Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourned last night I had been explaining to hon. members that the governing party did not want to repeal or abolish the Group Areas Act, because it did not have the courage to do so, but that it preferred to add provisions to the Act to make the Act ineffective. We have already heard that large parts of the White areas in Johannesburg are unsafe. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is not in this House at the moment. A person’s credibility is attacked all too easily these days. When I put it to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order yesterday that people in Hillbrow and in Yeoville are no longer safe …

You leave Hillbrow out of this. [Interjections.]

… the hon. the Minister told me I was shooting a line. [Interjections.] He said I was shooting a line.

A miss is as good as a mile. [Interjections.]

I want to quote a passage from a newspaper report on this matter to the hon. members—

And that situation will become far worse when this legislation comes into operation—

Are you listening, Harry?

Order! What does that newspaper report have to do with the Bill under discussion?

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the Bill under consideration will cause greater problems in places where problems already exist. Hillbrow is one of our most densely populated areas. Mayfair, in my constituency, has a similar problem. If people are now able to establish sports clubs there, and if non-Whites may remain in those areas 24 hours a day as long as they are participating in sport, the task of the police is going to be made all the more difficult.

Is there room there for more sports clubs?

That is the position. That is the matter I am discussing so earnestly today.

I just wonder what you know about Yeoville.

Someone has just asked if there is any room left for more sports clubs. That is a very good question. There are already so many clubs there, clubs that may now be opened to all races, that I do not know if there is room for more clubs either. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon if people of colour are going to be discriminated against in those clubs.

The clubs must decide that for themselves.

Good, that is all I wanted to know. Suppose for argument’s sake that a rather wilful man, someone like the hon. member for Pinelands—I am not suggesting that he is wilful—were to form a darts club at Fernwood, and obtains a liquor licence …

Where did you hear that?

Did you not know that the Progs are boycotting Fernwood?

It would be better if the hon. member for Roodeplaat kept quiet for a while. He can have an opportunity to say what he wants to say later. Suppose the hon. member for Pinelands were to arrive at Fernwood with 100 people of colour … [Interjections.]

He cannot do that at Fernwood.

Wait a moment. If he cannot do so at Fernwood, it means that the hon. the Minister is going to discriminate against people of colour. [Interjections.]

You have not spoken a single meaningful word yet today.

You are talking nonsense.

Oh no, the hon. the Minister is going to discriminate against those people of colour. He will then be saying that they are lepers. He will then be alleging that those people are lepers. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that if we were to allow discrimination at this level, the legislation under consideration would constitute no improvement as far as the Coloureds and the Indians were concerned. It would also mean that all the present problems being experienced by the Whites would continue to exist. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister of Finance is waving his hand around. I hope he is going to rid us of our problems with a wave of his hand tomorrow. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the next aspect of this legislation that I want to refer to. The words of the hon. the Minister of Community Development were quoted by Councillor Oberholzer just prior to the election. He said that the hon. the Minister had approached the Johannesburg City Council and had asked them to establish grey areas …

That is absolute rubbish. He never said that. He never said it was me.

Just listen to that. He said the Government had approached the Johannesburg city council.

Am I the Government?

He said it was the Government. I am very glad that it was not the hon. the Minister. However, if there are other people who speak on behalf of the Department of Community Development, it is not wrong for me to refer to certain hon. Ministers …

Such as whom?

… and allege that they are taking the lead in introducing integration. [Interjections.] Let us accept that the Government did in fact approach the Johannesburg City Council on this matter, on which occasion the Government asked the Johannesburg City Council to divide Johannesburg in two and to make one half a grey section.

Was that the case?

That was not the case at all.

Was the hon. the Minister present when that discussion took place?

No, I was not. In any case, there were never any discussions of that nature.

The hon. Councillor Oberholzer is, after all, a respected man in our community. We even participated in an election with him. Councillor Oberholzer says that there were in fact negotiations on the partitioning of Johannesburg. According to him there were requests that certain areas, for example Jeppe and Yeoville, should become grey areas.

When?

Challenge Councillor Oberholzer to tell you who spoke to him about it.

Councillor Oberholzer said that he would make his announcement at an appropriate time. [Interjections.] Perhaps the appropriate time has now arrived. We can therefore ask Councillor Oberholzer …

Ask him, but stop nagging me about it now. [Interjections.]

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he took no part in that discussion at all.

But I have already said that I did not take part in it. Open your ears.

Very well, I shall take the hon. the Minister’s word for it. I shall also take his word for it that he was not present when this matter was being discussed.

[Inaudible.]

Was the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development perhaps present on that occasion? I should just like to know. Perhaps it was the hon. the Deputy Minister.

No such discussion ever took place.

What I should like to know, is whether the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps held such discussions with the Johannesburg city council. [Interjections.]

I have never heard anyone talk so much rubbish in my whole life. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that one of the leading figures in the field of local government in South Africa, such a person as Councillor Oberholzer, is alleging that the Government wants to convert half of Johannesburg into a grey area because they cannot succeed in removing people of colour from those areas. Yet now, suddenly, we cannot get a word out of hon. members on the Government side about who it was that spoke to the Johannesburg city council. I cannot simply accept, without further ado, that Councillor Oberholzer is a blatant liar.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Must the hon. member for Langlaagte not accept the word of the hon. the Minister?

But surely he said he did.

I stated quite clearly, and I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will understand, that when I referred to the Government, I was not referring to only one Minister. I said “someone in the Government”. The principle is now being laid down for good in this legislation that all White areas are open to any person participating in sport.

You are talking rubbish, and you know it.

The interpretations we get from the hon. the Minister, differ so widely that we cannot give attention to all of them. The fact of the matter is that no law exists in terms of which any person, no matter what colour he is, may be removed from a White area while he is participating in sport. He may consume liquor there and he may be a guest there. The hon. member for Bellville said I was reprehensible. Why am I reprehensible? I said that separate development was dead. Then the hon. member for Bellville said that I was reprehensible. He said it was a reprehensible statement. Is that the truth or not?

It is not the truth.

Is the Government continuing with separate development?

Of course!

Good. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether the Government intends to continue with separate development in clubs?

I shall reply to you.

Silence is a virtue. We must now put this matter very clearly to the public of South Africa. We must state matters clearly so that people can choose. Are we pursuing a policy of separate development or are we, in the words of the hon. the Minister, fraternizing? That is what he said in September.

Where?

Where did I say that?

If the hon. the Minister wishes, I shall quote it to him again.

Quote it. What are you quoting from?

It will take a little time, but I shall find it. Are fraternization and integration (saamboerdery) the same thing? [Interjections.] The report I have here reads—

Read it from the beginning.

Very well, the report goes on to state—

Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that those people who could buy their apartheid, could not discuss this matter with us on equal terms.

Was the issue sport?

Order!

The issue was fraternization.

I have never heard such rubbish in my whole life.

Order! The hon. the Minister will be given an opportunity to reply to the hon. member’s argument.

The hon. the Minister’s words were very, very clear. He referred to integration (saamboerdery) If 20 Indians, 30 Whites, 40 Coloureds and 60 Bantu are put together, is that integration? Is that what the hon. the Minister meant? In politics only one thing serves as a real test and that is whether you stick to your truth. The day a party changes its policy, it will not work. As long as the weather is misty, it is fraternization, but when the sun shines, it is separate development. It will not work. I am asking the governing party to adopt a standpoint and, as the hon. member for Sea Point said, to admit that the Group Areas Act is dead.

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

Yes, certainly.

I want to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte if he is now prepared to reply to the question the hon. member for Vasco put to him yesterday which the hon. member for Langlaagte said he would reply to. I am referring to the statement the hon. member repeatedly made that Coloureds should have representation in this Parliament.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the hon. member for Vasco, who is not present in this House at the moment, made a certain statement. I said that I was in favour of the NP adopting a standpoint and saying that Coloureds should have representation in this Parliament … [Interjections.] … and that they should add all kinds of codicils. They must do this so that I can stand up on a platform and tell the people whether or not they support a mixed voters’ roll. Those are the facts of the matter. As I have said, the time has come for the governing party to tell us one thing, and one thing only. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order said he never made those statements in connection with Hillbrow.

Are you still shooting a line? Yesterday afternoon you were also shooting a line.

I should just like to quote it again. It will not be a repetition. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not quote that report.

The hon. member is trying to shoot a line again.

I told the hon. the Minister that in reply to a question in this House he had said that they were no longer able to maintain law and order in Hillbrow and Yeoville.

You know I never said that. Why are you lying?

But that is what it says here in the newspaper. [Interjections.] That is what appeared in Die Vaderland.

But the hon. member knows I never said that.

