Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the governing side that we intend opposing this particular motion. In its terms it looks fairly innocuous, but the effect of it is in fact to provide that this House shall as from next Tuesday sit every evening except Fridays. I believe this has become a hardy annual, but I think the arguments against this particular form of proceedings grow stronger year by year. We have basically two objections against this motion.

Before I deal with these objections I should like to make a point which, I think, must be obvious to all hon. members. This is that extra evening sittings do in fact cast a heavy burden, not only upon hon. members—I believe we can accept the burden which we place voluntarily upon ourselves— but also on the Secretaries-at-the-Table, the Hansard reporting staff, the translators and the rest of the parliamentary staff. I sometimes think we do not quite appreciate quite how hard they work. I can see hon. members opposite, including hon. Ministers, smile. I do not think they work very hard. [Interjections.] I do not think they work very hard at all. [Interjections.] But there are some people in this world who do work very hard … [Interjections] … and I think we should pause and just try to calculate exactly what kind of burden we are placing upon these people.

I believe that night sittings should be avoided wherever possible. Our objections are based on the grounds that these sittings can in fact be avoided. Our first objection is based on the ground that they can be avoided under the present system. We do not have to change any of the rules, and we still do not have to have these extra night sittings, if we do two things: The first is if the Government does not commit itself in its own mind, at a fairly early stage of the session, to a target date for going home. We all know that that is what the Government does. It sets itself a target date round about the end of the Easter recess. When we come back from the Easter recess there is a muttering and a fluttering. Ideas go around. We suddenly find that senior civil servants start booking planes and trains, and suddenly one realizes that the Government wants to close up. From then on it is extremely difficult to get any sense out of hon. members on the other side. [Interjections.]

I would suggest that they do not commit themselves in future to setting a target date for the end of the session. We on this side are perfectly happy to sit until the end of June, or even until the end of July. There is no problem with that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Another measure which could have been taken without any prejudice—and I suggested this—was that we could have commenced some time ago with sittings on a Thursday morning. That would have been perfectly reasonable. I put it in an offer to the Government side, together with the point that we should not set a target date. I made these specific proposals, but I have heard nothing further, certainly not from anybody other than the hon. Chief Whip opposite. I blame the hon. the Leader of the House for this. I do not believe that he applied his mind specifically to these two questions about how one could avoid night sittings.

Thirdly, why does the Government permit Parliament to assemble so late in the year every year? The session has been starting later and later. Why wait until February? What on earth are hon. Cabinet Ministers doing between the middle and the end of January?

We work. [Interjections.]

Work? Does anyone really believe that? [Interjections.] We happen to know that hon. Cabinet Ministers come to Cape Town for the parliamentary session only after their holidays. That means they have had their holidays and then come to Cape Town. [Interjections.] Sometimes we hear the objection that school holidays are an obstacle. If we look at the diary for last year, this year and next year, however, we see that only one province has a slight problem, and that is only a very slight problem if Parliament were to begin round about the 21st or 22nd January. I urge the Government please to do some thinking on this very important aspect. [Interjections.]

Our next objection is this: Why does the Government not make use of the machinery of Select Committees? I spent hours, if not days, with my counterpart in those days, now the hon. Deputy Minister of the Interior, in 1978, working out a whole scheme for Select Committees. It came from him. It was his idea. It was a very good idea. We jumped at it. There was no problem. We were ad idem. We agreed with each other that there were highly technical Bills, many of them so highly technical that very few hon. members would even begin to understand anything about the nuts and bolts of the legislation. It would be a waste of time for this august House to consider Bills of that nature. In the nature of things, however, there are hon. members who are particularly well versed in such Bills, and they take up a great deal of the time of this House—quite rightly so, because if they are the spokesmen they will be held responsible if anything goes wrong with the legislation. They will be blamed for passing poor legislation. What happened then? In 1978—the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior will recall that—six Bills were referred to Select Committees of this House, either before or after Second Reading. This worked very well. I would say that we probably saved a week, if not longer, by the referral of those Bills to Select Committees.

I raised the question this year and when I did so there was amazement. I agree that the other side knew what I was talking about, but I am sure that it never occurred to them that these Bills could be sent to a Select Committee. Why were they not? It is negligence. I suggest that at least the following Bills could have gone before Select Committees: The Road Transportation Bill. I believe that was basically a Committee Bill. Obviously there were clauses with which we agreed and clauses which we did not agree. Why did that not go before a Select Committee? It took up about three, four days of debate in this House.

And it still will.

The Credit Agreements Bill could also have gone before a Select Committee. I think that took days and days to dispose of in this House. Basically it was a Committee Stage Bill. Thirdly—I am now speaking off the cuff— the Dumping at Sea Control Bill could have gone before a Select Committee. It also was a Committee Bill. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I would like to ask the hon. Government why it finds it so necessary to introduce so many Bills so late in the session. It is getting chronic. So far this year 26 Bills have been introduced since the Easter recess, a bare five or six weeks ago. What is the reason for that? Obviously, I know that the Schlebusch Commission has introduced an interim report, so that two or three Bills could not have been introduced earlier. However, what about the rest? Again I say that I do not believe that hon. Cabinet Ministers are doing their homework. There is only one explanation and that is that they are not getting their law advisers to prepare legislation in good time. One day somebody is going to inquire what these hon. gentlemen do between mid-June and the end of January. [Interjections.] I believe that they go to a lot of congresses. Perhaps I do not have to elaborate on that. I thought that their job was to sit in Pretoria and do a decent day’s graft.

That is exactly what is happening.

How can that be so when they come with important legislation two to four weeks before the end of a session? No, it is their fault that we are having to sit at night on consecutive days.

But our objection goes much deeper and wider. I believe that we must have a look at the system because I believe it is wrong. I believe we should have a committee of the Schlebusch Commission or perhaps even a new commission to look into the procedure of Parliament. For example, I believe that there are some hon. people in this House, and outside, who believe that at least the feasibility of two sittings in a year should be looked at. I know that there is a very senior hon. member in this House who believes for example that if we had a sitting from February to April to deal with the three main budgets and financial measures and another sitting from September to October for legislation it would meet all the problems.

I have a feeling for those hon. members who do not live in Cape Town.

Thank you very much.

I can understand the problem of bringing families down to Cape Town. I can understand the problem of senior civil servants having to come to Cape Town for five months. [Interjections.] However, my suggestion is a way of avoiding those problems. Secondly, I suggest that the terms of reference of such a committee would be to consider sitting on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays each week. This is done in other countries. There has been a revolution in air travel since our sitting days were first fixed, so I believe this possibility can also be looked at. Finally, I think that, as it is done in other countries, for example in West Germany, there should be a standing drafting committee sitting in the recess and representative of all political parties. This committee will then filter any proposed legislation put before it by hon. Cabinet Ministers.

I believe the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already explained that this happens in West Germany, and it works very well. That committee looks at proposed legislation from the point of view of language, its effect upon human rights and its effect upon business, agriculture and other vested interests.

For all these reasons we believe that this has now annually become an unseemly rush to close the shutters, and we cannot possibly be associated with that.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the things said here this afternoon by the hon. Opposition Chief Whip, but there is much of what he said with which I do not agree. It has, it is true, become almost a tradition in this Parliament, and I think in many other Parliaments as well, that when one gets to the end of a session one is faced with what one of my predecessors called legislation by exhaustion, and I think many of the hon. Ministers will remember this. I think his annual speech used to evoke a certain amount of merriment in this House. This year this is probably more so than it has ever been the case in the past. I cannot, however, concur with what the hon. member for Groote Schuur just said—and I feel that this is something that comes more and more from that party’s benches—when he suggested another commission to investigate another matter affecting this Parliament, because surely I am correct when I say that it is this Parliament that determines its own rules. So surely, if we do have problems as far as the management and the day-to-day running of this Parliament are concerned, that is something that must be dealt with by the Whips of the respective parties, in close collaboration with the hon. the Leader of the House. We are, I admit, faced once again with the problem of being asked to sit later hours, night after night. I must say, however, that this is a momentous year for South Africa, in which we are going to see the introduction of legislation that is probably more important than any other since the advent of Union in 1910. We are going to see the introduction, in the next two weeks, of legislation that is going to require of us the very best that we can give, and when I say “us” I mean those of us sitting in this House, the officials that back up the Legislature and the staff of Parliament. They are all going to be called upon to be more on their toes than ever before. For this reason I agree that it is asking much of us to sit every night of the week bar Fridays. For this reason—and I have said this before to the hon. the Leader of the House—we in this party are perfectly happy to stay here in Cape Town an extra week, or two weeks if necessary, but it is of paramount importance that we give this tremendously important legislation, which is to come before us now, nothing but the best and closest possible attention that we can give it. We are not going to be able to do that, however, if we come here tired and jaded day after day. We have seen this happen in the past. Nerves get frayed and people do not give of their best because they are not able to give of their best.

Are you tired?

Yes, we are tired.

He only speaks twice a year.

We must do justice to legislation. The hon. member who has just interjected may say that we are tired because we belong to a small party. He must please remember, however, that each of us is elected to represent a constituency, just as he is.

It is not I, Brian!

No, I am just pointing in a general direction. [Interjections.] Each of us has the same responsibility to his electorate. We want to do justice to that responsibility.

You are looking tired.

We believe that we cannot do justice to that responsibility, however, if we do not sit proper hours. The hon. member for Pretoria Central said I look tired. Let me tell that hon. member that we are tired of his jokes too, and if I had got so near to being retired as he did, I would not be talking. [Interjections.] It is with regret that I have to tell the hon. Leader of the House that we cannot support his motion calling for us to sit longer hours. We are opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the speeches that have been made by the hon. gentlemen opposite, I should like to refer to something everybody in the House will be interested in at the present time, and that is that we have a number of very important visitors with us this afternoon, namely the Lions team.

Hear, hear!

I should like to welcome them in the House of Assembly. They come from a country which created the Mother of Parliaments on which our traditions are based. South Africa shares in the same democratic parliamentarian system. We should like to extend to them a hearty welcome and express the hope that they will have a very enjoyable time in South Africa and will take very enjoyable memories back with them.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, coming to the motion, I should like to say to the Chief Whip of the official Opposition that the arguments he advanced this afternoon are not new arguments. They are the same old arguments. As a matter of fact, it has become a habit at this stage of any session for hon. members opposite to raise the same old arguments and the same old objections when it concerns the work of this Parliament.

It is the same old problem.

It is the same old Government. [Interjections.]

Naturally, that is very true. We are going to have this Government until the end of the century and even until the end of the next century. [Interjections.] As I have said, this is not a new situation and no new argument has been advanced.

*At this time of the year, as I have said, we always get the same arguments. However, it is not correct to create the impression that new situations have been created. The record of our morning and evening sittings, of our extended sitting times over the past number of years, is as follows: In 1975, we had extended sitting times four days before the end of the session; in 1976, we started with extended sitting times 20 sitting days before the end of the session; in 1977, we started 10 days before the end of the session—I am now referring to sitting days; in 1978, it was six days before the time and in 1979, nine days before the time. Therefore it is not correct to create the impression that we are overworked this year. I do not think we are more overworked this year than in previous years. So that argument does not hold water at all.

Let me also point out how the position has improved this year. In 1976, we passed 117 laws here; in 1977, 127; in 1978, 111 and in 1979, 119. So far this year, 76 laws have been passed.

A lot of loafers!

It is we who do all the hard work, and not you people.

After we have dealt with the Bills that are still on the Order Paper, we shall have passed 105 Acts. I am pointing this out since I wish to argue that there is a relationship between the time Parliament spends on the passing of legislation and the number of laws that are passed. There has to be a relationship between the two. In this connection as well, the time for which we make provision is in accordance with this ratio. If hon. members on the opposite side argue that we have not been accommodating, I wish to state that we have been as accommodating as could be. The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition, however, adopted a “bitterbek” attitude in regard to every single Bill which he dealt with in the House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I say he spoke with a “bitterbek” attitude.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I have requested hon. members in the past to avoid that word because in my view it is not in keeping with the dignity of Parliament. However, I have never declared it to be unparliamentary. The hon. Leader of the House may proceed.

Sir, I shall not use the word again, but you know what I mean. The hon. member was bitter when he advanced his arguments today.

I do not think that is the real difficulty of the hon. member. His difficulty does not lie in the arguments he has used. His problem is that while we were passing legislation in the House this year, he was unable to exercise control over the members of his party. His problem was that he was unable to control them or persuade them to co-operate. For example, in instances where we reached an understanding that we would pass certain legislation quickly, it was very obvious to this side of the House that he had completely lost control over the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. That is his problem, and nothing else. And now the hon. member comes with the absurd argument that we should refer more legislation to Select Committees. To say so here at this stage, is not fair either. Only a few days ago, financial legislation was referred to a Select Committee. Much of the legislation about which the hon. member complained, saying that it was submitted here too late, was in fact delayed as a result of deliberations by a Select Committee. They have yet another argument. They have yet another problem. As soon as we wish to pass legislation quickly, they say we must remember that they are only a small party and that they are not able to keep up. They say they cannot serve on all the Committees. They say they cannot be everywhere at once. They say they cannot divide themselves up so that some of their members can attend the proceedings in the Other Place. And I can appreciate that, because if one is a miserable little party such as they are, one simply cannot keep up with the business of Parliament. But then the hon. members must not advance this sort of argument.

You should pay the rate for the job.

