’s staff, however; it applies to the private sector as well.

Order! Because of the noise in the Committee I am finding it difficult to hear the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. Hon members must lower their voices.

I could not find statistics about how many people of colour are established as lawyers or advocates throughout the country, but I know there are only two Coloured advocates on a bar of 25 in Port Elizabeth, where I come from, and I think there are only five Coloured lawyers’ firms in a membership of more than 60 lawyers. The reason for this is, as I said, not to be found in the profession; it resides in the fact there are no properly qualified people.

In the first place, therefore, I want to appeal to Coloureds, Indians and Blacks to equip themselves with suitable qualifications for legal service. I believe, apparently unlike the hon member for Sandton, that a lawyer will not take part in the “kangaroo courts” and will not regard a necklace as a punishment. People who have no respect for the law are the ones who take such stands.

When I look at the position at the department, I find there are approximately 95 Coloureds, 74 Indians and 1 000 Blacks on the staff. Of the numbers I have just mentioned, 90 of the 95 Coloureds apparently have Std 10 or higher academic qualifications. The same applies to 74 Indians and approximately 1 000 Blacks.

The Department of Justice makes bursaries available. I think 70 bursaries are made available per annum. I know the bursaries are granted on merit only, without discrimination on the grounds of colour. Nevertheless I want to suggest that when the merit of candidates is on a par, preference should be given to people of colour rather than to Whites when it comes to training with the aid of a study bursary.

In addition I want to plead that the Legal Training Branch at the department be extended so that more people can undergo in service training in a legal direction, even if they were to leave the service of the Department of Justice later. I believe legally qualified people are essential, in the other communities as well, and that every effort should be made to encourage people of colour to enjoy legal training.

Mr Chairman, who can differ from the hon member for Port Elizabeth North? It was indeed interesting to listen to one of the senior members of the Side Bar, unlike listening to the hon member for Sandton who acts as the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition. I sometimes wonder whether the hon member for Sandton is speaking tongue-in-cheek, particularly when he raises these recommendations in connection with the legitimacy of the South African courts.

I want to speak about another topic today, but first I want to tell hon members a little story about a telegram I believe the hon the Minister still keeps in his head office. When I started studying law in Pretoria, there was a grown man from South West who studied with us. He told us that after completing matric, he had got a post at the magistrate’s office in a small place in the north of South West. When he got there, there was only a Damara interpreter to meet him. He was the only one at the office. He asked where the people were. The Damara said there were only two Whites at this office. The one was on holiday and the other had had an appendix operation and was in hospital in Windhoek. He had known the man was coming and told him to take over.

This carried on for a week, but the cases he had to deal with were problematic, and only he and the interpreter were in the office. He telephoned Windhoek and asked them please to send him a senior to help him. After two weeks he sent a telegram to Windhoek and asked them to send a magistrate to come and help him. Nothing happened, and he and the Damara interpreter just carried on. When the end of the month drew near, the Damara told him the two of them would not get salaries if he did not make a plan to get someone to help them. The man told me that was the gospel truth. The next day he sent another telegram, and six hours later there was a relieving magistrate, I do not know whether it is apocryphal, but he told me that all the telegram said was: “Send one gallows immediately. Two Hereros sentenced to death because of chicken theft.” I understand this telegram is still preserved at head office. [Interjections.]

I did not tell this anecdote to make light of the death sentence in this Committee. In fact, I want to indicate the seriousness with which the State and the Department of Justice approach the greatest punishment, the highest penalty.

The death sentence does not have its origin in South Africa or in the Western World. For those of us who believe in the Bible, the death sentence has its origin with God Himself. If we read Genesis 9 verse 6, we see it says: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Nor will the annals be able to show us that the death sentence was introduced in South Africa in 1652; perhaps it already existed in South Africa at that time. Jan van Riebeeck brought the death sentence along as part of the law of his time, however. At that time it was sometimes imposed very easily. The death sentence was imposed even for theft and offences such as sodomy.

Let us look at today. I am speaking about the death sentence precisely because it is put under the magnifying glass from time to time. Today only a superior court can impose this highest of all punishments in South Africa. In addition, the court is compelled to impose the death sentence in only one case. This applies only, when someone is found guilty of murder and none of the following three circumstances is present: That such a person is under 18; that such a person is the mother of a newborn baby; and that the court has found mitigating circumstances. If none of these apply, the court has to impose the death sentence. It has a discretion in all the other cases.

In this respect our law is governed by Act 51 of 1977 and there are eight crimes today in respect of which we can impose the death sentence. I want to enumerate them quickly. They are murder, high treason, kidnapping, child-stealing, rape, robbery with aggravating circumstances, house-breaking with the purpose of committing a crime other than just the house-breaking, and terrorism. I mentioned terrorism last because terrorism is actually one of the sensitive areas when it comes to the discussion of the death sentence in South Africa.

Other countries have other crimes which differ from our circumstances. In the USA, for example, hijacking an aeroplane is a capital crime. Drug smuggling or piracy is punished by death in many Eastern countries. As recently as a few weeks ago, the death sentence was imposed on someone in China because he had stolen a handbag and it was found that during the previous four months he had stolen 35 handbags. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to something else and that is how the death sentence is carried out in South Africa. The law of the gallows applies here. That is a long way from stoning and the stake. It is also a long way from decapitating someone. I want to plead with the hon the Minister today, however, that we shall enquire into hanging as the greatest punishment, the gallows as the way of applying the greatest punishment, once again the death sentence is final. This punishment deprives the offender of his life and the question arises: Must we still necessarily do so by means of the gallows?

I think there are good reasons for enquiring into this and perhaps deciding on other methods. There are many other methods. [Interjections.] I do not want to attempt to go into detail, but I am thinking of certain states in America, for example, where the intravenous injection applies and was administered again recently, there are many methods, and I do not want to go into that in detail. All I want to say, is that I do not plead for the abolition of the death sentence, but for a different method.

A certain Prof Morris of Chicago did an analysis for the UNO on why the death sentence should either be retained or abolished. The reasons he gave as to why it should remain were the reasons we in South Africa advance as well. It is the greatest deterrent after all, especially if it comes to taking the life of a peace officer, of a policeman. Then it is almost imperative. That is what prevents people from killing law-enforcement officers when they are taken into custody for minor offences.

The final point I want to make in respect of retaining the death sentence, is that it represents the value placed by the community on the sanctity of life. It also reflects the community’s abhorrence at the unlawful taking of a fellow human being’s life.

Mr Chairman, in the short time available to me I should like to deal briefly with the Group Areas Act. For the purposes of this debate, the underlying principle and the enforcement of the provisions of this Act by our courts is under discussion. I should like to confine myself to the latter aspect, and more particularly to section 26 of the Group Areas Act.

Any unauthorised person who occupies land or property in a group area other than in accordance with a permit, or if he qualifies for it in terms of the exception clauses, is guilty of an offence, punishable with a fine of R400 or two years, or both. The court that finds a person guilty of such offence is also entitled to issue an eviction order against such a person and any other person of the same group living with the person concerned. No court is however obliged to issue such an order and if it does in fact happen it occurs in terms of the exercise of a discretionary power, and does not form part of the sentence. The State Prosecutor directs such an application to the court on the express request of an interested party, and it will only be considered after a thorough investigation has been instituted which means that the State Prosecutor must present sufficient factual particulars to the court in the form of evidence so as to enable the court to exercise its discretion in a proper manner.

The Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court in South Africa indicated in the well-known Govender case that the following factors could for example be relevant in the assessment of an eviction order: The nature of the environment; the attitude of the neighbours; the standpoint of the Government department concerned; the attitude of the lessor; the possibility that a permit for continued legal occupation could be granted; the hardships which an eviction order might cause; and the availability of alternative accommodation. The granting of an application for an eviction in a criminal prosecution does not occur as a mere formality, and if it cannot be justified on the grounds of all the circumstances, or if insufficient evidence is presented to the court by the State Prosecutor, then such an order can be set aside upon appeal. This is in fact what happened in the Govender case.

In August 1979, three years previously, the same Division of the Supreme Court had as Court of Appeal expressed an opinion, through Mr Justice King in the Adams case, on certain aspects of this Act. Adams, an Indian male, was found guilty of contravening section 26(1) in that he had illegally occupied a flat in a White residential area. He claimed in his plea that he was obliged to contravene the Act as a result of the acute shortage of housing for Indians. Although his plea was rejected, the Supreme Court did accept that the legally available accommodation was not suited to the appellant and his family. The Court furthermore accepted that the appellant would apply for a temporary permit for the further occupation of the flat in question and that the Minister responsible would consider the application favourably on the grounds of fairness, until such time as suitable accommodation would be available in an Indian residential area. According to the judge this Act caused certain hardships which the permit system could therefore help to mitigate.

The standpoint of our courts with regard to the application and enforcement of provisions of the Group Areas Act must of necessity have an influence on the prosecution policy of attorneys-general and their delegated personnel. The purpose of the Group Areas Act is to establish specific population groups in residential areas within their own designated group areas. The establishment of suitable alternative accommodation does not nullify the Act’s application. It is morally justifiable and eventually serves to give effect to the principle of own residential areas. This factor is indeed being considered by our courts and should be taken into consideration by anyone who wants to institute a prosecution and apply for an eviction order.

Although it is not clear what importance the court attaches to the existence of suitable alternative accommodation and whether it can be decisive as a single factor, I do respectfully accept that with the application of this principle a greater trust can be established in our legal system, which is important for sound relations. I have no doubt that the attitudes among the various population groups will help to determine the future of South Africa.

That is why it is important that the implementation of an Act such as this should occur in a compassionate and responsible manner. The principles of equity and justice are consonant in my opinion with the point of view that section 26 offenders be induced to terminate illegal occupation by means of deliberation, persuasion and the provision of suitable alternative accommodation. Persons who act provocatively and mala fide, however, cannot expect the same treatment.

I associate myself with the thought that was expressed in the Strydom Commission’s report, namely that the police task of enforcing group areas by means of legislation, be replaced by a system in which title conditions are enforced by local authorities, owners or communities themselves.

Yesterday the hon member for Jeppe implied in the Committee that the police were not taking action against persons of colour living in White group areas in the central part of Johannesburg. What the hon member was apparently insinuating was that such offenders were not being prosecuted. I want to point out to him, however, that section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act does empower an interested person to institute a private prosecution after a certificate has been provided by the Attorney General concerned stating that he refuses to prosecute in this case after having perused the declarations and affidavits.

What does it cost?

The hon member for Sasolburg asks what it costs. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that if the plaintiff is successful in such a complaint, then the court can order the accused or the State to bear the costs of the private prosecutor.

There are thousands of offenders.

How many people adopt that procedure? [Interjections.]

Should such a private prosecution be successful … [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to express my thanks to those who help in establishing our legal system as one of the best in the modern world for the protection and expansion of the rights of all individuals.

Mr Chairman, in the limited time available to me I shall be as quick as possible in my endeavour to do justice to each and every hon member.

I should like to refer to the hon member Dr Venter, who linked her argument to an investigation carried out by the Law Commission, and amongst other things asked us to ensure that Black women will be involved to a greater extent in this very important investigation. It therefore gives me pleasure to reply officially to her request by saying that in order to give Black women more direct representation. I have in terms of section 7 appointed Miss L G Baqwa, a practising attorney from Newcastle, to the Law Commission’s committee which is dealing with the investigation on behalf of the Law Commission. Hon members will know that we made it possible last year for the Law Commission to create committees, and that the members who serve on them have the same status as commission members, the only difference being that they are given ad hoc instructions. As regards the investigation itself, let me say that I have satisfied myself that the Law Commission has probably launched one of the most comprehensive publications ever of the investigation here. The reaction was not quite as one would have wished, considering the scope of the investigation. We therefore hope that Miss Baqwa’s participation will lend further support to this.

Generally the hon member argued that we should, for example, tackle the present legal capacity of women with more enthusiasm. The contractual capacity of Black women was created by legislation last year to provide bridging for them also to be given lending powers at building societies so that they could take part in the acquisition of property on grounds of leasehold or proprietary rights. This is not the job of the Law Commission, but I shall nonetheless discuss it with them and ask them to give a definite indication of what the present contractual capacity when they launch the investigation further. I also appreciate the spirit in which the hon member discussed this very interesting project of the Law Commission. We also look forward to the Law Commission’s final report on this.

Still dealing with members on the Government side, this brings me to the hon member for Bloemfontein East who reacted to the hon member for Berea an dealt with them and ask them to give a definite ind dealt with his arguments in a very subtle way. He did not pull the hon member apart, because he has the style of a very civilised jurist. He did it clinically; everyone agreed that he effectively reckoned with the negative aspects in the speech of the hon member for Sandton and the few in the speech of the hon member for Berea. The hon member for Berea certainly also made a positive contribution to the debate as I shall presently indicate.

This brings me to the hon member for Roodeplaat, who touched on a very sensitive subject. I listened very carefully to him. As far as the telegram to which he referred is concerned, let me just say that I am most certainly going to have the matter investigated to find out whether there is such a telegram in our system. And then I shall also immediately see to it that a reply to the telegram is sent. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in his delicate handling of a very sensitive subject the hon member for Roodeplaat pointed out that other systems and other methods of execution do in fact exist. As this subject is perhaps precisely of such a delicate nature, I shall have the speech of the hon member for Roodeplaat examined to establish if we do indeed have grounds here for giving consideration to the method of execution which is used in South Africa. I personally regard it as a subject that we should debate very, very carefully. I am therefore grateful for the delicate way in which the hon member for Roodeplaat dealt with this matter.

The hon member for Vryburg referred to the prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act, and in fact asked that they should be handled with great compassion. I want to draw his attention to the fact that although it is not stated so explicitly in our administration of justice, the prosecution policy of our Attorneys-General certainly makes provision for the fact that there will be an opportunity to obtain alternative housing after a decision to prosecute is made. With this kind of approach a great deal of success has been achieved with this. This actually also illustrates that with a well organised and sensitive policy relating to prosecution in South Africa we can also deal with sensitive measures.

This brings me round to the hon member for Berea. He did not say anything on which I could take issue with him as far as the right of an hon member of this Parliament to put his case is concerned. It is a question, however, of how he puts his case. I must say the hon member for Berea put his case better than the hon member for Sandton. This in any case is my opinion. This is also the approach of every hon member on this side of the House. No doubt exists concerning that. I think the hon member for Berea acquitted himself very well of his task. I do not agree with him as far as his conclusions are concerned, but I shall leave it at that.

The fact that during the state of emergency legal proceedings were instituted in a number of magisterial districts related to the conditions pertaining to detention in those districts, as well as to the particular regulations themselves and the question of whether the regulations were ultra vires or not or whether the regulations were in step with the original declaration of the state of emergency by the State President, including the very fact that it was possible to institute those legal proceedings, and that this was done by people from various population and race groups, surely attests to the fact that use was certainly made of our courts by people who seek justice. It is also a fact that the number of cases which gave rise to court applications in terms of security legislation during that period, amounted to 42 since December 1985. Twenty six of those were settled in favour of the applicants. The hon member could of course naturally allege that the problem is confirmed precisely by this, that is that the applicants win their court cases in most instances. The fact remains, however, that in ten cases the applicants lost their cases. Who suffered inconvenience because of this? The State and the security services, of course. I myself spent nights working on sworn statements. We did it, however, because we believed that the court would judge who was right, given the particular circumstances. Six of the cases were settled. In some instances judgment was awarded against the State with costs, and in some instances against the applicants with costs.

What precisely does this illustrate? The accessibility of our courts of law, of course. But I did not hear hon members on the other side referring to this. Have they ever heard hon members on this side of the House, or even hon Ministers, whining because the courts have passed judgment against them? Have they ever heard anything like that? The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs himself lost a court case recently. Has anyone ever heard him whine about that? No. To tell the truth, his son is still working for the Department of Justice.

What I actually want to put across, Mr Chairman, is that our courts of justice are open to all. We have illustrated in the small claims courts, for example, that we want to extend the accessibility of our courts even further. The fact is that this afternoon as well linking up with the HSRC’s report on the kind of crime which our courts are required to try, we presented evidence of how over the past three years we have scaled down prosecutions, to such an extent that some newspapers reported that thousands of people are going to be released, when only a few hundred people are actually going to be released.

Of course there are those right-wing supporters who allege that a whole number of people are now going to be let lose and that this is going to plunge the country into tremendous dilemmas. On the other hand, the left wing is trying to show that the system is cruel. What has in fact happened? The Government has proved two things: Firstly that we can in fact handle this kind of situation in the interest of the country and in the interest of all parties, and on top of that in such a way that it does not have a shock effect; and secondly the Government dealt with it in such a way that it really proved how manageable the problem really was. The time available to me is running out rapidly, and I shall leave the hon member at that.

†The events in Durban gave us the opportunity, of course, to illustrate the independence of the Supreme Court. Moreover, they reaffirmed the dependence of the magistrate’s courts not on the Government but on the Supreme Court. I went out of my way to point out that the Supreme Court is the guardian of the magistrate’s court, hence the system of review and hence the system of appeal. For this reason I welcomed the fact that the Judge President of Natal brought out the report he did. I may also mention now that nothing unbecoming has since materialised and that there has not been a single incident relative to the meeting that took place and to which the hon member referred. I thank the hon member for his benevolent remarks.

I must hasten to point out that when a country is in a process of transition it is necessary to uphold law and order and stability in order to preserve and protect the taxpayers’ investment in reform by means of measures which one may well sometimes consider indefensible. Those measures are, however, also provided for in the British system, in the Israeli system and, in fact, in just about every other country’s system. I am talking now about the extraordinary measures that can be applied to preserve law and order. Hon members know what I am talking about; and I can also quote Professor Matthews of the University of Natal. Moreover, the former Leader of the Official Opposition conceded that it was a valid premise that while a country is in a process of transition its government is entitled to preserve law and order by means of extraordinary measures—even if it means making inroads into the rights and liberties of the individual.

Bearing all this in mind and also having due regard to the fact that for some time, to come we may have to have legislation of this nature; and bearing in mind further that the State President said in his opening address at the beginning of this session that while he acknowledged the independence of the judiciary he still felt very strong about the protection of individual and group rights; and finally, bearing in mind our Constitution, I wish to make an announcement.

*The question which now arises, is whether it is not time to allocate a role to the courts in the protection of individual and group rights. [Interjections.] I have consequently asked the South African Law Commission to investigate and make recommendations on the definition and protection of group rights in the context of the South African constitutional set-up and the possible extension of the existing protection of individual rights as well as the role the courts play in connection with the above. Allow me to qualify this immediately by saying that when I refer to the possible extension of individual rights, I hasten to emphasise that the law commission with its recommendations, and this side of the House with the reforms we have processed, were indeed always attuned to the rights of the individual. What could be a better example of this than the rights of the hon member for Houghton who benefitted so phenomenally in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act, the Act which she was so very happy about. Where could hon members find a better example than that? As the investigation is going to be making great demands of the secretariat of the law commission, I have requested the Director General to see in the meantime whether we could not make a further contribution to the law commission in an endeavow to take this very important matter a step further.