Mr. Speaker … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte has again tried to create the impression at the Third Reading of this Bill which he tried to create at the Second Reading, and that is that the Group Areas Act in South Africa is being abolished completely. I want to say that the hon. member finds himself in the wrong debate altogether. If the principle of the Group Areas Act, which was amended as far back as 1950 and on many subsequent occasions, has been discussed in this House and has been approved and appears in the Statute Book, how can the hon. member try to create the impression that all White areas in South Africa will be thrown open as a result of these two small amendments to the Act? I do not wish to discuss the first part regarding the Small Business Development Corporation and the changes which are being made in that regard, as I do not think there is much difference of opinion about that. The hon. member for Langlaagte mainly confined himself to the provision in terms of which people of colour will be allowed to attend sports meetings. One would say that this is the first time that this has happened in South Africa. Surely the hon. member is aware of the changes which have been made in the sport policy. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister admitted that the NP was not ashamed to say that there had been changes in the approach to participation in and attendance of sports meetings by people of colour. The hon. member also participated in this. He agreed to it. The hon. member for Kuruman tried to create the impression that at one stage I did not approve of this policy of the NP. I did approve of it, and the hon. member knows this. All of us who sit on this side of the House know that the change which has taken place in the approach to sport and South Africa’s participation in international sport has met with the approval of all hon. members, including those hon. members who did not belong to the NP before. When I say this, I am including those hon. members over there. They all agreed to it.

The hon. member is now objecting to the fact that a sports administrator or the controlling body of a club no longer needs to request the necessary permission from the hon. the Minister.

What I object to is the fact that these facilities are being thrown open.

No, the hon. member may object to the throwing open of areas should such a change be made to the legislation. However, he is conjuring up one spectre after another. Like the hon. members of the official Opposition, the hon. member is using exaggerated language in this House. For what purpose? Those hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Sandton, who said last year that the Springboks should not go to New Zealand, are sabotaging South Africa’s participation in international sport, and the hon. member for Langlaagte and his associates are doing exactly the same. The hon. member is trying to sabotage the efforts of this side of the House in the very area in which South Africa is achieving success with its multi-national sport. Therefore the hon. members for Langlaagte and Kuruman are not on the side of the sportsmen of South Africa, as is evident from their arguments in this House. They nevertheless profess to be sport enthusiasts. Even if they are sport enthusiasts, if they have the courage of their convictions, they should not attend meetings where multi-national sport is played; they should stay away. In comparison with what has taken place over the past 10 or 12 years in South Africa, no change is being made in this legislation.

Do you not want any change?

Since the legislation is in line with the change which has taken place, I want to know how the hon. member can say that I do not want any change.

I am merely asking.

Of course we want it, but the hon. members of the CP are apparently opposed to it. Therefore, over the years, they have not been sincere in their support of the changes which have come about in our sports policy. This is what they have done.

I immediately wish to say that I am surprised at the hon. member for Kuruman. He is a trained physical educationist, one of the few hon. members who has done a course in sports administration. He therefore knows what this means. He knows precisely what this means, and therefore it surprises me that he has adopted this means, and therefore it surprises me that he has adopted this attitude. The simple truth is that sport knows no politics, and it should know no politics. We on this side of the House and the hon. the Minister are not throwing open any doors, but are simply clarifying South Africa’s position in international sport. No tradition is being endangered. Neither White man nor his identity, neither his community nor his place of abode is being endangered. All that is happening is that the management of a sports club—it does not matter whether it is a rugby club or a golf club—will in future have the right to say that a meeting will be a multi-national one, and that it will be permitted as such, without asking the permission of the Minister or anyone else. The participants, the guests of the club, as well as the spectators, will be multinational.

The members of the club as well.

Yes, of course, the members as well. The hon. member for Kuruman is aware that non-Whites are members of open clubs today.

Are you opposed to that?

No, if a club should decide to admit other groups as members, there is no change in the situation which has applied thus far. The hon. member mentioned the example of Villagers. This has in fact happened, it is true.

We are opposed to it, while you are in favour of it.

I will tell the hon. members what that hon. member is opposed to. The hon. member does not have the courage of his convictions to say it himself. He is against the whole idea of multinational sport in South Africa.

That is not true. I am opposed to mixed sport, not to multinational sport.

If, for argument’s sake I were a member of a golf club and my management decided to admit non-Whites as members, would the hon. member have any objections?

Then it would be a mixed club.

If the hon. member objects to this, he should also object to mixed participation. [Interjections.] Let us take the argument of the hon. member a little further. A non-White from Athlone, for instance, could be allowed to play a friendly golf match at the Parow club or the Durbanville club, although he is not a member of the club. After the match, a social function takes place where people mix at a social level. The hon. member says he is opposed to mixed sport, but he is not opposed to multi-national sport.

What is the hon. member’s standpoint on the following: An athletics meeting takes place at Green Point, where athletes of all race groups, who belong to different clubs, compete against one another and who mix socially afterwards. Is the hon. member opposed to that? Is he opposed to sportsmen of all races mixing socially after sports meetings? Would the hon. member like South Africa to be readmitted to the Olympic Games?

Yes, of course.

If South Africa is to be re-admitted to the Olympic Games, how will this be possible if sportsmen of all races cannot compete against one another? If the hon. member is truly in favour of multi-national sport in South Africa, the change which the Bill envisages will contribute to normalizing the position in South Africa. I must say, in all honesty, that the sportsmen, sportswomen and sports administrators of South Africa will not forgive the hon. members of the CP for the attitude which they have taken today. The CP is trying to create racial prejudice in South Africa for its own gain, and this will not be to South Africa’s advantage in the long term. This is the attitude of that side of the House. I believe that this amendment is being made in the interests of the sportsmen of South Africa. No one’s identity is being affected by it. There will be no overcrowding of areas, as the basic principles of the Group Areas Act are being retained. I therefore think that this change is necessary in the circumstances, not only to ensure that sport is practised on a healthy basis in South Africa, but also to enable us to get back into international sport. I therefore support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but since the hon. member for Langlaagte quite specifically and directly mentioned my name in connection with what could flow from this legislation, I thought that I should at least participate in this debate and remind the House once again about what our own position is. The hon. member for Sandton, as the first speaker in this debate, made our position very clear. I am therefore a little sorry that the hon. member for Maitland described our support of the Government as having been given rather grudgingly. The hon. member for Sandton, however, did no such thing. He actually stated—and if necessary I could quote his words—that as far as this change is concerned we stand, as allies, with the Government. That may not come as good news to hon. members on that side of the House, but the fact of the matter is that we have consistently stated, in this House and outside, that whenever the Government moves in a direction that is to the benefit of South Africa, we would be supporting the Government wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] We are therefore not about to give “grudging” support. Not at all. We support the Third Reading, as we did the Committee Stage and the Second Reading, without any reservations whatsoever, because we believe this to be a step in the right direction.

I must say, however, that I find the debate on this piece of legislation somewhat unreal. We haves spent so many hours on something that is really fairly minor. I find it unreal, because never did I imagine that I would hear two groups fighting with each other, questioning each other and abusing each other as I did today, yesterday and last week. It is quite remarkable. Nor did I ever imagine that the hon. members on that side of the House would find the attitude of the CP laughable. I say that because we have sat here for years being accused of very much the same sort of thing that the hon. members of the CP are now being accused of by hon. members of the NP. It is really quite interesting, but we are not going to be spectators, we are not going to sit by and watch this show much longer. We believe that the position that we have held over many years is the position that is now being adopted by the NP, and we applaud the hon. members of that party for having the courage of their convictions to have moved in this direction.

It is secondly unreal that we should spend so much time in debating the question of who should attend sports clubs, especially darts matches. I do not know why darts matches have figured so prominently in this debate …

“Boeresport!”

… but it seems to me quite absurd that we should waste the time of this House discussing such a minor development, especially against the background of the very large issues that wait to be resolved in South Africa. It is almost as absurd as fighting a municipal election on the basis of who should swim in swimming-pools. I wonder, quite seriously, what will happen when we start talking about the swimming-team that is going to go to the Olympic Games? Are they going to swim in separate pools here, and then go across there and swim in the same pool? Or is the NP going to have the courage of its convictions and also admit that this is a trifling matter while South Africa burns? [Interjections.] I hope we are going to learn from this.

The hon. member for Langlaagte raised the question of Femwood. This question is not really before us, and I am therefore not going to spend a lot of time on it, except to say that I have no intention whatsoever—I just want to assure hon. members on that side—of having enormous darts matches at Femwood. I have never thought of doing so, I have never planned to do so and I have no intention of doing so. What I have every intention of doing, however, is taking whosoever I like to Fernwood Club at anytime, no matter what.

That is what you think.

Oh yes, I have no problem about that at all. Then we shall test whether hon. members on that side of the House are quite prepared for clubs outside, over there, to make the decision and to regard sportsmen as people, and not necessarily as Black and White, or whether they are going to be inconsistent and are going to say: “Thus far and no further; we can buy our apartheid at Femwood, but not elsewhere”. That will be very interesting to see.

Clubs will decide on that issue; not you.

That is right. The club will decide. Constitutionally, as regards clubs, the position is very clear. There is no reference at all to race in connection with membership.

So I think we have quite a long way to go before we reach the perfection which the hon. members of the Conservative Party seem to imagine has come about already. I want to say to the hon. members of the CP that I deplore very strongly the naked racism which has formed the very heart of their arguments here today. I think we simply cannot afford in South Africa to play on this any longer. We dare not. Therefore we ask them to think again. I hope that nothing they will say will encourage anyone in the NP to hold back with regard to the changes that are still necessary in South Africa, that nothing that they will say prevent the movement which has begun in the NP from continuing in the same direction we are discussing today.