The hon. member is now objecting to a target date. This is not the first time that we work on the basis of target dates in this Parliament. Of course, we work on the basis of target dates.

They were always bad.

Unless we work on the basis of target dates, the officials cannot make their arrangements accordingly; neither can the Whips, nor this side of the House. So there is nothing new about working on the basis of target dates. The hon. member will not take it amiss of me if I tell him that some time ago he made a proposal—it was an awfully bad one— which would also have entailed working on the basis of a target date. Now he rises with a very pious face here and creates the impression that we should not work on the basis of a target date. In other words, that is no argument either.

The hon. member also said that during the recess we should have a commission, consisting of all the parties, that should scrutinize and pass legislation. Of course that is nonsense. We on this side of the House do not intend calling in these hon. members in advance and asking them what legislation we should pass in South Africa. It does not work that way.

In the past we tried to co-operate with them as best we could. We tried to obtain their co-operation and even pleaded with them to co-operate with us; but now, playing to the gallery, the hon. member comes forward at a late stage and tries to create the impression that he has a brand-new argument to impress the electorate with their so-called interest in the business of the House. Surely, that is not true. I resent the hon. member’s allegation that hon. members on this side of the House, including hon. Ministers, do not work. In the times in which we live, the activities of Parliament and of the hon. members here are constantly increasing. The pressures are simply increasing and the progress of the course of events is becoming more hectic in every country of the world; also in this Parliament, and for that very reason the Government has tried on its part to moderate the volume of legislation this year and to present as little legislation as possible. The legislation that we have had to introduce, was essential and consequently we had no alternative but to try to get this legislation passed as quickly as possible. We, on our part, have done our utmost, but we did not always get the necessary co-operation from hon. members on the opposite side. Consequently, I do not see my way clear to accommodating the hon. members.

It has just been pointed out to me that the Other Place is having a dinner on the evening of 5 June, actually a farewell dinner, and in order to accommodate the Other Place, I intend proposing later that we shall not sit that evening.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we had a Joint Sitting in this Chamber. On that occasion I said that a Government did not lightly tamper with the constitution. On that occasion a process was initiated which gave rise to the Bill the introduction of which we are now discussing. I am aware that the debate on the First Reading of a Bill is limited. Accordingly I do not wish to discuss the legislation at length at this stage, but I do think it is reasonable to assume that the Bill arises out of the recommendations of the majority of the members of the Constitutional Commission. At this point I wish to convey my thanks to the chairman of the commission for the way in which he acted as chairman and also to the departmental and parliamentary staff who assisted us in a most helpful way. The Government accepted the recommendations of the commission. I think it is reasonable to infer that the Bill that is now being introduced is based on the recommendations of the majority report of the commission. Indeed, when one considers the long title of the Bill, it is clear that many of the subjects referred to therein relate to specific recommendations made in the majority report of the commission. The members of the PFP serving on the commission published a minority report based on the recommendations of the majority report. In it we tried to indicate why we rejected some of the recommendations.

In brief, the most important aspects to which reference is made in the long title of the Bill, and which relate to the recommendations of the commission, are, firstly, the establishment of the office of Vice State President. We objected to that because we could not see what evidence had been led to show the need for such a step and because we were not clear on what the motivation was for introducing it into the hierarchy of our State structure at this time. Secondly, there is the new composition of the House of Assembly, to which reference is also made in the long title. In our minority report we adopt a very clear standpoint opposing the enlargement of the House of Assembly by way of nominated members. We said that we found this principle repugnant and were unable to support it.

Thirdly, I want to refer to the question of a President’s Council. One of the conclusions reached by the commission about which there was general unanimity, we find on page 4 of the report, as follows—

It is because we feel particularly strongly about this specific point, on which there was consensus in the commission, that we are of the opinion that the envisaged President’s Council, as proposed in the majority report, will not comply with those requirements. It will not comply with them largely because in terms of that recommendation the Black people are excluded from participation in the President’s Council.

Briefly, those are the reasons we advanced in our minority report as to why we were unable to accept the majority report. Because these reasons were valid for us then and are still valid for us now, we are unable to support the First Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a novice in his specific capacity as Leader of the Opposition. I was unable to think of any conceivable reason why these objections should be raised now, in this First Reading debate on this Bill. What the hon. Leader of the Opposition has just said he could just as well have said in the Second Reading debate, when one discusses the principle of a Bill.

If the history of the system of Three Readings in Parliament is correct, the reason why it was originally provided that there had to be three readings of a Bill was to be found in the fact that members of old Parliaments were unable to read, and therefore the legislation had to be read to them. In order to delay the parliamentary procedure, they persisted in demanding that the Bill be read again. I think that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to do today is either to delay matters—however, I do not say that he does this because he is unable to read, because he can do that fairly well—or to create an opportunity—and this is what I suspect—to change his standpoint. Quite probably he adopted that strong standpoint to satisfy a certain faction in his party. What the hon. Leader of the Opposition said …

You are dreaming.

No, I am as wide awake as can be.

All the arguments advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the congratulations conveyed to the chairman and members who served on this commission, and the fact that there was a majority and a minority report, are all relevant. I think that we could dispose of these matters very effectively, quietly and without fuss in a Second Reading debate. I just want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he expressed himself in terms which, in my opinion, were not very agreeable.

One of the words which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used was the word “tamper”. I do not think we on this side of the House think so little of a constitution, or have ever done so, that we would “tamper” with it.

What did you do in 1952?

The kick-off of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—because the Lions were here today, I am thinking in rugby terms—was too far and too deep; therefore we shall have to scrum on the halfway line.

You know that you yourself are unhappy about this matter.

I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that my happiness or unhappiness has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I signed the majority report.

But you nevertheless speak on behalf of the HNP.

During the Second Reading I shall motivate my standpoint very clearly. He need only wait until the Second Reading. I think he kicked off too far with that word “tamper”.

Another word the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used was “repugnant”. He used this word with reference to the recommendation of the commission that the Assembly be enlarged. I think that he was totally off-side with that word. However we can discuss that again.

I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with anything at all which would prevent us from wholeheartedly supporting the First Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will not oppose the First Reading of the Bill although, as we have indicated, we have two of the same objections to the proposals contained in the Interim Report of the Constitution Commission. However, we believe that the need to consult, the need to get together and talk to all the communities of South Africa is so urgent and so important that even if the mechanism provided for it is not the perfect mechanism, it is necessary to make a start. Therefore we as a party signed by means of our commissioners the majority report and recorded those two issues on which we disagree. The first one is the exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council and the other one is the increase, by means of nomination in the number of members of the House of Assembly.

We believe there are far more urgent and far more serious issues facing South Africa than to throw out, because of differences on method and detail, what can be and should be a vital step towards inter-racial communication. I do not want to deal with the detail at this stage; there will be opportunities for that when we have the Bill before us.

It is going to be interesting to see how the attitude which is now adopted by the official Opposition coincides with the minutes of proceedings of the commission itself when those minutes are published. It is going to be very interesting to see that. It is appropriate to indicate how the difference between the official Opposition and this party towards the responsibility of opposition is reflected. In the case of the official Opposition, they say because it is not exactly what they want, they want to have nothing to do with it. The whole loaf or nothing at all. [Interjections.] The attitude of this party is that even if it is not perfect, if it is a step forward and offers the possibility of inter-racial communication and negotiation, we should at least try to make use of that opportunity and give it a chance.

This is basic to the difference in our approach to politics. The approach of all or nothing, the approach of “if it is not exactly as we want it, we will stamp our feet and say that we will have nothing to do with it.

Except Japie.

Yes, that approach does not reflect the view of all hon. members of the official Opposition. It does not reflect the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout …

Nor the view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated publicly that he would be prepared to serve on the President’s Council. I believe it does not reflect the view of other hon. members as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not believe it reflects the view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The attitude which was finally recorded as now reflected, followed a caucus meeting where it was dealt with. That caucus meeting seems to have made a difference to the attitude of some of the hon. members of that party.

This side has had no difficulty at all in its attitude. It has recorded its differences with the recommendations. It has recorded its objection to those points in the long title of the Bill with which we disagree. Those points are, firstly, the increase in the number of the members of the House of Assembly and, secondly, the form in which inter-racial consultation will take place. We believe, however, that this is machinery which will end up at the same point at which we are aiming—that all race groups, as quoted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will ultimately sit in one joint committee, round one table, negotiating together. How they get there may at this point be a method on which we disagree, but the fact that they will be there, sitting round one table, Black, Brown, Coloured and Indian, talking together about the future of South Africa, is in our opinion such a vast step forward in the thinking of South Africa and of the Government, and offers such a vast opportunity of solving our problems together …

Vast step for you, but not for mankind.

… that we are prepared to give it a chance and not to take this totally abnormal and unusual step of opposing a Bill before its contents are even known.

Mr. Speaker, our attitude towards first reading of Bills has remained consistent over the last few years. We do not believe in opposing a Bill without having seen it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has listed some objections to a Bill he has not yet seen.

Is that not your attitude towards the English-language Press?

He is obviously doing that on the strength of his membership of the Schlebusch Commission. I have said previously that one of the aspects of this Bill which I have not seen—the enlargement of Parliament—I shall oppose, but for the rest we think the Bill which we have not seen has good features and we are looking forward to seeing it! [Interjections.] We look forward to hearing arguments in favour of the Bill which we have not seen, once we reach the Second Reading stage. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the official Opposition, through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, showed themselves to be not an Opposition party but rather a party of obstruction. The whole essence of Parliamentary opposition is surely that one party should afford the opposing party an opportunity to state a case, and then to refute that case by way of argument. However, this afternoon the official Opposition is adopting the attitude that they do not want to allow the Government to introduce this legislation so that they may have the opportunity to oppose it by way of argument.

They just want to cause a riot again.

If, since we are in a rugby mood and the British rugby team has just paid a visit, we take a look at the game of rugby, we find that in that game, obstruction is penalized by the awarding of a free kick. However, this afternoon the official Opposition wants to obstruct without being penalized for it. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition argued that they had already indicated in the Schlebusch Commission that they would oppose some of the provisions which they suspected would appear in this Bill. However, what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition omitted to say was that in the Schlebusch Commission, and also during the joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly last week, they supported the abolition of the Senate. According to the Order Paper this Bill, the introduction of which is now being opposed, will also provide, inter alia, for consequential measures which will arise directly out of the abolition of the Senate. The hon. official Opposition should therefore at least not oppose the introduction of the Bill with regard to those measures. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is nodding in agreement.

He is nodding to Japie, not to you.

If that is the standpoint of the hon. official Opposition, then surely there is no justification for their opposing the First Reading of the Bill, and surely the appropriate procedure for them is to oppose those parts of the Bill which are not acceptable to them at the Second Reading stage.

In passing, I just wish to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated that in their minority report they found the extension of the House of Assembly repugnant. However no such word is to be found in their minority report.

Did you accept the recommendation or not?

It is only stated in their minority report that they are unable to support the recommendations. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and makes a very strong statement by saying that they find it totally repugnant, and refers to the minority report which does not support him in this connection.

Suffice it to say that I believe that the official Opposition is merely restating, in a very childish way, the standpoint they adopted in the Schlebusch Commission. If they believe that they really have grounds to oppose this measure and they have confidence in their case, they ought to welcome the opportunity to debate the matter with us in the Second Reading, instead of trying, like naughty children, to throw a spanner in the works at the introduction of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik said that he could not understand why opposition was levelled at this Bill at the First Reading. I hope that during the course of what I have to say he will understand why.

Keep it short. You are wasting the time of the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

He can do as he likes.

I shall decide on the length of my speech.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that as there were provisions in the Bill with which the hon. official Opposition agreed, viz. the abolition of the Other Place, we should at least agree to those provisions. I do not think that we have any difficulty with that. I do not think that our party will oppose that provision when it comes before the House. [Interjections.] However, there are other provisions in the long title of the Bill which clearly pose overriding considerations of principle which will guide our actions and attitude in the First Reading. We do not wish to be like the old United Party, who used to vote for the principle in the Second Reading. I remember the General Law Amendment Bill of, I think, 1962. It was called the “sabotage” clause. There they tried to deal with a matter of principle in the Committee Stage. That cannot be the attitude of this party.

What party did you belong to then?

I belonged to the United Party, and I strongly disagreed with its stand and made my disagreement known within the echelons … [Interjections.]

Why did you not leave the party then if you differed in principle?

The hon. member for Durban Point accused this party of differing with the Government and being obstructionist purely on the basis of what he called matters of detail, of mechanics. If we cannot get the whole loaf, he said, we would take nothing. In the commission the NRP recorded its very strong objection to the question of the nomination of members to this House. It also recorded its very strong reservations about the efficacy of the President’s Council because of the exclusion from it of Black people. If one takes those two points alone, one finds that they virtually constitute the guts of the Bill that is before us today. With the hon. the leader of that party having said that they are opposed to the very stuff, the very guts, of this Bill, however, they now support it at First Reading. I venture to say that they will support it at Second Reading as well, because we have come to know that the hon. NRP is becoming, as the days go by, nothing more than an English-speaking adjunct of the NP. [Interjections.]

And you are becoming more liberal by the day too.

I and my party accept that it is unusual to register opposition to the First Reading of any Bill.

If you go any further, you will fall off the map.

