as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Vista University Bill [B. 73—’81], as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the Vista University Bill [B. 73—’81], referred to it, begs to report the Bill with amendments [B. 73a—’81].

P. J. CLASE, Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly,

9 September 1981.

Proceedings to be printed.

as Acting Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of this House, I wish to inform hon. members that the debate on the Railway budget will be resumed on Monday, 21 September, and that the discussion of all the stages will continue until Wednesday, 23 September. The final Vote, Defence, will come up for discussion on Thursday, 24 September, and will be concluded on Friday, 25 September.

If the programme permits, the House will continue to deal with the Order Paper as printed.

Mr. Chairman, to begin the discussion of this Vote I should like to thank the ladies of the women’s club of the NP for the beautiful bouquet of flowers and appropriate card I received in my office this morning. I feel that the hon. member for Sandton could perhaps have made good use of a bouquet with an appropriate card. His card could for example have been inscribed: “Do not shoot the piano-player if you do not understand the music.”

It is with pleasure that I pay tribute to my predecessor, the present Vice-State President A. L. Schlebusch. Although he was only Minister of Justice for 15 months he had a considerable effect on the course of events, inter alia, by initiating various commissions of inquiry, for example the Rabie Commission, whose terms of reference were to report on the necessity, adequacy, fairness and efficiency of legislation on internal security. The Hoexter Commission, too, was appointed while he was Minister of Justice. Therefore, although he has now been called upon to perform an exceptional service elsewhere, his legacy remains part of our daily task, and will continue to be so in the future. It is my privilege to carry on with the matters he initiated.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, our hon. Whips arranged matters so cleverly that I as his successor can also congratulate him on his birthday today.

As far as the prison services are concerned, my immediate great predecessor—literally and figuratively—the present Minister of Police, also parted with an interesting and colourful portfolio. However, his loss is my gain. In his case, however, I have the advantage that he is available for consultation, a privilege I make ample use of. It goes without saying that I appreciate this. In addition I also express my appreciation for the officials of the Directorate of Justice and the members of the prison services, who readily adapted to the necessary change in style which accompanied the change of Minister and also the process of rationalization. It is to their credit that these adjustments took place without any slackening in pace or any loss of control.

In particular I should like to mention Mr. Coetzer, the Director General, who is assisted in his task with great dignity and firmness by the competent and well-known Deputy Director-General of Justice, Mr. Fanie van der Merwe, and the Commissioner of Prisons, Genl. Otto, about whom in particular I should like to say a few words, because this is the first time he is present here.

Lt.-Genl. Johan Frederick Otto is probably one of the youngest Commissioners to have occupied this post. It was only after his appointment that I discovered that he was bom in the Free State. His academic qualifications and experience equip him outstandingly for his task. I mention experience because he progressed through the ranks, and in the process occupied a variety of posts, which provided him with the background which is of inestimable value today. He is also a worthy holder of the highest decoration in the prison services. I have very great expectations for his term of office, because he is a resourceful man who is prepared to search for solutions.

This brings me to rationalization. For the former Departments of Justice and Prisons, rationalization means a relatively loose organizational linking of two relatively autonomous components: Justice and Prisons. As a result of the different organizational cultures, with different conditions of service, it has thus far not been possible to combine staff services, nor are there any borderline functions which are so closely related that they can be integrated. Nor is it foreseen that consolidation of decentralized offices will take place at this stage. The Director-General performs an important task of co-ordination while the Minister still has direct access to both directorates.

At this stage it can be said that the linking of the two departments has made possible a better mutual understanding of the functions of each, and for this reason it has been possible to develop and exploit levels of co-operation.

There are a number of matters that need to be put in perspective at this stage. In the first place I wish to refer to the staff situation in the Directorate of Justice. Recently this situation has been in the news. Problems surrounding the maintenance of the administration of justice also featured prominently in newspaper reports. This resulted in particular from the open-hearted reporting of the commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hoexter. At this stage I already wish to thank him for the good work done thus far.

Then, too, I wish to comment briefly on what has been done in connection with the staff shortages in order to put the matter in perspective. During the last part of 1979-’80 the shortage adversely affected the efficient maintenance of the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. There is no getting away from this. Johannesburg was particularly hard hit, and the fact that the courts could not all function continuously gave rise to concern. To overcome this situation, the Department of Justice has been attending to the matter for some time, and prior to the submission of the second report of Mr. Justice Hoexter, measures were undertaken to maintain the services of the courts such that I can say I am satisfied that under the circumstances we did our best. For example, prosecutors were withdrawn from other centres where other arrangements could be made and transferred to the problem areas. Magistrates were also sent to those centres to man the courts. These transfers, however, sometimes gave rise to resignations, and this caused problems with housing and the like. After the submission of the Hoexter report, as a result of the report and also as a result of constant attention given to this matter by the Commission for Administration at the request of the department, an improved remuneration package for legally qualified people in the specialist divisions was introduced with effect from 1 April 1981. This remuneration package led, inter alia, to improved starting salaries in those divisions of between R11 610 and R13 530 for persons in those ranks. This brought about a considerable improvement, which, as will be seen, has had a positive effect.

I also wish to dwell for a moment on Indian and Coloured legally qualified people. Attempts to recruit these people have not always been successful and in addition, those that did join could not always be retained. The reason for this was possibly to be found in the general manpower shortage or in the absence of salary parity. Since 1 April 1981, however, there is complete parity in the salaries and allowances of legally qualified people, and this has had a positive effect on the recruitment of Indians and Coloureds. There are at present 12 legally qualified Indians and Coloureds in service while a further 15 applications for appointment have been received. Indications are that Indian and Coloured legal students are very interested in entering the department. In this connection I wish to praise our Director General in particular for the positive steps he is taking unobstrusively by means of liaison and introduction at the highest and best known level in the private sector and also in educational circles.