I hope that what we have heard from the hon. members of the CP is just a throwback, that this is something that belongs to the past, that this is a voice that is not going to be heard by the people of South Africa. I hope, rather, that they too will look at the sanity and humanity contained in the amending bill we have before us. I believe that we cannot afford to allow that kind of attitude to prevail in South Africa. It is dangerous and it is something that is totally unnecessary.

We support the Third Reading without any qualification. We hope that this is only the first step along a long road that still has to be taken.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell for too long on the remarks made by the hon. member for Pine-lands. Let me just say that we disagree totally with him where he accuses this party of being racist. This party is merely objecting to the dismantling of separate development step by step. On that point the PFP is with the Government and we are not with the Government. We are with the Government as far as Fernwood is concerned, and the hon. member knows it. So we are consistent as far as that is concerned. It is therefore not a question of being racist. Forget that. We are not racist. We want to adhere to the situation as it was.

But that was racist.

On the contrary, we should like to see the situation develop on the basis of amenities being created in the different spheres, the different areas, for the fulfilment of the aspirations of all our peoples. That is our standpoint.

*The hon. member for De Kuilen has put the old United Party policy so well and so concisely that Mr. Lionel Murray could not have done better himself while he was still sitting in the Opposition benches in the House. Surely we are opposed to mixed clubs, are we not? Is the NP not opposed to mixed clubs? I ask the hon. member for Vasco, my good friend: Surely he is opposed to mixed clubs, is he not? The hon. members of the NP are all opposed to mixed clubs. Let us not argue about it.

The clubs may decide.

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs told us: “We are opposed to mixed clubs. We are going to fight them and we are going to try to ensure that they do not come into being”. Then it was also said that if a pattern should develop that would cause friction, the Government would step in with legislation. Is that not the policy of the NP?

It was.

You see, Sir, I am concerned about the credibility of the NP.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

I must say so to my sorrow. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is sitting over there. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is sitting there, too. If I were to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs what the sports policy of the NP is, he would say: “I do not know. I have not yet spoken to Dr. Koornhof this morning.” [Interjections.] This is the credibility of the NP.

The CP is being charged with having agreed with the Government on the amendments to the Liquor Act, including the fact that clubs were excluded from the prohibition contained in section 72 of the Liquor Act. In October 1981 this House was also informed that amendments were going to be made to the Group Areas Act. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Vasco whether he agrees with me that the original Liquor Amendment Bill at the beginning of the 1981 session contained different provisions, and I should like to quote from Hansard in that regard (Hansard, Vol. 95, col. 5511)—

Then the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism goes on to say—

To other licence-holders.

That is correct, but why was that amendment made? Because we asked for it. That is the point. [Interjections.]

Who are “we”?

We who were members of the group, and the hon. member for Vasco knows that we were opposed to it. Other members of the management also know that we objected to it. [Interjections.]

Clubs were removed, however.

That is correct. In 1974 we appointed a Select Committee to go into the question of hotels. Hon. members will recall what the circumstances were in that regard. In 1974 Black people could not avail themselves of the liquor facilities of a club unless the club had a permit to that effect. Is that not true? From January to June 1974, according to the figures that were put at the disposal of that committee—and I had the privilege of serving on that Select Committee—only two clubs asked for permission to allow Black people, whilst not a single restaurant asked for it. Fedhasa, which gave evidence before that committee, could not even identify a need for opening restaurants. What has been done since then? I should just like to quote what the Select Committee recommended in connection with the matter, viz.—

What has been done with regard to this aspect?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to section 72 and the change that was made to the advertised legislation. Does the hon. member realize that clubs were excluded from the restrictions of the Liquor Act and that he and his group agreed with it?

That is quite correct. We abided by it. [Interjections.] However, we continually adopted the standpoint that the NP should not land up on the slippery slope away from separate development. [Interjections.] We shall not get any further by telling one another that a few weeks ago we agreed with one another on this or differed on that. Until a few weeks ago all of us were still rejecting power-sharing.

That is correct.

We rejected it at our congresses, as well as in our official documents. We rejected it totally. However, now we differ on that. Is it necessary for us to steal a political march on one another about it? Therefore we are now agreeing to differ with one another, that we are going to differ in principle. However, we are not going to insult one another in the process. We are not going to scold one another and call one another tortoises or accuse one another of being stupid. We are not going to do things of that nature. We cannot achieve anything by doing this, nothing at all.

Mr. Speaker, we are basing our standpoint on the fact that this Bill is a further abandonment of the policy of separate development. There are other people too, as the hon. member for Pinelands himself has just said, who agree with that. Surely this is true.

I spoke about the credibility of the NP, and also dealt with the sports policy of the NP. I referred to what has happened over the past eight years with regard to restaurants and hotels. That is, from 1974 to the present. I pointed out the development in the process of breaking down separate development. Let us take the NP’s sports policy as an example. Where did our sports policy start? I said a moment ago that we were opposed to mixed sports clubs, even though the autonomy of those clubs is recognized.

Indeed, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs came to the congresses of the NP with an acceptable compromise with regard to this problem. As I said a moment ago, he recommended that should a pattern arise which would indicate that friction could occur, the matter would be rectified by way of legislation.

Is there friction?

No, I am not saying that there is friction yet. In terms of the policy of the NP we are opposed to mixed sports clubs, after all. If mixed sports clubs now develop in such a way—and we are not going to introduce legislation with regard to this—that friction arises, we are going to introduce legislation. Is that not the policy of the NP, Mr. Speaker? I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is not the policy of the NP.

But there is not any friction whatsoever as yet.

I just want to know whether this is the case. Is it true that legislation will be introduced as soon as friction arises?

But there is no friction.

I am not asking whether there is friction at this stage. I want to know whether this is the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] Where do we stand now? When I ask where we stand now, we may do well to read last night’s Argus, in which Mr. Dawid de Villiers, the head of the Nasionale Pers, says “Apartheid masterplan fails”. This is where we stand today. That is why I cannot support this legislation at all. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Brakpan was offensive in his behaviour. I hope certain other hon. members will take an example from him. He demonstrated that people can at least differ from each other in a fair and decent way. He raised the question of friction here, the question of possible friction. I shall deal specifically with this matter later.

As far as the other aspects are concerned, for example the credibility of the NP and of the Government, and the question of the possible amendments to the Liquor Act—legislation in which he was closely involved—I just want to put it to the hon. member that he can do exactly as he pleases; the fact remains that when the Liquor Act was amended last year, he and other hon. members with him in that party, voted in favour of clubs being excluded from the provisions of section 72 of that Act; in other words, from the restrictions in terms of the Liquor Act. The hon. member is nodding his head. He therefore confirms that this is true. However, the hon. member for Langlaagte is not prepared to go that far. He says that he was a member of the NP for many years, yet he was totally unaware of all these things going on around him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Brakpan made a few remarks here. Unfortunately I only have half an hour in which to make my speech and I shall have to make haste. The hon. member for Langlaagte quoted from a newspaper and blatantly suggested that this was a statement by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, although he was aware that that was not true, because the report stated so quite clearly.

Do you want to read the report?

No. Surely it is not a statement by the hon. the Minister. Why is the hon. member making such blatantly incorrect statements here in this House?

Just read this what it says here. It seems to me none of you understand Afrikaans.

I should just like to rectify one other little matter here I have already replied to a question in this House on the Oberholzer statement. In reply to a question put to me by the official Opposition, I stated clearly that I was not aware of any discussions attended by officials of my department, by me or by the Deputy Minister during my time in office. There were no discussions with Mr. Oberholzer or anyone else on those specific areas of Hillbrow and Berea, to which he referred, becoming grey areas. The hon. member knows that. I informed him about this matter the same day it was discussed. The hon. member must not shake his head now. Let me finish speaking first. The hon. member is well aware that in consequence of a group areas board investigation which I caused to be made into the central area of Johannesburg to ascertain where I could find an area in which to settle the Indians, I received a report which I discussed with various parties, including the hon. member for Langlaagte and other hon. members, because small areas on the outskirts of Mayfair were affected. The fact of the matter was that the hon. the Deputy Minister and I held discussions with the executive committee of the Johannesburg city council, at which Mr. Oberholzer, the present Mayor, Mr. Venter, Mr. Bormann and one or two other members whose names I cannot now remember, but who were part of the Oberholzer group, were present. However, Berea and Hillbrow were never mentioned during those discussions. I do not know which discussion Mr. Oberholzer is referring to. During those discussions grey areas were never mentioned either. If Mr. Oberholzer says that something along these lines was mentioned to him on that occasion, I call on all the other members to bear witness to the fact that it was not discussed. The fact of the matter is that we discussed the proposals before us involving Fordsburg, Burgersdorp and Newtown. That is as far as it went. I therefore hope that this ghost has been laid now and I am also asking Mr. Oberholzer to tell us who said these things to him. He must not keep silent now. He must please come forward now and tell us who it was on the Government side who spoke to him. I did not speak to him about them and neither did the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Before I forget, I have something else to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte. Yesterday he denied that he attended a Black soccer match on a Sunday. I am prepared to take his word for this, and also to accept that my information in this connection was incorrect. However, I just want to mention that I was not the one who accused him of doing that. The point I wanted to make was that hundreds of Whites attend soccer matches in non-White areas, Black and Coloured areas, every Sunday. Therefore under the present situation it is not only Coloureds and Blacks who come to the White areas, but the reverse is also taking place now. Therefore, the hon. member must not pretend that this will be caused by the amendments to the Group Areas Act.