I think this is an important development and let me also hasten to say that I am not making this announcement to satisfy the hon member for Sandton. This side of the House started debating this matter weeks ago in our group meetings. I want to give the hon member for Roodepoort credit for the motion that he moved here. I also want to give credit to the Transvaal Congress of the NP because they debated this matter very seriously.

I think this has brought us to the close of the debate on the Vote: Justice.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 17—“Prisons”:

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

I want to say just one thing in regard to the Vote which has just been agreed to and that is to say that we on this side obviously welcome the announcement that there is going to be an investigation by the Law Commission into the question of the protection of group and individual rights. That is something we have been asking for a long time and we hope to see the reinstitution of the rule of law in South Africa and habeas corpus at the same time.

I want to say one other thing about the Vote that has just been passed. I want to compliment the hon member Dr Venter on the speech that she made concerning the lack of rights of Black women and the fact that the Law Commission is investigating that matter as well. This is a matter that I have been interested in for many years. I moved a private member’s motion on this subject and I was on the select committee that investigated the matrimonial property law which urgently recommended to the Law Commission rights of Black women as a subject for special study. I am very pleased indeed that the hon member is interesting herself in this matter and I hope that we will be able to co-operate on this issue in the future.

Having said that, I want to tell the hon the Minister that on the question of the release of people who were serving sentences for pass-law offences or awaiting trial I was not at all disappointed, contrary to his expectation, that the number of prisoners, as he said, was very small indeed. Had this situation occurred last year, I can assure the hon the Minister it would have been a very different situation because he ought to know that the number of arrests for pass-law offences has declined dramatically over the past year, presumably in anticipation of his change in the law. Indeed in the Cape area particularly there have hardly been any arrests for this particular offence over the past few months.

I was therefore not particularly surprised, but all the same I do think the hon the Minister ought to have another sift through the gaols over the length and breadth of the country to make sure that he has not overlooked a few of the unfortunate victims of pass laws and curfew laws—I hope he has included curfew laws because he does not mention this in his little memorandum that was handed out this afternoon. It falls under the pass laws and is one of the laws which the White Paper recommends be abolished, and high time too! No mean number of people have been arrested under the curfew laws—something like 11 000 according to the last figure that I received. Therefore I was not unduly surprised and as I say, I am very pleased indeed at and unreservedly welcome the scrapping of the pass laws and all the laws that are allied to them. We have been saying for years that the pass laws are the greatest source of racial friction in this country, and they are certainly the laws which have bedeviled the relationship between the Police and the Black community. They are also totally discriminatory since they apply only to Black people and not to the other races of this country. So we welcome the disappearance of laws which we feel in any case should not have been on our Statute Book in the first place.

According to figures given by the hon the Minister to my colleague the hon member for Sandton the daily average prison population has risen to 113 792 which continues to give us the unenviable record of having the highest pro rata prison population in the Western World. It is also highest in absolute figures if one compares them to the figures of for instance Great Britain.

The result of course is serious overcrowding in the jails, and the hon Minister’s reply to the hon member for Sandton showed that in some instances overcrowding is as high as 109% in the Warmbokkeveld jail, 108% in Oudsthoorn and over 100% in Pollsmoor. This latter jail is always saddled with an inordinate number of awaiting trial prisoners and they are of course the most difficult to deal with because they cannot be productively occupied as they are always waiting to be called to go to court.

I hope that the hon the Minister is going to listen now as I am going to pay him a compliment. I want to say that he is on the whole a relatively enlightened Minister of Prisons. I must say that he is certainly the best of the bad bunch that I have had to deal with over the years … [Interjections.] … I am being very careful when I say this—when one compares him to Jimmy Kruger …

Then he is a saint! [Interjections.]

… and when I think of my difficulties with the previous Ministers of Prisons over the years.

The hon the Minister was recently responsible for two humanitarian acts. He allowed Mr Raymond NChaba, a life sentence prisoner in the same category as Mr Nelson Mandela, to marry his common-law wife. He also permitted, at last, the marriage between Mr Niehaus and Jansie Lourens, two White prisoners who are both in Pretoria jail. That was humanitarian.

I am very romantic too! I cannot help it.

Romantic? Is that why the hon the Minister is wearing such a large white carnation? [Interjections.]

I still have to complain to the hon the Minister as I have done on previous occasions, that he still has not released all the prisoners who signed the undertaking to revoke violence. There are two prisoners in particular in the Pretoria Central jail, and the hon the Minister knows the persons to whom I am referring. Another year has gone by since I last mentioned this in this Vote and still they languish in jail.

One of those prisoners has pointed out to me that another prisoner in the Pretoria Central jail who was given a much longer sentence and had served a shorter time was released, and allowed to leave the country and go to one of the South American countries. This prisoner to whom I am referring is suffering from a distinct feeling that he has been unjustly treated and I ask the hon the Minister to reconsider his case.

I give the hon the Minister credit also for the improvements he has introduced in the conditions under which so-called political prisoners are held. There have been many improvements during his term of office. I remember my long battle for these prisoners to be allowed newspapers and how my request was turned down over and over again until the hon the Minister finally agreed a few years ago.

Last year he agreed to allow contact visits for Group A prisoners. There are, however, still many restrictions upon visitors regarding friends of prisoners being allowed visits and persons who take an interest in prison conditions. I cannot imagine why generally speaking only first degree relatives are allowed to visit prisoners.

Seeing that the hon the Minister felt romantic about the marriage of Mr NChaba, I want to say that I understand it is the first time that Mr NChaba had been able to see Mrs NChaba on a contact visit—she is now married to him—in over twenty years because she was not a first degree relative. I feel that an absurd regulation like that should be done away with immediately.

I also do not know why I always have to ask and almost beg the hon the Minister for permission to visit the prisons. I feel that as a spokesman for the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly I should be given carte blanche to visit prisons. [Interjections.] I would also like to take my interested colleagues along as well. The hon the Minister knows that I have never abused any prison visits that I have been allowed to make. I feel that he ought to encourage people to visit all the prisons that they wish to visit in order to see the conditions under which the prisoners are kept. We should be able to visit prisons whenever we want to.

In a statement issued to the Press after giving a reply to the hon member for Sandton, the hon the Minister said that he was not unduly disturbed about the overcrowding of the gaols. He said it was not “an unmanageable problem”. I have no doubt, however, that it is one of the causes of the alarming phenomenon of the uncontrollable prison gangs who terrorise the rest of the prison population in most Coloured and Black prisons. These are Mafia-style gangs who operate inside the prisons where the worst overcrowding takes place. Anybody who has read the Human Sciences Research Council’s report on prison gangs must surely be seriously concerned about the activities of these gangs. The report, by the way, was commissioned by the Prisons Service and that in itself is a credit to the service. The extortion, murder, violence and sodomy that take place strike fear into the heart of every prison inmate, and I must say that I am particularly concerned about the abuse of children—defined as people under the age of 20—that takes place at the hands of these gangs.

An unprecedented number of young people have been gaoled or are awaiting trial as a result of the endemic unrest in this country. A large number have been held over the past 18 months awaiting trial and some have already been sentenced for arson and public violence. I realise that the hon the Minister must be hard put to find room for all of them. Juveniles have therefore been exposed to contact with hardened criminals and have thus been made vulnerable to brutal practices. The trouble is that the Prisons Act defines a juvenile as a person under the age of 21. Juvenile cells may thus include prisoners of up to this age, and there are many gang members and hardened criminals between the ages of 18 and 21 who are a real danger to younger criminals, some of whom are very young indeed.

Juveniles are introduced to prison gangs by being locked up in cells and dominated by these violent and ruthless individuals, and one can well imagine the long-term effect on them. The brutal punishments meted out by these gangs to other prisoners must be really terrifying to young inmates, and I believe this is adequate evidence of the fact that these overcrowded prisons are totally unsuitable for the detention of juvenile offenders.

I do not recommend corporal punishment as the alternative; the hon the Minister knows my feelings on that matter. I recommend that places of safety be set up and that some of these youngsters be put into the custody of their parents and under the supervision of parole officers.

When I talk about youngsters, I am not referring to just a few people. According to a reply given by the hon the Minister on 25 March to another question put by the hon member for Sandton, 2 016 unsentenced juveniles and 336 sentenced children under the age of 20 were in prison as at 31 January, 1986.

According to a reply given to me by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, 2 061 children under the age of 16 were detained under the emergency regulations during the period from July 1984 to the end of the emergency in March this year.

Of course, what worries me about children held during that period is that the emergency regulations replaced prison regulations which were suspended during the state of emergency. This means that the protection afforded to children under the Children’s Act which was re-inserted in the Internal Security Act of 1982, fell away during the state of emergency. Am I wrong? Do emergency regulations not supersede prison regulations? We have some very unpleasant stories indeed of how children have borne the brunt of police violence during this period. I am glad to say this did not happen in prison cells—at least, not the ones I visited—but it certainly did in police cells, and I intend to take this matter up with the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

I am glad to say that there was no evidence of violence being used against the prisoners at the prisons I visited, although conditions at Modder B were pretty grim, especially the way in which the younsters were all herded together in dark cells, getting very little opportunity for any recreation whatsoever.

I ask the hon the Minister to look again at North End Jail. I know I raised this matter last year, and I admit there must have been exaggeration in the overcrowding figures. The hon the Minister sent Mr Justice Small-berger hot-footing it down to examine the conditions there. Unfortunately, this intention was published in the Press before the judge got there, and I had a letter from a prisoner who had been released, saying that everything I had said—except perhaps about the overcrowding—was absolutely true, and that since the officials knew that a judge was coming down, the cells were emptied, young juvenile prisoners were sent elsewhere and Mr Justice Smallberger found conditions very different from the ones I had described. I ask the hon the Minister to keep his beady eye on North End Prison, and indeed on all the jails in the Port Elizabeth area, because Port Elizabeth seems to be an area where the law is taken into the hands of the officials there and insufficient supervision is excercised in that area.

Mr Chairman, I do not propose following the hon member for Houghton in the arguments she has advanced, and for more than one reason—the first being that it would be impossible to do so in the time at my disposal, and secondly, I want to adopt a more positive approach.

*I am referring to the fact that the South African Prisons Service is celebrating its 75th birthday this year. I think the Prisons Service has reached an exceptional milestone, and that is why it is a great pleasure for me on an occasion such as this one to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister of Justice, the Commissioner-General and each member of the Prisons Service on this exceptional milestone they have reached.

The South African Prisons Service has distinguished itself during the past decades as a dynamic institution which, taking limited resources into account—I am referring here in particular to financial provision—has had to adapt to the swiftly changing circumstances and has done so in a very distinctive way. As a result of an increase in aggressive offences and organised crime, as a result of the community’s demand for protection against crime, and thanks to effective police action, high prison populations are the rule rather than the exception in the Republic of South Africa today, as in most Western countries. The increase in serious crime in the RSA during the past five years is reflected dramatically in the fact that on 30 June 1980, a total of 57 509 prisoners with sentences of two years and more was being detained. At the end of the present report year, viz on 30 June 1985, this figure stood at 67 545. This, therefore, was an increase of approximately 10 000 long-term prisoners within the space of only five years.

The Prisons Service has had to adapt to these dramatically changing conditions and the associated greater demands. The Prisons Service had to adapt to this despite the fact that financing remains an important restricting factor in the development and extension of services and programmes. I make bold to say the Prisons Service has indeed adapted to this in an excellent way.

When Act 13 of 1911 was passed, the four former colonial Prisons Services were joined in one Union Prisons Service. That was in fact where the present South African Prisons Service originated. The functions of the Prisons Service in accordance with this Act were the safe custody of all prisoners entrusted to its care and ensuring that all prisoners were performing useful labout to the greatest benefit of the State. I can imagine what the hon member for Houghton’s reaction to this would have been had she been an hon member of this House at the time and able to argue about the objectives of the Prisons Service.

At that time the emphasis was still on safe custody and retribution. The regulations regarding classification were vague and incomplete. The rehabilitation of prisoners could only be found by implication in the statutory provisions. There were no provisions in connection with ways in which individual prisoners were to be treated.

It was only when the report of the Commission on Penal and Prison Reform, the so-called Landsdowne Commission, was accepted in 1947 that the way was paved for far-reaching changes in the South African prison system. I still remember how, as a student in Stellenbosch during the years 1948 to 1950, I was interested in the standpoints of someone like prof Junod who was one of the pioneers in the sphere of penal reform and the idea of reform rather than punishment alone.

Reform and deterrents were accepted as the real objectives of prison life. The stigma involved by the condemnation and the depriving of freedom are in substance the offender’s punishment. That is why it is not necessary to inflict further punishment or castigation on him in the prison.

It is against this background that the Prisons Service has begun to introduce drastic changes in the approach of its task since 1953. Keeping the recommendations of the Landsdowne Commission in mind and with the UNO’s standard minimum rules as a guide, the new Prisons Act, Act 8 of 1959, came into operation.

The provisions of this Act are wide-ranging, and it took a number of years before the new policy could be implemented as a whole. The purpose and functions of the South African Prisons Service are defined in section 2 of Act 8 of 1959, as amended. Due to a lack of time, I cannot quote it now.

On this occasion I should like to convey thanks and pay tribute to everyone attacked to the South African Prisons Service, for the excellent way in which this service has striven towards this objective and fulfilled these functions during the past years.

The South African Prisons Service rightly places a high premium on the type of staff appointed, and constant efforts are made to encourage members to improve their qualifications. I believe this is an essential approach, since the South African Prisons Service is such a sensitive service that it can scarcely function effectively with staff who are not equal to the task. The high standard that was and is maintained can also to a very great extent be ascribed to this approach. Once again I congratulate the Prisons Service on the high standard maintained throughout. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we should like to associate ourselves with the congratulations which the hon member for Mossel Bay addressed to the Prisions Service. As far as we are concerned, we are proud of this Prisons Service, of each and every one of its members, and we want to congratulate them on their 75th birthday, as well as on the retirement of Lt-Gen Du Plessis and the promotion of Lt-Gen Sephton. We particularly want to thank people like Col Bruyn and others who always help us and whose doors are always open to us. What strikes one is that nowadays at graduation ceremonies which take place regularly, one regularly sees members of the Prisons Service who are also improving their qualifications in this way. We thank them for a wonderful task. We are proud of them.

I should like to refer to something the hon member for Houghton said, namely—if I understood her correctly—that she felt that the right to visit prisons should be extended to members of Parliament. I have a problem with this because it will create a situation where a right will be allocated to the legislative authority which should actually be a privilege and which belongs to the judicial authority. After all, at this stage the judicial authority—the judges—have access to prisons and they go and see that everything is as it should be. They can then take action from that quarter.

As regards us, the legislative authority, we do go there. We are invited. If I want to go there, I ask for an invitation and I am invited. I do not have problems with that. I think that it would also cause unnecessary administrative and other problems for the Department of Prisons. At the moment there are 308 members of Parliament, and I should like to see what would happen if we all began descending on them. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I understand the hon member’s problem. She need only apply to the hon the Minister, and I think he will arrange as many visits for her as she wants.

The other aspect she touched on was the matter of influx control which has now been abolished, and the effect of this on the prison population. It seems to me too early to react to this. We have also tried to get reliable figures, and we have not yet got them. I am not insinuating anything, but we were under the impression that there were far more. But I accept the figures the hon the Minister gave.

It seems to me the matter should be left alone for a while to see precisely what is going to happen. It has been stated, for example, that during the past year steps were apparently not taken against the so-called pass offenders, and that it was possible that the size of the prison population had consequently decreased artificially. But this is not a big problem. We shall keep an eye on this and see in future what the effect of this is.

I should also like to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that he was apparently not only the “best man” at a wedding recently, but that as far as I am concerned he is also the “best man” for the job he is doing at the moment.

I only want to ask him one political question. It actually belongs under the Justice Vote. It is merely whether he or his department have given orders that there should be no prosecutions in the Johannesburg area under the Group Areas Act. I am referring to the presence of many thousands of people of colour in that area.

I also want to raise one other minor matter under the Justice Vote which is usually not mentioned across the floor of the House. Consequently I merely want to mention the subject, namely the salaries of judges. Questions have been put in this connection, which I shall discuss with the hon the Minister later in private; I merely want to mention this to him now.

As is frequently the case, there are again rumours about the future of Robben Island. There is even a rumour—I am positive it is not true, but perhaps the hon the Minister can just react to this—that Mr Sol Kerzner is going to build a big hotel there, and that there are going to be night-time pleasure trips in that direction.

It is a homeland for you lot! [Interjections.]

The subject I actually want to debate, concerns the effect on the prisons of the imposing of more severe penalties in the case of a certain category of accused persons. I want to refer in particular to stock theft, which has increased tremendously. I want to read out a paragraph from Die Volksblad of 17 April to hon members. The caption is: “Veediefstal is nou ’n betalende bedryf” and the first sentence in the report reads:

When are you going to try your hand at it, Koos? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randburg wants to know when I am going to try my hand at it. I just want to tell him that unfortunately I no longer eat red meat! [Interjections.]

I want to argue here today that more severe penalties must be introduced for stock thieves. There is widespread dissatisfaction among farmers regarding this matter. It is now discussed at virtually every farmers’ congress and it has become necessary for us to give urgent attention to the penalties imposed for stock theft.

They are going to be even more angry about your decision not to eat red meat! [Interjections.]

I want to single out some of the problems in connection with this matter for hon members. The extent of stock theft is such that in 1982-83 there were 19 554 hearings; in 1983-84 there were 19 138; and in 1984-85 there were 20 483. This means that every year on average 20 000 hearings take place in connection with stock theft. That totals approximately 60 per day. I am mentioning these figures to you, Sir, so that you can understand the seriousness of the matter, and because I want to touch on the effect of sentences for this kind of offence on the prison population.

One of the problems in connection with stock theft is that the onus of proof is causing a problem. The people simply steal the livestock, slaughter the sheep or cattle that same night, burn the skin, and one cannot catch the thief. There are many people who no longer even lodge complaints. Many of the farmers say at the congresses that they no longer even report stock theft because it is impossible to catch the thieves. Certain farmers incur more losses because they live closer to the borders.

Now I want to discuss the penalties imposed. This is a direct bearing on the Prisons Vote. According to the same report of 17 April 1986 in Die Volksblad a person who steals a sheep is only fined R100. But he can sell the sheep for more than R100. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members the correct penalties now. The report which was written in consequence of a congress which took place went on to say:

The farmer did not have his facts quite right, because in terms of section 13 of the Stock Theft Act the magistrate’s court has the jurisdiction to sentence a first offender to two years’ imprisonment or ten strokes and a fine not exceeding R4 000. As hon members know, the Supreme Court has other powers, as does the Regional Court.