The measures taken with effect from 1 April 1981 have had a positive effect. Recruitment has been stimulated, and since April 1981, 80 legally qualified persons have been appointed, while a further 35 applications are being finalized. Unfortunately 44 legally qualified people resigned during this period. Nevertheless we have had a gain of 71 for this period. The occupation figure for legal posts in the specialist division is therefore very favourable at present and indications are that it is improving steadily. The staff turnover has naturally also affected the degree of experience of officials. Naturally this is not something one can remedy overnight. Now that the services of legally qualified people are more readily available, however, the degree of experience and also the quality of service in our courts will improve. In-service training can still be improved under these circumstances. Special attention is also being given to formal training and in due course this will pay dividends.

I wish to mention another important figure. In the third quarter of 1980, 69,5% of the posts in the specialist divisions, i.e. State advocates, State attorneys and magistrates, were filled. After we had implemented the measures, 81% of the posts were filled. Recently 1,4% of the posts were vacant, in contrast with a figure of 5% of vacant posts for the corresponding period of 1980, i.e. the corresponding period last year. I think this is all I need say about this. I wish however to give the assurance that this is not all we are going to do. As in the past we shall continue with these measures.

Having said this, I do not wish to say that there are not staff shortages elsewhere. In the Masters Division there is a serious shortage of staff of 58%. How are we to handle this? We hope to still submit a Bill to this House during this session by means of which we wish to curtail the procedures for the administration of estates. This is also receiving the intensive attention of the Commission for Administration, which instituted a thorough investigation in this connection. Once this investigation is completed, it is to be hoped that we shall be able to achieve further good results in the Masters Division.

In the Registrars’ Division the investigation has been suspended pending the report of the Hoexter Commission. This is the picture at this stage as regards the Directorate of Justice.

As far as prisons are concerned, we were also in the news as regards the staff situation. I wish to say immediately that our staff gain in 1979-’80 totalled 712 members. In 1980-’81 it was only eight members, but thanks to improved prospects, positive guidance and inspired recruitment I am able to say that the resignation figure is levelling off and in this connection I wish to thank my colleague the hon. the Minister for State Administration and Statistics for his efforts in this connection after we had approached him.

In conclusion, a special word of appreciation to the staff of the prison services for waiting calmly for a decision which was equally calmly announced, so that we did not have the amount of publicity one might have expected.

This brings me to a number of reports of commissions to which I wish to refer briefly with the aim, too, of furthering discussion. In the first place I wish to refer to the third interim report of the Hoexter Commission. This report deals with aspects relating to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and the provincial divisions themselves. This report is being prepared for tabling and I trust that it will be possible for it to be tabled during this session. The hon. member for Sandton knows all about this.

This brings me to the Diemont report. This commission inquired into the desirability of converting the Witwatersrand local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. It was tabled on 17 August 1981 and in this connection I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 32 of the report. According to this paragraph the Diemont Commission was of the opinion that the eventual recommendation of the Hoexter Commission could put the problem, i.e. the conversion of a local division, in a new perspective. I also think it advisable to await the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission before taking a final decision in connection with the Diemont report. We shall however continue to gather comment and recommendations from the Bar, the Law Societies and other interested parties and we shall of course also consult the Chief Justice and the Judge President of the Transvaal.

I shall now deal with the Rumpff report. The terms of reference of the commission in question which was chained by the hon. Chief Justice Rumpff, were—

Because this matter affects our judiciary, it calls for responsible conduct on the part of all parties represented in this House and it is correct to confirm that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members for Sandton and Durban Point endorse this approach after discussions I held with them.

It is necessary that I emphasize the following aspects—

1. (a) The finding of the commission is clear that no judge was guilty of any intentional infringement of the regulations in connection with subsistence and travelling allowances of judges.
2. (b) No suppression whatsoever of apposite findings and recommendations is contemplated.

The form of the investigation was determined, inter alia, in that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point were consulted in the matter. While it has not yet been possible for the report in all its facets to be studied by all Government bodies and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, his party’s chief spokesman and the hon. member for Durban Point must still be further consulted on the final disposal of the matter, I shall announce at a later stage how the matter is to be dealt with. In the interim I wish to appeal to everyone to remain calm and untroubled in this regard. There is no reason for ill-considered remarks or reporting. Allow me in this connection, as my predecessor did, to thank the Press here and now, with perhaps a single exception, for the responsible way in which they have handled this matter thus far.

I am convinced that we can now see the matters I have dealt with in these introductory remarks, in perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

First of all I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his rather back-handed compliment which he paid at the very beginning of his speech. I should like to say to him that I wish him well in his term of office as Minister of Justice and I hope that it goes well with him in the administration of justice for the benefit of all the people of South Africa.

He says that if the audience does not understand the music it should not shoot the piano-player, but I think the hon. the Minister will concede that the music which has been played by the Government over the past months has struck many discordant notes. [Interjections.]

I want to join the hon. the Minister in wishing well the senior officers who have been appointed to his department and I also want to join him in the thanks which he has given for the service provided by those officers.

I should like to come, at the very beginning, to a matter which has some sensitivity. I refer to a matter mentioned by the hon. the Minister when he dealt with the inquiry which has just been completed by Mr. Justice Rumpff pursuant to certain allegations concerning the utilization of expense allowances by judges.

I should like to make it clear that I have not had access to the report. Further, I think it is important to state that while the PFP feels strongly that the integrity of judges of our Supreme Court and, of course, the integrity of the Bench itself, should not in any way be brought into question, we nonetheless believe that the ordinary law of ethics, of life, as well as the ordinary law itself should apply equally and openly to all people, whether they be humble or high-placed. Whatever the findings of that report are, I could not be a party to any attempt to stifle their publication. In this respect, however, Press speculation over the past few days has in fact not been helpful, and I wish to state categorically, for the benefit of both the Press and the public, that after discussion with the hon. the Minister, I gained the distinct impression that neither the Government nor the Minister were themselves prepared to countenance a suppression of any material facts, whatever they might be. Continued speculation can do no good, and therefore I am pleased that today and not later the hon. the Minister has made known his intentions in regard to this issue. We will wait patiently for his announcement. I take it that he will not delay his announcement, and we will pass final judgment when that announcement is made.