Yesterday the hon. the member repeated the wild, unfounded allegations he made during the Second Reading, namely that this Bill is abolishing the Group Areas Act. To my surprise, the hon. member for Brakpan is saying the same thing. The hon. member for Langlaagte says we are emasculating the Group Areas Act. He says we do not have the courage of our convictions to abolish it outright, but we are emasculating it in this way. Today I want to state categorically, as a fact that neither section 1(4) of the Act nor regulation 228 are being repealed by this amendment. All we are doing by means of this amendment is to exclude sport from the control entailed by these provisions. However, the same control which exists in connection with all the other matters remains in existence. I think that statements such as these are a cheap, opportunistic way of making political propaganda. I do not think the hon. member is so stupid that he cannot understand what is stated in this legislation.

He is.

He is turning this debate into a political platform. The fact remains that this legislation does not effect any changes in the original principle of the Group Areas Act for which group areas were established and it does not alter the concept of separate residential areas or separate schools or other separate institutions we have for the various race groups today one iota. It is obvious blatant maliciousness to read something like this into this legislation.

Yesterday the hon. member also had a great deal to say—as he did today—about a non-White being able to play darts in a White area for 24 hours every day. Does the hon. member not know that in terms of the Urban Areas Act, a Black man may be in a White area for 72 hours? Does the hon. member not know that in terms of sections 17 and 20 …

In a White group area?

Yes, in a White group area. This is the situation at present. Surely the hon. member knows the provisions of the Urban Areas Act. I maintain that in terms of the provisions of sections 17, 20 and 26 of the Group Areas Act any non-White, a Black, a Coloured or an Indian—any non-White—may visit the hon. member for 90 days if he wishes to invite him. A bona fide guest—as well as a guest in a hotel—may visit the hon. member for 90 days and he need not only play darts. They can dance in his sitting room for 90 days or they can have a barbecue in his back yard for 90 days, or they can swim in his swimming pool for 90 days. They can do all this in terms of the present dispensation.

You have made rapid progress since I left.

Sir, this is the sort of rumour the hon. member now is spreading in his ignorance: He says that they may allow a non-White to play darts in a White area for 24 hours a day, whereas the measures I have just mentioned already allow non-Whites to be in such areas for much longer periods of time. Why is the hon. member talking such nonsense here in this House?

I do not want to waste too much time on the hon. member. There is just one other matter I want to discuss with the hon. member because it may throw a little light on what led up to this legislation. The hon. member is pretending that he knew absolutely nothing about the introduction of this Bill.

Yes, about the provisions of the proposed subsection (6).

Yes. Sir, the hon. member for Langlaagte was the deputy chairman of the community development group of the NP and so he and I were involved in this matter together. Last year already the principle was approved that such legislation should be submitted to bring the statutory situation into line with what was happening in practice … [Interjections.] I should be very glad if the hon. member would give me a chance to complete my argument. Last year this matter was clarified and the fact is that on 8 February of this year I again informed the group that I was going to bring this legislation before this House. However, before I informed the group, I specifically approached the hon. member and another hon. member on that side and I told them that I was going to introduce this legislation, amending the Group Areas Act, so as to normalize sport.

That is not the truth.

I told the hon. member in advance because I did not want to include the other proposed legislation in this legislation because I had referred it to the Strydom Committee. Will the hon. member deny this? [Interjections.] These are the facts of the situation. However, the hon. member now …

The hon. the Minister is telling a he.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

Sir, I withdraw it.

If in spite of all this, the hon. member still did not know that we would come forward with this legislation this year, I also want to refer him to a statement made by the hon. Minister of National Education last year. After all the hon. member attended the caucus meetings or else someone must have told him that the hon. the Minister had issued a statement on 22 May 1981—

In other words, the policy of the NP has been public knowledge since 1979. I continue—

Since 1979 the Act we are now bringing into line with what is happening in practice has no longer had any effect on the sport situation. That was when the provisions were lifted, and the sports clubs were informed of this. I continue—

Those Acts were then specified—

The Liquor Act and the Group Areas Act were mentioned, as was the legislation affecting the urban areas of Blacks.

If the hon. member, his leader or anyone else was not aware of this, he nevertheless knows—after all he was deputy chairman of our group—that last year in the Senate Chamber, on the occasion of the discussion of my Vote I said (Debates of Standing Committee, 1981, col. 843)—

Did the hon. member know nothing about this?

A part from that I pointed out in my Second Reading speech that on the occasion of the no-confidence debate I mentioned in the presence of the hon. member that I was going to come forward with this legislation this year. I refer the hon. member to Hansard, 1982, col. 242. Even if he says he was asleep the whole time, he is still in a caucus with his leader and the hon. member for Lichtenburg. What was their contribution in this regard? On 24 November last year I approached the Cabinet Committee on Social Affairs to submit the text of the Bill as it appears before us today to that Committee for approval.

Would you please table that document?

According to the minutes I have in my hand here, the hon. member for Lichtenburg was present at that meeting of the Cabinet Committee.

Are those Cabinet minutes?

These are the minutes of the Cabinet Committee. I am entitled to have Cabinet minutes in my possession. [Interjections.] I am only saying that on the occasion of that meeting of the Cabinet Committee the principle was approved verbatim in the presence of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He acknowledged that the other day. He accepted co-responsibility and he did not vote against the Bill during the Second Reading either. In other words, the hon. member did not associate himself with his other colleagues. The hon. the leader of that party was present at the Cabinet meeting on 1 December when the Cabinet approved the introduction of this Bill. Why is the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party leading his people sitting behind him out of the frying pan into the fire, and why did he not tell them what his attitude to the Bill was from the very beginning? Why did he remain silent and allow himself to be led by hon. members behind him, inter alia, the hon. member for Langlaagte? Does the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party think he acted correctly in leaving his hon. colleagues in the dark as to his personal views in this connection? After all, he supported this legislation step for step. What excuse does the hon. member have to offer for this? Perhaps the hon. member for Brakpan can tell us where the principle of morality now comes into it.

You now stand for power-sharing.

At the moment I am talking about morality and principles, not about power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the leader of the Conservative Party now has nothing to say for himself, but he really ought to apologize to his hon. colleagues sitting behind him.

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

No, I do not have time to reply to questions now. I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland, the hon. member for Vasco, the hon. member for De Kuilen, and those hon. members of the Opposition who supported the legislation. The hon. member for Umbilo said he saw the legislation as the culmination of a process of evolution in respect of sport in South Africa. I have no fault to find with the conclusion the hon. member arrived at. Over the past few years, since the Loskop Dam speech, our sports policy has developed step by step to where it is today. This legislation contains nothing that will lead to deviations from what is already happening in practice in the field of sport today.

I now wish to come to the question of friction. It was a good thing the legislation on the transitional period remained on the Statute Book to ensure that the transitional process—the process of evolution as the hon. member for Umbilo referred to it—took place in an orderly fashion. However, the time has now come for us to complete this process, as our sports clubs and sports administrators have proved that they are quite capable of managing and controlling sport in an orderly fashion, without giving offence to others and without causing friction. This legislation is the second contribution we are making to complete this process. The first was of course the amendment to the Liquor Act, and that was fully supported by hon. members on that side of the House, and by members of the Conservative Party. In spite of the opportunistic political noise we heard in this House today, we are striking a blow for sport in South Africa. Sport is being depoliticized to the benefit of everyone involved. In future we shall be able to fight political interference in sport with greater confidence and with a clear conscience. We are now enabling our sports administrators and sportsmen to fight isolation in the field of sport with greater conviction and on better grounds and we are neutralizing a very strong weapon that Sanroc and our other enemies in the field of sport used against us in the past. In contrast the naïve behaviour of hon. members of the Conservative Party is unfortunately playing straight into the hands of Sanroc and our enemies in the sphere of sport. The young people of South Africa will take cognizance of this naïve behaviour on the part of this bothersome party and will deal with them in due course. [Interjections.]

They are with us. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should now like to come to what the hon. member for Kuruman said. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Kuruman implied that we are changing the sports policy by means of this amendment to the legislation. Surely he knows that this cannot be done by means of group areas legislation. The Group Areas Act does not determine sports policy. It is absolute nonsense to want to suggest that this legislation will contribute to a change in our sports policy. After all, I made it quite clear in my Second Reading speech that it was still the opinion of the Government side of this House that sport could best be engaged in within an ethnic and group context, but we simply did not make any laws in this connection. In other words, we have not deviated at all from our previous standpoint in this regard.