The point I want to make is that in view of the aggravating circumstances in connection with livestock thefts, it has become necessary to give consideration to prescribing a minimum penalty. In this connection I want to quote as follows from the abovementioned report:

The congress referred to was the annual congress of the Red Meat Producers’ Organisation of the Agricultural Union. Stock thefts have become so bad that the farmers are asking for a minimum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Someone also asked me what the big difference was between stock theft and poaching. Nowadays a kudu is worth R350. That is how much one can shoot it for, except if one shoots it on the farm of certain hon members, like the hon member for Brits. He asks one to pay a daily fee as well. You must pay R500 for the kudu and then it is thin into the bargain. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It costs me R1 000 a day to repair the damage wherever Koos van der Merwe has been for an hour. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that that does not include the liquor which the former hon clergyman consumed that evening at the camp-fire. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I just want to point out the difference between stock theft and poaching. If one shoots and steals someone’s kudu, almost everything is confiscated—one’s rifle and one’s van. One may even go to prison too, which will make one an additional member of the prison population. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the start of my speech I cannot do otherwise but refer to the large number of former members of Parliament of the 1953 group who are sitting on the gallery. [Interjections.] We must wish them most welcome, and we want to tell them that we are very privileged to have them here this evening.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Jeppe for his constructive contribution; also for the fact that he took appreciative cognisance of the contribution of the hon the Minister. He mentioned the problem of stock theft which is a big problem. But I want to tell him that he must take cognisance that the Stock Theft Act was amended approximately four or five weeks ago with the object of increasing the penalties. [Interjections.]

I also want to thank the hon member for Houghton for the fact that she brought a far calmer atmosphere into the debate. I think she could give the hon member for Sandton lessons in this regard. She also gave the hon the Minister credit for quite a number of aspects, and she referred to gangs, as I, too, shall do.

She referred to the so-called “curfew” offenders. I want to refer her to the statement by the hon the Minister, in which he mentioned that 80 of these people were awaiting trial or had been sentenced on 31 March 1986.

Since I have got to know the Prisons Service in this House, and particularly since 1982, I must say that I am impressed every time by the scientific approach of the Prisons Service, and particularly the important role which has been and is still being played by the Organisation and Work Study programme. This programme has played a very big role in making the systems more productive. During the year under review 48 projects were completed; 5 procedure and method projects, by means of which procedures were made more streamlined, 12 work facility study investigations, 13 organisation and establishment investigations and 18 form investigations. In this time when everyone is so inclined to refer to the public sector which is not playing its part as far as productivity is concerned, I should like to ask many large companies in the private sector whether they can equal this record of doing so much to make themselves more productive.

The figures which struck me most, were the figures on page 4 of the report. These figures divide up the average working day of the staff according to percentages. I must say that an organisation which takes the trouble to work this out and show it in detail, must be an organisation which pays a great deal of attention to its productivity. Such an organisation must be effective. The Prisons Service also has the necessary infrastructure to acquire scientific knowledge on problems.

But what is important—and this is a matter to which the hon member for Houghton also referred earlier—is that the service makes use of independent outside organisations to investigate certain important aspects. Of course it is very important for these to be independent organisations.

An important report in this connection, to which I should also like to refer, is the HSRC report. The full title of this report is Gevangenisbendes: ’n Ondersoek met spesiale verwysing na nommerbendes onder Kleurlinggevangenes. This report was compiled by Dr J M Lӧtter and Mr W J Schurink, both of the HSRC. It is not possible to do justice to this report in a mere 10 minutes. It represents a thorough, professional and scientific investigation and comprises more than 300 pages, and it deals in particular with the origin of gangs. It takes the entire matter back to before the Anglo Boer War, when the well-known Ninevé gang originated, a gang which later led to the establishment of the 28 gang, which is now the strongest prison gang in our country.

This report also deals with the question of the survival of these prison gangs. It outlines what these gangs prey on. They place particular emphasis on the problem of deprivation. This is an intensive report on the structure of gangs, on the functioning of gangs and on the problem behaviour of gangs. One of the aspects touched on, is the problem of escapes. There is a gang known as the Air Force Gang. The real objective of this gang is escapes from prison.

In this regard I cannot neglect to refer to page 40 of the said report, where we indeed find a dramatic indication of how escapes have decreased in number. Here we read that the number of escapes dropped from 2 300 in 1975 to just more than 1 000 in 1984. When one takes into consideration that during that period the total prison population increased, this is indeed a remarkable achievement.

Various recommendations are made in the report, and quite a number of these are already being implemented. It is recommended inter alia that the classification system be expanded, that gang members be separated from other gang members, that something positive be done about identifying gang members, and in this connection attention is given to a computerised data system, which is aimed at making data on prisoners as confidentially as possible and yet as readily available as possible. This report is of very great value, and should be of very great use to the department in future.

It is not a pleasant report to read. It also gives a very clear indication of the dark side of prison life. It indicates the fear, brutality, the sodomy and many other aspects which are part and parcel of prison life, and also points out that these things persist. But it is to the great credit of the Prisons Service that this matter is considered so important that it has not been covered up and that an independent investigation could be undertaken.

What is also clearly apparent is that this is a difficult problem which is not going to be easily solved. As early as 1912 the then Director of Prisons had an interview with a certain Nongoloza, who was also known as Jan Note, and who was one of the founder members of the Nineveh gang. This man had the following to say, and I am quoting him:

Mr Chairman, the fact is that it is not quite that easy to get rid of this problem.

Unfortunately I must also make mention of two other reports—two reports which I cannot praise. In the first instance there is the report by Amnesty International, which was published in January of this year. In this report a certain Prof Kevin Boyle makes certain allegations in connection with the—as he puts it—inhumane treatment of prisoners, in our South African prisons as well. Of course the truth of the matter is that Prof Boyle never came into contact with our Prisons Service at any stage, and that he never asked to obtain facts. He says that he was in South Africa twice. In spite of this he never took the trouble to contact the Prisons Service. He also made a totally unfounded attack on our system of parole.

Another report I want to refer to is the so-called “Torture Report” which was published by the Institute of Criminology of the University of Cape Town. I want to point out again that this torture report has been slated by experts as being absolutely unscientific. It is tragic that a South African body will sink so low as to spread these unscientific fabrications abroad.

In February of this year a group from the International Society for Human Rights paid a visit to Pollsmoor Prison and said that they were very impressed with it. We congratulate the Prisons Service and the Commissioner on an excellent year.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Schutte will excuse me if my speech does not follow along the same lines as his, but I have very little time at my disposal.

We in this party would like to associate ourselves with the remarks concerning the achievements of the SA Prisons Service in its 75 years. It takes a long time to gain experience in addressing one of the more difficult situations that has arisen in the context of the social traditions of the South African community. It is interesting that the period of existence of the SA Prisons Service coincides with the period of authority that this party has exercised in governing the province of Natal. Up to now the Government has not taken over the role of governing Natal.

I should like to compliment the Prisons Service on its response to the HSRC’s report on prison gangs. The tone of its response does the Prisons Service great credit because it indicates so clearly that the Prisons Service accepts the comments entirely in good faith and in the spirit in which the comments were made. One does not detect any form of justification for any situation that has perhaps been shown to be in need of improvement. In a situation like this that sort of response gives one an indication of the Prisons Service’s intention in this regard and also of the effort it will put into improving the circumstances that are causing concern.

One of the programmes that were proposed as a means of better occupying the prisoners ties in very much with what I consider to be a certain shortcoming in the field of training and education. My purpose in mentioning this is to give the hon the Minister the opportunity to indicate whether this is in fact a matter of inadequate funds, facilities, and so forth. Quite obviously problems arise because of the high number of prisoners. The statistics show that we have a prison population at present of 113 000. Of this there are about 18 000—that is, about 16,6% of the total prison population—in the five to 10 year category; 38 000—35,6% of the total prison population—in the two to five years category; and 6 000—that is 5,8% of the total prison population—in the category of prisoners serving sentences of longer than 10 years. The total number of prisoners falling into these three categories is 62 000 or 58% of the total prison population. I mention those three categories specifically because obviously those are the three periods during which meaningful training can be carried out.

As at June 1985 the total number of prisoners receiving training was only 2 592. Moreover, these people only receive vocational and/or special training on the completion of which they are not issued with a certificate but only a recommendation to a would-be employer.

On the educational side there were 2 244 prisoners involved in the literacy programme, and the number of prisoners involved in non-formal education programmes—this is on page 21 of the department’s latest annual report—was 2 845. A further 508 prisoners were involved in scholastic, degree, honours degree, diploma and technical studies. Those figures indicate to me that the Prisons Service is either inadequately funded or staffed or that the system does not allow for a higher percentage intake of prisoners in the two-year category and longer in educational programmes. Quite obviously the intention is to get prisoners to go out of the prison better oriented and better able to cope with their life and employment outside. I understand that this does not include those in the farm prisons where there is a degree of agricultural training, and there may well be areas that I have left out but I do not think that they are going to make a great difference to the percentages that we are looking at.

There are 62 000 prisoners with sentences of two years and longer and the figure I quoted was something like 6 000 people— that is only 10% and the 10% includes literacy programmes. I would suggest that that is an area we must look at and I would be very obliged if the hon the Minister could perhaps through his department indicate to the Committee whether finance or personnel is the problem and tell us what they are going to do to lift the percentage of those prisoners who are being trained.

Mr Chairman. I gladly follow on the hon member for King William’s Town. He has pointed out one of the major problems specifically relating to training which I will deal with more comprehensively in my speech. However, I think the numbers are in fact one daunting factor as also the wide diversity of people that has to be dealt with.

The hon member for Houghton made some remarks which I think one should comment on. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

I will also deal with them more comprehensively in the course of my speech. I could not help but think that with influx control being scrapped, as good as that may be, the hon member will have to find a new theme for her annual speech in the Budget Debate. The hon member also made a number of comments relating to overcrowding which she ascribed mainly to the number of trial-awaiting prisoners. This is in fact not so; on the contrary, in the past year they have in fact declined. I will deal with that more fully later on.

A comment that cannot go unchallenged is the one that she made about North End Prison. She was basically implying that the wardens involved had fixed up the prison because they knew that a judge was coming. I think that this is an unfair reflection. If she had a look at the annual report she could see that no fewer than 1 408 persons on a hundred different occasions visited the prison, this completely apart from numerous visits by magistrates and judges, mostly unannounced, to the prisons.

*As I continue, I shall pay attention to other aspects of her speech.

The Prisons Service has two distinguishing characteristics—the quality and scope of the service it renders and the great contribution that service makes to the welfare of the community.

The basis for the Prisons Service’s general policy and management philosophy, which, with the necessary adjustments, finds expression in the present Act and regulations made in terms of that Act, is the Standard Minimum Rules which were accepted by the UNO in 1955 as international guidelines. The examination of the annual report and the privilege of being closely involved with the service in East London, give evidence of a single-minded and dedicated endeavour always to comply with the highest standards of professionalism.

I have already referred to the wrong perspective that exists in respect of over-population and the view that it would lead to totally unsatisfactory conditions. Judging by the high standards set by the South African authorities themselves, over-population does indeed take place. Judging by the international minimum standards as far as floor space, ventilation, air and light are concerned, however, the accommodation provided is sufficient and even more than sufficient. [Interjections.]

Order! I make a final appeal to hon members to lower their voices. Stricter action will be taken against the next hon member I hear speaking.

That is Ferdie.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I wonder if the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs knows there is a cell down below in the building! I mention that only in passing. [Interjections.]

It stands to reason that the safe custody of prisoners forms the basis of the Prisons Service’s activities. The practice also gives evidence that this service is rendered as openly and effectively as possible.

Although the total annual intake in the South African prisons has shown a decrease during the past years, the daily average prison population has increased once again during the past year to 108 955. This figure is 113 792 at present. This tendency can be ascribed directly to the gradual increase in the number of prisoners serving a sentence of two years or longer.

Considering the concentrated environment and the wide variety of people who are dealth with—varying from hardened criminals to civil judgment debtors—this population growth in prisons is making additional demands in respect of manpower and finance.

These demands have more than been compiled with. The number of escapes during the past year represents only 0,003% of the prison population. In addition a new ration scale has been implemented in respect of prisoners, also to comply with international standards.

These, as well as other cost increases, have led to an increase in the unit cost per prisoner per day to 840,46 cents. Neverthe less we have succeeded in remaining within the bounds of the budgetary allocation, even while the establishment was still based on an outdated staff provision of 1975. That is indeed an achievement which can be equalled only with difficulty. This is such an achievement that it is almost a cause for concern, and I want to warn the hon the Minister of Justice that the hon the Minister of Finance becomes spoilt quickly. If he and his department go on in that way, they will have to pay in one of these days!

The staff position and the necessary financing must really be watched and supplemented so that an unfair burden is not placed on the serving staff because of a lack of money.

In addition to the custody service, the eventual objective remains the rehabilitation and successful reintegration of the prisoner into the community. In this sphere a very large contribution is made to the community as a whole. There is a literacy programme, for example, at 73 prisons—the hon member for King William’s Town referred to this as well—in which 2 244 people took part last year and which was successfully completed by 863 people.

High priority is given to labour potential and its development in prisons in particular. Last year 69 prisoners obtained artisan status and a total of 1 031 prisoners completed evaluation tests, of which 643 were successful. A total of 2 592 prisoners received training in directions for which a certificate is acquired, while an additional 1 734 prisoners received specialised training.

A high premium is also placed on spiritual welfare and the aim is full religious care. Apart from an own chaplain corps of 24, a further 1 925 appointed religious workers from 47 denominations and religions are involved.

Psychological services have also been expanded, with a welcome shift in emphasis, in my opinion, to a more treatment-directed approach. In this connection I want to ask the hon the Minister for a similar full-time service to be established in East London as soon as possible.

Although there are problems in filling vacancies, extended social services are rendered too. The subsection “Reintegration into the Community” is aimed at the eventual successful reintegration of the prisoner into the community on his release. The programme involves the preparation of the prisoner for release, the orienting of the community be means of information campaigns, research aimed at post-care systems, the management of post-care and half-way houses and supervisory and post-care services. In respect of the latter in particular, the staff shortage has a restrictive effect and it is imperative that people from the community itself come forward to assist in this regard. The community itself has a duty, after all, to ensure the sound reintegration of its members.

Apart from these direct services, the department also renders service across a very wide spectrum. In conclusion I want to refer to only one sphere, viz the co-operation with and aid to both the independent and self-governing national states. This aid plays a very important role in the establishment, management and development of a sound prison service in these states, and indeed has a stabilising influence on our region as a whole.

It is with pleasure that this side of the House supports the approval of this Vote, and expresses its thanks and appreciation towards an excellent prisons service.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say something about a few aspects of the functioning of the Prisons Service during the recent state of emergency. Naturally in the course of the state of emergency all manner of date came to the fore in connection with the treatment of detainees. The hon member for Houghton referred to this briefly. Visits to prisons were also arranged, inter alia, and I participated in one of these. I accompanied the group which visited the St Alban’s Prison in Port Elizabeth.

At the time of those visits I …

… collected statements!

… made it clear that the vast majority of the complaints mentioned to the visiting House of Assembly group had to do with the treatment of those detainees by the Police, and applied from the time they were detained until such times as the Police handed them over to the Prisons Service. Consequently a small minority of the complaints concerned the Prisons Service itself.

Some of the complaints which were made against the Prisons Service again concerned matters in respect of which the judgment and control of the Prisons Service over the weal and woe of these detainees was subordinated to the control of the Police. It is that aspect which I should like to express a few thoughts on, because this is creating a problem.

I assume that this situation was created by a Government decision, which was published by the hon the Minister of Justice in the Gazette of 26 October 1985. New rules were announced in respect of which the Commissioner of Police or his delegate would have certain residual powers over the control over the weal and woe of detainees. I think that the Prisons Service is better trained, better controlled and better disciplined to deal with people in that position. Last but not least they have a far better reputation in respect of those matters than the Police. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the Police have a problem in that connection, but this is undoubtedly true.

Now we are creating a situation in which, specifically in this particularly tense period, the Police are being given posers to interfere as it were in the control over these detainees, while they are under the control of the Prisons Service. A few of the rules contain fairly serious aspects, for example rule 3:

I have made enquiries on behalf of many people in connection with where detainees are, where they are being held, what their circumstances are and so on, consequently I can say that the communication system of the Police in this regard is hopelessly vague. One must realise that it is of fundamental importance for the family of a person who is being detained at least to know where he is and whether he is wounded or dead or in good health. This is extremely important, and I believe that the Prisons Service in all probability is better able to supply that data. I think it is wrong for this aspect to be made subject to the control of the Police.

Rule 5(1) reads as follows:

… inter alia, the Commissioner of the South African Police. Yet again I can really not see any reason for this.

We must bear in mind that detainees are in any case not persons who have been found guilty by a court of law. They are merely there because of the discretionary power of some Police officer or other or even the hon the Minister of Law and Order. One must bear this in mind when dealing with these people. Also as regards the visits which these people may receive and their communication, I think it is unfortunate that people are placed under the control of the Police and that the Police are being given the right to interfere in this.

According to rule 19 ministers of religion or religious workers may visit a detainee, but the Commissioner of Police may decide that some minister of religion or religious worker or other may not visit that person. This is a matter which is of fundamental importance to many people, and I think it is wrong for the Police to play first fiddle here and to have more say than the Prisons Service.

You are quite right, but you must tell Louis that.

Yes, I would very much like to tell Louis that, but he does not want to listen to me any more. I think that the hon the Minister is sensitive about the position of the administration of justice and the position of the department he controls, and I am sorry that I have to tell the hon the Minister that the spirit which emanates from these regulations, makes it almost sound as if the hon the Minister himself has succumbed to the spirit of oppression which prevailed during that state of emergency.

Many of these regulations go a very long way towards restrict the rights of detainees to an alarming extent. I do not say that these are things which can affect their physical well-being, but these are things which affect their rights to a very great extent. I do believe that this is something which the hon the Minister must bear in mind in future. It is important for the reputation of his own department, particularly the reputation of the Prisons Department, and he must bear this in mind so that he does not also find himself in the dilemma in which the Police Force finds itself nowadays with regard to its status in the community.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Green Point and other hon members of this House who made positive contributions, particularly with regard to the hon the Minister. He was specifically praised for the way in which he handled his department, and I want to associate myself with this in particular.

In the second place I want to say that I think the Department of Prisons has reached great heights this year into which it is celebrating its 75th anniversary. To achieve what they did during a state of emergency and cope with that situation in the way in which they did and are still doing, is something which cannot be equalled by any prison service in the entire free Western world. I want to congratulate them most sincerely.