I wish to refer to another case. I mentioned a few moments ago that all people should enjoy equality before the law and, I might add, equal protection under the law. When this does not apply, respect for the law is lowered considerably. Not for many years has a Government agency done more to bring a system of justice administration into disrepute and ridicule than has been witnessed in the unedifying actions of this department over the shabby Jimmy and Eitel Kruger affair. The charges against Mr. Kruger were summarily dropped, while scores of others caught in the same speed traps were required to pay their fines without relief.

Rise a little higher, David.

Don’t you like this? I will rise as high as I wish to. Sir, I quote this case because it underlies an important principle. [Interjections.] Only when this act of political favour was made public did the hon. the Minister take action. What did he do then? He went through the fatuous motion, a charade, of calling conferences, of investigating the whole speed trapping system, of trying to give substance to the pathetic reasons offered by the Transvaal Attorney-General for the act of favour he granted to an ex-Minister and to his son.

You have no proof of that. [Interjections.]

What is the result of all this? There may be a change brought about in the law relating to the onus of proof in respect of traffic offences. Sir, we have for years been telling the Government to do just this. Speed trapping systems are now back in action, and it is a case of being back where we started. However—and here we come to the principle—what is the cost? Confidence in the system of speed trapping, in the administration of justice and in the impartiality of the Attorney-General has been lowered. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister’s grip, a very new grip, on his department is certainly suspect.

There is another specific case which gives cause for concern, and I should like to deal with it. I refer to the case of the Perskor circulation scandal. It is common cause that the circulation figures of Die Vaderland, Die Transvaler and The Citizen were fiddled in order to give those newspapers an unfair advantage over their main competitor, namely Nasionale Pers. It is also common cause that this act of what I would call grand fraud cost the advertising industry and their clients approximately R2 million, an amount by which Perskor was enriched, unjustly enriched, I may say. The completed police file, the docket, has been with the Attorney-General for some time now. In fact, weeks have passed, and yet no decision on a prosecution has been made or announced. This delay is becoming something of a scandal in itself. To ask the world to believe that 5 million extra copies of three newspapers could go unaccounted for by the top management of those newspapers in the first half of one year alone, in 1980, is to ask the world to believe in fairies. [Interjections.] Exactly how the fraud was perpetrated is not clear, but it must have been done either by pretending that more copies were printed, in which case the amount of newsprint consumed would immediately have revealed the falsification to senior executives, or it was performed by printing the full inflated figure but by dumping hundreds of thousands of copies of newspapers every day. If that was the way in which the fraud was perpetrated, however, the actual revenue, measured against the sales figures, would have told even any incompetent management that something serious was wrong. Since senior people at Perskor would, at some stage, have had to write out large cheques to make up the shortfall, it is inconceivable that no one in top management smelled a rat. No newspaper manager in the business would think otherwise, nor should anyone in Parliament, and least of all should the Attorney-General. By humming and hawing as he is doing at present, and delaying his decision about who to prosecute, or whether to prosecute at all, the Attorney-General is once again bringing the fairness of the administration of justice into question. One wonders how quickly a decision would have been reached if it had been Saan or the Argus Group which was under the spotlight. [Interjections.]

Wiley just laughs.

I just want to mention briefly the recommendations of the Diemont Commission. The hon. the Minister himself mentioned this Commission. Basically he has relied upon paragraph 32 of the report in order to postpone making any sort of decision. Whilst the commission did not recommend the conversion of the Witwatersrand Local Division into a fully-fledged provincial division, the commission did pinpoint several major problems that I believe could be cured fairly rapidly without derogating from a final decision on the structure of the two courts in the Transvaal in the long run. Those specific problems, which were virtually unanimously put to the commission by the Bench, the Judge-President, the advocates and attorneys, have been pinpointed, and Mr. Justice Diemont has made recommendations. The recommendations he made were threefold. Mr. Justice Diemont firstly recommended that a deputy judge-president immediately be placed in charge of the Johannesburg court, i.e. the Witwatersrand Local Division, in order to bring some order into the near chaos that was described in the report by the Registrar of that division. Secondly Mr. Justice Diemont recommended that appellate jurisdiction be granted, if only on a limited basis, to the Witwatersrand Local Division, thus avoiding the tremendous flow of traffic daily, and double attorney costs, between Pretoria and Johannesburg. Thirdly, on the basis of the representations made by the attorneys and other legal people of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, Mr. Justice Diemont recommended that those two areas and their environs be included within the jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division. These were important recommendations. I do not see them as providing a permanent answer, but I think that they are in themselves helpful in solving the problems that were raised. I am disappointed at the hon. the Minister not having made an announcement about those recommendations. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give urgent consideration to those specific recommendations, because if he makes a decision about them, that would not derogate from any final decision he might make in regard to the actual structuring of the two courts. So I ask him to make a decision and a relevant announcement at an early stage in order to assist in overcoming the growing problems that have been encountered, particularly in the Witwatersrand Local Division.

This brings me to the Hoexter Commission. A few days ago the interim-findings of the Hoexter Commission were released. What did we find upon reading that report? In months gone by I was told by the hon. the Minister, in conversation, that there was a staff problem, that a difficult position existed. The hon. the Minister was so worried that I would not give him credit for what he did that he actually wrote me a letter which was delivered a few minutes before this debate began.

[Inaudible.]