It is unusual because all that is before us is, in fact, the long title of the Bill, which is very often perfunctory and lacking in descriptive detail, because details of the legislation, other than those appearing on the Order Paper, have not been disclosed to the House at all. [Interjections.] Therefore it is only when the disclosed details of a Bill, at First Reading, evidence Government intentions with which the Opposition cannot associate itself, that denial of support at this First Reading stage is warranted. We believe that there is ample evidence of this contained on the Order Paper today, as also—and this has been stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members— because of our knowledge of the origins of the Bill, namely the majority report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution.

The second aspect of the Bill mentioned on the Order Paper is the question of the establishment of “the office of Vice-State President”. There are two main reasons for opposing this provision on the Order Paper this afternoon. Firstly the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution is still sitting. No evidence—and this will be admitted by hon. members on the other side of the House—in regard to the establishment of the office of Vice-State President has been put before the commission to this date. No witness has come before the commission to argue for the office a Vice-State President or against the office of a Vice-State President. In fact, there has been hardly any mention of it at all, except in that document which was submitted by the Government and which formed its 1977 election platform, a document that has not been debated in the commission and which, I may add, has in large measure been discounted by nearly all the witnesses, of all colours, persuasion and fields of expertise, who have appeared. So the first reason is that no call has been made, or need shown, for the office of a Vice-State President.

My second reason is perhaps an even more important reason than the first one. The work of the commission is not yet done. No final constitutional structure has yet been determined. The compilation of the evidence …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to deal with the evidence, or the lack of evidence, before the commission? The hon. member referred to the evidence given or not given before the commission. His whole argument is that no evidence to this effect was given before the commission. That is the reason for his arguing against the introduction of the Bill.

Order! A report was tabled and the Bill is a result of that report. Consequently I am of the opinion that he may make use of the information contained in and his knowledge of the report in supporting his objection to the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, the evidence was not tabled and is therefore not available to us.

In that case the hon. member for Sandton may not quote from the evidence as this House has no knowledge of that evidence.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that I never quoted from the evidence.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I may say, Sir, that, even if I did quote from it, all the evidence was given in public and has been published in the Press. The hon. members opposite are not in touch with things at all.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, the work of the commission is not yet done. No final constitutional structure has been decided upon. In fact, the compilation and hearing of evidence is not even complete. Yet at this time the Government proposes to set up a new and clearly permanent constitutional office before any negotiations or any real inter-group consultation has taken place.

You are badly mistaken.

Surely, in the South Africa of the 1980s it should be a clear and strong principle that no new permanent structures or offices should be created by the White Parliament, except after consultation and negotiation with other population groups.

But is that not what this is for?

A unilaterally created office or body not emerging from mutual agreement can, I believe, not gain the credibility, the acceptability or the authority we would want it to have in these crucial times.

I move from the question of the Vice-State President to the question of the President’s Council. Exactly the same can be said of the President’s Council, perhaps even more strongly. From our knowledge of its origins and of its proposed composition, which is not up for debate at the present time, it is our belief that the State President’s Council will be a woefully inadequate vehicle in the light of the urgent demands of the rapidly developing crisis in South Africa today. I venture to say that, far from being a vehicle for reconciliation—and that is what we would wish it to be—the President’s Council will in fact prove to be a counterproductive express train to the alienation of its appointed members from their own people, and also an express train in the polarization of South African politics and race relations.

Did you vote for a State President’s Council in the commission or not?

It will be seen by the majority as another White man’s solution or mechanism to exclude the majority and to retard and not accelerate positive change.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In regard to what the hon. member is now arguing, let me say that the motion before the House clearly states that a Bill is to be introduced to provide for the establishment of a President’s Council and to define its functions. I submit, Sir, that the hon. member is conducting a Second Reading speech is that he is discussing the merits of a President’s Council and its functions, matters which are not before the House at the present time. I should like your ruling as to whether the hon. member can, along those fines proceed to discuss the principle of an issue which is not even before the House at the present time.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member for Sandton that, apart from the report of the majority of the commission, the House does not know whether the things he is discussing are included in the Bill or not. For that reason I think the hon. member cannot really go into detail on a point like that. He may, however, allude to a reasonable expectation.

Mr. Speaker, I have in fact said all I wanted to say on this. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: How long does each member have to speak?

Only ten minutes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the friendly words he addressed to me. I want to react at once by also thanking him sincerely for the politeness he showed me as chairman of the commission. I have the highest appreciation for the good breeding of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if not for his political views. Then, too, of course, I associate myself with his praise of the departmental head and the staff; we were able to rely on them absolutely and they have been of tremendous value to us in the work done thus far.

I do not want to say a great deal and I shall certainly not need 10 minutes to say it. The opposition we have encountered at this First Reading of the Bill is a major disappointment to me. Hon. members on that side of the House who served on the commission with me will know that we heard evidence in a very good spirit throughout and deliberated in a very good spirit, and I think anyone on either side who wants to maintain today that we did not consider a solution in a dedicated way will not be speaking the truth. Hon. members of the Opposition will have to admit that all members of the commission were really in earnest in seeking to depoliticize this matter as far as humanly possible—and we are but people and politicians—and it was said time and again that we should make an effort to create a President’s Council that would be a depoliticized body as far as humanly possible, a body which would consider our country and its problems in a sober, scientific and non-emotional way and provide the best advice for the future. If what I am saying here now is the truth, and I do not fear contradiction, then I am disappointed …

Why then did you exclude the Blacks?

… that the official Opposition took the first opportunity to load this matter with a high degree of political emotion. I am sure that if what is stated in the newspapers is correct and if the hon. the member for Bezuidenhout was quoted correctly, then he agrees in his heart with what I am saying here now. If what he is reported to have said is being correctly interpreted, then it is his opinion, too, that however imperfect this President’s Council may be in his and the official Opposition’s eyes, it is a means, a tool which one must test in order to see what we can do to resolve our troublesome and difficult questions in this country. Therefore I want to say to the official Opposition that they may have won a few political points today in certain radical circles, but I want to tell them, particularly the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that among right-thinking people in this country, among people who are in earnest in seeking to achieve something by way of political evolution in this country, they have earned a few black marks against their name after today’s exhibition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition questioned the need for a Vice-State President. A Vice-State President is not being appointed merely to be a member and the chairman of the President’s Council. It is a high office; the name of the office indicates this. It will be a person who will have to serve the whole population of this country, all the population groups, in many spheres and in an impartial fashion. He will be a person of high prestige and at times, when the President’s Council is in session, he will have to act as objective chairman of that council. I therefore say that it is an essential institution and not merely an essential, but a fine institution. The hon. member describes the enlargement of the House of Assembly as repugnant. The hon. member for Mossel Bay rightly pointed out that this was not the language they used in their report. This shows how premature it is to debate a matter like this at the First Reading, because the proposals of the Government as contained in the draft legislation differ from the proposals in the majority report. Therefore it is absolutely premature to discuss it at this stage.

I want to conclude by saying that I trust that we shall discuss this whole matter in a responsible way in the remaining stages, and that our only motive will be to negotiate something—even though we differ on it—that could represent a vital step forward for future political evolution in this country.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will kindly allow me to make a few remarks about some eminent gentlemen who have either been promoted or are about to leave the department.

In the first place, Sir, allow me to say something on this occasion about my predecessor, the hon. Senator J. T. Kruger. Senator Kruger was appointed Deputy Minister of Police, of the Interior and of Social Welfare and Pensions on 23 August 1972, after having been elected to the House of Assembly for the constituency of Prinshof in 1966. As from 11 February 1974, he was also appointed Deputy Minister of Justice and of Prisons. As from 1 May 1974, he was appointed Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. He was in charge of these three demanding portfolios until his appointment as President of the Senate on 19 July 1979. During his term of office as Minister, he introduced many laws. During the 1977 parliamentary session, for example, he piloted through no fewer than 20 Bills in respect of his three portfolios. That is a record. It was also during that session that the Liquor Act, 1977, with 213 sections, and the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, with 345 sections, were placed on the Statute Book.

Allow me to thank him for the great contribution he made to this department as Minister.

†Mr. Chairman, I also wish to express my heartiest congratulations to Mr. J. P. J. Coetzer, the Director-General designate of the rationalized Department of Justice. The present Departments of Justice and Prisons will probably be rationalized in October this year. A heavy responsibility rests on Mr. Coetzer’s shoulders to implement the goals which have been set in this regard with the greatest degree of success. I can, however, without the slightest hesitation say that the Cabinet and I consider him ideally equipped to meet that responsibility, and I am sure that the administration of justice in the Republic will greatly benefit by his endeavours.

I also wish to extend my heartiest congratulations to Mr. S. S. van der Merwe who has been promoted to Deputy Director-General. I have known Mr. Van der Merwe for a number of years. I have had the opportunity to be intimately acquainted with his work and I have always been most impressed by his keen insight into problems and his sound and equitable approach to all who come into contact with him. I wish him well in the future. Justice is truly blessed to have two such officials at the helm.

*Then, Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of saying something about two other gentlemen as well.

Firstly I want to mention the retirement, at the end of this year, of an official whose work has been closely associated with the functions performed here over the past 26 years. I am referring to Advocate G. F. Smalberger, S.C., Chief Government Law Adviser. While considering legislation in this House, we were dealing with his work virtually every day. That work always testified to meticulous workmanship and careful attention to technical details. We understand only too well that his field of activity is immeasurably wide and his task is demanding. The fact that he was able to keep producing such a large volume of work of outstanding quality for such a long time testifies to dedication, hard work and sacrifice. His loyalty also appears from the fact that in spite of his brilliant academic achievements, he put his services and abilities at the disposal of the State for 40 years, in spite of the fact that materially speaking, there were greener pastures elsewhere.

It will be understood that it is almost impossible to refer to all the laws drafted by him. I only want to refer to the following examples which are landmarks testifying to his expertise: The Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963; the Financial Institutions Act, 1964; the Bills of Exchange Act, 1964; the National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970; the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975; the Medical University of Southern Africa Act, 1976; the Status of the Transkei Act, 1976; the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, 1977; the Status of Venda Act, 1979; and the Sales Tax Act, 1978.

To Advocate Smalberger, who had a special relationship with Parliament for so many years, I convey the Government’s thanks for his loyalty and dedication, and I wish him a pleasant retirement.

As Minister of Justice, I also have to take leave of the Liquor Board at the end of this month. Because of the programme of rationalization of the Public Service, this board will fall under my colleague, the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, as from 1 June.

The association of the Department of Justice with liquor affairs goes back 50 years. The Liquor Act has been amended 37 times by statutory amendments and once by a proclamation in terms of the War Measures Act.

Commissions of inquiry were also appointed during this period to investigate the various facets of the liquor industry. The most important of these was surely the Malan Commission, which investigated the general distribution and retail prices of liquor. An important outcome of the commission’s recommendations was the statutory amendment in terms of which liquor could be sold and supplied freely to non-Whites. The Liquor Board was also established as an authoritative body to advise the State President and the Minister. The needs of the community were provided for as new classes of licences were created, such as grocers’ wine licences, meal time wine and malt licences and wine house licences. Hotels were forced to be classified and to comply with certain minimum requirements, and provision was made for ladies’ bars, barmaids, longer hours, closed-day privileges, and, later, “international status”.

In 1977, the Liquor Act was consolidated to centralize all activities, with a few minor exceptions, in the departmental head office. Among other things, the Liquor Board now acquired the character of a tribunal. Unsound speculative transactions with bottle stores within five years of the granting of the licence was prohibited in 1978. In this year, too, a stop was put to the irritating practice of hotels and restaurants in particular of adding a percentage to bills as a service levy. In 1979, we saw a broadening of the basis on which grocers’ wine licences can be granted.

The liquor industry, with its divergent interest groups and composition, is not a static one, and change and renewal are always taking place. The development of the industry, in order to keep pace with modern needs, made very great demands on the department over the years. Imaginative legislation in 1928 to co-ordinate 40 laws and ordinances had a major stabilizing influence. Provision for classification and the things that this involve was a definite milestone on the road of the 50 years the department was associated with liquor matters. It may rightly be asked whether the standard of the hotel industry would have been as high as it is today if it had not been for the strong guidance which was given in this connection. A proud record has been built up over many years and there is a firm foundation on which the new department under which the board will fall can continue to build.

However, it would not be appropriate to mention the Liquor Act without also referring to the chairman of the Liquor Board, Mr. F. J. le Roux, who has been at the head of the board since its inception in 1961. Together with the Liquor Division, and still at the head, of it, he will also be transferred to the jurisdiction of another Minister on 1 June. Furthermore, he has already indicated that he is going to retire at the end of June 1981, the month in which he turns 60. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should therefore like to say a few words about him now.

Mr. Le Roux’s thorough knowledge of all facets of the liquor industry led over a period of 20 years to a number of imaginative Liquor Amendment Acts, which had a major influence on the liquor industry. In this connection I think, for example, of the abolition of the ban on the sale and supply of liquor to Black people. Since 1975, licensed premises with international status have been able to meet the accommodation requirements of non-Whites in places where no other provision existed. Standards were set with regard to premises with restaurant and wine and malt licences. The interests of wine farmers were promoted by estate wine outlets and by means of wine house licences where estate wines could be obtained for on- and off-consumption. The centralization of all activities with regard to liquor and the accompanying new system of licensing involved great savings for the industry.