That hon. member also kicked up a great fuss about what his hon. Leader had said on a certain occasion last year regarding the provision of proper sports facilities for non-Whites. However, that is the policy of this side of the House, and that hon. leader and the members of his party know what the Department of Community Development is doing, particularly as regards the providing of sports facilities for people of colour. We are spending millions of rand in this connection because we want to create the best facilities we can afford for those people in their own areas. That is the pattern. We are striving to create facilities for them. In the short time that I have been Minister of Community Development, I have opened three wonderful sports complexes at Robertson, Warrenton—near that hon. member’s constituency—and Knysna.

That is separate development.

That is what we are doing. That hon. member must not appropriate that for themselves now. That hon. member also asked a question and I should like to reply to it because it could also be a question that is asked frequently. It was asked what would happen if a new mining company were to create sports facilities for a non-White group within a White group area.

No, a mining company.

Yes, a mining company. What would happen if a mining company were to create facilities in White areas? In the first place this legislation has nothing to do with right of ownership or proprietary rights. It has nothing to do with that. The hon. member can read through the legislation for himself. It has to do with presence or occupation. In other words, right of ownership cannot be obtained in a White group area. What is more a new mine is not normally opened in a White group area. [Interjections.] In any case the hon. member knows that the vast majority of mining towns are not in group areas.

What about Kuruman and Kathu?

Very well, let us take Kathu as an example.

Or Fochville.

Kathu is a mining town that has already achieved local government status. In other words, it already has a municipality. The local authority, the municipality, may decide locally whether the mining company will be given the right to allow non-Whites to be present in a White area for the purpose of participating in sport. I am not talking about building a sports stadium for them there, but about allowing them to be present in that sports stadium. The municipality will decide on that, in exactly the same way as the Fernwood Sports Club will decide who is admitted to Fernwood and in exactly the same way as the Johannesburg City Council will decide who has access to the Rand Stadium, and in exactly the same way as the City Council of Pretoria will have the right to say who has access to the Caledonian Stadium. Consequently, these are matters for the local authorities to decide. Here we are dealing only with occupation and not the right of onwership. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kuruman was the chairman of the sport study group of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, the hon. member must give me a chance. I still want to reply to his speech and my time is almost expired. The hon. member for Kuruman was the chairman of the sport group of the NP. He was chairman for many years.

Deputy chairman.

Deputy chairman, yes, and secretary as well. For many years he was an office-bearer in the party and during the years in which he occupied an official position in the sports group of the NP, these developments in the field of sports took place in the NP. That was from 1979 onwards. How does the hon. member reconcile with his conscience the fact that he is suddenly condemning everything and finding that everything he has agreed with all these years is now abhorrent to him?

I have always rejected power-sharing.

Notwithstanding the fact that he says that he abhorred this sports policy and was opposed to it he reconciled with his conscience …

I objected to it …

… the fact that he was a member of the NP caucus, was an office bearer and accepted all these things. Where do principles and morality come into this? How can one remain in a party if one differs from it so radically on matters of principle? I now want to put this question to the hon. member for Kuruman: If nothing had happened and he was still on this side of the House and I came forward with this statutory amendment, would he have left the NP?

No, I would not …

No, he would not have walked out of the party.

I would have objected to it. [Interjections.]

That is the attitude we find: As long as it suits him, he remains where he is and occupies various positions, but once he has left, he claims the right to criticize everything, to condemn everything and to reject everything he was still in agreements with only a few days ago. Members on this side of the House dissociate themselves from such a mentality. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon, T. Langley, F. J. le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Mr. L. M. Theunissen, Dr. A. P. Treumicht, Messrs. H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. H. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden and Mr. J. J. B. van Zyl) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech in regard to this Bill some days ago. On reading this Bill it is impossible to find a theme in it, nor is it possible to discern a pattern in the amendments. The amendments to the Bill are of an unconnected nature, and we feel generally that the proposed amendments represent improvements to the existing legislation. Clause 1 proposes amendments to section 37 of the Act, and provides that in future, upon arrest or upon arraignment in respect of certain offences, and upon conviction for certain offences, it would not be possible not only to take finger-prints and palm-prints of the person so arraigned or convicted, but also to take and record photographs of such person.

Provision is also made in the amending legislation for the photographs taken pursuant to this amendment, to be destroyed in the event of such person being found not guilty of any offence and discharged. I do not think therefore, that this is an infringement upon the privacy of any individual. It gives effect to provisions that pertain in most Western countries in terms of which people who are brought before the courts and who are subsequently found guilty have included in their records a copy of their photographs. This Bill is therefore a step in the right direction. It is an effort to modernize the process of crime detection, and this side of the House have no objection to that.

Clause 2 merely facilitates payment of bail, as explained by the hon. the Minister, and we support this as well. We will, however, oppose clause 3 when we come to the Committee Stage. This clause broadens the scope of a situation where an accused upon arrest, or upon being warned to appear in court, is required to plead immediately to a charge. The offences to which this provision relates are serious offences because they are offences in terms of which an accused person can be referred to the Supreme Court for a further hearing.

The right of the accused not to plead when so required is limited only by section 77 of the Act, which relates to the mental capacity of the accused to understand the charge and the exigencies of the charge being brought against him. It is further limited by section 85 of the Act, in terms of which an accused might make legal objections to the nature of the charge itself. However, in a case, as was argued when the founding legislation was first introduced here in this House some years ago, it could very often happen that an accused who is brought before a court in this manner may be unrepresented, and could therefore in fact be gravely prejudiced by being required to plead immediately. This was particularly the case where an accused, after being arrested, was brought before a court and was required to plead, sometimes even before he had been given access or knew that he was entitled to access to legal advice, or that he had certain legal rights. As it stands at the moment, in unamended form, this provision has been criticized in our courts because in certain circumstances accused persons who suffered prejudice as a result of their being required to plead without being given access first to proper legal advice.

In regard to this particular clause I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister, firstly, in what way the proposed amendment will broaden the scope of the Act. What further categories of accused will now be affected. In the light of the criticism which has been expressed by jurists in South Africa, by some senior members of the various law associations, by members of the Bar, and even judicially from time to time, why does the hon. the Minister feel it is necessary to extend the scope of this provision?

We will therefore, when we reach the Committee Stage of this Bill, oppose this clause on the strength of the arguments I have put forward now.

The next clause which is of relevance is clause 4, which seeks to amend section 145 of the principal Act. It deals with the question of assesors participating in decisions of the court relating to arguments concerning the admissibility of a confession. All of us who are involved in the law know what the situation is. That is that the assessor’s task in a court is to be of help in the ascertaining of matters of fact. It is the sole prerogative of the judge to decide the questions of law. Finally, it is the task of the judge to decide which is a question of fact and which is a question of law. The present situation, mentioned briefly by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, is that assessors sit in on trials and are more often than not excluded from arguments or evidence relating to the admissibility of confessions. However, as the hon. the Minister has stated, the present situation is somewhat vague. It is somewhat equivocal. It is undefined, and very often there is argument about whether an assessor should in fact sit in on this aspect of a trial or not. The matter has been left to the judges, and more often than not, because of the equivocation of the law, assessors have been excluded from that part of the argument.

What we are dealing with here is in fact a trial within a trial because, in certain circumstances when points are taken relating to whether certain evidence is admissible or not, evidence has to be heard on how those circumstances arose. This whole cameo of evidence will be heard quite separate from the main issues in the trial. As we all know, matters relating to confessions deal with both the law and the facts, because a decision on whether a confession is admissible is nearly always based on the statute and on legal argument. However, it is the underlying facts of how that confession is obtained and written down, and what state of mind the accused was in, that give rise to a decision in law. Therefore, inextricably bound to a decision relating to the admissibility of confessions are both instances of fact and instances of law. There would be disadvantages in excluding assessors as a matter of course from arguments of this nature, firstly, because very often the credibility of witnesses, both those on the State side and the witness being the accused, relating to the taking of the confession, is tested in this trial within a trial. If the assessors are excluded and come back after the matter has been decided, and they have not heard that evidence, they may form a completely different picture as to the credibility of witnesses on other facts where the assessors were not present to test credibility in respect of the argument relating to the confession. Accordingly, through no fault of the assessors, one does very often find that the judges and the assessors differ on the credibility of witnesses because the assessors were excluded from aspects of the trial that were very relevant and that gave rise to those issues of credibility. That then is the disadvantage of excluding as a matter of rule an assessor from this aspect of a trial.

Of course, there is another disadvantage and it is the easier disadvantage to perceive and that is that very often evidence that is heard in this cameo trial, this trial within a trial, has to be repeated once the trial is resumed and once decisions relating to the evidence mentioned have been taken. Therefore the more the assessors stay in this sort of trial, the less necessity there is for repetition of evidence. Of course, there is also a disadvantage in including assessors with the judges as a matter of course in matters of this sort. Occasionally, I would say less often than most, an assessor, whose brief it is to deal solely with questions of fact, could well find himself, subconsciously or otherwise, influenced by matters which do not relate particularly to his task but which he heard in his capacity while sitting in on this argument in limine, I think, however, that is the lesser of the dangers because in most cases, certainly in the Transvaal, assessors are people who have had legal training. If they are not persons who have had legal training they are most often persons who are senior and experts in their fields. They are basically chosen for their impartiality and for their knowledge.