I can support what I say with facts which I acquired during a visit which a parliamentary group made to prisons at the invitation of the hon the Minister. I want to thank him for that invitation, and I also want to thank the hon members who went on that visit. Hon members could ask whatever they wanted, could visit whoever they wished, could look at the various registers and could verify whatever they wanted to. We could also check medical reports, etc. Absolutely nothing was concealed from us.

On 31 October of last year, after the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Johannesburg North had visited Diepkloof and Modderbee, according to The Star, she said: “Detainees in Johannesburg fine—PFP”. In that report she said that she could do precisely the same things that we as a group did. Now she is insinuating that the cells were cleared of children and little boys and what have you so that she could not see them and question them, but now I am asking myself why she did not ask the prisoners while she could ask them whatever she wanted: “Listen, tell me where are the children I have heard so much about?” [Interjections.] As I saw those prisoners, they would have told her precisely: “There are so many children, and 15 were removed from our cell, and a few “puppets” were brought in, and you are being made a fool of by this department.”

We are not easily taken in. We saw the hon members of that hon member’s party who formed part of that group, namely the hon members for Parktown and Johannesburg North, taking trouble during the visits to Modderbee and Diepkloof to drag complaints out of individual prisoners to cover the hon member for Houghton’s rear end—I almost said posterior. [Interjections.] The detainees gave her a hard time because she did not tell the outside world the story they wanted to her to tell it, because she said that everything was fine and there were no problems. Now she is complaining that there were too many of them in the prisons, that they were crowded into the cells, and that kind of nonsense.

I think she is saying all these things because she is in serious trouble with her party after her visit to Mr Rifkind in England. I think that was treason against our country. Then hon members of her party attended the funeral of communists. If ever there a death-knell rang for a party, it was because of that. Her transgressions were far worse than those of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he made that telephone call to New York.

I should very much like to thank one more person and pass one more remark before I finish. This in connection with the promotion of Lt-Gen Sephton in the welfare service of the Prisons Service. I know the gentleman personally. Owing to the post to which he has been appointed, I should like to pay tribute today to all those people who are with him in the Church he serves, as well as all the other chaplains who do extremely important work in the Prisons Service, and I want to tell him that he must continue with this fantastic service. I also want to thank the Prisons Service. Just like the Defence Force they uphold the same principle, that in their multi-disciplinary approach to the treatment of detainees they do not neglect the spiritual side of the person, but place particular emphasis on it.

In conclusion I want to refer to the fact that in this 75th year of its existence, in this state of emergency year, the Red Cross paid a visit to the Prisons Service. The Prisons Service passed that test with flying colours. Judges paid visits to detainees and in that regard no fault could be found with the relevant authorities’ actions either.

There is only one thing I am sorry about. Now I am reporting in a nutshell on the visit which we made at the end of November to Modderbee, Diepkloof and St Albans. The only negative sound in the actual sense of the word came from the hon members of the PFP. They did not arrange for consistent representation by a specific member during the two visits to all three those prisons. They could at least have delegated one member to do this. The result was that staccato remarks were passed by the different hon members on a specific prison in a specific situation. Eventually—the hon member for Green Point put this on record—they had no fault to find.

I am the last person to say that the Prison Service is without sins or fault. All of us are trying every day to see whether we cannot improve on what we are doing. But to be negative, merely to save a colleague’s skin, as i have just said, because you are in trouble outside because your image is in conflict with what you want to proclaim overseas, will not work. I really think that people no longer allow themselves to be misled by this sort of thing.

In conclusion I want to say that it is a pity that they did not participate consistently in the visits. I also think it was an insult to the members of the other two Houses who went on the trips and acted very positively and responsibly and of whom the entire Parliament can be proud. I should also like to say this here in the House of Assembly today.

Mr Chairman, our time is very limited so you will pardon my also speaking in staccato sentences. This afternoon the Prisons Service received a great deal of praise from all hon members of all parties in this Committee and, as the Commissioner and top management present here today as well as members of the Prisons Service throughout South Africa cannot thank hon members personally, I take great pleasure in doing so. It is appreciated when service rendered does not pass unnoticed.

It actually went so well that I received a note from the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works in which he asked me whether it was true that en suite accommodation was available to politicians at certain prisons. Whatever the case, this immediately brings me to the point made by the hon member for Houghton.

†She requested the right—or perhaps I should rather call it the privilege—to visit prisons at will, whenever she wishes to do so, on account of the fact that she is the PFP’s chief spokesman on prisons.

Our policy is that members of Parliament are entitled to visit the prisons in their constituencies, provided that they notify the commanding officer. That is the general policy. [Interjections.]

It is also possible, however, that the study groups on justice and prisons may from to time be invited to visit various prisons outside their constituencies. I have extended numerous invitations in this regard. The question now is whether an individual has the singular right to visit at will. [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Jeppe has, for a change, perhaps argued in such a way as to furnish the hon member with a proper reply. As he put it, if that right were to be withheld from all other members of Parliament, would that be fair? [Interjections.] No, it cannot possibly be fair.

There is one spokesman for each party.

We are talking about 308 members. Apart from that, however, just take into account how many chief spokesmen we have these days. If there were to be a proliferation of PFP members, would that hon member try to obtain the right for each and every section or for each and every wing of her party? [Interjections.] No, it is impossible. However, the hon member will still be considered when it comes to extending invitations to visit prisons. I hope and trust that she will not argue that she does not want to go with a group, because that is going to break down the spirit of Parliament and our esprit de corps will suffer as a result of it. Moreover, I am sure that the hon member—in private of course—enjoys so much respect from all the hon members of this House that they always enjoy her presence. I appeal to her not to deprive them of that privilege. I do not think it is fair. [Interjections.] Apart from that, however, individual requests on the part of the hon member have never been dealt with in a negative manner and she will receive the same treatment in the future. Permit me now to make a few announcements.

*The hon member for East London City referred inter alia to the classification of prisoners and I now wish to make a positive announcement. Up to the present the existing system of classification has served its purpose well and produced positive results but further developments are required to keep pace with change.

I therefore announce that a new system of security classification will be implemented. This system is based on the principle that security and privilege should be separated from each other in the classification of prisoners. Under the security classification system prisoners are already classified at the point of admission according to standardised security classification norms as maximum or medium custody categories and then assigned to a suitable prison or section accordingly.

This system is the outcome of thorough study and will depend on the following variables applied to each prisoner with a sentence of two years or more: Current crime; the length of sentence; the number of previous convictions; previous convictions for crimes of violence; escapes on record; the use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the most recent crime.

The system is entirely objective. Decisions are taken exclusively and consistently and are not based—as in the case of depth and horizontal classification—on the subjective judgment of experts who place the prisoner in a particular group. A specifically directed process of observation first takes place at the prison to which the prisoner is assigned on the basis of his security classification. Decisions are taken only afterwards.

The system holds the important promise that the protection of the community against dangerous criminals will be capable of even more effective application. This holds the additional fringe benefit that other norms and forms of custody can be developed in time in cases of less dangerous criminals. The hon member for Houghton argued inter alia that this was desirable. She was thinking for example of the possibility of transit houses and other forms of accommodation to ease overcrowding in prisons. This may well be a side-effect of the classification of less dangerous criminals.

As research on the system is concluded at the HSRC and after functionaries and other experts on the staff of the Prisons Service have made their contributions in practice, the system will be further refined. It holds great promise.

I wish to turn to the hon member for East London City and the hon member for Houghton. I am addressing the hon member for Houghton in particular because she obviously did not take note of the fact that we announced our first prison for juveniles at Leeuwkop earlier this year. We have a specific programme of approach there for juveniles which meets most of her problems.

The hon member for Jeppe will understand if I do not reply to all the points he raised. He spoke inter alia on stock theft and I shall revert to that if an opportunity offers. The hon member tried to snatch a little windfall here! I do not think it was very fair of him to attempt this over matters concerning Justice. I shall see him personally regarding such matters and make a few communications to him.

We had only two turns to speak!

I wish to tell the hon member I shall nevertheless reply to his speech in great detail, especially as regards Robben Island. I should like to take the time to make an announcement in this respect.

Following upon the media release of 6 June 1985 when details were announced on the interdepartmental work group with terms of reference to inquire into the possible better utilisation of Robben Island, I should like to make a further announcement in this regard. The work group made recommendations based on investigations carried out among others by the Prisons Service, the Navy, the Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape Provincial Administration and the National Monuments Council.

I now wish to give a brief statement of the Government’s standpoint on Robben Island as last confirmed. The Government took due cognisance of the standpoint of the National Monuments Council that the historical and cultural heritage on Robben Island was so rich that the island as a whole should be declared a national monument. We took note of this and this council is to meet in May for a final recommendation to us to which we shall certainly react.

In addition, note was taken of the findings of the Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape Provincial Administration that Robben Island serves as a resting and breeding place for coastal and maritime birds, some of which are rare and threatened species. The standpoint is recognised inter alia that the security area around Robben Island should even be extended as further protection for the birds.

In this regard I wish to thank the hon the Minister of Transport and his management in particular that they acted so expeditiously in dealing with possible pollution from the latest stranded ship. This enabled us to take exceptional precautions, especially concerning the birds. [Interjections.] The Government has consequently decided that the island will remain State property and for the foreseeable future be used by the Prisons Service which has an urgent need of the facilities there.

Secondly, it has been decided that nothing will be done to threaten the cultural-historical and/or natural life—in other words, basically with a view to future development.

Thirdly, the interests of the SA Navy on Robben Island are recognised.

Fourthly, there are certain other interests and better possibilities for utilisation which have to be investigated further by the work group: Increased access to Robben Island by nature conservation and cultural-historical interest groups for research, viewing and appreciation; educational interest groups with special attention to the youth; more comprehensive utilisation of available facilities within the broader national economy and limited tourist activities directed at nature and the cultural-historical, subject to a thorough system of control. The work group is proceeding to investigate the possibilities in these terms and, who knows, perhaps the hon member for Houghton may be invited in the near future—not to visit the prisoners but the cultural-historical and the birds. [Interjections.]

This brings me to a further announcement. The State President has approved that a special six-month reduction of sentence be granted to specific categories of prisoners who are in custody or will be in custody on 31 May 1986. This will take place to mark the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Republic of South Africa. It has been customary in our history to grant amnesty on great occasions as I am doing now. Approximately 20 000 prisoners will immediately benefit from this. Categories excluded broadly come down to the following: Security prisoners and persons sentenced for misdemeanours connected with the situation of unrest as well as certain serious misdeeds such as robbery, rape and physical violence against other persons and where a certain length of sentence is involved.

What about politicals? What about Mandela?

Details will immediately be passed to commanding officers of all prison commands so that the necessary steps may be taken to carry out these decisions. At a later occasion we shall furnish more details on those excluded from this amnesty.

It is a very good opportunity to release Mandela, Sisulu and co.

That brings me back to the debate. Hon members will understand that I cannot do justice to each individual member’s speech because of the limited time at my disposal. After all, I have only seven minutes left.

†Starting with the hon member for Houghton, I must say that she really got out of the North End problem in a admirable manner, except for the fact that she gave the impression that Mr Justice Smalberger was requested to visit that prison after the traces of the complaint to which the hon member had referred during the previous session had been removed.

Hon members have perhaps forgotten that the hon member made certain accusations which we hastened to resolve and give attention to by asking a judge to look into this matter. Subsequently virtually all her complaints were proved to be without foundation. What I really admire about the hon member is that she actually did come to this Committee to apologise, and I accept it in that spirit. She did so in a roundabout way but we appreciate it. The fact of the matter is that I do not say that she had no right to bring the matter to the attention of this Committee, this House or to myself. The matter has been resolved, and I should like to leave it at that in that spirit.

Go and have another look at it.

I have dealt with the question of over-crowding in our prisons, but I must hasten to point out that the overcrowding is handled in such a way by the prisons staff, by the Commissioner and his top management that in fact we experience relative peace in our prisons today. We experience relative peace in our prisons if we compare the situation to the upheavals in other prisons overseas. However, we take no pride in the fact that conflict may occur here and there, and we take no pride in the fact that we have prison gangs.

*The fact is Mr Chairman, that by pursuing a policy of deconcentration and near mobility the Commissioner has succeeded in utilising available space in the respective prisons in such a way that in general occupation levels are equally distributed countrywide. This was accomplished without significantly eroding relatives’ visiting rights and so on. I believe there has actually been considerable proof of an ability to manage and control affairs under very difficult circumstances. I also think we shall really be able to provide relief under the circumstances after the acquisition of additional accommodation. I maintain again, however, that the solution to the problem of overpopulation of prisons does not lie in the erection of more prisons but in socioeconomic upliftment, in an involvement on the side of the public, of every political party and especially also on the side of society to care for those who have strayed and help them to rehabilitate themselves as soon as they are released from prison.

There are 17 organisations active in this regard. We are attempting to make it increasingly easy for those organisations to carry out their upliftment work. We have an excellent understanding with Nicro for example and there is the closest possible co-operation on certain facets of the duty it has to perform. An example of this is that we have just adapted the Criminal Procedure Act again as regards community service punishment. This was done to afford relief and simultaneously obtain better co-operation.

The hon member requested that we should extend the entire question of contact visits. I believe it would be unwise to do this because prisoners should certainly work for specific privileges. Our new system of classification may perhaps give rise to a change but at present we still have the A group—especially among prisoners in terms of security legislation—which does receive contact visits. Prison visiting is chiefly aimed at the preservation of family ties. We are quite positively attuned to this particular aspect, which is why we shall not extend the present system of visits by close relatives unless the hon members comes up with very convincing arguments on this subject in future.

I now wish to address the hon member Mr Schutte who made a very positive speech and exhibited exceptional insight into the HSRC report on jail gangs. He also referred to mischievous and unscientific reports compiled without foundation in criminology. He hit out at their compilers very effectively and I hope representatives of the Press took note so that they may report on this. I wish to add something, however. A syndrome has developed among scientists and pseudoscientists in this country which leads them to believe that, if they merely direct sufficient invective at the services in South Africa, they will obtain a visa as well as invitations to attend some symposium or other overseas. It has become obvious that those are the people who do most travelling abroad. I am delighted that they have been exposed in the discussion on this Vote and I am also delighted that the hon member raised this matter.

This brings me to another mater raised by the hon member for Green Point, which is that of regulations. I really want to put it to the hon member that we appreciate the spirit and the attitude in which he put his case. Nevertheless I cannot agree with him when he creates the least impression that we would have handled the situation better than the SA Police. I think it unfair to make such a statement. In the first place I believe this matter should actually be raised in the discussion of the Law and Order Vote. Secondly, I have to point out that the SA Police was under exceptional pressure during that period. Thirdly, those held in terms of the emergency measures—and this has been confirmed repeatedly in judgments by the courts—are held with the intention of isolating them from society. After all, they perpetrated specific acts in society which gave rise to the announcement of the state of emergency so one should not expect them to be treated as if they were just normal, innocent members of the public—let alone normal detainees in prison. Consequently I put it to the hon member—while we greatly appreciate the spirit in which he spoke—we greatly appreciated the co-operation we received from the SA Police.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman—on this matter as well—I wish to put it to the hon member that our judges played a great and honourable role through their visits during the state of emergency. They also contributed greatly to lending legitimacy to the system of a state of emergency and to the civilised circumstances in which South Africa could operate such a state.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, this is a historic occasion—not only because of this Bill, which is a Bill concerned with group areas and housing, but also because another document relating to housing, which has an effect on this Bill, has been tabled in this House. I think it right, Sir, to crave you indulgence on an occasion such as this. This is, after all, a historic event. We were even reminded, when we looked at this historic document, by the hon member Mr Schutte, that the class of 1953 of the NP—I was in Std 3 in 1953—was having a reunion in this building tonight. [Interjections.] Among the guests were former Minister M C Botha and also other former parliamentarians.

As we are approaching an issue such as housing, which is a vital aspect of urbanisation, I believe it is a historic event for this House to have before it a document which is going to affect housing in the RSA on an enormous scale. I have some questions to ask the hon the Minister—he is an old Ikey colleague of mine—about how his department is going to relate to the Urbanisation Strategy of the Government. [Interjections.]

The Bill before us is a classic apartheid measure. It is indeed astonishing that on the very same day we also get a document like this White Paper on Urbanisation which, I believe, will lead to South Africa’s being developed in an exciting way because it is proposing a whole new dispensation for housing. In fact, when one looks at the recommendations in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.4, one can see that this White Paper will encourage this apartheid department of housing—the department which the hon the Minister is introducing, the department whose assets he wants to augment out of the group areas assets, and the department which is going to be called upon in terms of this document—to assist in providing housing in order to bring about a new urbanisation strategy in South Africa. I welcome that move. Still, I think it is a pity that this miserable apartheid Bill has to be dealt with on the same day that we receive a document that gives us a new vision for South Africa and possibly launches us on a whole new developmental phase, both in our cities and our rural areas.

Our main complaint about this Bill is that in terms of it housing is being racialised. The assets of the Community Development Board are being racialised because they are being given, in the first place, to the White House, and in the second place, to the Indian and Coloured Houses. Moreover, we have a Bill following upon this one which deals with the same principle, although with a different aspect of housing.

How does the hon Minister view the apparent conflict between this Bill and the White Paper on urbanisation? After all, certain instructions are issued in the White Paper. For instance, paragraph 8.2 reads:

Presumably, this would include the assets of the hon the Minister’s department, assets which the hon the Minister is now splitting into separate sections. The hon the Minister should explain to us how he sees his role in terms of this urbanisation strategy.

Will the hon the Minister use this money on actual housing, or is it going to be used simply to provide services? Is the hon the Minister perhaps going to change his housing standards? Perhaps the hon the Minister will want to reply to my question during the debate on the next Bill to come before us.

Furthermore, does the hon the Minister anticipate that he will serve on the commission of inquiry into the new financial institution envisaged in terms of paragraph 13.2 of the White Paper? Will the assets that we are now going to agree to split, be used for this new possible financial institution which in terms of the White Paper the hon the Minister of Finance and the Ministries of Housing will look at as a means of financing housing? I believe the hon the Minister should explain to the House how he resolved this apparent contradiction between the kind of spirit we see in the White Paper and the return to 1953 apartheid that we find in this Bill.

You should be ashamed, Lapa.

Unfortunately, this Bill is one that we cannot support. The hon the Minister will know from what our members on the standing committee said that we cannot support it. Unfortunately, they cannot be here tonight as they are celebrating the Passover festival and they asked me to present their apologies for not being able to be here.

I believe we should remind ourselves that this Act which is being amended is the handmaid, the pillar, the executive arm of the Group Areas Act. We are fundamentally opposed as a party to legalised racial discrimination. I believe that members opposite should appreciate that we as a party have no objection to people choosing their neighbourhoods; we do not object to there being a Chinatown or a Portugese area or an area where Muslims may choose to live or where Afrikaners may choose to live.