I don’t know why he is so scared. The hon. the Minister told me that he had received a report, but I did not know the contents of it. He said there were certain problems regarding staff, and he said he was taking certain steps, and told me roughly what steps he was going to take relating to special allowances. I agreed with those steps. However, I had no concept of how serious the situation was until this report was tabled in Parliament. The report revealed an alarming situation of total disrepair and near chaos in the lower courts of South Africa. In the few minutes allocated to me, I have no time to quote from the report, but it is there for everyone to read. Suffice it to say that it brought to the notice of Parliament and of the public of South Africa a shocking situation which had been allowed to develop over a period of years. Courts have been closed. Long delays in criminal trials resulted in and still result in the overcrowding of South Africa’s prisons. Unqualified persons—and the hon. the Minister himself quoted a few figures—were acting both as magistrates and as prosecutors, which critically endangered the quality of law dispensation. Thousands of working hours of private citizens who had to hang around empty courts were lost. More private money had to be spent on legal costs, and I want to say one thing quite unequivocably: No matter what excuse the Government gives, no matter what excuse the hon. new and well-intentioned Minister gives, this second interim Hoexter report is one of the most massive indictments of the Government’s administration of justice this country has ever had.

There is one preliminary and very pertinent question which I believe should be asked of the hon. the Minister, viz.: How is it conceivable that the Government and this hon. Minister, whose full-time job it is to keep abreast of the affairs of his department, could sit back and casually make a few adjustments thinking that the problem was thereby going to be solved? How could the hon. the Minister sit back and not take any real action until February this year, when he for the first time recognized that a crisis existed? Only in February this year did the Government realize that the deterioration of the standards of the courts required extraordinary and urgent action. In February urgent action was taken, and it was implemented on 1 April, when professional allowances for properly qualified people in the professional section of the department were introduced. I have done a bit of investigation, and I believe that for the moment the crisis has been averted. Resignations have slowed down. To some extent the professional ranks have been stabilized. The courts are operating again, but all this has been a costly exercise. It has been a costly exercise to the Government, to the Secretary of Justice, to the department and to attorneys, advocates and the public of South Africa. While the Government fiddled and while the situation continued to deteriorate over a period of two years, an entire generation—an entire corps—of experienced professionals has been lost forever to the department, never to be regained.

While the special allowances have been helpful, let us have no illusions about the fact that they have also created new problems. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is even aware of some of the new problems that have been created in the lower courts by the introduction of these professional allowances? As is pointed out in the annual report of the department, the old recruitment channels have dried up and the traditional progression through the ranks has ceased. In the past, professional progress in the division has followed the course I shall indicate. At the beginning of his career, a young man joins up as an administrative assistant and works in the offices of the court. After having done some studying and obtaining some minimal qualifications, he would progress to clerk of the court. He would then gain insight into the working of courts and into the working of the whole administration. From there, having done some more studying, he would be promoted to prosecutor, eventually to magistrate and from there on to chief magistrate, senior magistrate and regional magistrate. That has over the years been the traditional progression of professional people through the department.

At the present time, however, the allowances which have been granted do not apply to people who hold professional qualifications until they move into a professional post. The result is that nobody with any legal qualifications or experience will start or stay in the administrative section of the court administration. While the professional side has therefore been eased, the administrative court section and the administrative court back-up is fast deteriorating.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I actually know what I am talking about when I make a statement of that sort. It is not an irresponsible statement at all. It is a statement of fact which he can check up by speaking to any one of his senior administrative magistrates in any of the major cities in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The administrative court back-up is deteriorating rapidly. The administrative sections of the magistrates’ courts have in fact been de-professionalized. That is what has happened. Salaries at administrative and clerical levels, far from competing with those in private enterprise, are way behind, even when compared with those of semigovernment boards, municipalities and government agencies. I want to say that this causes deep bitterness amongst the staff of the various courts. I go so far as to say that a new crisis is about to break in the lower courts of South Africa in every single major city. Unqualified and inexperienced personnel, where they are available at all, are dealing with legal files. Computer terminals have been closed off completely for lack of staff. The vacancy level at every single major centre is alarming and recruitment is virtually at a standstill. Mistakes are being made at administrative level which are endangering the operation of the courts. Further much-needed decentralization of the courts, for instance, has become impossible because of the lack of administrative staff to back-up the professionals. Existing staff are overburdened and are working under intolerable conditions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to wait for another Hoexter report before he acts?

Mr. Chairman, I have been critical so far and now I should like to make a positive contribution to give the hon. the Minister a few suggestions on how to improve matters. There is much that can be done to put things right.

A new Government.

Apart from changing the Government. That is of course the first priority.

That is a panacea.

Apart from that, there are several steps the Government can take which can result in an improvement in the situation in the courts of South Africa.

Firstly, I believe that professional allowances must be paid to those who hold qualifications, even while they are gaining experience in administrative capacities as clerks of the court and administrative assistants just starting off. Thus the old style of progression that I mentioned earlier and the efficiency in the administrative section which is so vital to the decisions of the court would to some extent be restored. Secondly, I believe that the Government should recognize that the main problems are common to the large cities. The Government should consider introducing a major-centre allowance both for professionals and for certain categories of administrative staff. Thirdly, I believe that the Government has to take a whole new look at the salary structure of court staff, administrative, professional and clerical, in relation to what is being paid by other semi-government and municipal agencies. The hon. the Minister spoke of eliminating the wage gap amongst the races at the professional level. Fourthly, therefore, I believe that the Government should eliminate immediately the racial pay gap at the administrative and clerical levels so that the recruitment of suitable staff amongst race groups other than the Whites can be made possible.

It is all very well, having eliminated the gap at the top and finding that at the slightly lower level—at the administrative back-up level—there are no White people to take the jobs and to provide the back-up, while at the same time one cannot recruit either Whites or Blacks because, firstly, the salaries are too low and secondly, because of the disparity based only on race. This has to change if we want to have an improvement in the administrative back-up of the courts.