The end result, therefore, having looked at the situation and having discussed it with various legal luminaries, is that I have come to the conclusion that as a general rule it is better for the assessor to remain with the judge while these matters are discussed than to be excluded. However, I take the point made in the legislation before us, i.e. that circumstances can arise where it is patently not in the interests of justice that assessors be included in the mini trial—if I might use that term—and in those circumstances the judge should in fact have the right to exclude those assessors. Therefore we shall support this clause. However, I want to mention to the hon. the Minister that this is a very tricky field. It is a field that has many nuances and in which the rights of people can be affected. Therefore I do hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will monitor the workings of this amended section to ensure that injustices do not occur.

The next clause to which I should like to refer is clause 6. Clause 6 relates to the offence of housebreaking. We all know that if someone commits an offence and, as a result of the commission of that offence, he commits other offences as well, he can be found guilty of such other offences. However, this particular amendment, as has been stated by the hon. the Minister, clears up the situation where a burglary takes place and where malicious damage to property is perpetrated to the extent that in respect of the initial charge of housebreaking, the person so accused, if he is in fact found guilty of such offence, can also be found guilty of the offence of malicious damage to property. We see no harm in the introduction of this provision and we think it will facilitate the administration of justice.

Clause 7 adds a proviso to section 269 of the principal Act which deals with sentences handed down to people who have been convicted of offences relating to drugs or alcohol. In instances of this sort, the court, as we know, has the competence to sentence such a person to a period or rehabilitation in a rehabilitation centre. The court also has the right in the case of more serious offences to sentence offenders to prison terms and to fines. The new proviso is very welcome in that it creates the situation where in finding a person guilty of certain of the offences mentioned in that particular section, the court will have to opt for either one course of action or the other. In other words, if this proviso is accepted, the court will not be able to sentence a person to a term of imprisonment and thereafter to a period of time in a rehabilitation centre. What this amendment means in effect is that the court will have to choose the best course of action to adopt in so far as an accused person is concerned. It will have to decide whether imprisonment is the correct form of punishment for such a person or whether in fact it is dealing with somebody who is perhaps less a criminal and more a person who is suffering from some sort of illness or disease. In such a case, the court can sentence such a person to a period in a rehabilitation centre on the basis that any other sentence handed down will be fully suspended. We welcome this amendment and we think that this is an enlightened move which we support.

The other clauses that may just bear mentioning are clauses 8 and 9. Clause 8 facilitates the payment of bail under certain circumstances and clause 9 relates to the streamlining of the procedure in regard to payments made in respect of fines in connection with minor matters.

All in all, Sir, I do not believe that there is much that is controversial in this Bill. I think that considerable improvements are being effected by this legislation and, with the one exception that I mentioned, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sandton. I think that he has dealt with the provisions of this amending Bill in a very moderate, thorough fashion. I also want to thank him for his support. When we come to the clause to which he objects during the Committee Stage, we shall definitely be able to debate it.

We are dealing here with the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act. Criminal procedure is that section of our law that deals with the rules according to which a trial takes place. As far as an accused is concerned, his rights as a person who is innocent until he is found guilty, are being protected. On the other hand, the interests of the State must be protected as well and in order to weigh up these two aspects, the interests of the State and the interests of the individual, against one another and to find a balance, is in fact the function of criminal procedure. That is why I find these amendments most acceptable because I think that both the interests of the State, in some clauses, and the interests of the individual, in others, are indeed being protected, developed and improved and that there is a healthy balance when one studies the Bill as a whole.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, basically it deals with taking a photograph of a person who has been arrested. It may be alleged in this case that the privacy of the individual is being violated to a certain extent. However, on the other hand I want to say that the benefits for the protection of the community are vital. This is true because we have just had a case where the appearance of a photograph on television after a series of robberies and murders assisted the police in protecting the community from such people. This is merely one aspect of the matter. Another aspect is that many people are on the run and cross the borders of our country. Then it is essential that under certain circumstances we should be able to send a photograph to Interpol so that we can be assisted in tracing the people abroad and bringing them back to South Africa for a proper trial with regard to what has happened here. I therefore think that the clause in question is aimed at the protection of the community as such.

Clause 2 has a bearing on the payment of bail. At the moment bail can be paid at three places, at the clerk of the court, the prison and the Police station should the clerk of the court not be available in the case of a periodical court. This creates a difficult problem. There is no periodical court in smaller towns. The person who is in prison or has been arrested and remains locked up for a weekend or a longer period, is being deprived of his freedom because he cannot pay his bail at an ordinary police station. The clause is now making provision for it to be paid to a police officer where the accused is being held. Once again this is a tremendous step forward in the interest of the individual who finds himself in such an unenviable position.

Clause 3 actually deals with the situation in which, when someone appears in a magistrate’s court, he may required to plead. There was a problem in the past because there were only three cases, viz. in the case of sections 50, 59 and 72, in which the accused could be required to plead when he appeared in court. This placed a tremendous restriction on the administration of justice. We now envisage changing the situation in such a way that when someone appears in connection with a case that may be tried in a higher court—it is only in such a case that it would be applicable—he may be required to plead. If such a person does not plead or give his version, it is very difficult for the Attorney-General to decide how serious the crime is and to which court the person in question should be referred. We must bear in mind that he is appearing in a magistrate’s court. I believe it is in the interest of the accused himself that he should be required to plead, because then the Attorney-General will know what further action should be taken. This will mean that the trial can be speeded up. Everyone will know why they are going to court and this will mean that there will be fewer requests for adjournment. Therefore it is in the interest of the administration of justice as well as of the individual.

Clauses 4 and 5 have a bearing on the trial of a confession; that is, a trial within a trial. The hon. member for Sandton explained the matter very well and I am not going to argue with him about it. I simply want to put it as follows: Years ago it often happened that a jury sat together with a judge. Circumstances have changed in the meantime and today there is no longer such a thing as a jury that sits with a judge. The practice has also arisen whereby it is generally advocates or other lawyers who sit with the judge in the capacity of assessors. If one reads the proposed section 145(4) now, one must also look at section 145(1)(b), which provides the following—

The point I want to make is that anyone who is appointed as an assessor these days, is appointed by the judge, taking into account such a person’s experience of the administration of justice. It is particularly difficult to understand legal procedure, and in addition the leading and evaluating of evidence is also very difficult. I nevertheless believe that the provision in the Criminal Procedure Act that an assessor should comply with certain qualifications, does in fact strengthen the underlying arguments of the hon. member for Sand-ton in this particular case.

The new subsection (4) of section 145, which is being introduced in clause 4, reads as follows—

This means that the assessors are automatically members of that court. However, if the judge is of the opinion that it is not in the interest of the administration of justice, he may decide that the assessors should leave the court. Why is this so? In practice there is often a record of pre-trial proceedings, which often goes to the judge. He has access to this before he hears the case because he must decide whether he is going to appoint assessors or not. When one looks at the situation in practice and at the experience of judges and assessors, there can be no objections, as the hon. member for Sandton correctly said. However, it is of course also dangerous—as the hon. member for Sandton said too—because there are verdicts of our courts, as recently as 1959 in the Appeal Court, that provide that assessors should not have access to inadmissible evidence. The problem with a confession is that one must decide whether it is admissible or not. It may indeed happen that it is inadmissible. In 1959 the Appeal Court passed judgment that this ought not to happen when assessors were present. However, as I have indicated, the matter has evolved and changes have taken place, and I think that the assessors who are appointed by the judge will in fact be able to deal with this matter.

Clause 5 actually deals with a very important idea. A new subsection (c) is being added to section 146 of the principal Act, and it reads as follows—

Therefore, when one reviews the amendments that are being proposed, it is clear that all of them are practical amendments. All of them are really promoting the administration of justice and developing the rights of the individual.

Clause 6 deals with housebreaking. Housebreaking often takes place, but housebreaking in itself is not an offence. Housebreaking must be committed with a certain purpose. For instance, housebreaking must be committed with the aim of stealing something, or for other reasons. It is often very difficult to prove the purpose of housebreaking, and this is in fact what the amendment is about. It is true that the clause says that when someone is accused of housebreaking with the purpose of doing certain things, malicious injury to property is competent conviction. All technical points are being eliminated here and a person cannot come along and argue about the intention or aim, but he can be found guilty of malicious damage to property. In the alternative form, however, someone could in fact have been accused of this, but the fact is that this is not being done. I think that this is a very good amendment for practical considerations.

The hon. member for Sandton has already elaborated on clause 7, and therefore I shall not go into it any further, except to say that I think the hon. member summed up the matter correctly. Clause 8 is a consequential amendment.

This brings me to clause 9. Clause 9 has a bearing on section 341 of the principal Act and in actual fact deals with certain offences mentioned in schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, i.e. with regard to transgressions of regulations or by-laws that are made by town councils, for instance. This proposed provision makes it possible for a fine to be paid at the local authority for all the offences mentioned in schedule 3, whilst in the past this could be done only in the case of traffic offences, for instance. I think that this relieves the burden of our courts and makes the legislation effective in the sense that the fine can be paid where the offence actually took place.