As long as that does not stop somebody else living there.

Precisely! And if it is Government money anybody must be free to go there. In normal societies people choose where they want to live, market forces dictate it or they choose to live among their own communities. We believe that by writing in legalised racial discrimination we are writing a conflict issue into our legislation, and people must be free to choose their neighbours. If they do not like their neighbours they can sell their properties and move somewhere else to a place where they do like their neighbours.

Do you mean if you lived next to me I would have to sell to get rid of you.

I might have to sell to get rid of that hon member! The point is that many members in this House seem to misunderstand the fact that our party recognises that groups exist. However, we say groups must be formed on the basis of free choice. The Human Sciences Research Council tells us in a recent study that they have done that even if one removed statutory discrimination, one would often find that group issues, language issues and residential issues are still enormously important and that people will find means of expressing that without having to resort to this kind of legislation. I believe that for the hon the Minister to come at this time with this kind of legislation shows a disgraceful insensitivity, and the PFP will have much pleasure in voting against this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. All I can tell him at this stage is precisely what the hon member for Umlazi told the hon member for Hillbrow, and that is that we shall just have to live with the Official Opposition in the House.

Just hold an election, then you would get rid of them.

The hon members for Pietermaritzburg North and Hillbrow raised arguments which had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. I have been dealing with the same kind of thing for two days now—firstly in the discussion of my Vote, and now with this legislation. The hon member made a number of remarks about the White Paper which was published today. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation we are dealing with. He asked me how I could reconcile the White Paper with the Bill. In this very same House legislation proposed by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works was approved. The legislation establishes a commission and then a fund for White housing. The legislation we are now dealing with in this House has nothing to do with people of colour. Here I am dealing with the enabling legislation which will bring other legislation introduced here into operation. It concerns the housing of Whites. It has nothing to do with urbanisation.

Exactly! That is the whole point!

It has nothing to do with the White Paper on Urbanisation although that might have consequential effects. [Interjections.] This Bill deals with an Act that has already been passed.

The hon member for Hillbrow spent a great deal of time trying to tell us what the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives would say—as if these hon members are still talking on behalf of those two Houses. I think it is time that hon members of the Official Opposition got used to the fact that there is a new dispensation with three Chambers. [Interjections.] The Coloureds and Indians have had absolutely enough of the paternalism of the liberalists. One realises that as soon as one walks into any standing committee. They are not interested in all the “foefies” which the liberals have been trying to put into their heads.

Wrong is wrong!

The Cape Times thought so little of the speech of the hon member for Hillbrow that they did not even quote him. I think the hon member made that speech to try to influence the voting in the other two Houses.

The hon member for Hillbrow praised the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works for his survey of all housing. It is interesting that the hon member said that this is a very good thing. This measure was agreed by the three Ministers of Housing.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North must realise that my department has nothing whatsoever to do with housing as such. I do not deal with housing. When one reads the annual report of the department one will see on the first page what has happened: Housing has been handed over to the three own affairs Ministers dealing with it. Some of it has been given to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and some to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Both these hon Ministers deal with different aspects of Black housing.

All that falls under my control is the Housing Commission. The Bill before us is an enabling measure for the other two Houses because this House has already passed the Bill creating its own Housing Commission and its own Housing Fund.

What about the non-statutory housing forum?

Now the hon member suddenly refers to the non-statutory housing forum. I will deal with that because the advice on housing will be co-ordinated by myself as the general affairs Minister dealing with housing. This advice on housing will be given by this body. It is a non-statutory body and does not appear in this Bill at all. Why does the hon member therefore raise the matter?

It concerns the next Bill.

The hon member for Hilbrow also mentioned the transfer of funds and he asked why they still appear in my budget. The answer is obvious. We have not yet passed this amending Bill. I cannot transfer funds from the Housing Fund to the other authorities without first getting this Bill passed. We have to pass this Bill and the next one to enable me to transfer the funds. That is why it is in my budget, but I do not control it. It is controlled by the Housing Commission and the actual funds will then be asked for by the three Ministers dealing with housing as well as the two Ministers I have just mentioned.

*The hon member for Umlazi put it very clearly. He said that it was merely consequential legislation which was following on after a law that had already been passed by this House of Assembly. I cannot help it if the Official Opposition does not like the manner in which the NP governs the country, or the system which we have introduced.

We do not like it either!

The hon member for Jeppe is saying the CP does not like it either. [Interjections.] Together—they were stablemates—they were beaten by a two-thirds majority when the new dispensation was introduced. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umlazi used a very good expression when he said that the Official Opposition favoured a “selective democratic system”. They favour it, but when we want to offer opportunities for progress to groups—this is our policy—they do not like it. It has been said so often in this House by the State President and the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council among others. [Interjections.] This legislation is actually meant to make housing a group matter. This is what it is about.

In Hillbrow there is no segregation of groups.

This is an own affair and it is important.

The hon member for Kuruman does not have to kick up a row now because the hon member for Nigel himself said in the House that he supports this legislation. [Interjections.]

Yes, he supports the legislation, but you promote integration. [Interjections.]

He also says that he is going to examine the amount spent on housing under a microscope, but he feels it is important that it be spent on White housing and the money should therefore be divided up. The hon member for Kuruman surely knows that this is what the hon member for Nigel said. Why is he against it now?

It was a very good speech.

He does not listen to what the hon member says.

I think the hon member for Umhlanga made a very good point. He has a practical approach to housing needs. Who is better qualified to know what the housing needs in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates are than a member of their respective Ministers’ Councils? Who is better qualified than the hon Ministers appointed in those Houses to know what their people’s housing needs are?

The hon member for Umhlanga also mentioned that hon members of the House of Representatives on the standing committee said openly that they were tired of political game-playing, and that they wanted to be able to produce results for their people. They have said the same thing to me. They want the funds divided just as the hon members on this side of the House do, so that each own affairs Minister can deal with housing appropriately. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked if this legislation would expedite the provision of more funds for more housing. The answer is “yes”, because each Minister concerned with housing will be able to deal with it himself.

If there are arguments about the Group Areas Act, they should be raised at the right time and in the right place. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning deals with group areas and I do not. If there are to be any changes to the Group Areas Act, they will be dealt with by him. I am dealing with the practical problem of dividing the funds according to the Constitution. The National Housing Commission has to take care of particular housing matters.

The hon member for Hercules stated very clearly that the entire Bill only concerned the fact that the funds had to be divided up amongst three Houses. All the other issues of group areas and apartheid have absolutely nothing to do with this legislation.

†I now turn to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. If there is one reality in this country that has become even clearer since the introduction of the new dispensation, it is the fact that groups exist and are here to stay.

Oh yes? You have a big surprise coming.

The hon member for Greytown should be careful. Each time he opens his mouth, he is beaten, and it is late in the evening. [Interjections.]

†Groups are here to stay. We have various Black ethnic groups with their own local governments. There are Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics represented in a tricameral Parliament. That is the reality. If there are hon members who want to change that, they should try to take over the government. [Interjections.]

The hon member said there was a contradiction between this Bill and the White Paper on urbanisation, and that it was insensitive to introduce this Bill now. These two documents have absolutely nothing to do with each other at this stage. Orderly urbanisation can be organised over a period of time, but housing has to be provided now for the people who will be affected. This will be done by each group after it has received its share of the National Housing Fund and has established its own housing commission.

The question of duplication was also raised by the hon member for Hillbrow. This is one of the things we will have to live with. We have to accept the fact that there are groups which want to be treated as such and want to deal with their own housing, education and various other matters.

*I should like to conclude by thanking the hon members who participated in this debate. I have given everyone a brief reply. This is also an enabling Act for the other two Houses and that is why it has been drawn up in this way. It was not specifically drawn up for this House, but it will come into effect here as soon as it is passed by the other two Houses. The other two Houses are planning to introduce their own legislation, and they can do this when it suits them. The National Housing Commission and National Housing Fund will probably fall under me for a while yet—probably for the rest of this financial year, but the actual idea is that we have to make this division so that we can divide up the funds and so that we can deal with this board, and one or two other aspects, in a future piece of legislation.

Question put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

During the 1985 session of Parliament the Development and Housing Act was passed. This Act provides that upon its commencement the Housing Act, 1966, shall no longer be applicable in areas declared for the use of the White population group. The Development and Housing Act of 1985 came into operation on 1 January 1986, but unless the Housing Act of 1966 is suitably amended, the assets, rights and liabilities of the National Housing Commission, in regard to areas in which the Development and Housing Act is applicable, could not be transferred to the Development and Housing Board. Clause 3 of the amending Bill now before the House makes provision for such transfer on a date which shall be determined by notice in the Gazette.

In order to obviate the necessity of amending the Housing Act each time a similar controlling body is established for a particular population group, clause 3 has been worded in general terms. This means that all that will be required in future to effect the transfer of the assets, rights and liabilities of the National Housing Commission to another controlling body, would be the publication of a notice in the Gazette.

†It is clear that as and when the other administrations for own affairs pass their own legislation regarding housing matters, the activities of the National Housing Commission will decrease even further. The principal Act provides for a commission consisting of not fewer than 11 and not more than 14 members. In order that the composition of the commission may be adjusted in accordance with the reduction in its activities, it is now proposed to empower the Minister to reduce the number of members of the commission as and when the need arises.

The final aspect which is dealt with by this Bill concerns the granting of loans and advances to housing utility companies. The committee which conducted an investigation into the financing of housing for Blacks, known as the Steyn Committee, identified the need to establish a market for immovable property within the Coloured and Indian and especially the Black townships with regard to the sales promotion of housing that has been erected with State funds.

On the recommendation of the committee a utility company was instituted to undertake, among other things, the training of estate agents. In order to furnish this utility company with the necessary working capital, loans have been granted to it. However, under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1966, advances and loans may only be granted for the purpose of providing housing and, as the loans granted to the said utility company do not meet with this requirements, it is necessary to amend the Act retrospectively so as to authorise these loans.

Mr Speaker, we will oppose this measure. Might I say, firstly, that I think it is unfortunate that we have another racially discriminatory Bill coming before us. After all, we all know that the Group Areas Act is under consideration. We all know that the Government is rethinking its housing strategy in the light of the White Paper that was tabled today. We are aware that there is a state of flux in regard to housing generally. We are also aware that the need for housing in this country at the moment is particularly acute in respect of people of colour. Therefore, to now dismantle a housing commission which can serve, and has served, South Africa as a whole, in order to conform to a racialistic approach, is, I believe, simply unbelievable. What are we going to replace it with?

According to the report of the hon the Minister and according to the White Paper, it is going to be a non-statutory forum. The report refers to it as follows:

*The only national institution—it will not even be a statutory body—the only possible national forum, will consequently be a non-statutory forum where one can launch any co-ordinating or collaborating programme. Actually one cannot even launch any programmes there, because there is no statutory power for that body. Even the South African Housing Advisory Council is not equal to that task.

I think it is a great pity that we are introducing such legislation at this stage, and we are opposed to this legislation basically for the same reason that we are opposed to the other legislation.

But at least we welcome one thing, and that is the fact that we are now going to endeavour to create a better market as regards the sale and resale of houses among Black people. We will support this.

I think it is high time that the hon the Minister at least tells us in his reply to this debate how the sales action with regard to Black housing is progressing. After all it was announced with a great fanfare of trumpets that 500 000 houses, of which approximately 400 000 were Black houses, would be sold within 12 months. This was announced by the hon the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Pen Kotzé. But now all is quiet, and I think, particularly because this Bill deals with that matter, that the hon the Minister must tell us what is happening in that regard.

We are sorry that this kind of legislation is being introduced. I am not going to repeat what we said in the previous debate on the community development legislation. We just want to state that we oppose this kind of legislation. We believe that it does not serve any good purpose in the future we are trying to build in this country. We must not emphasise our racial differences. We must rather allow people to choose their own groups, on a basis of free association.

Mr Speaker, the legislation before us is in fact similar to the previous legislation and I do not think the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North or his party understands the legislation.

On the standing committee all three Chambers were in agreement on the legislation. The exception was the PFP. The PFP, of course, still does not accept the new Constitution according to which each House regulates its own affairs.

The other two Houses welcome this legislation because their standpoint was that they were now able to manage their own affairs as far as housing was concerned. It is no longer necessary for them to go to the National Housing Commission to have their affairs seen to. They can now determine their own needs, and build where necessary. The legislation arranges matters in that connection. It is consequential legislation which we passed in this Parliament last year. Primarily it deals with the transfer of assets and the rights and obligations of the National Housing Commission or those of another controlling body.

We also agree with the clause in the legislation dealing with the training of estate agents, and what we have especially in mind in this regard is the marketing of property in Black residential areas. It will now be possible to organise this more effectively.

We on this side of the House support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I respectfully submit that as regards the Bill at present before the House, the hon member for Alberton is not altogether correct. When the standing committee was in sitting I abstained from voting against it because I wanted to verify certain facts. That is how it has been recorded, and the chairman of the standing committee is indicating to me from those benches that I am right. The hon member for Langlaagte was my guest on that committee and I abstained from voting because we wanted to investigate certain matters, which we subsequently did.

I should just like to say that after a thorough investigation we decided that we would support the legislation, but with certain reservations. These reservations are more or less the same as those which applied to the previous legislation which was discussed in this House. This is the case because the two Bills before us are very similar. Both can reflect on section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which we consider to be a farce.

Once again it became clear to us that with every general law of Parliament concerning these matters, and as it also is mentioned in clause 3 of the Bill before us, White housing is very detrimentally affected if it is worded incorrectly. In this respect I am also referring to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution Act of the RSA. Because he wanted to be very sure about this matter we said at the time that we would investigate the matter further. Clause 3 of the Bill now before us reads as follows:

It continues in this vein. However, I should also like to quote to hon members the paragraph in the Constitution which could affect White housing detrimentally. Schedule 1.5 is concerned with—

1. (1) housing;
2. (2) development of the community in any area declared by or under any general law as an area for the use of the population group in question, including the establishment, development and renovation of towns and the control over and disposal of land (whether by alienation or otherwise) acquired or made available for that purpose; and
3. (3) rent control over and clearance of squatting, in such an area in terms of any general law,

And here we have the rest of it, Sir—

1. (a) any general law in relation to norms, standards and income groups for the financing of housing …

And so on. That is why the Conservative Party is watching this legislation like a hawk! That is why we do not immediately want to vote in favour of such a matter. We have also availed ourselves of legal advice in this regard. From our experience we know what can happen with this kind of legislation if it is not gone into in depth, that is why we sometimes sing in church: “hoe ek dieper poog te delwe, hoe ek meer bederf ontmoet”. The deeper we delve into this legislation the greater the chances are of coming across something sinister. The people of South Africa must therefore know that we shall not simply pass this legislation before having made very sure that there is nothing sinister in it. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the governing party must not blame us if we examine all legislation submitted by them very critically, exactly as we do to all assurances from the Government. We can justifiably say that we have no confidence whatsoever in the Government. We have no confidence in any legislation that is submitted to us. A Minister can give one a specific assurance, but in a year or two there will be another Minister. I know that this hon Minister will not do it, but he may be promoted, or he may be transferred to another section, and then another Minister comes along who reads other things into it. The people of South Africa are then left holding the baby. [Interjections.]

Boss Chris need only give him the order!

Yes, you let them have it, oom Hannes!

This legislation, as I have mentioned, overrides section 14 and the Constitution’s schedule because the legislation before us—as soon as it becomes law—absolutely overrides the schedule in the Constitution. When I see what section 14 of the Constitution spells out then I cannot but refer to this section in the schedule too, as I have just done.

The hon member for Umlazi said yesterday that we were beaten by a big majority in the referendum. That is true, but what the hon member did not say was that the Government won the referendum with a lie. [Interjections.] That is quite simply the case. Among others the Government also made use of professors. I still remember very clearly that Prof S A S Strauss appeared on television one evening prior to the referendum and spoke on this topic—the Constitution in laymen’s language. Prof Strauss elaborated on the Constitution and spoke glibly about general affairs, but he omitted to mention that own affairs would be subject to section 16 of the Constitution and that they were also subject to a general Act of Parliament. Prof Strauss misled the people of South Africa, as did Prof Geerdt de Wet. On many mornings Prof Geerdt de Wet gives tips on economic matters over the radio. I wonder how much value we should attach to them because he told us the time that the heavens would descend upon us if we voted yes and that money would flow into the country. After the heavens descended upon us everyone would no doubt wear blue coronets (Kepsies)! [Interjections.] That is why so many people voted yes.

Let them have it!

That is why the Government must understand that we have no confidence in any legislation they submit to us before we have had a damn good look at it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point or order, may the hon member for Nigel incite the House? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in this case we shall not only incite the House; we are also going to incite the people of South Africa against the Government. [Interjections.]

The assurance of the Government is not worth a sixpence. What irks us in this legislation is section 6 of the Housing Act of 1966 in which it is said that the commission shall consist of not less than 11 and not more than 14 members. These 14 members are being retained now. We should like to know what this is all about. Certain professions are now being omitted here. I am quoting from clauses 1(a) and (b) of the Bill:

1. (i) one shall be an architect or an engineer or a quantity surveyor or town planner with knowledge of or experience in municipal affairs;
2. (ii) one shall be a medical practitioner registered as such under the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Services Professions Act, 1974 (Act No 56 of 1974);
3. (iii) one shall be an advocate or an attorney;
4. (iv) three shall be persons with general knowledge of or experience of rural housing conditions;
5. (v) two shall be designated by the Minister of Plural Relations and Development.
6. (b) At least one of the members of the commission shall be a woman.

That is how it was! But now I see that the hon the Minister has the right to omit them. It may of course happen that the hon the Minister again appoints people who may have these qualifications and who practise these professions. But why does this legislation specifically discriminate between these professions? They are intimately associated with this legislation and I am sorry they are now being omitted.

Of course we do not reconcile ourselves to it! [Interjections.]

In any event we hope that people practising these professions will again be appointed because they can make a very valuable contribution in matters of this kind.

As I have said, we shall be keeping a very close watch on these matters. It frequently happens these days that before a specific law is repealed by this Parliament a prior declaration is made and a decree issued, after which that specific law is no longer implemented. That is also one of the things we have to deal with these days. One comes across all kinds of unbelievable peculiarities these days. It even happens that a specific Act is still on the Statute Book but that a decree is issued from Cape Town and that Act is a thing of the past! [Interjections.] This kind of thing is absolutely autocratic. Parliament is completely bypassed in the process, particularly in certain cases. It is not a good thing at all that Parliament should be bypassed in this way. After all, it is still a democratic institution. [Interjections.]