Fifthly, I believe that the magistrates’ courts, where this applies, should be released of all extraneous work, which should be conducted by other agencies. For instance, particularly in some of the smaller areas—although this applies in the cities as well—I do not believe it should be the duty of the magistrates’ court and its staff, already overworked, to deal with the registration of births and deaths, of petrol permits, of motor and fire arm licences, and even, in some instances, of Land Bank loans.

Sixthly, I believe the Government should give consideration to handing over to local authorities the collection and the administration of moneys and fines relating to all technical and traffic offences, all offences which do not require impartial adjudication. Seventhly, I believe the Government has to consider really seriously now moving away from rigid racial separation in the administration of justice. Vertical differentiation in this department is not in the interests of a fair and efficient application of the law.

No programme of training or education—no matter how laudable that programme might be—is worth a row of beans if the graduates immediately upon qualifying leave the service of the department. This phenomenon has been highlighted by the Hoexter report and must be stemmed immediately.

Finally, as my time has been so limited, I wish to point out that I have dealt with only a few aspects of the work of this department. My hon. colleagues, I know, will raise other equally important issues, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will for once give serious attention to the words that come from this side of the House, and provide at least some positive responses.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back at a later stage, to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton, but I must say that while I was listening to the member making his initial attack on the department, which was based on a traffic violation by young Mr. Kruger, and the Perskor aspect, I thought that if this is the way the hon. member commences his speech, then he is really complimenting the department all the way, if that was what he was compelled to base his criticism on, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that whatever he said subsequently really did not do very much to change my original impression of his criticism.

In the first place I want to welcome the hon. the Minister in this new portfolio of his. This is the first time he is dealing with the Justice Vote, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to congratulate him on his appointment and we want to wish him everything of the best in his office. Sir, he is no stranger to Justice. In the years he was a member of Parliament he served on an important Select Committee and consequently a Committee of Inquiry into Internal Security in this regard, and we believe that the hon. the Minister is equipped to deal with this Vote.

In addition I want to thank the Director-General, known for many years as the Secretary of Justice, for his report which is once again complete and comprehensiveness and well presented. Some of my colleagues on this side will single out specific aspects of it. Then, as has been said by the hon. the Minister himself, I, too, wish on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate General Otto on his appointment as Commissioner of Prisons. Each one of his predecessors left their mark in some way on the Department of Prisons and, I believe, each one of them left something positive there, by which they are remembered. I had a brief meeting with General Otto and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I believe that he, too, will leave his positive mark on the department, and we on this side wish him everything of the best and gladly assure him of our co-operation.

As far as the administration of justice is concerned, we find ourselves in a period during which a considerable number of its aspects have been examined by commissions of inquiry: The hon. member for Sandton referred to the various commissions. As far as the report of Mr. Justice Diemont is concerned, it has been dealt with. It was concerned with a single aspect, viz. the position of the Witwatersrand local division. We are still awaiting the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Galgut. We have received two interim reports from the hon. Mr. Justice Hoexter, and consequently we still have to receive a final report.

I believe that the eventual meaningful implementation of all these recommendations will only be possible once the whole picture has been completed. Consequently I want to suggest to my learned friend on the opposite side of this House that we should rather leave its implementation in the competent hands of the hon. the Minister and the Directorate. I believe that the hon. the Minister will probably put into operation some of the Diemont Report recommendations as soon as possible and I have no problem with the hon. member’s recommendation in this regard. But I think we can leave it in the hands of people who are equipped to deal with it. When the reports as a whole have been studied and the various implications of the recommendations have been considered, then it will be possible to obtain the end result by way of trial- and-error and adjustment.

As far as the second interim report of Mr. Justice Hoexter is concerned, I want to agree that he has up to now focussed on many important problems in the department. The most important of these was the problem which was being experienced in connection with legally qualified staff and then in particular the prosecutors. I do not think it is fair to lay this deliberately at the door of either the Minister or the department, and I see the hon. member for Sandton is nodding his head in agreement.

Whose fault is it?

Mr. Justice Hoexter also gives the Director-General, i.e. the Secretary of Justice, credit for the fact that for a long time he mentioned the problems revolving around qualified and at times administrative staff as well, in his annual report. This is not a problem which simply cropped up overnight. It is something which comes and goes, depending on certain seasons. But why did the hon. member not add, after having said everything that he had to say about the problem, that this problem has indeed to a very, very great extent been solved, and not only now, but for a considerable time? To tell the truth, before the total chaos which the Commissioner predicted could occur, it was checked and the position has on the contrary almost stabilized to its normal position.

I actually said that.

There is the report in The Citizen of 11 September in which Mr. A. P. de Vries, the senior Public Prosecutor of Johannesburg, said—

I do not have time to read the whole report, but Mr. De Vries then said in that report, or so it was reported—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Sandton and I should not also go and see whether they can use us there. I am referring specifically to the three courts which were singled out for specific reference by the Commissioner. They are the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, the court in Welkom in the Free State and then the Durban court. There were newspaper reports on all three courts stating that these problems were now a thing of the past. According to a report in Die Volksblad of 8 September, Mr. J. T. P. Swart, Chief Magistrate in Welkom, said that the shortage of qualified public prosecutors was a thing of the past. A similar report on the position in Johannesburg appeared in The Natal Mercury of the 9th quoting the words of the Chief Magistrate, Mr. Thompson, i.e. “that the administration of justice in the city’s magistrates’ courts had never been healthier”.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enable the hon. member to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition.

*In this last report to which I referred, reference was also made to what Mr. Swanepoel of the Directorate had said, viz. that the position had now stabilized almost throughout the country; in other words, Mr. Chairman, I now want to tell the hon. member for Sandton very amicably, for I have very little opportunity to speak to the opposite side these days, that I think his whole criticism in respect of this situation has come a little too late. I want to tell him why. Mr. Chairman, I have had contact with this department since 1957, when I worked there for a few months, and subsequently in my professional capacity.