It is always difficult to identify highlights in an outstanding career. To me personally, however, the greatest milestone is Mr. Le Roux’s contribution to the development of the hotel industry. In the early ’sixties it was realized that the standard of the accommodation facilities made available to the travelling public by the hotel industry was not as it should be. Provision was therefore made for the classification of hotels. This measure was probably the most drastic which has ever been made applicable to hotels in this country. Besides predicting a drastic increase in the abuse of alcohol, prophets of doom saw in this measure the ruin of the hotel industry and the destruction of vested interests in the liquor retail trade. Not one of the negative predictions at the time came true. Indeed, the result has been that the industry has been able, with the profits obtained from, among other things, their off-sales outlets, to improve hotel standards, and that the hotel industry has been able to earn valuable foreign exchange through tourism. After a fairly short period of 15 years, it was possible to abolish classification.

A survey of Mr. Le Roux’s period of service shows that much was done to bring about a more civilized drinking pattern, to develop the liquor industry and to improve its image. In the process, control measures were modernized and strengthened. Objective observers will concede that the control over liquor is effective yet fair. For his positive leadership over many years, and for the energetic yet tolerant way in which he always performed his daily task, I should like to convey my thanks and those of the Government to Mr. Le Roux and to wish him well for the future.

Furthermore, I wish to make an important announcement concerning the distribution of liquor in the metropolitan Black residential areas.

My predecessor instructed the Liquor Board on 23 August 1977 to investigate the distribution of alcoholic liquor in the metropolitan Black residential areas in the Republic, with special reference to the question of whether Black people should be allowed to enter the liquor trade in such areas and, if so, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions, and what the financial implications of this would be, having regard to vested interests.

The chairman and vice-chairman of the Liquor Board were appointed as a committee of the Liquor Board to conduct the investigation, and Mr. F. H. Cronje, a deputy secretary of the Department of Cooperation and Development, was co-opted to assist them. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the committee for its very thorough report which I recently received.

Arising from the report, the Government has decided as follows—

1. 1. That it is desirable that Black people in the said areas should be able, on an orderly basis, according to their requirements, to apply for a licence or a special authority in terms of the present provisions of the Liquor Act, 1977. In dealing with such applications, the Liquor Board will avail itself of the power it has in law to co-opt Black people to the Liquor Board.
2. 2. That only at a later stage, when the system has been established and is working well, the two relevant departments— the Department of Co-operation and Development and the Department of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—may consider the possibility of delegating the granting of licences and special authorities to community councils.
3. †3. That financial institutions may participate as sureties and minority shareholders in such Black liquor businesses for an interim period. The two aforementioned departments must, however, as soon as possible, consider a phasing out period during which these interests must come entirely in the hands of Black entrepreneurs.
4. 4. That residential premises be rezoned to business premises where liquor for on-consumption purposes will be sold and supplied on the premises. The occupation for residential purposes by the licensee or his family or his clients, of the rooms in which liquor, refreshments and food are sold and/or supplied to the public, will not be permitted.
5. 5. That licences and special authorities will only be granted in respect of off-consumption premises if such premises are business premises.
6. 6. That the Black entrepreneur will be protected by maintaining the statutory restrictions on the introduction of liquor in Black residential areas.
7. 7. That the status quo in respect of the sale and supply of liquor in Black residential areas by Administration Boards will continue to exist for an interim period, but that this right be gradually phased out when alternative sources of income are placed at the disposal of Administration Boards or Community Councils.
8. 8. That no new special authority to sell liquor will be granted to Administration Boards and/or Community Councils.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister about certain officials in the department. Before doing so, however, I should like to put the hon. the Minister’s name at the top of the list. It is no exaggeration, and I think all lawyers will agree with me, that socially speaking, the department of Justice is in the long run one of the most important departments in the administration of the country. The hon. the Minister, who is at the head of the Department, has a special responsibility. He should receive all the good wishes which can be conveyed to him from all sides.

To advocate Coetzer, the Secretary to the department, who has now been promoted to a higher position in the same division, and to advocate Van der Merwe, who has also been promoted, our very best wishes. These officials, like those in virtually all departments, work in silence and behind the scenes. They do thorough, extremely demanding and very responsible work, but they very seldom receive a proper word of thanks for what they do.

That is very well put.

It is just a pity that they have to work for such a Government.

I should like to tell advocates Coetzer and Van der Merwe on this occasion that they have our best wishes for their future careers. Advocate Smallberger is another outstanding official, to whom an enormous responsibility has been entrusted and who is an exceptionally able person. The hon. the Minister spoke about the Bills for which advocate Smallberger had been responsible. Of course, there are many other things too for which this public servant, who is about to retire, should be commended.

As regards the Liquor Board, and the very important announcement—if I may say so— which the hon. the Minister has just made about liquor distribution in Black metropolitan areas, I just want to point out that an hon. colleague of mine, the hon. member for East London North, will react to that in due course. [Interjections.]

There are a large number of issues that are relevant in a discussion of the Justice Vote. However, because I have only a few minutes available to me, I want to dwell on only one or two of these. One of the most important and most urgent of all, about which the Secretary also expressed himself very clearly, is the one of staff. We are being told from many quarters—and I think the hon. the Minister and his Secretary will agree with that—that there is a serious shortage of staff in many divisions and sectors of the Department of Justice, and that in some cases, we have even reached the point where we are in danger of lapsing into a critical condition?

I do not want to say any more about this, except for emphasizing that the hon. the Minister has received a warning from all sides, including his directorate, and that when this Parliament convenes again next year, we shall ask the hon. the Minister—if we live that long—exactly what measures he has taken to relieve the position and how effective those measures are.

There is also the question of the pressure on the courts. We know that the hon. the Minister, or his predecessor, has already appointed a commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hoexter, to investigate the question of the excessive work load of certain courts in South Africa and to propose measures and steps to relieve it. An interim report has already been submitted, and after mature consideration, this hon. House approved that first step or those first steps. We hope, however, that it will be possible for the Hoexter Commission to suggest practical measures for eliminating this very serious situation in some divisions of our Supreme Court.

There is a third matter to which I should just like to refer briefly, and that is the anomalous position in which the attorneys-general in South Africa have to act. We know that in terms of the present custom, an attorney-general is solely responsible for the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute in a specific case. In some cases—there was a case recently of which we are all aware— political considerations apply, and I use the concept “political” in the widest sense of the word. In other words, not purely juridical considerations, but also the national interest and other considerations, applied in those recent decisions. However, there is the anomaly that the attorney-general is subjected to serious criticism, both in this House and outside, but that he has no opportunity to defend himself. Only now, through the report and evidence of the Erasmus Commission, are we arriving at the explanation of the Transvaal Attorney-General as to why he did not prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh at the time. This is an unhealthy situation. One cannot entrust responsibility for a decision, and not a purely scientific decision, to an official and deny that official any place, room or opportunity to defend himself.

What is your solution?

It is a very difficult problem. The hon. member asks what the solution is. I do not have time to go into that.

He does not have an answer.

The question has been discussed before. We cannot continue with this system, because the hon. the Minister, who is the political head of the Attorney-General, and who in law has to accept responsibility for what the Attorney-General decides or does not decide, is evading his responsibility by simply saying that he did not take the decision. Is the solution not that the hon. the Minister himself should take all political decisions in this connection and accept responsibility for them?

Are you serious in saying that?

There are not many. It is only a small number of cases in respect of which non-juridical considerations apply in the decisions that are taken.

However, that is not the main aspect I want to deal with. The principal matter I want to consider is the question of the machinery which exists at the moment and the method which is used for appointing judges to the Bench. I want to say at once that I do not intend to go into previous appointments. I do not intend to say whether appointments made in the past were sound or desirable. All I want to ask is whether we should not give some fresh thought at this stage of South Africa’s existence to the way in which appointments should be made.

Hear, hear!

Is this not a question which is brought directly to our attention as a result of two factors. I should like to refer to the two factors. Firstly, there is the fact that we have a plural community, i.e. large divergent groups of people who all have to look up to and have confidence in the Supreme Court. However, the appointments are made at the recommendation of only one political party, i.e. only one political group in the country, namely the Government.

Of course!

Secondly, since the Hoexter Commission is investigating the question of whether there should not be an intermediate court, is it not absolutely essential to tell the Hoexter Commission that it should also make recommendations about the way in which the appointments should be made in that intermediate court, if it is eventually established? I say this because, as a result of the idea of an intermediate court, we are faced with a much more complicated situation, in the sense that we are now going to get appointments not only from the Bar, but probably from the Side-Bar and other sources as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have very little to reply to, fortunately, in what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has just resumed his seat. I think he opened the debate in a restrained and thoughtful manner. In respect of certain persons to which reference has been made, I can only associate myself with what he and the hon. the Minister have already said about them.

I should like to begin by saying that for the sake of the hon. the Minister in particular I am glad that we have come to this stage of the session, where we are dealing with the Justice Vote, because I think the hon. the Minister has a session behind him which I do not think—and I say this with respect to all the other hon. members—can be equalled by anyone else with regard to volume and demands that have been made. Apart from being Minister of Justice, he is also Minister of the Interior at the moment, he is leader of a province in which a very fierce election was fought as well as chairman of what will probably come to be known one day as the second Schlebusch Commission. He has performed his duties with dignity at all times, he has been available to his colleagues at all times, and I think we can say he has been an example of dignity and calm to us all while he was under great pressure.

On behalf of this side of the House, I also want to congratulate the appointed Director-General of the new Department of Justice. We have come to know him as a man who, with his team, has always pulled his weight in the directorate, as it will henceforth be known. Once again they have presented us with an annual report of outstanding quality on which I should like to congratulate him and his colleagues and for which I want to thank them sincerely.

I just want to refer briefly to one particular aspect of the annual report. I believe that some of my other colleagues will deal with other aspects of the annual report. Very few people know that the Administration of Justice Branch of the head office has a Legal Planning Division and that one of the tasks of the Legal Planning Division is to see to the translation and making available of common-law authorities. This work in respect of the common-law authorities has been continuing since 1951, when R4 000 a year was first made available for this task. The purpose for which the money could be made available was described as follows—

This allowance was increased to R8 000 a year in the 1978-’79 financial year, with good reason, I think. Since 1966, an amount of R17 614 has been paid out for translations and the compilation of registers in this process. I just want to mention a few of the authorities which have now been made available to us in translation. There is Vinnius’s Tractatus de pactis, Groenewegen’s De Legibus Abrogatis, volumes 1 and 2, and the third volume is on its way. Then there is Pothier’s Traite du Contract de Mandat. In addition, ’n Register van Gemeenregtelike Kenbronne, compiled by advocate S. I. E. van Tonder of the department, is now at the printers. All these works are extremely valuable additions to our common-law authorities. Their value lies in this: Most of those authoritative works were originally written in Latin, but some of them are in French, and I think a few of them were written in Old Middle Dutch or something of that kind. As a result, they were inaccessible to many students, to many practitioners, but also to many of those who implement the law. Because of the fact that in their countries of origin, they have fallen into disuse as a result of codification, they have not been reproduced there either, and they have got lost or ended up in museums and in libraries where perhaps they simply gathered dust. Those authorities are now being made available to us again in intelligible language and in a very easily accessible form. I think this is a service for which the legal profession as a whole should be very grateful. I think there were some of those authorities which for many of us had become nothing but a name it was difficult to memorize.

In his speech, the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that after 50 years, the Liquor Board was now to pass to the Department of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. After 50 years one can hardly imagine any other place for the Liquor Board than the Department of Justice. We believe that over these 50 years, the Department of Justice and some of its ablest officials have virtually perfected a liquor system for South Africa which would be an asset to any other place where it could be introduced.

Liquor, and all that goes with it, is a matter of many facets. As is the case elsewhere in the world, it sometimes gives rise to very strong feelings in South Africa, strong feelings about the availability of liquor as such, about its control, its consumption, its distribution and so forth. Yesterday or the day before we heard in another committee of this House how Paul had advised Timothy to drink wine for the sake of his health, and we also know that Omar Khayyám writes most eloquently of the fruit of the vine. In this House itself, heated non-political debates have been conducted about liquor over the years. Even this year, we heard about “swartvarkies” in this House. These are not the opposite of white elephants or pink elephants; they are small containers of wine. We have also debated manpower in this House and in its committees.

I make bold to say that in the 50 years that liquor has fallen under the Department of Justice, drinking habits and the consumption of alcohol in South Africa have undergone a total evolution, but in the better sense of the word. First I just want to say this: the abuse of alcohol is an evil and its human victims are legion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member for Waterkloof the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Hillbrow.

The victims of the evil of liquor are legion, whether they be people who have become alcoholics, whether they be dependents of alcoholics who have to do without the necessities of life, or whether they be people who have been involved in accidents because of drunken driving. As an evil we must never ignore it and we must always be on our guard against it and warn our younger people and rising generations against it.

However, experience has taught us that prohibition as a solution is completely negative and impossible to enforce. A man who wants liquor will get it, and the more difficult it is to get, the greater may be the evil it gives rise to.

The answer to the liquor problem is the development and propagation of healthy and balanced liquor consumption habits. I believe that here in South Africa we have experienced an enormous evolution in our liquor consumption habits over the past decade. From the Cape wineland up to the remote Northern Transvaal, the consumption of wine at mealtimes and the consumption of lighter kinds of liquor have greatly increased. In the process, our liquor consumption has become much more cultivated. I think we should give credit for this to the liquor producers through the KWV, to the wholesale producers, but also to the retail traders and Fedhasa, which have contributed in every way, including additional services they have provided and advice they have given, to the correct consumption of liquor all over the country. I venture to say that in the remote Northern Transvaal today one finds people who know just as much about liquor and wine as those in the southern parts of our country.