Chris obviously does not think so! [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr Chairman, the other day someone asked the member for Barberton where South Africa was being taken. The hon member for Barberton then said he did not know, whereupon the man exclaimed: “Go and ask dear Heunis”. [Interjections.] So, Mr Chairman, we shall simply have to put this question to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is the only one who knows where we are being taken. That is what a friend of the hon member for Barberton told him. [Interjections.]

Oh please, man, you are talking through your hat! [Interjections.]

No one but that hon Minister knows where we are going! [Interjections.] That man says dear Heunis knows; naturally, because that hon Minister is apparently the only one that knows where they are taking South Africa. [Interjections.]

Sir, we support the legislation under discussion. We support it—as I have already said—with certain reservations however. We shall watch the situation like hawks in future, and we shall do so because we want to protect what belongs to us. When I say that of course I am not implying that we do not also grant others what we demand for ourselves. We grant them exactly the same, but not at the expense of the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Nigel, I always thought, was a very mild and very gentle sort of person. [Interjections.]

How mistaken you were!

I want to say tonight, Sir, that if that is the measure of that hon member’s support for a Bill, then he must please give me lots of warning on the day he is going to oppose a Bill. [Interjections.] I say that, Sir, because here where I sit I need danger money. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I do not want to repeat the arguments advanced during the discussion of the previous Bill. I merely want to say again we should weigh the need against political expediency. I do not want to argue with my friends in the PFP. Sir, I believe that here again we have a Bill before us which certainly may not be perfect. We do know that group areas is a question which this Government is going to have to address. With this measure, however, we are going to be in a position to provide housing sooner and more effectively than we would be able to do without this measure. That, to me, takes precedence over all else.

I should also like to commend the hon the Minister for the fact that he has incorporated into this Bill the recommendation by the Steyn Committee regarding the establishment of a utility company to train estate agents who are members of other race groups. This opens up a new field to those people, and, I believe, a very exciting one too. In the course of time it will also be a very worthwhile and rewarding field in which they can operate.

Again, Sir, that is an aspect which, in the kind of climate in which we find ourselves, we can only welcome. Therefore, Sir, we in these benches, as in the case of the previous Bill, will support this measure.

Mr Speaker, once again it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak after the hon member for Umhlanga and I can merely repeat what I have said on previous occasions about that hon member. Once again he proved that he thinks in a balanced way—that applies to his party as well—when it comes to legislation of this nature. It also proved that they carry out their promises, just as they did when they supported us during the 1983 referendum.

When one comes to the hon member for Nigel, however, and his reference to the fact that they did not agree with us on the standing committee, I should like to put it to the hon member that he did not at that stage have authorisation from the hon member for Sasolburg to agree with us. [Interjections.] In a situation of this nature, he and his party colleagues first have to establish what those on the far right have to say. They would like to agree, but they are not sure what the public at large—those on the far right spectrum of their own wing—are going to say they should do. I am referring of course to the Kappiekommando, the AWB and the HNP, and also to the marriage between the Conservative Party and the HNP. That is precisely what it is all about. The situation is not as the hon members for Nigel tried to tell us it was, namely that they first wanted to delve deeply in order to establish what it is all about. As far as they are concerned the question was simply that whether HNP would go along with them or not.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South introduced a touch of racism into the debate on this legislation—as he did when he spoke about the previous Bill! I should like to tell that hon member that I think it is one of the finest pieces of legislation we have ever produced in this Parliament. I was at one time mayor of my town. [Interjections.] At that time we reached a decision on legislation concerning the Coloured residential area of Reigerpark. [Interjections.] Reigerpark is now a fine residential area, with admirable Coloured people. Even at that stage, when we had to decide for the Coloured people in the Transvaal, we realised that we as Whites, were making a mistake in wanting to make decisions about their housing for them.

Allow me to explain to hon members what happened. We had taken a decision about a certain scheme, and we had offered a certain style of house. When we submitted those plans to the Coloured community, they adamantly refused to accept them. They said that they would like to build their own style of house there. What did they come up with? They established one of the most beautiful housing schemes in the Cape style. The style of the houses was typical of the Boland. It was a piece of the Boland in the heart of the Transvaal. This demonstrated that because we gave those people an opportunity to give expression to their own culture there, they put their hearts into their residential area. After all, what is more meaningful than to allow a family to decide for themselves what their house should look like? That is what housing is all about. That is also what we are trying to achieve with this legislation.

That is also why I feel that we on this side of the house are right. We say that as far as Indians and Coloureds are concerned, authority concerning this decision must rest with the other two Houses. Each community must decide for itself about its own preferences in this regard. [Interjections.] That is precisely what we have in mind this evening. This legislation is further proof to me that the tricameral Parliamentary system is functioning effective and that it is gaining momentum. It is proof to me that in future, we are going to have the co-operation of those other groups. It is against this that the PFP is protesting so vehemently. Despite the fact that the other two Houses were opposed to the PFP wishing to force decisions on them the standing committees, the PFP returns to this House and still wishes to force its will on those people. That is why we say that we reject their approach. We also rejected it on the standing committee because their paternalism, their blind paternalism in wanting to decide for other people in this country has now reached an impasse. [Interjections.] We are thankful that we have reached that phase in South Africa’s lifestyle as well. In future these people will take these decisions together with us on the standing committees. In the same way that they told the PFP that the PFP could not decide for them and that they would decide for themselves, we believe that this hon Minister may confidently take this legislation to the other two Houses; and I bet within five minutes it will be passed by the other two houses because they accept it for what it is. [Interjections.]

For this reason I should also like to say that the principles of this legislation are acceptable to us. What it boils down to is that buildings and money are going to be placed at the disposal of the respective administrations. That is how it should be. My entire argument is in fact concerned with having to take it to those people.

I can remember something I once saw when I was travelling in the USA. In the south of the USA I came across a housing scheme which amazed me. It was one of the most beautiful things I saw in that state. The houses and huts in the holiday resort which I visited were of the typical Red Indian wigwam variety. In my opinion it represented the typical Red Indian atmosphere of that part of the USA. It made me realise that the people, even in that state, had made provision for the preservation of that part of their culture.

One wonders how beautiful our country is going to be in future. How beautiful will our country, our residential areas and our cities not be if the Black peoples are allowed to bring their housing styles into their residential areas!

Yes, they have beautiful houses.

Those colourful and decorative designs painted on the walls of their houses will be one of the most beautiful things in our metropolitan areas. It will help a foreign visitor to understand that there is more than one people living in this country, and the hon member for Greytown must get it into his head now and understand it. [Interjections.] Even though he is an Afrikaans-speaking person, he is so far removed from the reality of the people of South Africa that he will never return to the cultural aspects which are so precious to us all. [Interjections.] I do not think I need elaborate on these aspects any further. It is very clear that we in this House are united on this legislation, and that it is only the PFP that will oppose this legislation. I gladly support his legislation on behalf of my constituency and on behalf of the NP.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Boksburg, who has just resumed his seat, started by cracking a feeble joke and after that he spoke mainly about the tricameral Parliament which is supposedly such a great success. I should like to ask him to read The Star of last Thursday, and then he will see what a great success the tricameral Parliament of the NP is. That newspaper writes that the NP’s own opinion polls show that if there were to be an election now, they would lose the election. [Interjections.] The hon member also said that the CP was allegedly waiting for the HNP’s permission and was allegedly collaborating with the AWB. He is right of course! We feel very much at home in the company of the AWB and the HNP. [Interjections.] I would much rather co-operate with the HNP or the AWB than with people such as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is prepared to accept a Black President. [Interjections.]

With this legislation the NP is trying very desperately to pretend that housing is a White own affair. How painful their attempts were! The hon member for Alberton stood up here and spoke for only two minutes; he said nothing, and made two mistakes. [Interjections.] I think the problems the hon has in Alberton, where Mr Tom de Beer wants to defeat him, make him nervous. He said that the CP agreed, and he had heard the hon member’s explanation. Nevertheless he still maintained that housing was an own affair.

The reason why we are so careful, is—as the hon member for Nigel put it so beautifully—that when one looks at what the Constitution itself says about housing—which is what the Bill before us deals with—it states very clearly that this housing is subject to general laws. Now I should like to ask the hon members of the NP this: If one is subject to a general law and one has received the crumbs here with own affairs legislation, and one can say within the framework of the norms and standards of general legislation what you want to do with housing, is that sufficient for them.

That is a misrepresentation.

It is not sufficient for us, nor is it a misrepresentation. I shall debate this matter with the hon member in a public debate outside Parliament too.

Why are we so careful? We are careful because—as the hon member for Nigel said— we have had assurances before. The hon Minister of Transport Affairs, and how many others, said for example during the referendum that a Coloured or Indian would never be appointed in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] Today they are there. At the moment it is being said the Group Areas Act is being enforced and that housing in White areas is for Whites only. In my constituency, Johannesburg Central, many thousands of Indians, Coloureds and Blacks are living in White apartment blocks. There are flats in which 250 Black are living on the ground floor alone. In one building there are even 400 Coloureds. Yet, the NP says that separate residential areas are non-negotiable. They say residential areas is an own affair of the Whites. If we look at the reality of the situation, we see how unrealistic the NP’s assurances are. In view of the lack of credibility of the NP we are hesitant to accept assurances, and that is why we are so hesitant to support this legislation. Because it is a small step in the right direction, however, and because what is being negotiated is nevertheless for the Whites, we accept the assurances and support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should not like to repeat arguments I mentioned during the debate on the previous Bill. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the speakers who took part. Some of them were more correct than others in their view of what this Bill is really about. I refer first of all to the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North started off by saying that he opposes the Bill. We are used to that. Then he went into a tirade about racial discrimination and racist Bills.*I should like to repeat to the hon member that when one is dealing with a tricameral Parliament, there are three groups which have a sitting in their various Houses in this Parliament. They are also represented in the standing committees where matters are fought out in a reasonable way.

The hon members of the other two Houses settled their differences and, as I understand it—I do not want to anticipate events—they are in favour of this. Who then is the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to want to get up here and say what is or is not good for the Houses of the Coloureds and the Indians, if they themselves know what is good for them? Those days are completely past. On another occasion I said in this House that when we were dealing with business in this House, we had to confine ourselves to what concerned the Whites.

Why?

Why? Because the Coloureds and the Indians will speak for themselves. Those hon members have wasted a lot of time trying to talk on their behalf. [Interjections.] What has happened is that those people have totally rejected the PFP. Some hon PFP members even tried to interfere with them to get them to oppose both these Bills. What did they do, however? They rejected the PFP’s advice. [Interjections.]

*The hon member said I must explain how things are going with the sale of houses. I no longer know what to do with the hon member. Does he not understand that the sale of houses is an own affair? I do not deal with the sale of houses; I do not sell houses. What I am asking for here, is approval for a mistake we made. When we instituted this utility company, we thought we could do so with money meant for housing. It is to train people.

†It is to train estate agents. We made the mistake of thinking that, seeing that one was dealing with housing, one could train estate agents to sell the houses. All that we are doing with this clause is to rectify the situation and predate it so that it can cover the money that we put in.

We train hundreds of Coloured, Asian and even Black estate agents. At one stage the training of Black estate agents was not very successful but when they were trained they went out and did the work for themselves which meant that they got some income from it.

They have actually sold large numbers of houses. I think the hon member for Umhlanga has accepted this. It is a very important matter. It is no use cutting up plots and building houses without having anybody to actively go along and sell it to the community that is to live there. That is the only reason why we are predating this clause.

I have said to the hon member that it is not my task to provide him with the figures. He can put questions on the Order Paper to the hon Minister who deals with own affairs housing.

*The hon member for Alberton said he supported the measure and that the other two Houses welcomed it. I think he …

… made rather a weak speech!

I shall come to the hon member for Jeppe in a moment. It is clear that the hon member for Langlaagte is the hon member who should really have spoken, and he is not here tonight. At least he knows something about housing. I believe the hon member for Jeppe himself will admit that he is not exactly an expert as far as housing is concerned.

We have equally little knowledge of housing! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Alberton said the Bill actually controlled the expenditure of money on the building of houses. That is all we are trying to do here; we are trying to place it in the hands of the Ministers of own affairs.

The hon member for Nigel made an inspired speech here. [Interjections.] I think someone made him angry, because at the beginning of his speech he was definitely on my side, but at a stage he began to say he could not really trust us. [Interjections.] The hon member knows me and he need not be afraid. He said he did not know which other hon Ministers would succeed me, but perhaps it is a good thing for me to pass this legislation now while those hon members sitting there still trust me. [Interjections.] The hon member saw fit to take the hon member for Langlaagte along to the standing committee. Perhaps I can ask him why he did not take the hon member for Jeppe along. [Interjections.] It seems he is the second reserve at least.

That would be a disaster!

The hon members of the CP stand very strongly for the Whites. Is that not true? The hon member for Jeppe also made utterances here about how he would stand by the AWB, the HNP and other similar groups, rather than stand by us on this side. [Interjections.]

Yes, but say why!

It is because he stands for the Whites.

No, it is because I do not stand for a Black President.

This party stands for the Whites. [Interjections.] He instituted the own affairs system precisely to take care of the Whites’ affairs, and in this case we are giving the own affairs Minister the opportunity to solve the problems concerning White housing. I think the hon member referred in fact to problems in Jeppe or elsewhere in the Johannesburg area. [Interjections.]

How many own affairs Acts have been passed by Parliament this year?

The hon member for Kuruman must not get excited now.

But tell us how many own affairs Acts have been passed. [Interjections.]

Why does he not ask the own affairs Minister? I do not build houses! Can the hon member not get that into his head? I cannot get it into the head of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, and now the hon member for Kuruman wants to walk into the same trap. [Interjections.]

I do not want to speak about irrelevant things. I am talking about this legislation which concerns the distribution of money and the question of the board which is under my jurisdiction now. As the functions of the board diminish, I can make it smaller. Surely it is ridiculous to keep the membership of the board at 14 if, after a while, there may be no work for it.

Abolish it!

We can also distribute the money. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works has already had legislation passed to control his own affairs as far as housing is concerned. I cannot remember whether the hon members of the CP voted for or against it. Did they support it?

Only five own affairs Bills were introduced in this House last year.

I actually want to arrange for the money to go to the hon the Minister so that he can deal with it. [Interjections.]

†I have already dealt with the very valid point made by the hon member for Umhlanga concerning the training of estate agents. He also made the good point that even if the Bill is not perfect and has certain undertones, it at least attacks the problems that should be attacked by putting their money and machinery into the hands of the own affairs Ministers so that they will be able to build more and more houses for people who really need them.

*The hon member for Boksburg explained the principle contained in this Bill very clearly. He set the seal, as it were, on the idea that housing can now be dealt with by the own affairs administrations. I want to repeat once again: who will know the needs of his own group better than the Minister sitting in that group’s Ministers’ Council, whether White, Coloured or Indian? Which White Minister will know the exact requirements of other groups?

The hon member for Boksburg told us that planning is done. The time has passed in which we as Whites thought we could do all the planning, could say where the residential areas should be and even give them names. That time has passed. It is the responsibility now of the Coloured own affairs Minister who has the opportunity to show his people what he is doing for them. That is the reality of our lives. If the PFP want to change things, the ballot-box is over there! They need not even go to the polls, because they have lost two members without there having been any voting! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe, like the hon member for Nigel, tried to explain once again how careful they must be. There is nothing wrong with being careful, but one must not be impudent. The hon members spoke of their own opinion poll which I know nothing about. I do not know how or where it was conducted. Apparently the poll maintains the NP would lose an election if it were to be fought tomorrow. We have that English proverb: “Talk is cheap, but money buys the whisky.”

That is not what I say; that is what The Star says. [Interjections.]

Does the hon member for Jeppe want to tell me he believes The Star

Yes, I agree with them.

Then he can be sure he is quite wrong. [Interjections.] The hon member must rather permit us to discuss and conclude this Bill in a good-humoured way. We can conduct a political debate about the state of our parties some other day. There is a lot of time for that, and we can talk politics when there are elections or by-elections. Let us dispose now of the practical situation this legislation has a bearing on. I have explained it to hon members already and the hon member for Boksburg has already emphasised the principles.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, with the adjournment of the debate in which I was participating, I was blaming the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for playing Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people off against each other. It is specifically the SABC that boasts the fact that each and everyday it promotes relations between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people.

On the previous occasion I also listened attentively to what the hon member for Brakpan said. He congratulated the SABC on its jubilee and wished it every success for the next 50 years. I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments. The hon member for Brakpan also said that we should convince one another by way of arguments and avoid personal accusations. I concede that the SABC finds it very difficult to satisfy all tastes. I recently told the Director-General of the SABC that in my opinion there was too much violence on television and that I felt it should be curtailed. We should have the right to indicate what we disagree with. We also think that the ten-minute-long parliamentary reports on the three Houses in the mornings are far too short.

We hear a great deal more about what the Opposition said. They get a much better deal both on radio and television. We see much more of their large faces and huge hands on television when they are putting their views across. We do not have all those opportunities, and I think that ten minutes is far too short to do justice to this parliamentary system and that there should be a change.

Each day new and greater demands are made on the SABC and we should bear in mind that the SABC has 20 radio programme services in 19 languages, and also four television services in seven languages which have to be presented. It must furnish a quality service. It must be able to furnish authoritative comment and the programmes must be technically well presented and be dynamic in content. This evening I want to pay tribute to the more than 6 000 staff members who place an organisation at the service of educating, informing and entertaining the various language and cultural groups in the country. I think they deserve our highest esteem.

In the world we live in we must be made aware of the thought processes of all levels of the population. We must know what our neighbours are thinking. I think that by way of the radio and television services the SABC meets those requirements. I made a few inquiries and found that the SABC’s presentation of news in countries abroad is thought to be a completely balanced and high-quality service. That is not said by people who are opposed to us, but it is a balanced view that is presented. The inhabitants of African states perhaps do not say it in such specific terms, but they have already said that the SABC’s news service is the most reliable as far as their respective countries are concerned, and they regularly tune in. The overseas shortwave transmission in German is regarded as one of the best presentations in the world.

Why do foreigners praise the SABC for presenting the best-balanced programmes? In my opinion this is a matter that ought to receive a great deal of our attention. On the strength of the SABC’s foreign service, the UN appointed a study committee to determine how the effectiveness of the SABC’s transmissions could be counteracted. If even they realise that our broadcasts are effective, hon members should realise that this is indeed a significant service.

We must investigate the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. The SABC is an autonomous body that only has to report to Parliament. This autonomy was established in an Act in 1936. The SABC’s reports are annually submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is provided that the SABC has certain powers granted to it by Parliament. The annual report, which hon members received recently, is a comprehensive one.

Hon members have an opportunity of asking questions about the SABC in this House and of participating in the relevant discussions. Apart from the fact that hon members can ask questions about the SABC and debate the relevant issues, those serving on the standing committee can also raise certain issues.