Since I first became acquainted with this department—and this was in the late ’fifties—there have from time to time been staff problems. I say these staff problems are of a seasonal nature, for they relate to the ebb and flow of the position in the private sector depending on the need for legally qualified persons. I am very gratified to see that the hon. member for Sandton is again nodding his head in agreement with what I am saying, for I am placing it on record in Hansard while he is doing so. As the economic position outside in this country improves, so there is always a movement of legally qualified people away from the public service to the private sector. I can recall that there were times when, except in the remote rural areas, there were almost no vacancies in the Department of Justice in the Attorney General’s section, as public prosecutors or in the State Attorney’s section. Within a few months, however, that position changes dramatically, depending on how it may have changed from a slack period to an optimum situation outside in the private sector. Then you find that Attorney General staff resigned and joined the Bar. You find State Attorney staff resigning—they enroll as articled clerks—your prosecutors resign and you have a total outflow. Subsequently the situation may revert to its former position if there is perhaps another lull in activities in the private sector. I think this is something we must accept as being a phenomenon we shall have in this country from time to time, and that we shall have to learn to live with it.

It is because you accept it that there is never a solution.

No, the solution will come.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to the fact that we could supplement the vacancies from the ranks of persons of colour, but it is mentioned in the Secretary’s report that there are not enough of those people to fill existing vacancies. I think that what is significant at present in respect of the crisis which prevailed and which has not yet been completely solved—I want to agree with that and I do not believe that it will ever be possible to solve the problem completely—is the fact that whereas one does in fact have a lack of employment opportunities in the rest of the Western world at present, one has the opposite in South Africa. I think credit must be given to the Government for the stability and the incentives it has provided.

I want to conclude. I just want to say that the administration of justice is a continuous process which requires constant attention, and that it is one in which constant changes are taking place. The reason for this is that jurisprudence as such is not stagnant and can never be stagnant, for the law is an integral part of the daily life of the community which has far-reaching effects on many members of the community. It is the task of the hon. the Minister and his directorate to ensure that these demands which arise out of the constant growth, are always met. The directorate deserves the support of all of us in this respect as well.

Finally I just want to say that a fuss was recently made in some newspaper or other about a foreign visitor who had paid a visit to one of our courts and who was then asked to leave because he was ostensibly not properly dressed. Great umbrage was then taken because he had been asked to leave the court.

We must jealously guard the dignity and prestige of our courts. There are certain rules on how the public should conduct themselves in courts, and whoever attends the court proceedings must, in my opinion, adhere to those rules. I do not think that our Press need in that case support the indignant party, but should rather contribute to supporting the dignity and prestige of our courts by pointing out to such a visitor that it was his task and duty to ascertain how he had to be clad before visiting a court.

Suffice it to say that underlying the prestige and respect our courts enjoy are also the requirements of form in respect of how the public should behave themselves in court. We must at all times guard against the prestige of our courts being diminished.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to associate myself with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think we are all grateful for the high standard of our administration of justice in South Africa. This has always been a feature of our legal system in South Africa.

I also want to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to General Otto on his promotion and express my gratitude as well for all the many highly competent and motivated officials in the Department of Justice. It is true that if the interests of the citizens are not adequately protected, chaos ensues. As long as the ordinary citizen of this country knows that the courts of law of our country are functioning as they are, peace and prosperity will continue in this country.

I should also like to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the steps he has taken to retain the officials who are legally qualified. However, it is true that the situation continues to be a cause for concern and we trust that further steps will be taken to rectify the position.

It is a fact that legal costs on the part of a litigant are extremely high today. Furthermore, this is to a certain extent being aggravated by the shortage of the judicial officers and prosecutors in our courts.

In my humble opinion our court rolls are often unnecessarily long. This cuts both ways. A person ensures that he has enough work for the day, but it also often happens that some of that work has to be done the following day, and as a result of that accused persons and their legal officers sometimes have to attend court unnecessarily for a whole day. However, I concede that this is a matter which cannot easily be regulated.

Furthermore, it often happens in practice that witnesses are not subpoenaed to attend a court session. This leads to the unnecessary postponement of cases and an increase in costs. I realize that it requires a great deal of administrative work to ensure that witnesses are subpoenaed, but if one takes the waste of manpower into consideration I nevertheless wonder whether it would not be worth while to insist on this in all cases.

It has been my experience in the past that a case is postponed several times; even a final postponement is sometimes granted. However, if one arrives at the court on a specific day and finds that the witnesses are not there, or that the case cannot be finalized, what happens is that the case is struck off the roll and that the person has to be subpoenaed all over again, which again entails a duplication of legal costs. This often leads to a plea of guilty from the accused in a criminal case, purely on the basis of financial implications, and this applies in particular in respect of lesser violations, traffic violations, etc. In cases of that nature it is really not worthwhile for a member of the public to go to court to defend himself when his case is repeatedly postponed.

As regards regional courts it is, I believe, a splendid development to appoint presidents for the various regional courts. Some of those men are among the most competent people in South Africa, and I know many of them. If the case has to be heard on a specific day, the attorney must be available not only for that day, but for the next day as well, for it often happens that the case can only be heard the following day. At times the problem arises that some of the witnesses, do not show up, sometimes none of them do. Meanwhile you as an attorney or an advocate have set aside two days in order to finalize the case at the regional court, but now the case cannot even be heard. This gives rise to a tremendous waste of money, and consequently I want to suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of cases being proceeded with in those circumstances. If the attorney arrives with the client it is easier for him to arrange his cases from day to day.