However, I also believe that because of the establishment of the Liquor Board, under the able leadership of Mr. Eric le Roux and his partners, the control and administration of liquor as such have had a considerable influence on the drinking pattern of our people, and I mean that it is a more refined drinking pattern which has developed.

One great problem still has to be solved, the problem to which the hon. the Minister referred, and that is to have the distribution of liquor to the Black people, especially in the metropolitan areas, conducted as normally as possible. In this connection, the hon. the Minister referred to the report which had been submitted by the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Liquor Board, assisted by Mr. Cronje of the Department of Co-operation and Development. I want to say that this is definitely a very illuminating and balanced report. If effect is given to that report, not necessarily in every respect, it may do much to convert the evil of shebeens, as we know them, into a normal method of distributing liquor in the Black areas in such a way that it can take place without irritation or illegality, without any burden, tension and criticism of the police. Indeed, I believe that this may eventually contribute to better race relations in South Africa in general. I should like to congratulate Messrs. Eric le Roux, Tommie Vorster and Cronje on that report they have published, and I want to thank them for it.

There are two ways in which Black people in South Africa obtain liquor. The one is the legal way. They obtain it in a legal way, mainly through the Administration Boards, of which there are 14 in South Africa, and then also the three Black entrepreneurs who have a special authority to sell liquor.

In Soweto alone, there are 1 million Black people, and the Administration Boards have only eight off-sales outlets for providing liquor to those 1 million people. As against this, it is estimated that there are 4 000 shebeens in Soweto alone, and there are between 100 and 200 shebeens in Mamelodi, with its 100 000 inhabitants, as well as Atteridgeville, with its 80 000 inhabitants.

I think that we as Whites probably have a completely distorted idea of what a shebeen looks like. Shebeens are actually restaurants or places for eating and drinking. They differ from one case to another, but they meet the needs of specific classes of clients. It seems that there are what I might almost call five-star shebeens, which are visited by the top class in the Black community, such as advocates, doctors, other professional people and rich businessmen. In these shebeens, the furniture is of the best quality, there are TV sets, music is provided, there is dancing and so on. It is said that the labouring classes would not dare to go near such a shebeen. They are probably frightened away by the excessively high prices. There are other shebeens as well, which I may call one-star shebeens, which do provide for the labouring classes. In these shebeens, our Black people can have their drinks and relax with their friends in a peaceful atmosphere.

The problem is that the shebeens are dependent on liquor smugglers for their liquor supplies, it is an illegal and irregular system, and if it is not effectively combated by the police, it indicates that law and order cannot be properly maintained and it breeds contempt for and defiance of law and order. Then it is the duty of the police to act.

The police themselves see this system of shebeens as a blot on the socio-economic and political system in South Africa and they will be overjoyed if something can be done to put an end to this system.

I believe the normalizing of this will also do much to improve the image of our police in the Black residential areas. Furthermore, I think it will be an additional source of income to the hon. the Minister of Finance if the liquor which will then be sold at legal outlets can be properly taxed.

I believe that an opportunity will be created through the report for solving this last problem, which will mean that liquor consumption in South Africa, as far as its regulation and control are concerned, can be normalized, and from then on the development will be concerned with where liquor is to be sold, where there are going to be outlets for liquor, how prices can be fixed and so on.

I now want to say that as a speaker in the debate on this Vote, I am able to say proudly today that together we are now handing over control of the Liquor Board to a new Department. It is a system which has been developed and tested over 50 years and which consists of a team of people who are experts at this work.

Mr. Chairman, at a later stage in this debate, I intend referring to the question of liquor and the report concerning the distribution of liquor in Black areas, and consequently I shall not reply now to the speech made by the hon. member for Waterkloof.

I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. the Minister to the officials of the department, and I should also like to convey this party’s good wishes to them.

†In the robing rooms they say ex Africa semper aliquid novi. Again we have seen something new out of Africa, viz. a bush lawyer raising issues during the debate on the Justice Vote, but perhaps he is just the right sort of lawyer to deal with some of the problems.

His fees will probably be lower …

That is what I am going to deal with. How did the hon. the Minister guess?

I want to start off by pitting myself against the serried ranks of learned gentlemen of the Bar and the Side-Bar who usually grace this debate. First I want to say that South Africa is justly proud of the reputation of our judicial system and the independence of our judiciary. I think this is one of the bright stars in the firmament when it comes to world criticism of South Africa. Our judicial system and the independence of our courts and of our judges are always excluded from the criticism against us. Before I go further I want to record this so that there can be no misunderstanding about my attitude to this question. Perhaps just in passing I may say that while no criticism is levelled at the Bench or at the system, criticism is levelled at some of the legislation in our judicial system. Therefore I hope that the Rabie Commission is giving attention to the question of detention, which is obviously part of the security legislation which is being considered by that commission. I want to say that I hope that the report which will be brought out will make provision for a form of judicial tribunal to deal with this knotty problem. I just wanted to put that also on record as being the attitude of this side of the House. We accept that in a time of crisis it is necessary to take abnormal measures at times, but we believe that there must always be a judicial balance and control to ensure that there can be no abuse.

Having said that, I think there is something else that must be said. In our criminal law system as it has developed in South Africa, the individual is fully protected. No matter how humble or how high he is, he has the opportunity, when he is charged, to defend himself, after which an independent judgment is given. In this field there can be no criticism. But I am afraid that civil litigation has become something only for the very rich or for the very poor. No ordinary person today will willingly enter the legal jungle, because the cost of litigation puts it way beyond his reach. It is almost impossible for the normal wage earner, a person of average means, to go to court and set in motion a civil action where he feels that he has a justifiable claim.

The result of this—I have come across this time and time again—is that many just and fair claims are simply dropped. Fair claims which a person could possibly have won are simply dropped because the cost of litigation is such that even if one should win one still comes out at the end worse off than when one went in. Even though one is awarded costs the total cost of litigation today is such that the spectre of becoming involved in any complicated litigation scares the average man off completely, unless it is a very large amount which is involved. In particular the cost of seeking litigation against big corporations or big companies is absolutely impossible today. Here I refer particularly to insurance. A person who tries to fight an insurance claim today comes out with the worst end of the stick in almost every case. This is what happens with almost every insurance or damage claim, because an insurance company can afford to fight its case right through. With the fees advocates charge today—I am not blaming them for that; they also have to make a living—by the time one has received one’s whittled-down claim, the whole affair is not worth one’s while. I have heard of dozens of people who have dropped legal claims for compensation to which they are entitled, just because of this reason.

On the question of claims against insurance the annual report of the Secretary for Justice refers specifically to the fact that fault has to be proved as alleged, a factor which “often results in victims of motor accidents finding themselves in the position of getting no compensation”. I welcome the announcement today of a commission of inquiry which will, inter alia, deal with this issue. I believe that in many cases today the administration of claims against insurance companies works against the small man. The risk liability issue is also one of those issues.

Even more so are claims against the State. In the annual report reference is made again—under the heading “State Attorneys’ Division”—to the work of State Attorneys who deal with claims against the State. It is claimed here with pride that the offers which have been accepted amount to approximately one-third of the amount originally claimed. They go on to point out that claims involving an amount of R122 million were pending as at the end of 1979. Here, more than anywhere else, the ordinary man has no chance whatsoever.

I accept that the State must protect its interests, but all too often that protection is performed by means of legalistics and technicalities without regard to what is fair and just. By the time a person has tried to fight the State he takes almost any offer as a compromise rather than to try to see the matter through. I have dealt with many, many cases myself in which it was as clear as daylight that pure justice should have seen the man compensated. Eventually I have had to advise the claimant that if he could not afford it, I would try for an ex gratia payment by the department. There are many of these cases in which people have just given up because they cannot fight the power of the State.

I have yet another problem. It may be a minor one, but it is nevertheless an irritating one to the public. That is the question of someone trying to defend himself on a charge in a traffic court. More often than not these cases are postponed and postponed, either because the State witnesses are not available or because of some other reason. By the time that man has been messed around by his case being perpetually adjourned, his own witnesses become fed-up and do not want to wait any longer, and in the end, in utter desperation, that accused person simply signs and pays an admission of guilt. I mention this because it ties up with the question of justice being for the rich man or for the very poor. The ordinary businessman has no time to go to court day after day, or on occasion after occasion, even though he is absolutely innocent and there has only been a mistake. He cannot, however, afford the time to fight his case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point touched upon quite a few matters and dwelt in particular on the high cost of litigation. I think he adopted a balanced attitude on this issue. I cannot disagree with him. We are all opposed to the high cost of litigation. In all fairness I should like to point out, however, that it is not only in the administration of justice that costs are so high. If one looks at the wide spectrum of our community, especially as far as the professional people are concerned, we find the same thing, whether it be doctors’ fees or funeral expenses. One can no longer afford to die these days. Architects’ and engineers’ fees are also increasing. Everything keeps on going up. However, the hon. member made a very good point, and I agree with him. If the commission could do something about this, I think it would be to the benefit of the whole country.

Before I come to international hotels, there is just one other matter which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. It concerns the decentralization of our magistrate’s offices and the functions of magistrates in the rural areas. Much has already been said about this matter, and we have recently been receiving questions from people about these matters from all quarters. They want to know whether the magistrate’s offices in their towns are going to disappear. This question is being raised in small towns in the rural areas in particular. The people hear that magistrates will be coming from other places to hear cases in those towns. Arising from this we should like to know whether these smaller towns, which perhaps just qualify for a magistrate’s office, will have to wait even longer for such an office? The reason why this is so important, is the agency work being done by the magistrate’s offices. Especially of late, with the petrol permits, we know that the magistrates and the officials of the magistrate’s offices are doing a very difficult job. This agency work for various other departments means a great deal to the public. Therefore, in view of the fact that our country is growing and that one has to keep up with this growth we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister in greater detail about the decentralization of the magistrate’s offices.

I come now to the international hotels. We constantly hear the public asking, and particularly read this question in the newspapers, why all the hotels in the country— almost 1 400 altogether—are not thrown open as international hotels.

That is a very good question.

There is another hon. member asking the same question. Alternatively it is being asked why a larger number of international hotels could not be thrown open. I should like to start off immediately with the crucial question: Why did we make provision for international hotels in the first place? Those who served on the commission will remember that the premise on which the commission decided that there had to be international hotels, was that a particular need existed among certain people under certain circumstances. The way the commission saw the matter at the time the need has more or less been met by this time, and I shall furnish the reasons for this being the case. Up to now 59 hotels have already been accorded international status. I shall come to the analysis of this figure in a moment. If one looks at where these hotels have been established, one realizes that this is specifically what the commission wanted.

Secondly hotels are constantly applying on an ad hoc basis to provide non-Whites with overnight facilities, liquor or meals. Most of those ad hoc applications are in fact granted. In this way, too, a need is being met.

Thirdly there are also many non-White hotels in the non-White areas that meet the demand for accommodation for their specific people. In the fourth place we already have three independent States where there had previously been no independent State. Those are States which have their own hotels and which make provision for their people.

Let us analyse the position with regard to the 59 hotels I have mentioned. I am speaking, by the way, of hotels only but there are also other on consumption premises which receive international status, e.g. restaurants, wine and beer gardens, theatres, clubs and sports clubs. They, too, receive international status. But let us have a look at the hotels. Of the 59 which received international status 35 are in the Cape and Natal and 25 in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and this is right because it is felt that such facilities should be available at the gateways to the Republic, especially our harbours and of course Jan Smuts as well. This also applies to Johannesburg and its environs. This need has been met. It is not only the better type of hotel that is granted international status either. Of the 59 hotels which received international status 20 were three star and 19 two star hotels. Therefore I think it was granted in a very balanced way. I should also like to point out that the application for authorization for licence holders are being facilitated. These international hotels are being accorded a certain degree of permanence. They no longer have to apply annually in March for the renewal of their international status. They now receive this with the renewal of their annual licence. It is not the policy of the Government to throw open all on consumption premises for the use of all races.

In other words, there is still discrimination.

No, it is because the need has been met. I want to tell that hon. member that it has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

Of course it has. That is what it is all about.

A moment ago the hon. member for Waterkloof spoke about the shebeens. The shebeens accommodate no Whites and no Whites want to go there because they feel that these are places which should specifically be set apart for the non-Whites. They should be set apart for them because they comply with their needs, traditions and customs. [Interjections.] That hon. member speaks of discrimination. It is precisely for the purpose of eliminating friction where liquor is consumed that a very strict eye should be kept on these international hotels. This is very important, because what happens at places where liquor is consumed? People could perhaps become intoxicated by the liquor and start looking for trouble, and where people of different races are present friction could occur, as has already been proved in America and throughout the world. This does not apply to South Africa only. Therefore I consider it a very wise step that this policy is being followed by the Government.