Taking all these aspects into account, I think that we shall all support this Bill, because it is actually in the interest of justice and of the individuals involved.

Mr. Speaker, the CP supports this Bill. Our standpoint is that it is a type of Bill that can be discussed much more peacefully and much more productively during the Committee Stage. Therefore I do not want to pass any further comment on it at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brakpan for supporting the Second Reading on behalf of his party. I should also just like to associate myself briefly with what has been said by the hon. member for Pretoria West. He referred to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act actually aims at achieving a balance between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual when it comes to the adjudication of crimes. I think one can summarize the Bill before the House by saying that one is dealing with two types of principles or premises here. Certain clauses have a bearing on the streamlining of the process. The objective is to make the process run more smoothly, which could also be to the benefit of the State. Other clauses have more of a bearing on proper adjudication and justice, which is related more specifically to the individual.

Clauses 2 and 8 have a bearing on the payment of bail to police officers. My colleague went into that in detail. Clause 3, which the hon. member for Sandton has indicated they are going to oppose, deals with the proposed new section 119, which has a bearing on an accused who appears in court and may then be required to plead at once. However, as section 119 reads at present, it can be used in three cases only. The first is when one appears in court immediately after having been arrested. The second case has a bearing on an accused who is released on bail in terms of section 59. It has a bearing on bail granted by a police officer. The final case has a bearing on an accused who is merely warned to appear in terms of section 72 by a police officer. However, it is also possible that someone could appear in court at a later stage, i.e. on a subsequent appearance. This brings me to the application of section 119 when the court, for instance, has already granted bail. The accused has already appeared in court, the court has granted bail and then the person has to appear again on a later occasion. On that occasion he then has to plead. Then the application of section 119 would not be contrary to the interests of such an accused. Indeed, I want to allege that he would be in a better position because he has already appeared once and because it would therefore be easier for him than in the other cases to gain access to legal representation. I think that the idea of proper adjudication and justice with regard to the individual is definitely not being adversely affected here, and I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Sandton could possibly just consider this before we become involved in a complicated, lengthy debate on this during the Committee Stage.

Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the involvement of assessors in the legal question with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of a confession. This matter has also been dealt with properly and general support has been granted to it from all sides of the House. The final provision that deals with streamlining, is the one contained in clause 9 which also makes further payment of admission of guilt possible specifically at the local authority with regard to offences mentioned in the third schedule.

The clauses that follow the second main train of thought, the one that deals with proper adjudication, deals with the combating of crime on the one hand and with the proper adjudication in the application of the procedure to the individual on the other. Clause 6 is actually the one that deals with the proper application of the procedure. This has a bearing on the case where a competent verdict would be malicious damage to property on a charge of housebreaking with the intention of committing a crime. Clause 1 deals with the combating of crime. It has a bearing on taking photographs and the further prevention of crimes with the assistance of available records, particularly where an accused has escaped from custody. A final very positive development with regard to the application of the principle of justice, is the provision, contained in clause 7, that a choice must be made between reference to a rehabilitation centre and imprisonment and that the one cannot follow on from the other. In this regard a choice must be made at the outset in the interest of the individual and in this way, ultimately in the interest of the community as well.

The provisions of this Bill and the underlying principles thereof are positive, and therefore I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this amending legislation. As has already been indicated by the hon. members who have spoken previously, each clause represents a considerable improvement and a streamlining of the existing legislation. There is just one point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister in relation to clause 1. A person who at his trial is not found guilty and has his conviction set aside has the right to have his photograph destroyed. Giving him that right indicates that the courts would consider that an invasion of his privacy and therefore one takes it that a regulation exists that such an instruction will be handled by a senior person in a manner which will ensure that it will in fact be carried out. One assumes that it is not an untidy arrangement, but that there is a very good way of dealing with that.

All the other clauses are entirely acceptable to us. In fact, as I have already said, they represent a considerable improvement and we shall therefore be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for King William’s Town for his support. With regard to clause 1, it is not a choice that the accused has which is at issue, but an obligation which the legislation is placing on the State to destroy the records. I accept that it can be accepted without fear that it will be done in a way which will not lead to the violation of the privacy of the person in question now that a photograph is being added. As hon. members have said, the amendments contained in the Bill are improving and speeding up the legal procedure.

I just want to make a few comments about clause 4 that have not yet been made by other hon. members. The judge now has the discretion of whether to involve assessors in a case or not. As has already been said, the judge must also decide on the competence of the assessors. However, what has not yet been pointed out, is the fact that at the very outset the judge has the discretion to decide whether he wants assessors to assist him or not with regard to a certain case. Therefore, there need be no fear with regard to the additional discretion which is being granted to the judge. I am pleased to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity to deliberate on this matter during the Committee Stage and therefore I shall not debate the points raised by the hon. member for Sandton now. However, I want to ask him, as far as clause 3 is concerned, whether he is sure that the basis of his argument is correct. I want to suggest that the hon. member should first acquaint himself with the fact that, for instance, we are deleting the reference to sections 50(1), 59 and 72. This was introduced during 1979, when the previous amendments were made, but as a result of circumstances that arose, we now envisage deleting it. The significance of this is that when an individual appears in a court, the Attorney-General may expect that he will plead. The magistrate can require him to plead, when the case is adjourned too. This is the important point, the actual significance of this amendment. However, we can discuss it further during the Committee Stage. Possibly the hon. member for Sandton should bear the above point in mind.

The fact is that we have general agreement on the specific clauses of the Bill, except of course clause 3.

After the thorough way in which the hon. member for Sandton as well as the hon. member for Pretoria West explained clause 4 and 5, the hon. member for Nelspruit raised a further point, viz. that it is at the descretion of the judge to establish at the outset whether he will sit with assessors or not. This is a very important point that the hon. member raised.

I appreciate the support that hon. members on both sides of the House have granted to the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to ask the hon. the Minister to explain what exactly is intended by this provision, as he has questioned whether the basis of my argument is correct. I do not pretend to be a criminal lawyer of any great stature and I would therefore be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain to us precisely what is intended by this clause. The hon. the Minister will remember that in 1977, section 119 was opposed by members of this side of the House in the Committee Stage, on the basis that accused persons could be brought before a court and be required to plead in circumstances disadvantageous to them.

Section 51(1) and section 59 of the Act I believe, relate to people who have been arrested on certain charges and who have been warned to appear in court. The way in which clause 3 is now worded extends the provision in relation to people who are brought before a magistrate’s court and who may be referred to a superior court. They can now “be required by the magistrate to plead to the charge forthwith”. That is what the provision states now, and it seems to me that by excluding specific references to various of the previous sections contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, and by merely saying, without any qualification, that someone appearing in a magistrate’s court will “be required by the magistrate to plead to the charge forthwith”, does in fact extend the provision applicable to the situation in which someone can be brought before a court and be required to plead.

When the Criminal Procedure Act was discussed here in the House during Committee Stage we opposed that particular provision because we believed it was not to the advantage of justice that people be placed in this situation. We have not changed our mind on that. At the same time I do not want to create the impression that I am an arrogant criminal lawyer who knows everything. If, therefore, the hon. the Minister can convince me that this is not an extension of the provision, but in fact an enlightenment in respect of individuals who are accused of certain crimes, we will support this clause.

As it stands here, however, it seems to be an extension of a principle, a principle which we have opposed in the past, and in respect of which we can see no reason for changing our mind at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to allege that I am a lawyer specializing in criminal procedure either. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that the clause in question, about which he has reservations, was officially opposed by his party at the time on the basis that when an accused appears in court for the first time, he may be required to plead immediately. At that stage his party felt that it was unfair to the accused because he did not have legal representation, and that the original promulgation of the provision should not enjoy support.

However, what we are giving our consideration to at this stage, is in fact a development of the sphere of application of section 119 of the principal Act, but in a situation that is much further removed from the interests of the accused. As the section reads at present, anyone who is brought to court immediately after having been arrested, in terms of section 50(1), or anyone who appears in court for the first time after having been released on bail—this is in terms of section 59—or anyone who appears in court for the first time after merely having been instructed by a police officer to appear on a specific date—this is in terms of section 72 …

And these are the three types of cases which are being laid down at this stage.

Yes, these are the three types of cases in which someone may be required to plead immediately in terms of section 119.

Is the new wording not a development of that principle?

The new wording is not a development of the principle. It is merely a further application thereof, in the sense that someone may be required to plead not only at his first appearance, but also at a subsequent appearance.

[Inaudible.]

Oh Dave, you are a “linksgeleerde”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear what the hon. member for Sandton is saying. However, I want to point out to him that during his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister quoted an example with regard to an ordinary adjournment of a case in court, in a case in which the accused had not yet pleaded. In such a case he can now also be required to plead—if this clause is accepted as such. However, I believe that the hon. member will concede that the new provision is no more restrictive or curtailing with regard to the accused.