This evening I want to emphasise strongly that the SABC has all the necessary powers and does not need to obtain parliamentary approval for each and every matter. Why must it obtain parliamentary approval for each and every satellite rerouting facility? That is not feasible, is it? When the co-operation agreements are entered into, the SABC’s powers are extended, as this legislation once again provides. Its powers cannot exceed specific objectives, but in its own right it is responsible for maintaining continuity.

The SABC is still limited by legislation, as in the case of the legislation before the House this evening. The SABC can venture into the field of record marketing as a sideline in providing entertainment, in this way promoting art and culture.

I do not want to dwell on all the conditions which the SABC, as a broadcasting licence-holder, must comply with. I have here a list that is 1½ pages long. Hon members can see that these are typed sheets. There are very definite conditions governing the dissemination of information with a view to entertaining and educating people. The SABC must clearly and unequivocally reflect newsworthy events of the day, in the Republic and abroad, factually, impartially and without distortion. Here I have a long list of conditions with which I do not want to tire hon members this evening.

I also want to refer hon members to the licensing agreement which now authorises the SABC to make recorded music programmes available to overseas broadcasting organisations, acknowledged educational institutions and South Africa consulates and embassies. I want to point out to hon members that there is a tremendous surge of interest in this. Let me quote hon members an article from an English newspaper, entitled: “Breakthrough for SABC in Home Video Market.” In this article it is stated:

I want hon members to listen to this, because I think that the item being referred to here is one of the best films, one of the best products the SABC has yet produced. The article goes on to state:

It is all about the 1922 strike in Johannesburg:

Can hon members see how South Africa’s image, in regard to its activities in the sphere of entertainment, are also eventually coming into their own here?

I just want to refer hon members to this Press Consortium. The Press Consortium, mention of which is made here, is now obtaining a 30% interest in TV4. It consists of Nasionale Pers, Perskor, South African Associated Newspapers, the Argus Group, the Natal Witness and the Daily Dispatch. Hon members know, do they not, how the Press has struggled to obtain advertising. It was the Afrikaans Press, in particular, which lagged far behind and simply could not get its head above water financially.

Hon members know that even the English Press is struggling these days. Hon members have probably read in the Press of the relationship that now exists between the Cape Times and the Argus Group and the dissension that arose about whether a printing press should be sold or not. Surely hon members can see that in this regard there is a tremendous tug-of-war going on. Regardless of professed political ideologies, at the moment the Press is struggling to keep its head above water. Now the Press is going to obtain a 30% share in TV4. The SABC is also obtaining a 30% share in STV and STV will also have the right to carry advertising spots. Local newspapers can now also co-operate with radio.

The hon member for Brakpan alleged here that the SABC would be competing with the private sector and that the corporation was exempt from the payment of tax. Let me point out to him that section 29 of the Broadcasting Act of 1976 makes provision for certain income tax benefits the SABC has with a view to enabling it to carry out its functions of informing and educating people. The SABC can, however, participate in commercial activities on a normal business footing. The SABC is now being granted very forward-looking powers, hence our eagerness as far as this legislation is concerned, and I hope that we shall thus be referring to the positive side of this legislation.

The fact of the matter is that subscription television must commence in the second half of 1986 with 40 hours of broadcasting each week in the Rand-Johannesburg-Vereeniging area. It would chiefly be those living in flats, duplexes and cluster houses who would derive a great deal of pleasure from watching these programmes. Three months after it commences, it will be extended to Pretoria, and it is expected that within three years the transmissions will cover the entire country.

It is also important for us to examine the entertainment and educational side of this medium. Initially between 20 000 and 30 000 subscribers were expected, but a target of between 300 000 and 400 000 is now being set. We can just imagine the programmes on international sports meetings, the music and drama programmes, the children’s programmes and the full-length films we shall be having.

Let me tell hon members this evening that subscription television will be a shot in the arm for the country’s economy and for the film industry. That is the opinion of spokesmen throughout South Africa. Co-operation can now be promoted between the SABC and the Press Consortium, because now M-Net is obtaining an interest in electro-technical communications. Technical Electronics and Teljoy, two of the country’s biggest TV companies want to manufacture decoders. One now has to have decoders in order to receive those programmes on the equipment giving viewers access to this medium.

There are numerous additional commercial benefits. There is a development potential for our own film industry. There is the renting an selling of video machines, which will now go skyrocketing. There is now going to be a larger choice of video recordings which will result in better home entertainment. The print media, which are now in such a precarious position, will enter a new era. It will now, at long last, be able to show what it is made of. The print media will also have a responsibility to be more responsible in the reports they print and should print fewer sensational items. [Interjections.] So now we are also reaching the print media which gave birth to the advertising industry. The State is now giving them access to the latest technological advances. Both the Afrikaans and English Press must enter the space age.

I also just want to say that the newspapers are not only becoming more involved in television; their contact is now also being extended to radio. The SABC has always jealously guarded its sole interest in radio. Now an opportunity is being created for balanced development in the media sphere. People are also being given an opportunity to have the written word come into its own. That is why the Press groups must maintain their full independence. They do, however, have a responsibility, in conjunction with the SABC, to build up South Africa’s image, in this country and abroad, into something big.

Mr Chairman, I want to agree heartily with two things the hon member for Rosettenville said. The first is that I really think that the 10 minutes allocated each morning on the radio to Parliamentary matters is totally inadequate, particularly since there are now 308 Parliamentarians participating in debates, instead of the customary 178. I therefore agree with the hon member. I also want to associate myself with his congratulations to the SABC on its 50th anniversary.

I think it is necessary, at the outset, to reassess the debate in some measure, because this is the third time we are discussing this Bill, and the debates have taken place over a very long period. When we discussed this Bill the first time, the hon member for Brakpan indicated how the SABC and the television service were blatantly being abused for NP propaganda purposes. [Interjections.] There is a clear bias in favour of the governing party. He explained that we could not support this legislation because provision was being made in this legislation for the further extension of the corporation’s powers.

When we last discussed the legislation, the hon member for Bloemfontein North waved aside the hon member for Brakpan’s criticism as being unreasonable, attempting to indicate how impartial the SABC was and how objectively television educated and informed our people simply by way of its programmes, as he put it.

I think the hon member for Umhlanga responded very effectively to that in a very good speech which he made here in the House and in which he said, amongst other things—I quote, from the unedited version of his speech, his comments on the hon member for Bloemfontein North:

I think that is specifically what it boils down to.

If there is one body which, in recent years, has fallen into complete disfavour with the overall majority of the Whites in South Africa, on the basis of its programmes, it is certainly SATV and, as far as political propaganda is concerned, Radio South Africa as well. Our people out there are, with increasing resentment, revolting against the blatant abuse of radio and television for the dissemination of NP policy. The conspicuous suppression of, or disregard for, the standpoints of right-wing political parties, in particular, compels our people to protest in no uncertain terms.

So the Government must not be surprised if, to an increasing extent, the SABC becomes the focal point of the dissatisfaction of a people which has become sick and tired of a perfidious and spineless government which, with a laissez-faire policy, is perceptably allowing the existing order to be overthrown and the government of this country to be handed over the to an ethnic majority. One sometimes wonders why the programme Siyafunda is broadcast to the whole of South Africa—including the Transvaal— to teach our people Zulu, and that in an area where no Zulu is spoken. In fact, in the major portion of the Transvaal Sotho, Tsonga and those languages are spoken. I would therefore like to know why it has to be Zulu. [Interjections.]

Imagine, the Government now comes along to this House and asks, in this amending Bill, for the further extension of the powers and objectives of the SABC. How can we, as representatives of our voters, agree to extending the objectives and powers of a corporation promoting organised sport on Sundays, bringing this into the intimate family circle of almost every household in this country? It is a corporation that subtly uses the spoken word and a powerful visual medium to brainwash our people into accepting a totally foreign social order. In this context one thinks of the imported material from the USA with which the integrated social order is presented to our children as a valid and everyday state of affairs. Even by means of advertisements, manufactured in this country, that mixed set-up is blatantly underscored. [Interjections.]

How can we agree to an amending Bill which is going to contribute towards increasing the effectiveness of the existing improper political influence exerted by radio and television?

Clause 2 and 3 of this amending bill lend themselves to that. For example, these clauses now make it possible for the Government to broadcast NP propaganda to a select category of people in a specific area or in a specific place. Clause 3 also provides for a National Party propaganda organisation such as SATV to be authorised to make videos with taxpayers’ money and to make them available for hire in video shops. The hon member for Brakpan also referred to that video which was shown to all the members of the Defence Force and which was a blatant and subtle instrument of propaganda to motivate the soldiers to vote yes in the referendum. [Interjections.]

Hon members will agree with me that the SABC is being used for blatant and onesided party politics. I can mention a few examples. On 1 May of last year by-elections took place in Harrismith and Newton Park, as hon members will recall. What did the SABC say that morning? At seven o’clock that morning, when people got up to go to the polls, in the programme Sake van die Dag on the Afrikaans transmission the following was said, and I am quoting from a transcription,

It was also stated in the programme:

The dispensation is then outlined. But that is not, after all, the truth of the matter. [Interjections.] The commentary goes on to sketch the unrest situation in the country. Then there is the following:

At that time the unrest was going strong, and as soon as people had been given very firmly to understand what the unrest situation entailed, Sake van die Dag stated:

The commentator then concludes by stating:

So when we take a careful look at this Sake van die Dag programme, we notice that it subtly influenced the electorate to vote for “rus en orde en vrede”—the new dispensation which supposedly takes care of that— and therefore to go and vote for the NP on that day in Harrismith and in Newton Park.

Let me mention a second example in regard to the same programme, but in this case the English version. On 25 May 1985 the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was debated in this House. That morning, however, the radio commentator made a great deal of propaganda for the NP about that legislation. I quote his words:

Then he goes further:

I say again that this is a blatant example of getting votes from the public, getting the public to go along with the Government in having this legislation abolished. Surely this is nothing less than blatant party-political persuasion, on a one-sided basis, in favour of the governing party.

The hon member for Rosettenville made a great fuss this evening about the SABC’s reporting always being correct. This evening, however, I read the following in Die Vaderland:

That was the heading. The report read as follows:

Positive as far as the Government is concerned!

Yes, positive as far as the Government is concerned. [Interjections.] Then several examples are given of the half-truths or distortions or omissions of news items that are not “positive” as far as the Government is concerned. [Interjections.]

That is why the hon member for Brakpan has proposed making provision, in clause 2, for a method of ensuring that the programmes of the SABC, which is a Government body financed by the taxpayers, are always characterised by fairness and impartiality in dealing with the variety of opinions and political views in South Africa. That has, after all, been the SABC’s point of departure all these years.

For example, a former Minister of National Education, under whom the Broadcasting Corporation previously fell, unequivocally advocated neutrality when, on 31 March 1976, the original Act was introduced in this House. I am, of course, now referring to the former Minister of National Education, Dr Koornhof. During the Second Reading of the Bill, which became the Broadcasting Act, he had certain things to say. Let me just mention that he said this on the strength of the fact that the erstwhile United Party and Progressive Party argued that they should also be allowed to put their political standpoints on television. The Minister said (Hansard, House of Assembly, 31 March 1976, col 4354):

Unfortunately those Ministers do not remain in their posts long enough and the situation has therefore now changed. The former Minister went on to argue that he would not permit any vestige of political debate being conducted on TV. [Interjections.] The Minister continues in col 4357:

What is happening now? Both Mr Hendrickse’s Labour party and Chief Buthelezi are being given ample opportunity these days to put their standpoint, whilst the hon leader of the CP, Dr Treurnicht, when he does get an opportunity on television, as in the programme “Rekenskap” of 13 May 1985, is faced with a partisan, prejudiced and hostile presenter who is a State official who unashamedly takes sides when hosting such a programme.

He is a pipsqueak.

But the pipsqueak really took him in hand.

He did not. He got a good hiding.

I have already mentioned that “verslae uit die Parlement” does not allow justice to be done to debates conducted in this House. Let me mention an example to the House. On Tuesday, 18 February 1986, the Liquor Amendment Bill came up for discussion here. On that day the Government put its standpoint and we on this side put ours. The hon members for Kuruman and Koedoespoort put the CP’s standpoint strongly, correctly and brilliantly. They put forward principles. The following day, on 19 February, there was not a single word in the report on the radio about what we had said about this Bill.

You must fire that Botes.

I now want to come back to the programme “Rekenskap” to which I have referred. Let us frankly acknowledge that that evening the hon the leader of the CP won hands down against all three of his opponents. Even opponents of the CP have frankly acknowledged as much. [Interjections.] I now want to reiterate—and hon members must agree with me—that it cannot be anything but unfair for any public servant to act in such a way. That is why the hon member for Brakpan made his proposal. During the programme, for example, the hon the leader of the CP explained how the CP would set about establishing the policy of partition. I have here an edited version of that programme. The presenter does not say that people say so, but he does say: “Ek, Staatsamptenaar van hierdie land, sê so.” Let me quote him:

A little later in the programme the presenter again gives his own opinion:

I wonder what is going on. Did the policy of partition cause this unrest situation that is now manifesting itself?

The specific cause is integration.

Yes, specifically integration, and it is specifically the expectations that have been created in the minds of Black people that have given rise to this. It is not the policy of partition. [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that it does not befit an official of the State to make such blatant pronouncements about his political opinions on that medium. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the examples I have mentioned, one cannot but very strongly come to the conclusion that there is no impartiality or fairness on SATV. The interests of those who hold different views should therefore be protected by any amendment such as that in the amending Bill before us. It is therefore vital that in clause 3, on page 4 of the Afrikaans text, the following be inserted after the word “bedryf”:

On 12 March, in the last paragraph of his Second Reading speech on the amending Bill, the hon the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs said the following:

What are the assurances of those hon Government members worth? Many assurances given in the past have already been reversed. What is M-Net? It is a Press consortium consisting the Argus group, Perskor, SAAN, Nasionale Pers, The Natal Witness and the Daily Despatch. The whole spectrum of the left-wing Press in South Africa is therefore involved.

We do not know what that contract contains. How do we know that taxpayers’ money could not be channelled into this privatisation endeavour of the Government in order to save a sinking left-wing Press group from going under? Now in this amending Bill we must approve a contract which was concluded with left-wing Press groups months ago. We cannot accept that this amending Bill should, in terms of clause 8, be made retrospective to 15 June 1985.

The SABC has truly become the symbol of Afrikaner capitulation. That also applies to its language. It was recently announced that so-called “simulcasting” is going to be introduced. In Die Burger of 14 April there is a report on this simulcasting. According to the report a few people have commented on its introduction. One of them is Prof Jaap Steyn of the University of the Orange Free State. I quote what he said:

He is not the only one who says that. There are others, such as the well-known writer W A de Klerk, Prof Gert de Klerk, head of the Department of Afrikaans at the University of South Africa and even the former chairman of the SABC’s Board of Control, Prof Wynand Mouton. They have all criticised this.

Are they all members of the CP?

I am therefore proving that even the Afrikaans language is being adversely affected by the SABC in this regard.

English-speaking people would not agree.

Against such capitulation my people has vigorously opposed itself up to now. [Interjections.] That is why we shall, after completion of the discussion of this Bill, definitely be voting against it.

Mr Chairman, I want to react to the last point made by the hon member for Pietersburg about making TV programmes available in the English language. It surprises one that they always hark back to standpoints held by the NP years ago. At that time the NP held the standpoint that the mother tongue should be the basis for every community in South Africa. The SABC has probably determined that there are people who prefer to hear programmes in English. Now the CP is criticising that standpoint.

But you yourself…

I think we have passed that stage in which we made politics of the language question between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this country. [Interjections.]

The debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill gave all the opposition parties who are sitting over there the customary opportunity to attack the SABC for so-called partiality towards the Government. The hon member for Pietersburg repeated all the arguments about partiality which had been raised by his hon colleagues when the debate started a few weeks ago.

Apparently the debate about the distinction between party political information and Government party information cannot be conducted with the opposition parties in this House in any rational way.

Perhaps by the under 15-team.

I want to present a few statements here. I am going to read them, and then the CP must tell me whether or not they are acceptable to them. I quote:

I do not know whether or not the hon members of the CP accept this. Perhaps the hon member for Kuruman can tell us. The second statement reads:

When?

I am still quoting. [Interjections.] This is not what I say; it is a quotation. [Interjections.]:

The gentleman added the following:

I now ask the hon members whether or not they agree with this statement.

Mind what you say!

These are statements made by Dr Connie Mulder, when he sat in the Cabinet on this side of the House as Minister of Information. I now ask the CP: Is this right or is it wrong? [Interjections.]

Jan van Zyl said so too.

They must tell us! This is a clear statement made by a Cabinet Minister of the NP who is cosily sitting in the CP now. [Interjections.] Is it right or is it wrong? Did Dr Connie Mulder deceive the public at large? Did he cheat them when he said that, or was he telling the truth? [Interjections.] There is no point in trying to debate rationally with people who take that kind of stand one day and a different one the following day. [Interjections.]

That is rather a nasty insult to the State President.

We on this side of the House maintain that when the SABC conveys Government policy to the voters because it affects them, it is the SABC’s duty to do so.

The hon member for Pietersburg spoke about the extension of the SABC’s power, and he mentioned a number of reasons as to why they cannot support the powers contained in this amending Bill. All his arguments were political ones. He spoke about sport on Sundays, and said the social order was being disrupted, there was a lot of imported material and mixed scenes were shown from time to time. I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg why he did not argue about the merit of the extension of power contained in this Bill. What does the extension of these powers of the SABC have to do with those things he raised tonight. Absolutely nothing! It has nothing to do with them.

It is surprising, that absolute consensus was reached on this legislation in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Leader of the Official Opposition and that hon member who ran away, Dr Boraine—I do not know whether or not he went to join the communists, but he has left—served in that standing committee and they agreed with us. The hon member for Soutpansberg who sits on that side, in the CP, was in the standing committee too, and he did not say a word. [Interjections.] The hon member of the NRP also agreed with us. They all agreed with us, and we reached absolute consensus except on one aspect, and that is clause 4 which dealt with the expropriation rights the SABC asked for. We did not give these to them either; this was an existing power that is being extended. We all reached consensus and said: “Take clause 4 out, then we will all agree on this Bill.” Why then do we have to come and listen here to political arguments for days on end? These hon members are using this Bill, as a platform to get at the SABC concerning matters which have nothing to do with the amending Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member quite sure that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sat on that standing committee?

As far as I am concerned the meeting was held in Pretoria and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and Dr Boraine were the representatives of the PFP on the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs at that time. I think that is correct.

Does that mean they were at the meeting?

Of course they were at the meeting! I was at the meeting. The hon member can go and check up on it.

We had a substitute.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon members of the PFP, if they are right, and I do not think I am wrong, who were their representatives on that committee?

I think it was the hon member for Durban Central.

Whether it was the hon member for Durban Central, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or Dr Boraine, it does not matter. I ask the members of the PFP why they have changed their minds.