I should just like to refer again shortly to the question of shebeens. Shebeens are places where Black people like to go. There they dance and there they have their own bars and entertainment. I personally believe—and I agree with the hon. member for Waterkloof—that these shebeens should be licensed and that those people should be authorized to run them. When non-White diplomats visit our country we do make provision for them. There are also certain permit holders for whom provision is made at these international hotels. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the trouble with the hon. member for Potgietersrus is that he suffers from a very common disease that affects our colleagues on the other side of the House, viz. that he is addicted to permits. Everything has to be done by permit. Nothing can be left to individual choice. The Government sits there and decides everything in regard to what one may or may not do. I would say that the simplest way to solve the whole question of hotels and the like is to leave it to the owners or the managers of the hotels, restaurants, cinemas and theatres to decide for themselves whom they wish to admit and whom they do not wish to admit. If there is sign of any disorderly conduct, it is then up to them to get rid of the perpetrators of that disorderly conduct. It is as simple as that.

They may bedevil race relations.

No other country in the world except those behind the Iron Curtain go in for the same sort of permit-ridden society that we have in South Africa. We on these benches do not go for that.

Do you want to bedevil race relations?

I want to say that I wish the hon. the Minister well, and I am sure that I shall have a less stormy passage with him than I had with his predecessor. The hon. the Minister has had a very busy time this session, what with chairing the Constitutional Commission in addition to attending to his normal duties in the two very important portfolios he controls. I believe that now, alas, owing to the on-going unrest in the Coloured and Black communities, he is going to be overly busy administering those sections of the security laws which fall under his jurisdiction. I refer to the laws mentioned on page 33 of the annual report and particularly the sections in the Internal Security Act requiring ministerial jurisdiction over listed persons, banned and restricted persons, persons in preventive detention and the like. The sections involved are 10(1)(a), 10(1)(a)bis, 5, 9 and 10quat.

I must say that until very recently the hon. the Minister did not have to bother himself very much over cases in preventive detention in terms of section 10, because there were not any. I was glad to learn earlier this session that nobody was in preventive detention. Today, however, the situation has changed and I believe that it is likely to get worse.

Last year, after the hon. the Minister took over the Justice portfolio, he reviewed the cases of 28 restricted people and in four cases he decided to withdraw the restriction notices. I think he is going to be kept busy to a much greater extent in this regard too.

I do not propose to reiterate my views or those of my colleagues on these benches as regards our total opposition to laws that give unbridled powers either to Ministers or to the police to detain people without trial. I think we have made our view on that eminently clear. The only time when we would possibly permit such things would be in times of declared war or in times of declared emergencies, but not at any other time.

I want today to express my disappointment that, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister appointed a commission of inquiry into security legislation on 29 August 1979 under Judge Rabie, we have made absolutely no progress towards returning to some form of normal rule of law in South Africa. The commission’s terms of reference are to inquire into and to report and make recommendations on the necessity, adequacy, fairness and efficacy of legislation pertaining to the internal security of the Republic. Six months after the appointment of that commission, i.e. on 29 February 1980, I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had received a report from the Rabie Commission and, if so, when it would be tabled and, if not, when the report was expected. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that he had not received such a report and that (Questions, 29 February 1980, col. 246)—

Today I want to pose the same question to the hon. the Minister. It is now nine months since the commission was appointed—the normal period of gestation. Is the commission about to produce its report? If not, could the hon. the Minister perhaps induce that report, because I believe that we urgently require it at this particular time. [Interjections.] We urgently need to know what recommendations for reform and modifications of the vast battery of arbitrary powers the commission, hopefully, will make. I think we need that now as we have not needed it for a long time. We also need those reforms and modifications to be translated into amendments to the security laws. The session is nearing its end and I believe it would be most unfortunate if no amending legislation were to be introduced. It would mean that all those draconian powers would continue to be used—and in many cases, I have to say, abused—throughout the recess, without safeguards and, worst of all, without accountability. That is the worst thing about a recess. The Government goes off to Pretoria and there it sits in solitary splendour, doing what it likes, and there is no accountability to anyone. At least here in Parliament we can ask questions of Ministers and we can make speeches in the House which sometimes have an effect on hon. Ministers and, perhaps, halt them in their tracks.

We need to know what Judge Rabie’s commission is going to recommend and we also need to know if his recommendations will include some checks to the arbitrary powers presently exercised by Ministers and by the Security Police. I say again, amending legislation should be introduced before the session ends.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

The hon. member is wasting my time again.

Mr. Chairman, is the effect of the hon. member’s making a speech here in which she inquires whether the Rabie Commission is going to make recommendations for modifying the laws and curtailing the powers of the hon. the Minister not that she is anticipating the report of the Rabie Commission? To do so is in conflict with the regulations of the Commissions Act.

The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

The hon. member has worked his way back to the National Party. He can just relax. The reason why I stress this now is that we are undoubtedly, in my opinion anyway, entering a period of protracted and sustained unrest in South Africa. I see very little hope that the Government will have the imagination or the understanding to take any meaningful steps that will assuage the deep anger and resentment which is felt, particularly by young Blacks in South Africa. We hear about long-term aims, and that is exactly what they are. They are long-term, but in the meantime, in the immediate future, I see little hope of tranquillity, and knowing this Government, I have no doubt that all the powers to restrict people and to jail people without trial, and to do so to as many Coloured and Black leaders as they can lay their hands on, will be used to the full in the vain hope that such action will do the trick, that that is all one needs to do: One scoops up the leadership, one shoves them into jail, one puts them under preventive detention and then everything goes on serenely in South Africa. I do not believe that that will do the trick and I think it is absolutely necessary, in view of my fears in this regard, that we know that something is going to emerge from the Rabie Commission that is going to restrict the present powers that can be used either by Ministers or by the Security Police.

On 8 February, in reply to a question, the hon. the Minister told me that there were 152 people who were either banned or restricted in South Africa, of whom 33 had left the Republic, leaving 119 still in the Republic. I have no doubt that that figure is different today. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me what has happened since then. I think, too, that the figures are going to rise considerably as far as section 22 and section 14 of the General Laws Amendment Act is concerned.

Nobody is banned in this country.

I do not think that the person who is unable to attend gatherings, to go into factories, to attend educational institutions, and to be with more than one person at a time, cares whether he is called a restricted person or a banned person. He leads a hopeless life of deprivation and it does not matter what one calls it. It is not the sort of thing one should have in a country which considers itself to be part of the democratic Western world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that we shall never be able to convince the hon. member for Houghton of what is in the interests of State security and what is not. She said that these powers which the State was arrogating to itself ought to come into effect only in the event of a declared war or a state of emergency. Surely it has been very clearly demonstrated that when one declares a state of emergency, the economy suffers, the normal course of events is disrupted, etc. I want to refer the hon. member to judgments given in this regard, as well as to the judgment which was recently quoted again in the Samora case. It still applies. I quote—

I think that that is the reply to the hon. member. Furthermore it is very clear that she had little to say in the discussion of this important Vote, for she referred only to security legislation which is already the subject of an investigation by the Rabie Commission. I do not believe that any purpose could be served by discussing security legislation and security matters here while they are the subject of an investigation by a judicial commission. The fact that she devoted so much time to a matter which is already being investigated demonstrates that the hon. member really has nothing to say about the administration of the Department of Justice.

I should like to refer to the question of resignations and retirements from the Department of Justice. I do not think that anyone can dispute my saying that the Government department with which John Citizen comes into contact the most is the Department of Justice. Both births and deaths are dealt with by this department. The Department of Justice performs marriages through its magistrates, or alternatively, marriages are performed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The court is the principal guardian of the child and the Master of the Supreme Court protects the interests of the child when estates are administered. The court looks after the interests of the child whether he is declared to be in need of care or whether an obstinate parent refuses to pay maintenance. The individual testifies or is himself the victim of the law in courts with limited jurisdiction, as well as in superior courts. No person goes through life without some form of contact or conflict with the law. When I observe Black people in the court lobbies whenever the courts are in session, awaiting the continuation or result of a court process, I feel reassured that this institution is the guarantee of law and order in this country. Every person desires legal security. That is why those who have to administer the law in all its ramifications have to have the highest possible legal qualifications. Apart from that it must be made worthwhile for him to obtain these qualifications and for his services as incumbent of a post subsequently to be retained for the department. What is the position now? As is the case in so many Government departments, the Department of Justice has suffered visibly as a result of resignations from its service. In the department’s informative annual report to which reference was made here, we find that 83 legally qualified officers resigned in 1977; 119 in 1978 and 150 in 1979, as well as 13 State Attorneys. Whereas 38,25% of those persons in legal assistant posts, i.e. mainly State Prosecutors, in the Magisterial Division were legally qualified in 1978, only 37,9 persons were similarly qualified on 1 September 1979.

In 1978 136 officers in the Magisterial Division had LL.B, degrees, as against 122 in 1979. In the Masters Office only 34 of the 42 posts for administrative officers were filled on 1 November 1979. There was a shortage of 12 out of 60 posts for senior administrative assistants, and of the 100 posts for administrative officers, only 87 were filled. This trend continued during the first three months of 1980. The total number of resignations of legally qualified officers during the first three months of 1980 was 72, as against 30 resignations during the first three months of 1978. Quite apart from resignations, the versatility and competence of these officers entail that they can be very effectively used by commissions of inquiry, for example the Erasmus Commission, the Commission on Court Structures and the Commission on Security Legislation. The State Trust Board makes use of the services of two attorneys on a full-time basis. The Administrator-General of South West Africa has a deputy chief law advisor and a senior law advisor on his staff.

Resignations occur in the commencing grades in particular, i.e. in the ranks of legal assistant, State attorney and State advocate, and it is in these specific ranks where experience must be gained and preparation made for advanced work in future. It is alleged, and this is also apparent from the annual report, that as the experienced people resign, so the people who have to fill their places will become increasingly less experienced.

Every dispute in which the State is involved, whether in terms of civil law or criminal law, whether between the State and the subject, or whether it is an inter-State dispute, is dealt with by the officials of the Department of Justice. Every law and every regulation under a law is drafted and attended to by the officers of this department.

Imagine, for example, what would happen if the post of the Attorney-General were to become defunct.

Crime is becoming more sophisticated by the day. Commercial crimes, company crimes and national security infringements are receiving more highly specialized attention all the time. Our entire administration of justice revolves as it were around the office of the Attorney-General. The same situation applies in respect of State attorneys, and 80% of all administration of justice occurs in magistrates’ courts. The overall picture is one of a lack of experienced legally qualified officers and an increasing number of resignations, a trend which gives rise to the fear that standards may decline in future.

The Department of Justice is entitled to the entry of a very large percentage of our top young men into the legal profession and the retention of their services for the department. There are interesting careers for young lawyers in the Department of Justice. I am grateful that the Republic has the best legal experts in the Department of Justice, but as is the case with other departments, this country cannot afford the loss to the State of talented young men who are being snapped up by other organizations. Something drastic must be done in this regard. Should we not consider some kind of penalization for those who are enticing them away?

The salary issue is the most important factor which is discouraging people from entering or driving people away from the Public Service. Consequently I trust that the investigation into the structure of the Magisterial Division and other legal cadres, as well as the rationalization programme, will have a favourable effect, although I concede that salary adjustments in the Public Service cannot keep pace with the rapid and dramatic fluctuations in the economy.

Finally, I want to say that there is a movement in the direction of occupational differentiation in the Public Service structure. What this amounts to is that if a person is needed in a Public Service post for a profession which he could also practise outside, an effort must be made to close the gap between his remuneration and the remuneration which a professional man could earn in a private practice. Medical practitioners in the Department of Health receive an allowance over and above their salary. I want to ask the Department of Justice to consider a similar system. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is a matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I come from the North-west, where the weather alternates between extreme cold and extreme heat. Recently an hon. Deputy Minister spent one winter’s evening there and he almost did not survive it. Three months later, an hon. Minister visited the area, but he hardly survived the heat that night. In our region there are air-conditioning systems in the Railway offices, post offices, telephone exchanges, divisional council offices, banks, school board offices, all business concerns and the houses of many people who live there, but over the years, unfortunately, we have not succeeded in having an air-conditioning system installed in the magistrate’s office. It has always worried me when I go there and I see the circumstances under which those people have to do important work. During those visits of mine, the ladies and the officials of the magistrate’s office always crowd around me and ask me why they have not yet received an air-conditioning system.

If the ladies crowd around you, it makes you feel even hotter. [Interjections.]

In any case, it softens one up.

Sometimes one has to see some of the people working there fainting. I can give the assurance that it is not pleasant to see even ladies working in those buildings fainting from the heat. I now want to request the hon. the Minister to see whether air-conditioning systems cannot be installed in those public buildings in the near future. I should like it to be done before the beginning of the summer.

Is that at Prieska?

Yes, but I am not only talking about Prieska now. There are public buildings in other areas as well which do not have it yet. However, I do not think there are places where it gets hotter than at Prieska and at Upington.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we really need this. One does not like the officials who have to do such important work from 8 o’clock in the morning till 5 o’clock in the afternoon to have to do their work under such circumstances. No reasonable person can expect staff to do their work under such circumstances. I trust that the hon. the Minister will have this matter investigated and will see that something is done about it.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that I have the opportunity of following the hon. members for Brakpan and Prieska, because what I have to say to the hon. the Minister I think also concerns the subjects these hon. members have raised.

I should like to say that this is the first time I am taking part in a debate on the Justice Vote. I am doing so because of a particular letter I have received from a constituent which concerns the efficiency and the effectiveness of our courts in South Africa.