A further aspect which is causing problems and which came to light during an investigation by Advocate Theuns Botha, chief road research officer of the road research unit at the CSIR, is the vast number of traffic cases which are being dealt with in our magistrates’ courts. According to the figures traffic cases represent 65,4% of the less serious cases and 60% of all cases referred to the magistrates’ courts. Numerically, therefore, traffic cases at present comprise the bulk of the work of magistrates’ courts. There were 1 634 370 admissions of guilt for the year under review. With reference to the tremendous administrative burden which is being placed on the judicial officers in magistrates’ courts, dealing only with admissions of guilt, I wonder whether it is not worthwhile to consider Advocate’s Botha’s recommendations. I am referring to the establishment of a central traffic court, a central bureau where all the previous convictions of traffic offenders can be placed on a computer. If a summons is then issued to a person for a traffic violation, he will be allowed a period of three days in which to indicate either that he is going to defend the case, or to pay an admission of guilt. However, if he has not given notice after a period of 30 days that he is going to defend the case, the postponed fine may then be recovered from him at once by way of an account which is sent to him. As is indicated in the evidence, the various violations of traffic offenders can be placed on record at a central bureau. Consequently it will be possible to deal with habitual offenders far more effectively. It is very interesting to note that Advocate Botha mentions in his investigation that Pretoria instituted an investigation during 1980 into the question of habitual traffic offenders. According to the August analysis 640 persons were caught for five or more traffic violations in Pretoria during the preceding six months. A total of 558 of them were prosecuted for five to ten traffic violations, 70 for 11 to 20 violations and 12 of them for 20 to 43 violations. If that information could be placed on record at a central computer, it would be possible to punish persons who constantly violate the law more severely and this could give rise to an improvement in the risk factor relating to traffic accidents.

There is a matter which has often vexed me in the past. If one examines civil cases at magistrates’ courts one sees that the State’s only real interest in such a civil case is the revenue stamp which is placed on a summons and, of course, its cancellation. Subsequently the State does not really have any further interest in the documentation or even the file. Subsequently, once the cancellation has taken place, it may be possible to instruct attorneys to keep the records. The only other function which the magistrate may have, if the case is not settled, is to give his verdict if he eventually presides over it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of hon. members in these benches I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. members about the staff of the department, especially the appointment of General Otto, the Commissioner for Prisons, and of course the remarks made about the hon. the Minister himself. I should like to wish them all well in a department which has, in fact, been beset by such great trials and tribulations and is having to make efforts to see that matters are put to rights.

One of the things that is of great concern to the man in the street is that the law or justice appears to be getting more and more remote and more and more complicated, not only as a result of the complications we have heard about today, but also because of certain very specific points. I think that for a layman like myself, who is not qualified in the legal sense, the passage from Lysander Spooner’s article “Natural Law or the Science of Justice” is a nice place to start, because it puts things in perspective in relation to the man in the street and the purpose for which justice exists. I quote—

I feel that the very essence of this statement is that justice should be a natural law. The tangled skeins and the many dusty tomes that exist in legal chambers all have their starting place in this natural law, and the very tenets of justice must embody the natural law. If the remoteness, as a result of all the developments that have taken place, pertains to anything at all, it must certainly pertain to the feelings and the problems which beset the womenfolk of this country of ours in relation to the very alarming and extremely unsatisfactory situation in regard to the high incidence and the handling of rape. To make my point, I should like to quote a few statistics, which of course are never pleasant, but I want to do this to give the point the necessary background and emphasis. It is important to note that there are something like 16 000 reported cases of rape per annum in this country. As it is estimated that only one out of every 10 cases is reported, the alarming possible total number of cases is something which cannot be ignored. It would, in fact, result in the possibility of more than 400 women being raped in South Africa daily. Further statistics indicate that the incidence of false reporting in respect of rape has been proved to be the same as that for all other crimes, viz. only in the region of 2%. When it comes to the question of prosecution—if one takes the figures for South Africa during the period June 1976 to June 1980—a total of 41 341 men were prosecuted for that crime, but only 22 408 men were convicted, of whom 19 received the death sentence. It is quite obvious that this situation arises out of the fact that so few cases are reported, as well as those who are not convicted, owing to lack of evidence and other factors. When dealing with the question of the nonreporting of this crime, I think one must have a closer look at the situation. We in these benches feel it is time that the whole matter was reviewed by the department. As has been done in other countries overseas—and at this time when so much is being reviewed in the Department of Justice—we feel that we should approach this question in a manner which befits the place and the standing of the women of this country in the eyes of our society. In that respect certain specific matters are very much under discussion by those concerned with this great social problem. One of the points made by them is that the community attitude to rape can be seen as the main reason for victims not reporting to the police and usually wanting to hide the crime to avoid more humiliation. That is indeed an indictment against the society in which we live. The second reason why this crime is not reported is the inadequate functioning of the criminal justice system with regard to the crime of rape. The number of procedures these victims have to go through do not cater for the special needs of the case.

I shall make mention of some of these procedures to give hon. members of the House an idea of the trauma this can cause and of the absence of the feeling and sensitivity which should in fact be present and which would obviate the unnecessary repetition and reliving of the incident the poor unfortunate victim has to go through. At present the procedure is as I shall set out. The victim makes a statement to the police. Any policeman can take the statement. The case is then passed on to a CID officer. The victim will then have to retell her story. The victim goes to a district surgeon for an examination to collect medical evidence. The district surgeon is not responsible for medical treatment or referral to psychiatric services. The investigating officer coordinates the case, but receives no special training. He will have more interviews with the victim and, if the attacker is arrested, he will organize an identification parade. If the case goes to court, the victim has to face attacks on her character. She may also be threatened with reprisals by the defendant. I may say that the public are totally unaware of the degree to which that in fact happens, for instance in the case of gang rape. In certain areas families in fact pay protection money to protect their children—and I use the word “children” advisedly—and other members of the family from these people, who very often are let out on parole or are in fact remanded.

Throughout this procedure no one does anything for the victim. She often comes into contact with a great deal of scepticism and insensitivity on the part of the authorities. She has to describe repeatedly the details of the attack and none of the authorities dealing with her has the explicit responsibility to inform her of the services she might make use of—psychiatric treatment, venereal disease treatment, the services of Rape Crisis, etc.—or of her legal rights.