Your facts are wrong!

Why have they changed their minds?

If you look at my speech you will find the answer.

You see, Mr Chairman, this is what we have to deal with. We have a system in this country where standing committees discuss matters in order to reach consensus. We reach consensus and the next moment the members return to their caucus and they change their mind because they did not have its sanction to agree on the standing committee. Then they make a somersault. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not prepared to answer any questions. That hon member can stand up and make a speech. All that hon Chief Whip is good for is to take points of order and ask questions. He never has the decency to stand up and make a speech. He always wants to interfere with other members who want to have a decent debate over the floor of the House! [Interjections.] Why does he not stand up and make a speech? That hon member has the opportunity this evening to stand up and make a speech. [Interjections.] I challenge him to stand up and make a speech. He has no guts, Mr Chairman. He always makes a noise but never makes a contribution! [Interjections.]

*The PFP moved an amendment. Surely one can debate this amendment. The amendment read that the House refuses to pass the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill because it rejects the provisions of the Bill which will enable the SABC to compete with the private sector in the open market.

I think the amendment is fair and that one can debate it. What is the reality, however? The establishment of subscription television and the issuing of a licence to a Press consortium, M-Net, entails certain implications, viz direct competition for a limited advertising reservoir in South Africa.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but the hon member said the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition does not have the “guts”. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. I do not know what one should say to him, Mr Chairman. One becomes disheartened with a Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who does nothing in this House but interrupt people and ask questions, without ever making a contribution. The hon member for Pietersburg also raised the argument in connection with M-Net, that it is a consortium of the left-wing Press. He then insinuated, an insinuation which is spread abroad because of the fact that it was said here in the highest authoritative body in South Africa, in Parliament…

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

No, I have very little time. [Interjections.] The hon member can rise and make his own speech.

How many speeches has your Chief Whip made this session?

Why don’t you ask him that?

I am asking you because you are on your feet and you are attacking my Chief Whip.

Why don’t you ask him that? You are entitled to do that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg insinuated that the taxpayers’ money will be used to subsidise M-Net. That is what he said.

I did not say that.

What did the hon member say then? [Interjections.] The hon member made an insinuation. He asked whether that will mean that when M-Net becomes operative, the taxpayer will have to make a contribution to subsidising the left-wing Press in South Africa. I shall read his Hansard to him. The hon member is welcome to maintain that is not what he said. We can check up in his Hansard. I wrote it down. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members the contract with M-Net has not even been finalised and signed yet. Where does the hon member get his information from? [Interjection.]

Because M-Net is only entering the market, the SABC must be compensated in some way. This measure determines that, because the SABC broadcasts programmes only by means of television, whereas it often has to buy all the rights in the programmes— which, apart from television rights, also include video and film rights—the SABC wants to market the film and video rights in the open market. That is what the Bill is asking us. I also think it is a fair request to help the SABC by compensating them for a real loss in income from advertisements which they are going to suffer. Hon members are welcome to look at the loss transferred to the consolidated income account of the SABC. In 1984 it was R1,5 million. I believe it amounts to something over R25 million this year.

The question is what the SABC should do? Should it transfer these real losses it is suffering to the listeners? That is a practical consideration, after all. That is all the SABC is asking for—a practical arrangement to obtain remuneration in respect of losses. Indeed, by marketing this video and film material, as well as other material produced by the SABC itself, in the open market, the SABC can act effectively.

In addition, we on this side of the House believe that in this way, by means of this additional income, the SABC will be able to give local producers of material better payment, and perhaps also to stimulate the local production of material.

The SABC renders a service, after all; it is not simply a propaganda machine, as hon members of the CP would like us to believe! Why do we not hear a single good word about the SABC from the ranks of the opposition? Nothing good is said about the ramas it presents, or about the youth and children’s programmes, the variety, journal, sport, documentary or religious programmes, or about the dubbed programmes. We do not get a single good word from the opposition! The SABC acts in service of the community of South Africa, in respect of their cultural, religious and educational task it performs. [Interjections.] It stands in service of the State, and is not a profit-seeking organisation. The SABC serves South Africa, with its variety of cultures, in Afrikaans and in English; it serves the Coloureds, the Asians, and all the ethnic Black peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members it is phenomenal for a small country such as South Africa to have a television service such as the one we have in this country! [Interjections.]

I now want to put a few questions which perhaps the opposition parties can answer for us. Must the SABC make a living exclusively from licensing fees? Must the SABC increase its licensing fees to obtain compensation for the possible loss in income? Must unnecessary losses be conveyed to the listeners of South Africa? Must the State subsidise the SABC? These are the questions the opposition must answer for us. Before we adjourned the last debate, the hon member for Brakpan said the SABC was “the instrument of a panic-stricken but arrogant Government”. [Interjections.]

He said the CP does not get the opportunities the Government gets on television. I want to ask hon members why they make use of every possible opportunity, such as when the SABC asks the chief spokesman of the opposition parties to state their standpoint in respect of a Government action. How many times does that not happen? It happens every day. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg complained about the programme Rekenskap, and he complained that his hon leader had been treated so very badly by the SABC. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that when unfair questions are put to one in a television programme, that is precisely one’s opportunity, if one is a politician who is worth anything, to state one’s standpoint. [Interjections.] Then one can tell the man who is putting the questions that he is talking nonsense and tell him this is my party’s standpoint, or this is not its standpoint.

Let us discuss the programme Network. I had the opportunity to take part in that programme twice, with the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Barberton. On another occasion I also took part in the programme with the hon member for Rissik. We now want to tell the opposition they should not blame the SABC if they do not get the opportunity to appear on television, if they make a mess of things when the SABC does give them the opportunity to appear on television. [Interjections.] The NP members in this House, as we are sitting here, who are not members of the Government, can also raise objections with the SABC. We can also ask the SABC why our chief spokesmen were not asked to react to Government standpoints, since we also have chairmen of caucus study groups who are chief spokesmen. [Interjections.] Why does the State President not have the opportunity, like Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl and Mitterrand, to have a programme from time to time, for example The President talks to the Nation, or something of that kind? Why is that not done? We can also complain if we like.

I want to conclude, however, by referring to the hon member for Umhlanga.

†The hon member for Umhlanga normally makes a good contribution in this House; I have commended him from time to time. However, the hon member for Umhlanga sometimes displays a mean streak. He is sometimes a little nasty.

Look who’s talking!

The hon member for Umhlanga made a very interesting remark. He said that when one compares the SABC with overseas television networks, one realises that the SABC just does not compare at all. He also referred to the question of objectivity and said that the SABC was not objective but subjective. He then proceeded to compare the SABC with overseas television networks.

In the light of what he said, I want to ask him one question. We were together in America last year and we discussed this matter every time we looked at the television networks overseas. Now I want to ask him here whether he thinks that the overseas networks are objective in regard to reports about South Africa. Why, I should like to know, is it that people make these nasty remarks about the SABC and then go so far as to compare the SABC with overseas networks.

I never did discuss anything with you overseas, my friend, so where you get that from, I do not know. I do not think I even said so much as “good morning” to you. [Interjections.]

There now. I was just talking about the nastiness of the hon member, and there he has proved it. [Interjections.] The problem with the NRP, of course, is that they are a dying party. They are of no consequence in politics in South Africa. Why they are still asked for their comments on television, heaven alone knows. [Interjections.] I say tonight that not one of those hon members is going to stand for re-election when the next election takes place. I would like to see them stand again. They are all going to retire; except, perhaps, the hon member for King William’s Town. I think he will stand for the PFP. [Interjections.]

*In conclusion I merely want to say this Bill contains a very fair request, viz the essential extension of the SABC’s powers. The standing committee considered this legislation very thoroughly, and we on this side of the House should like to support the Bill. We compliment the SABC and the hon the Minister on this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein said we should not make politics of the language question. I have never heard anything more nonsensical in this House, because if an injustice is done to the Afrikaans language on television, how else is one to correct that than by means of politics? It is only when someone does not have a political counter-argument that he says that one should not talk politics. [Interjections.] The SABC is doing Afrikaans an injury, and the hon member must accept the fact that we shall repeatedly be objecting whenever Afrikaans is in any way wronged. If people like Dr Jaap Steyn or Prof Mouton say so, that hon member cannot argue about it.

Secondly the hon member says the Government’s policy is proclaimed by the SABC because the Government is elected by the voters. But does democracy not continue after an election? Do we then become a dictatorship, as far as the expression of opinions is concerned, after a Government is elected? Must everyone else remain silent and listen to people like the hon member for Turffontein? Are the only opinions that count, after an election, those of the Government? Surely that is nonsense, absolute nonsense! The hon member for Turffontein made the following slip of the tongue: “The SABC is in the service of the State.” That reflects his thinking in this connection.

The SABC is not in the service of the State or the Government! The SABC is a public institution, and if the SABC does not want to or cannot fulfil its role as a public institution, the matter must be put right by bringing into power another government which would, in effect, make the SABC a public institution. It is only a right-wing government which would have the necessary courage and self-confidence, because it does not have to fear that its case would be damaged by people such as the hon member for Turffontein.

Not long ago the hon member for Turffontein appeared on television. [Interjections.] As a member of a team he took part in a debate and therefore had friends to assist him. They debated against another team. Beeld, the best newspaper published in Afrikaans in South Africa, said that it was unfair for the CP’s A-team to have been harnessed against an NP under fifteen team. [Interjections.] He plays in the NP’s under fifteen team, and it was therefore a disastrous evening for the NP, and no less an agency than Beeld clearly underscored this point. [Interjections.]

I want to link up with the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs’ Second Reading speech on this amending Bill. He emphasised that we were entering a new era. In his speech he said that 1985 heralded a new era in the electronic media in South Africa. He referred to the subscription television service and the M-Net Press consortium.

In my opinion this step is being taken to save the newspapers, because at the moment they are dying like flies. It was one newspaper after another, starting with the Daily Mail, and the process has not yet run its course. The newspapers are getting fewer and fewer. We are heading for a situation in which the Argus group is going to swallow up SAAN and Nasionale Pers is going to swallow up Perskor. Once two of them have swallowed up the other two, except for the two big ones, there will only be The Natal Witness and the East London Daily Despatch left in the Press consortium.

That means a diminution. It means a greater concentration in the hands of fewer people who have to convey public opinion. [Interjections.] This evening there is something I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is English-speaking and I am an Afrikaner; he is a Government supporter and I am a right-wing supporter. What earthly right have they not to allow Strydpers and the publishers of Die Patriot into their consortium as well? What greater political influence does The Natal Witness have than The Afrikaner? In political terms, what does the East London Daily Despatch have that Die Afrikaner does not?

They exclude Die Afrikaner and rightwing standpoints because they present an alternative. They do not want an alternative. They do not have enough confidence to win their case, point for point, in a debate. They must make the circle so narrow that South Africa hears only one version of the story on television. That is a gross infringement of democracy, diversity of opinion and public debate. It is not a matter we can or will accept.

Prof Tomaselli of the Contemporary Cultural Studies Unit of the University of Natal made the following statement in Indicator SA; and I quote from a report in the English Press:

Sitting over there we have a bunch of ex-NP Afrikaners, and not a single one of them rebels against this completely accurate statement by Prof Tomaselli. The former SABC, in the time of Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd, fought under Piet Meyer, amongst others, against the English Press and was a bulwark against English influence from abroad in South Africa. The whole of the NP seized upon the SABC as a bulwark against this improper influence.

Now, as a result of what that hon Minister and his Government are doing, the English Press is entering into a new alliance with the SABC, according to Prof Tomaselli, who is not a member of the HNP. The Argus Group alone is twice the size of the two Afrikaans groups put together.

In conveying public opinion there has been a tremendous power-shift in the NP, not only to the left, but culturally close to the English-language world, particularly towards Anglo-American influence from abroad. Those sluice gates are now being thrown open, deluging the Afrikaner and other language and racial groups in South Africa as never before in this country’s history. That is why we cannot, in any way, support this Bill.

Like representatives from the other parties, I have also conducted interviews with the SABC’s top leadership. It has become very clear from all these discussions—now I am not referring to any specific discussion— that the SABC is very much under the impression that there is tremendous public resistance to the SABC. That is correct, and it is so because the SABC is so tremendously one-sided—particularly as far as politics are concerned.

Here in my hand I have a report on research done by the HSRC and the Institute for Communication Research in which it is stated:

Now hon members must take careful note:

It is not that his is actually true, but that television made it appear to be so, and that is where the injustice lies. Television is such a powerful medium that it can create an impression that is not true, but which is nevertheless a lasting one. This is research, not a newspaper report, and the NP cannot argue against that. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the debate on television. I said this, in a private capacity, in my complaints to the SABC, and I want to reiterate it in public—when one has Beyers Naudé up against Dr Johan Heyns in a debate, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is an “incestous interquote”! [Interjections.] That is what it is. The one’s standpoint is just a little more to the left than that of the other. If they had put Prof Adriaan Pont up against one of those two blokes, one would really have seen something! [Interjections.] The SABC does not do that, however, and I want to point out that that is to its detriment. What is the sense in debate in which four left-wing supporters and one right-wing supporter—who is not very strongly right-wing either—participate in a debate with one another? The evening on which Mr Jaap Marais knocked Dr Wimpie de Klerk sideways we really did have a debate! [Interjections.] There has never again been anything like that because that is bad for the SABC, the Government and the powers behind the SABC! The SABC acknowledges, however, that very close to 3 million viewers were watching the debate that evening. “All the world loves a fight!” Everyone knew beforehand that if one wanted to see a clash—man to man—one would have to watch and listen to what Mr Jaap Marais and Dr Wimpie de Klerk had to say to each other. And they watched, Mr Chairman. That was one of the most effective debates we have yet had on television. Nor has there ever been a debate in which the one participant—in this case Mr Jaap Marais—so completely took the upper hand on the strength of the merit of his views and arguments. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is what South Africa wants. Show us the clashes emanating from our own community on television so that we can finally form our own opinion.

Prof Tomaselli’s objection in this regard coincides with mine or, if hon members wish to express it in different terms, my objection dovetails with his. The report I have just quoted from also states the following:

Of the University of Natal:

“What goes out must be commensurate with foreign policy.” [Interjections.]

Order! There are comments being made all the time, and that must please stop now. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, there we have it! It is an academician outside Afrikaner circles, outside the ranks of rightwing supporters, poking a finger in the SABC’s eye! He says that the SABC’s basic approach is that what the SABC disseminates “must be commensurate with foreign policy”! And of course not only “foreign policy”. He means that the SABC’s message must accord with that of the “Department of Foreign Affairs”, and therefore with that of “the Government”. That is what Prof Tomaselli has to say here, and that is what South Africa is revolting against. I have told the SABC—and I am now saying it again in public—that they are exposing their flanks to such an extent, by such exaggeration and by primarily conveying the Government’s standpoints, that this will have an adverse affect on their cause.

As far as the finances of the SABC are concerned, the following report appeared last Sunday, or the Sunday before that, in the Sunday Times:

Broke? The SABC is awash with cash.

The Sunday Times goes on to say that last year the SABC—

I also put this point to the SABC, and I am also asking the hon the Minister to answer this question this evening. Why are they acting differently to the Europeans in this connection? Are they not forever saying: “Look at the shape of things abroad”. Why are they acting differently here? The SABC told me it did not regard this accumulation of R50 million’s worth of assets as another asset; in contrast to what is done in Europe. I must say, however, that this in unsatisfactory. They must look at these aspects. This matter, this question of finance, is still going to get much worse.

There is the notorious Shaka Zulu which started, I think, with a budget of R20 million. I have information, from a very reliable source, that there is a very strong possibility that Shaka Zulu is going to end up incurring losses of between R100 million and R200 million. That is because the contracts with the foreign distributors in California—not here—are enforceable. They inserted clauses in those contracts in terms of which the SABC, by late delivery—and Shaka Zulu was to have been completed long ago, but has not yet been completed; it is the biggest and most expensive production in the SABC’s history—and as a result of other steps, not carried out in time, is going to incur serious penalties. With Shaka Zulu the SABC has saddled a horse that it is not going to be able to ride, and that hon Minister will have to give a full explanation of that matter in this House during this debate, because he said: “We have entered upon a new dispensation”. If a new dispensation includes transactions such as Shaka Zulu, there are crisis times ahead for South Africa and the SABC.

Heads must roll!

There is one further point I want to touch upon, and that is that in the cultural sphere it has been a long while now since the SABC has played the role it was intended to play. It is true what people have said here. As far as the question of Afrikaans and English is concerned, the Press says the following:

The reason is, of course, that these days there are many more Afrikaners who still have a command of English than there are English-speaking people who have a command of Afrikaans. My hon benchmate is nodding his head; he confirms what I am saying. Afrikaners are therefore in a position to watch English programmes too, but English-speaking people do not have the same urge, or are not similarly in a position, to watch Afrikaans programmes. Consequently Afrikaans programmes suffer, because time and again the Afrikaans programmes have a smaller number of viewers than do the English programmes.

That is why the Government—right-wing supporters will do it when we come into power—should proportionally spend more money on indigenous Afrikaans programmes because they do not have the same measure of cultural support as do the English programmes from abroad. It is only fair and just, when it comes to the expenditure of funds, that one sees to it that the only indigenous language of the White man in South Africa which developed outside Europe is preserved.

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

No, I cannot answer any questions now; my time has almost expired. [Interjections.]

The spirit embodied by the SABC is one of internationalism. It is not the language and the spirit of the mass of indigenous Whites in South Africa. That is why we rebel against that, and here is my proof. In the Sunday Times of 22 December 1985 there is a report that reads as follows:

The “sizzlers” are good enough! They can be dubbed into Afrikaans. The report goes on to state that Mr Tim Ellis, the head of TV4 said:

That is scandalous! It is enough to start a civil war! [Interjections.] It is absolutely scandalous that the “cheap” French and German pieces are regarded as being good enough for Afrikaans viewers, thus further reducing the Afrikaans viewership, driving viewers to watch the American “sizzlers” and the English programmes that remain on the English line-up. Here we have a deliberate conspiracy, within the SABC, to internationalise the Afrikaner and Afrikaans.

[Inaudible.]

Man, keep quiet! You are one of them!

There is a deliberate conspiracy to internationalise the Afrikaner and Afrikaans by way of the SABC. We are rebelling against that! [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by referring to Prime Time. What is going on as far as that programme is concerned? Prime Time was at its peak; it was the sixth most popular programme in the ratings. Miss Moira Tuck, Afrikaans-speaking by birth, and a brilliant TV programme innovator, made the programme one of the most popular and best programmes yet seen on television. She and others—I give them due credit; people like Mr Lloyd and others—brought the programme to the position it held. She is the one, however, who should get the credit for having made Prime Time the excellent programme it was until a short while ago.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 22h30.