I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that our judicial system, like our law enforcement agencies, must first of all be above reproach and must secondly be seen to be operating efficiently and meeting the needs of the people who go to the courts for help. I can appreciate the hon. member for Prieska’s talking about the conditions under which staff have to work. It may just be that this is one of the contributory factors or reasons—among many others, of course—for the number of resignations to which the hon. member for Brakpan has referred. I have a letter here from a person I know, a very responsible man, who wrote to me in connection with a court case in which he became involved as a result of a deed of sale. He sold some property to someone who refused to pay the instalments. As a result the sale was cancelled, and the only way in which this particular man could find a way out of his problem was by taking the other man to court. I should like to quote from this letter. He states—

He goes on to relate some of his experiences, and writes—

What court was that?

It was his local magistrate’s court, I should imagine. I can give the hon. the Minister all the details, should he want them. Anyway, this man goes on to describe all the delays he had to suffer. He writes further—

Then he writes—

Then he goes on to say what the costs were he had to pay his counsel. He says the first day cost him R400 in advocate’s charges. The second day cost him R300, the third day R300 and the fourth day R400. I quote again—

Shocking, I think, plus solicitor’s fees.

Then he makes the following comments—

This man then suggested that a Select Committee should be appointed to look into this problem.

When I received this letter and thought I should like to mention it in this debate, I read through the annual report of the department. In this annual report, I believe, we find some of the reasons for these problems. The first one, I think, is shortages of staff. I was so delighted that the hon. member for Brakpan made the speech he made, because he gave us a lot of statistics which I do not have the time to give. However, they are in his Hansard for all to see. Through the annual report one finds references to staff shortages. First of all I should like to refer to chapter 4, on page 16 of the report. In paragraph 4.3, under the heading “Registrars’ Division”, one reads the following—

On the next page, in paragraph 5.3, under the heading “Magisterial Division” one reads the following—

Under the heading “Masters’ Division”, in paragraph 6.3, on page 18 of the report, one finds it again—

If one looks at chapter 7, the heading of which is “Attorneys-General Division”, one finds, in paragraph 7.4—

I believe there is something wrong, and I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Brakpan that if our courts are to retain the respect which it is essential they should have we shall have to overcome this problem. In an attempt to find the reasons for this situation, I should like to refer hon. members to page 6 of the report. In connection with the “Staff Division”, in paragraph 2.19, it states—

In this paragraph we also find all the figures which the hon. member for Brakpan referred to. In the next paragraph, paragraph 2.20, one finds exactly the same thing. I quote—

I believe the remedy can be found, if it is applied correctly, on page 10 where there is a section on the legal training branch. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress that this departmental training committee is making, especially when one sees the problems which the department is up against? There are also many other areas, for example the work study division, which is referred to on pages 8 and 32. It is said that a lot of work is being done in the deeds office to try to smooth out the work-load and to speed up the work. There have also been financial incentives given in the deeds office to try to improve the efficiency and productivity of the personnel. I do believe, on reading this report, that the lack of suitable pay for the personnel of the department is a major contributing factor.

I would also like to tell the hon. the Minister that I believe there is a second problem, viz. the type of work that has to be done. I was pleased to see on page 16, in paragraph 4.6, that as a result of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act—

The figures are also given there. It is clearly indicated, therefore, that by amending the Act and the procedure the work-load can be reduced. On page 17 one also finds that—I think the hon. member for Brakpan or somebody else referred to it earlier—the magistrates’ offices are now being burdened with a lot of additional work. Paragraph 5.4 states the problems involved in collecting GST. It reads—

Here one can see that with the introduction of GST the Department of Justice is being burdened with this additional work. Then, as someone else said, in paragraph 5.5 it says that the introduction of petrol permits has placed a further additional burden on the magistrates’ courts. Here we find an activity which should possibly not be part of the activities of magistrates’ courts. I do not really know. Anyway, they are loaded with this, and I ask whether they are being given the additional staff to cope with it. There is an encouraging sign in paragraph 5.6. It says—

Here is a case where some of the load on the courts has been handed over to another department, which I believe is a very positive factor.

In conclusion, I would just like to tell the hon. the Minister that I put these thoughts to him because I have a letter here from a man of 78 years of age who has had his first brush with the courts, and it has been an extremely unpleasant one. If one reads his letter—and I shall send the hon. the Minister a photocopy of it—one sees that he has a rather sour taste in his mouth, if I may use that term. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will report on how the inquiry into the structure of the magisterial division and other legal groups in the department is progressing. It is referred to on page 2. In my reply to this gentleman I mentioned that the hon. the Minister had instituted this inquiry—I assume it is the same one—and I said that we might be hearing from the hon. the Minister in due course regarding improvements. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti as regards the serious staff shortage in the department. We agree that everything possible should be done to alleviate the situation.

However, I should again like to cross swords a little with the hon. member for Houghton.

Surprise, surprise!

I listened to her very attentively this afternoon and I want to ask her what contribution she made to peace in our country in this House this afternoon.

We want some protection.

What contribution did she make to the promotion of peace in South Africa?

Such as it is.

The hon. member is a senior member of this House and people outside listen to her. In this country cognizance is taken of what she says. But what did we have here again this afternoon?

If you would only take note.

Order!

Again this afternoon the hon. member for Houghton referred to “Draconian powers” which the hon. the Minister ostensibly had. She said the Cabinet sat there in Pretoria and governed “without safeguards for the people”. She said they governed “without accountability to anybody”. Surely this is untrue.

Scandalous!

Surely it is scandalous to say such a thing. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes what she is really saying: Certain people outside, whom we are trying to calm down with all the means at our disposal, listen to that hon. member. They listen to what she says. And what did she say this afternoon? She said: “South Africa is entering a period of protracted unrest.” I wonder whether she knows whether this is in fact going to be the case? She said she saw “little hope of tranquillity in South Africa”. I consider it irresponsible of the hon. member, as a senior member of the official Opposition in South Africa where she could make a contribution to promote of order and peace, to say that we are being governed without there being any accountability towards the people outside. I am saying this because the hon. the Minister accounts here for everything he does, for everything he does as Minister. The hon. member knows that, after all! The hon. member for Houghton also objected to the fact that people may not attend meetings. However, what happens at such illegal meetings attended by those people? Are order and peace discussed there?

Yes.

Is peace promoted there?

Yes.

The hon. member for Bryanston is sitting there talking nonsense and cannot keep his mouth shut so that a decent debate can be conducted. He should rather keep quiet.

You are asking the questions and I am replying to them.

That hon. member specifically wants meetings of that nature to take place. That is why the hon. member for Houghton is objecting. That is why she wants those people to be able to meet freely. But we know what happens at those meetings.

That is what democracy is all about.

I shall tell the hon. member what happens there. Unrest is stirred up at those meetings. But the hon. member for Houghton goes on to say: “These people lead a hopeless life of deprivation.” Does the hon. member realize what she is saying?

Have you ever been restricted?

I do not think the hon. member thought very carefully when she said those things. Why does she say these things? Where do we hear this kind of language? Who else also uses these terms? I shall tell you. It is South Africa’s enemies who are saying that there are people in South Africa who are being deprived of all their rights. [Interjections.] This is the kind of language used by the hon. member, these are the allegations she makes, but surely they are untrue.

It is absolutely true.

Just listen to that! That is why we are concerned about the hon. member for Houghton and all the hon. members who surround her and agree with her. Surely this is the language of our enemies, the language of the UN. They refer to “deprived people in South Africa”. And who do they call as a witness? The hon. member for Houghton. And it is used against South Africa. I doubt that the hon. member for Houghton could be proud of the fact that she is being used as a witness against her fatherland, and in respect of matters which are untrue. However, I do not believe we shall make progress with the hon. member in this regard—she is incorrigible.

I am therefore convinced that it would be far more positive for me to make a few remarks about a matter which is dealt with by the Secretary in the annual report. I am referring to the so-called Risk liability, which is dealt with in chapter 11. The hon. member for Durban Point also mentioned it this afternoon. Anyone of us who comes into contact with our civil courts—and this happens to all of us from time to time—will have been impressed by the work done there. However, it is conspicuous that extensive delays are often the order of the day at our civil courts. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to that as well, and I agree with him. The statistics I have in connection with civil cases point to an interesting characteristic in this regard. During 1977, 13 067 civil cases were finalized in Pretoria, for example, of which only 219 were in respect of third party claims. First, however, let me just add that one of the major problems in this regard is that very long delays occur in the Supreme Court due to actions instituted in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Act 56 of 1972. These are the so-called third party insurance actions and can be regarded as one of the principal causes of delays. During 1978, 18 614 cases were finalized in Pretoria, of which only 204 were in respect of third party claims. During 1979 there were more than 19 000, of which only 260 were in respect of third party claims. From the foregoing it is clear that proportionately far too few of these third party claims are being finalized. In my opinion, therefore, it is time for the foundation of third party insurance per se to be re-examined, viz. the blameworthy conduct or the fault of the doer. The determining of the fault of the doer is today a prerequisite for determining liability for his conduct. However, the determining of fault is an extremely complicated process which takes up a great deal of time in practice, a process which inevitably also gives rise to higher legal costs in our courts. So it could happen that victims of motor-car collisions eventually receive little or no compensation. I think all of us agree that this is unfair.

For this reason there is a gradual worldwide movement in progress away from the requirement of fault. The idea is that it ought to be replaced by an apportionment of damage which in practice is effected by personal insurance, i.e. on the basis of risk liability. A system of this nature was recently introduced in Georgia in the USA and has already been adopted in certain other countries as well. The Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court in America, Warren Burger, made the following remark, inter alia—

The business of involving the judicial process to dispose of an automobile accident is an expensive and cumbersome method that should be abandoned, as we did with industrial injury claims long ago.

Nor is this latter solution alien to South Africa, for a worker who has sustained an injury which results in disability or even death, is entitled to benefits in terms of the Workmans Compensation Act, irrespective of any fault on anyone else’s part.

Over the years this school of thought has also enjoyed the attention of various commissions in South Africa. During 1960 the following evidence was submitted to such a commission—

This is contained in paragraph 438(a) of that commission’s report. However, that commission was not prepared to approve this as they were afraid that third party premiums would increase. In 1974 a further commission re-examined this non-liability insurance and recommended, inter alia, the following—

For the reasons as explained by me and in the interests of many thousands of people affected by this, I want to give my very strong support to the investigation of this matter by a commission, a possibility that has already been mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure to be able to listen to the positive contribution made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I believe that as time passes the very important matter of no-fault insurance will probably receive the attention it deserves and that we shall be able to achieve results with it.

On this occasion, since the Deeds Division may not fall under the department for much longer, I should like to refer to this Divisions activities. I believe that South Africa’s Deeds Division is one of the finest institutions of our country’s administration. Having said that, I think that it would be appropriate to refer to a few specific activities of the Deeds Division. Our Deeds Offices, of which there are eight in South Africa, are for the most part concerned with the execution of deeds in terms of, firstly, the well-known Registration of Deeds Act, Act 47 of 1937, in terms of which transfer deeds on land, ante-nuptial contracts and other notary contracts are executed. In the second place it also deals with legal acts which arise in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, the well-known and progressive Act—not progressive in the other sense to which we often refer, but in the praiseworthy sense—Act No. 66 of 1971. However, this fine institution also has its problems. Furthermore I think that we can rightly say today that the momentum of our economy can, to a large extent, be measured in terms the problems of our deeds offices. By this I mean that when our country’s economy is prospering, the deeds office has a titanic problem in registering in good time the deeds that are submitted. On the other hand, if our country’s economy is faring less well, we have fewer problems. To form a really complete image and picture of the extent of the tremendous task of our deeds office, it may be appropriate just to refer to a few well-known legal acts. Last year, for example, 132 000 transfer deeds alone were registered in South Africa. In the same year, 145 000 mortgage bonds, 25 000 antenuptial contracts—and this says a great deal for our young people—and 7 500 other notarial contracts were registered. And this is only half of the total picture. On the other side of Parliament Street there stands the cradle of conveyancing in South Africa, viz. our Cape deeds office. To form a complete picture of the monthly or annual activities of such a deeds office, I should just like to point out a few figures to hon. members for interest’s sake. Last year, for example, 36 684 transfer deeds, 31 936 bonds, 906 notarial contracts and 5 583 antenuptial contracts were registered in this deeds office. Furthermore there were 6 739 registrations of interdict, 1 072 registrations of expropriations, 635 registrations of general plenary powers and then a further 30 533—this is a very good sign— annulments or cancellations of bonds. And now I turn to an important point, viz. no fewer than 32 755 deeds were rejected. This emphasizes the thoroughness of our deeds system in South Africa.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation of the fact that our deeds office, under the guidance of the department, was able to change over to mechanization by way of computer as well as microfilm. These micrographic activities are working beautifully, and if it were not for the mechanization of our deeds office we would never have been able to handle the real emergency which arose at the deeds office when the economic revival started. Owing to mechanization, however, the deeds office was able to proceed with the fine work it had been doing in the past without building up a very large backlog.

On this occasion this department must actually take leave of our Deeds Division, for they are going to leave us presently and are going to be transferred to another Government department in terms of our rationalization policy. Accordingly, on this occasion one feels a need to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his predecessors and, of course, all our department heads as well, for their contributions over a long period to the development of this fine system of ours. However, our Deeds Act is not being left destitute, and one can say with sincere gratitude here today—I think this is generally known—that our deeds division is being transferred to one of the gems in our Public Service, viz. the Department of Community Development. I really have no doubt that the Department of Community Development, with the fine tools it has devised and created in its own right over the years, will also manage the deeds section to the benefit of our country and all its people.