Another case is the one in which someone is arrested, and then applies to the court itself for bail. The court then establishes his bail, and when he appears in court again, actually for a second time, without having pleaded at his first appearance, he may be required by the court to plead. This is a development of the sphere of application of the provision in the existing section. However, it definitely does not have a more restricting effect on the accused with regard to his rights and opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg has said that this is not really an extension. Perhaps it broadens the application of the section. The key word is “appears”. Previously the key words were “is brought before the magistrate”. Now the accused appears before the magistrate. In other words, the implication is very clear that he may appear there. He may appear in a magistrate’s court and is not necessarily brought there. That broadens the application. I gather, from what the hon. member has indicated to me, that he is satisfied.

What is more, back in 1979, when we first sought to amend this section, the Opposition supported the amendment, but that amendment did not bring about the desired effect. Subsequently, the Attorney-General concerned again requested a review of this section because, among other things, he argued that in the case of a serious offence it may happen that he may decide to allow the matter to be dealt with in a magistrate’s court. He said that it was happening too often now that matters were being referred to the Supreme Court through lack of evidence and information with regard to the offence. Therefore we decided to bring about this amendment. I can see that the hon. member is happy about this. Does he now accept the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, no, I do not accept the amendment. I understand it better. I think that was what I was trying to convey to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Randburg. I at least understand the motivation a little better. However, we do believe that the principle that underlies this clause is a bad principle and any extension of the application of that principle is something that we shall oppose. I agree with the hon. the Minister that this is not going to result in grossly depriving prisoners of their existing rights but, as the hon. the Minister has put it, it is an extension of the application of this particular section. This is a section that we opposed in its original form, and we did so with good reason. There have been cases since the Criminal Procedure Act was first enacted where an offender or an accused person could be caught by a policeman, having ostensibly committed an offence, brought before a court within half an hour and be required to plead immediately. The prisoner could then be sentenced to two years in gaol and he could find himself in gaol about three hours after he had committed the offence. Some hon. members may say that this is in the interests of justice. I want to say that it can never be in the interests of justice if persons are not afforded the fullest opportunity to legal representation and are not afforded the fullest opportunity of considering all the pros and cons of the defence they wish to put to a court. Whereas this particular clause is not going to affect that broad sweep of the problem that I have just mentioned in any material way, it is nonetheless the extension of a principle of which we disapprove and therefore we are going to object to the passage of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, section 119, to be amended by clause 3 of the Bill, states inter alia: “When an accused is brought …”. That is understood to mean when he is brought there the first time. That is the problem the hon. member for Sandton has. He feels, if I understand him correctly, that at least the accused should have the opportunity to reflect and to employ counsel or obtain legal advice. One can understand this to mean—and I am referring now to the old section—that when he is brought before a magistrate for the first time he can be required to plead. The amendment now alleviates that situation. Let me attempt to explain. The position we have here is that when an accused is taken into custody, he has to appear before a magistrate within 48 hours. This is his first appearance. At that stage the charge sheet has not yet been drawn up fully. That means in effect that such an accused person cannot then be required to plead. That is correct. However, when a charge sheet has been completed and the accused appears before a magistrate for the second time, then the old provisions of section 119 no longer apply. As matters stand at the moment, the provisions of section 119 can only apply in respect of a first appearance.

What if an accused is not ready to plead on a second appearance?

I am coming to that. The point that I am trying to make is that this new provision will alleviate the situation. I say that this amendment will improve the position because while an accused person need not plead on his first appearance before the court, on any subsequent appearance, it may be the third or the fourth, whenever the charge sheet has been prepared, such a person can be required to plead. As the hon. member for Randburg has said, this is in effect a new field in which to make use of the provisions of section 119. I think the hon. member for Sandton will agree that should an accused person plead not guilty, there is no problem. However, I am sure he will also agree that should such a person plead guilty, the provisions of section 112 would apply. Whenever there is the possibility of a heavy fine or sentence—if I remember correctly, the fine is R100—at that stage then the presiding magistrate or judge is required to put certain questions to the accused to ascertain whether he is in fact guilty if he has pleaded guilty. We can say that that is a kind of judicial safety-valve that operates in such cases.

In respect of section 113, however, there is another safety-valve which provides that at any stage of the proceedings, should the presiding law officer come to the conclusion that regardless of the plea of guilty, an accused is in actual fact not guilty because he did not quite understand what he was pleading to, a plea of not guilty shall be entered.

Therefore, there are these three factors that I wish to mention. In the first instance, I think that the amendment of section 119 creates a better situation because it alleviates the position of an accused person. Secondly, if there is a plea of not guilty there is no problem in any event. Should a plea of guilty be entered, then I agree that the hon. member for Sandton has an argument. However, at some stage or other an accused will have to plead. If he pleads guilty, then there are certain safety-valves that have been incorporated into the legislation.

The final point I wish to make is this: We are not changing any principle that was included in the provisions of section 119. There is no change in that regard at all. The principle remains the same. However, the section itself has been improved because it alleviates the situation and makes for the better and easier administration of justice as well as improving the position of an accused person. Therefore, I have no compunction and no hesitation whatsoever in stating that the position will now be very much improved as far as these factors are concerned.

I support clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to summarize the standpoint of hon. members on this side of the House with regard to these provisions. I just want to say that in the first place one’s test is actually whether it is in the interest of justice and secondly whether one is prejudicing the accused in any way by this procedure. We have come to the conclusion that it definitely does not prejudice justice nor will it prejudice the interests of the accused if this amendment is made. It simply streamlines the conditions and if these two tests are passed there is no reason why we cannot accept this amendment. We support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. members for Pretoria West and Randburg for the charming way in which they are arguing this matter and for the patience they are showing. Quite honestly, it is easy to discern that once this amendment is agreed to, it will make matters easier for the State. I do not think there is any difference about that. We all know that if somebody is accused of the commission of a crime, is brought before a court immediately and is required to plead, there are only two ways in which he can avoid pleading at that given time if he is so required. The one is if he is not in a fit mental state to make a plea and the other is if the charge is not properly put before him; in other words, if there are legal objections to the nature of the charge.

The hon. member for Pretoria West says very often an accused is brought to the court before the charge sheet is ready—in other words, section 85 comes into play—and because the charge is not properly put to the acccused he can escape entering a plea. The hon. member then says that if the charge sheet can be written out in the afternoon, the accused can be brought to court the next morning. In terms of the legislation the situation is now being created that the next morning, some hours after his first appearance, the accused is once again brought to court and this time he is required to plead forthwith to the charge put to him. It is a question of saying, well, if we cannot catch him on the first day, we shall catch him on the second.

I believe it is incorrect to create a situation where an accused can prematurely be forced to enter a plea which, despite the checks and balances the hon. member has mentioned, can prejudice him in his legal rights at a later stage. I may well be asked when an accused should be required to plead? At what stage should an accused be required to plead? After all we cannot have an accused brought before the court week after week and all the time he is escaping the duty to plead. This situation we obviously cannot have. I do not think it is my intention or that of this side of the House to sabotage the administration of justice or to delay the bringing to finality of matters which should not be allowed to clutter up the court rolls. I do not think that is our intention at all. Our only intention is to ensure that the administration of justice is even-handed in so far as it serves justice and it serves the rights of people who are affected by that process. When should people be required to plead? I believe there are two points to be considered. The first is when the accused is before the court whose duty it is to try him. In the first instance I therefore differ with the hon. the Minister in the general principle, because I believe the accused should be before the court whose duty it is to try him. The second point is that the accused should be required to plead once he has been confronted with a proper charge which is in writing, which he has had time to consider and upon which he has had time to seek legal advice. Within a reasonable period of him being presented with a charge which is understandable, in writing and clear, the accused should be required to plead before the court whose duty it is to hear him. That is the way in which I would approach the matter, but this amendment does not approach the matter in that way. I regret my three speaking turns are now up but however charming hon. members have been and however pleasantly the hon. the Minister has spoken, I shall not support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really fail to understand the hon. member for Sandton. In 1979 his colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, supported an amendment which proved in practice to be ineffective. He supported it well realizing that its purpose would be that a person charged would be brought before a magistrate where he would be asked to plead although eventually he would be sent to the Supreme Court for trial. He knew that that would be how section 119 would eventually be applied.

By the time he appears in the Supreme Court, the die has been cast.

In 1979 they supported the procedure laid down by section 119 read together with section 121 in so far as the defence of an accused is concerned. But now they have changed. I think he is labouring under the impression that someone can be tried summarily in terms of section 119 and that we are actually extending that situation. That is not the truth. I concede it is possible that a magistrate may ask an accused to plead at his first appearance. It is possible, but unlikely. The Attorney-General, who has pressed for this amendment, says it is not always possible to have the charge sheet available at a first appearance. That is really the motivation behind the amendment. The amendment brought about in 1979 actually limited the situation because it referred to possible minor offences. This amendment of section 119 is however directed towards accused people destined to be tried in the Supreme Court. I think the hon. member for Sandton is missing that particular point. His opposition therefore is not really applicable to this amendment. We are actually facilitating the situation of the gentleman he has in mind, because he may not be required to plead at the first appearance. The hon. member’s opposition is directed towards the main principle, which we are not attending to in this case.

You should attend to that.

We are not attending to it. The hon. member’s opposition is therefore completely inappropriate.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.