Finally, I just want to refer briefly to a very important event for the Eastern Cape. Due to the encouragement and farsightedness of this department, the fine Justice building that is envisaged has been planned for Port Elizabeth by the Department of Public Works in order to serve as headquarters for the Justice Branch in the Eastern Cape. It is estimated that the cost of this proposed Justice Building will amount to between R10 million and R11 million and that the new magistrate’s courts are to be established there. Subsequently the old magistrate’s court, which was a fine building for its time, is to be modernized to accommodate the Supreme Court. One may now ask what is the importance of the construction of this fine Justice Building. I just want to point out to hon. members the tremendous development in this department’s activities in our region. During the past year no fewer than 37 000 criminal cases and no fewer than 25 000 civil cases have been finalized in that region. 47 criminal cases and 90 civil cases were registered and dealt with in the Supreme Court itself. On behalf of our community, everyone in that region who is interested in the administration of justice, I just wish to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for this fine new Justice building that is being envisaged.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Newton Park concerning deeds registries. I have much practical experience of them and I think the examiners and the deeds registries really do a very great job. I do think, however, that these registries are understaffed and overworked. I think that in most main deeds registries one would find that there very often is a delay of 14 days to 21 days with regard to the registration of deeds. I think one will appreciate that these deeds involve large sums of money and that those large sums carry interest. That interest accumulates daily to the detriment of the people involved in the transactions. I think that if we considered a revision of the necessity of having a clearance certificate for assessment rates, something which I think causes a bottle-neck in the deeds registries, we ought to be able to speed up the registries, work a little more. The question of the take-over, by deeds registries, of the 99-year leaseholds as a form of registration, should also be considered, because I believe that the complicated procedures concerning hypothecations in respect of deceased estates could be better handled by something as well planned as a deeds registry.

I should like to make use of this opportunity today to discuss the judicial system. The problem with our courts is by no means the quality of justice, since that is of the highest order in the world, nor the people who administer it, nor their integrity or their independence. The judges and magistrates, and those who prosecute in the courts, have earned the respect and admiration of us all. However, there are administrative problems. There are delays and the high costs of litigation which must be faced. The annual report for 1979 highlights just those problems. In the TPD alone there were 10 314 summonses, and 15 481 in the WLD. There were 5 726 reviews of judgment in the TPD and 1 800 in the WLD. There were 17 000 court application motions in the TPD and 21 000 in the WLD. In the magistrates’ courts alone there were 1 493 000 criminal cases, 762 000 civil cases and 537 000 civil applications. This gives one some idea of the enormous amount of work. Is it any wonder, therefore, that we have these long delays in getting civil cases on the rolls for hearing. Long rolls mean long delays and delays mean a lot of money to some people.

As far as the high cost of litigation is concerned, it was a judge who once remarked: “A litigant needs a Rolls Royce to be able to afford to come to court.” I think that is very true today. We have to lower the costs. In order to do so, we should consider several aspects. We need a more effective and a speedier administration of justice. The increased use of attorneys, whose scale of fees is generally lower than that of advocates, for those who do not require counsel, deserves consideration. There should not always be the rule that a senior counsel should require a junior counsel, as this adds a heavy burden to the costs. One of the most trying and disappointing aspects of the present system is the fact that a counsel is appointed to a case, but when the trial starts one finds that the counsel is engaged on another trial and that he cannot handle both case loads. So at the last moment one has to switch, and a new counsel has to be appointed. This causes a lack of confidence as far as the public is concerned. Although there are continuous rolls, which has its advantages, this is nevertheless one of the reasons for the difficulty which I have described.

Coming back to the main problem of crowded rolls and the high cost of litigation, firstly, we must ask ourselves whether the present system has defects and inadequacies. I quite frankly think it has. Secondly, we must ask whether we can improve the existing structure or whether we need a new structure in order to solve these problems. It is clear from the figures that I have quoted that the courts are overworked. The judges are clearly overworked, and I would say, underpaid, if one considers the tremendous responsibility they have to exercise and also takes into account that they have to return a verdict in cases involving millions of rands and very often have to pronounce judgment in cases where capital punishment is involved. One should also consider that many of these judges have given up the large incomes they would have earned if they had remained at the Bar for the meagre allowance that we voted for them in Parliament only recently. I would suggest that their responsibility is as great as, if not greater than, that of a Cabinet Minister.

To illustrate their workload I only have to refer to the report, which mentions that a terrorist trial in Bethal lasted 17½ months, which meant that the judge was bound for that whole period. The judges need time to think and to reason, and should not be put under constant pressure. The answer could be to appoint many more judges and the establishment could look at this. Judges are often called to commissions of inquiry and some of these commissions take years to bring out a report. Although appointments could be done on this basis, which would solve certain problems, I do not think it would solve the problem of the high cost of litigation.

Let us look at the possibility of a new structure for our courts. We could consider establishing specialized courts in respect of building disputes and problems relating to engineers, quantity surveyors and architects. These courts could resolve civil litigation under a judge assisted by assessors who are qualified in those particular fields. A judge would be required to decide on points of law and his assessors could provide assistance on the technical aspects. Family courts could be established, also under a judge, to deal with divorce, maintenance, matters pending in divorce cases, the custody of children, etc. In respect of civil matters in a magistrates court under a regional civil magistrate we could increase the court’s jurisdiction. In all these cases both advocates and attorneys should have the right to appear in them. This would help to keep costs down. Specialists could also be employed where a case requires it. There should be nothing to prevent counsel from being briefed by specialists in such cases. Only practising advocates should be appointed as judges. Only qualified advocates should be appointed to the regional courts of civil jurisdiction with the increased powers which I have suggested we consider. They could be appointed either permanently or part-time, and in this regard they can be placed on a roll or a panel. Increased jurisdiction in criminal matters could also be given to the regional courts, provided however that capital offences should be tried by judges of the Supreme Court. Proper mechanisms for appeal must however always exist. We should also consider relieving magistrates’ courts of things like marriage ceremonies, Land Bank applications, fishing licences, revenue transactions involving GST and petrol permits. It would relieve the burden on the Department of Justice if these duties could be taken over by other departments.

There has been talk about intermediary courts. There are advantages and disadvantages attached to this. If we should implement the suggestions I have made, we may not need intermediary courts as the structure would still be there. The advantages of a court between the lower court and the Supreme Court are, firstly, easy access by attorneys, which means cheaper costs and advantages in that divorce cases could be easily handled and speedily disposed of. Already there is an increase of 20% to 50% in the divorce rate but I think the reason may well be that a backlog has accumulated because people are waiting for the new law to come into effect which provides for a simplification of the divorce laws, with which I have no quarrel. If my suggestions are implemented, there will be fewer delays. We could provide for civil jurisdiction and thus relieve the Supreme Court and the magistrates’ courts of their burden. There would be an advantage to country towns as well. Some of these advantages have been pointed out by the Secretary for Justice in the 1978 report. The question is, however: Do these courts replace the regional courts? I would say that in certain respects it may not be necessary.

There are disadvantages of intermediary courts. We must be careful of a lowering of the standard and/or the quality of litigation and the judgments. This could lead to more appeals being made, something which would be counter-productive as the appeals would then be more expensive and the litigation would go on even longer. We must therefore consider that very carefully. One cannot lower the status of judges by appointing them to a lower court. There would be strong resistance to this. We shall have to decide who will be appointed to these regional courts. We must decide whether they should be advocates who have practised and have the necessary experience or whether they should be attorneys. Quite frankly I would not favour the appointment of attorneys unless they have B.A., LL.B, degrees, have practised for at least 15 years and have specialized in this particular field. An interdepartmental committee has considered the matter. A commission of inquiry has also been appointed. I think it is right that Parliament should voice some motivating opinion in order that these matters may be considered by this commission.

There is one other aspect I should like to turn to, and that is the question of the culling of statutes on the Statute Book. I am very happy about the rationalization scheme in terms of which a project team and the secretariat of the Law Commission will next year start with the process of the revision of the legislation on the Statute Book. Much of this legislation on the Statute Book is old and requires simplification. It is very difficult to go through it all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members have dealt with the question of the costs of litigation. The hon. member for Hillbrow seems to find the answer in the structure of the courts. I believe, with great respect, that to some extent he is jumping the gun. I believe the whole question of judicial reform is something which must be handled with the greatest of circumspection. I believe, with Edmund Burke, that there is a difference between reform and change. In reform one deals with and applies one’s remedies to specific grievances. I believe this is nowhere so true as it is in the judicial structure. We have a well-tried judicial system and structure. There are indeed certain problems, but the fact is that in the handling of those problems we have to tread very carefully indeed. I trust that in regard to this matter the hon. the Minister will inform us of the recommendations of the commissions which have been appointed in this respect, and which are to report, and that we will have ample opportunity of discussing proposed changes.

However, I want to deal with another aspect of legal costs. I am not deploring the fact of the costs in this respect. I am asking for an increase in the fees for pro Deo counsel. We have a system, as members of the legal profession present will know, in which advocates—and these are generally junior advocates—are appointed to handle the defence in cases concerning capital offences for which the death sentence might be imposed. While people are critical of the idea of young advocates, people who are generally cutting their teeth in the law, being appointed to handle the defence of persons who could possibly be sentenced to death, the fact is, as Eric Morris says about this system in his book Techniques in Litigation—

There has been some criticism of the fact that the defence of persons charged with one of the most serious of crimes, murder, should so often be entrusted to the most inexperienced of counsel …

And then he goes on to say—

I believe that every practising attorney and advocate can testify to the thoroughness which goes into the preparation of pro Deo cases. The extent of the involvement of the Bar in pro Deo cases is evident from the situation in the Cape Bar. I have statistics for the period from 1978 to 1979: 111 pro Deo cases were handled, there were 266 accused and 1 971 court days were involved. Pro Deo work involves a great deal of spade work because there is not an attorney. It involves consultations, often in difficult places. Very frequently the people who require pro Deo defence are in prison. It involves, for instance, a Cape Town advocate going to Pollsmoor Prison for several consultations, often lasting as long as five hours. The counsel is paid R35 per day in Cape Town and R10 as a consultation fee, both of which are apparently specific to Cape Town. I understand that at other Bars in the country the fee is R30 per day, the reason being that as far as the Cape practice is concerned, there are so many gaol murders and multiple accused trials that pro Deo counsel gets R35 per day plus the R10 consultation fee. As the hon. the Minister is perhaps aware, the last increase in pro Deo counsels” fees was in 1975-’76, the increase being from R30 per day to R35 per day. It is my recommendation, if I may put it that way, to the hon. the Minister and the department that they have a look at what is paid to pro Deo counsel and that they consider increasing this to R50 per day with a R15 consultation fee, an increase of R5 in other words.

This is a major service which the legal profession provides. It is not only important to the accused but also to the judges because, without those pro Deo advocates who are able to do the spade work of, for example, preparing the defence, handling the examinations and cross-examinations and arguing the case with the submissions, the whole process of justice would be slowed down very considerably and of course the possibility of injustices occurring would increase greatly. From general experience one knows that pro Deo defences are, as Morris puts it, very thoroughly prepared because the people who are doing this are young advocates, junior counsel, at the start of their legal careers who take this work very seriously. I therefore make the plea to the hon. the Minister and his department that the fee for pro Deo defences be increased from R35 per day to R50 per day and that the consultation fee be increased from R10 to R15.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has just said in connection with the remuneration of pro Deo advocates. It is very true that it is a service provided by the legal profession. I really cannot emphasize the quantity of work involved enough. At most Bars these pro Deo assignments are arranged on a roster basis. It is not always the most junior advocates who receive those assignments. It also depends on how complicated the case is, etc. I want to associate myself completely with what he suggests, viz. that there should be an increase. Even on that basis, I do not think there can be any real question of remuneration in the true sense of the word in terms of the tariffs according to which advocates are generally paid. However, I feel that the legal profession has an obligation and a duty to society in this regard and that they should also do their share in this respect.

It is a privilege for me to participate in this justice debate. If we look at the fine annual report that has been submitted, it may be noticed that the Department offers services covering a very wide spectrum. I made an analysis of this and if one takes the Deeds Division, the Registrar’s Division, the Magistrates Division, etc. each as a separate entity, one can say that the department comprises at least 13 large, important divisions.

The emblem of the department which appears on the cover of the annual report is a shield with two scales balanced on the point of a sword. This symbolizes justice, reasonableness and honesty, and the scales weigh up the various interests against one another and the sword—by punishment and reward amongst other things—ensures that the balance is maintained. Lesley Snyder recently said the following about justice in an article called “Justice and Freedom”—

Another writer, like Lysander Spooner, in his article “Natural Law or the Science of Justice” says the following about justice—

I should like to pay tribute to the Secretary and to the department for the noble work done by this department.

Then I should briefly like to give attention to one office, viz. that of the magistrate. It is very interesting, if one looks at the sophisticated system of magistrates Courts that we have today, to note that in the year 1683 there were only 618 Whites amongst the rural population in the Cape. There was only one court in the Cape at that time and it was the Court of Justice. On 31 August 1682 four heemrade were appointed and they had to solve frontier problems and settle disputes in connection with stray cattle. It is interesting to note that the first magistrate who was appointed in 1685, was a certain Johannes Mulder. He was appointed by a certain Commander H. van Rheede. In 1979 there were already three magisterial districts.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.