Sir, my time is running out. I have tried to put the case that in fact we in this country can no longer continue along these lines. We on these benches feel that it is high time that a co-ordinated and sensitive body of independently appointed people should be formed, including of course a majority of womenfolk, though I know that they are not always supposed to be terribly objective …

I beg your pardon!

However, I do not see how one can get to the bottom of this subject unless one in fact treats it with the necessary sensitivity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town has dealt with a matter which is disturbing indeed. It does seem that the occurrence of violent rape is on the increase. I believe, however, that another hon. member on this side of the House will deal with this same matter. I shall therefore leave it at that.

*There is a report in today’s Cape Times about more than 100 lawyers who are offering their services free of charge to defend offenders under the Group Areas Act. The report refers to these people as “lawyers” without any more detailed description. They could therefore be attorneys and/or advocates. Members of both of these professions as regarded as officials or officers of the court. I believe that it is the duty of officers of the court to make a positive contribution to the administration of justice and to promote the functioning of the court. I do not believe it is their function to place obstacles in the way of the court or to make matters difficult for the court. [Interjections.] It is an unfortunate fact, but nevertheless a reality, that the courts are experiencing staff shortages at present. I therefore believe that it must necessarily cause the courts embarrassment if an organized effort is made—as is the case here—to defend offenders and in so doing to impose an additional work load on the court.

That is absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

Nor can one escape the conclusion that this is an organized, politically organized and politically motivated action. Indeed, this offer is being made through the Committee to Stop Evictions, and this committee is a political organization.

Even they have rights.

This offer is being organized by this committee.

That is because they believe in law and order.

The issue here is the infringement of legal provisions. It is an issue of laws being attacked in the political sphere by the official Opposition.

Are those people not entitled to be defended?

The hon. member should just give me the opportunity to develop my argument and after that he can put his questions.

How can you tell whether there have been contraventions before people have been convicted by a court of law?

This concerns infringements of contentious legislation of this House. I contend that in this instance the aim is to create embarrassment for the hon. the Minister of Justice and for the Government.

That is absolute rubbish. [Interjections.]

This is being done both by imposing an additional workload on the courts and by using the court as a political platform.

Why do you not simply hang them?

I believe it is professionally unethical for officers of a court to use that court as a political platform. [Interjections.] I believe that is what is envisaged here. I believe that the interests of those who are charged are not so important in this regard. What is important is to obtain a political platform from which the legislation in question can be attacked. [Interjections.] My conclusion is supported by the knowledge that there is already legal aid. There is legal aid for bona fide cases.

Inadequate legal aid.

Legal aid will be discussed again later in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Durban Central can elaborate on that further. There is legal aid for bona fide cases. The courts do not deny any accused legal aid. Therefore there is no reason why any accused must or would be denied fair adjudication. It is unnecessary to organize defence through a political organization such as this. Nor is it necessary for officers of the court to come forward in this way in an orchestrated effort to embarrass the Government and its legislation.

They are not doing anything illegal.

It is alleged in this report that these lawyers “volunteered”.

Oh naughty!

The hon. member for Houghton says they are naughty. I shall come back to that. It is also stated that “there was an assurance that they will offer their services” in this connection. I am convinced that this constitutes professionally unethical conduct on the part of these officers of the court.

They are honest, decent people.

This is the first time that I have heard it justified on professional ethical grounds that lawyers, professional attorneys and advocates, can offer their services, can volunteer to defend people. For what purpose? For political purposes. The issue here is not the furtherance of the administration of justice; it is a matter of political motives. Nor is it a matter of rights. If it is a matter of rights, then the persons in question would have access to legal aid if they could not afford professional assistance. There is no justification whatsoever for launching an organized campaign to arrange defence for the people in question.

It is to cause delays.

I shall leave this matter at that.

The courts must not be misused for political purposes.

The hon. the Minister can react to that as he sees fit.

We are thoroughly ashamed of you.

If the hon. members would only give me a chance I should like to continue.

During the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, an attack was also launched by the official Opposition on the system of preventive detention. I contend that if one recognizes the supreme authority of Parliament, then the supreme authority of Parliament also implies the ability to place legislation on the Statute Book to protect the community. In the present circumstances, in which we are faced with a total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa and are seeking to protect the community, it must also of necessity be recognized that the power of Parliament to place legislation on the Statute Book to protect the community includes the power to pass legislation to make provision for preventive detention. And if the right of this House to place legislation of this nature on the Statute Book is recognized, then it is nothing less than absurd to continue to insist that these detainees be brought before the courts and that their case be adjudicated in court. By definition, preventive detention is an alternative to adjudication before a court of law. The whole purpose of preventive detention is to prevent a person’s actions and conduct from reaching the stage at which he commits an offence or infringes a specific law, at which point he can be charged before a court.

Who decides on that stage?

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

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

I thank the hon. Chief Whip. By definition, preventive detention is an alternative to adjudication by a court of law and what this really amounts to is that preventive detention is ineffectual if in spite of it, a person still proceeds to conduct himself subsequently in such a way that his case can be adjudicated in a court of law. The issue in a court of law is, after all, that the accused has committed a specific crime or contravened a specific law. However, the whole purpose of preventive detention is to prevent a person from doing so, and that is why it is necessary to have legislation of this nature in circumstances such as those that prevail in the Republic of South Africa at present. Therefore it is meaningless to keep coming here with a refrain of: Why do you not charge the detainee before the court? This is like the police officer who, when a complaint is made to him about an intruder who is breaking into a house, says: No, let him carry on; let him first commit a murder, and then we shall be able to charge him with murder. [Interjections.] Surely that is not how a …

That is stupid.

… responsible Government would act.

†What is so stupid about it? You are stupid, man. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not describe another hon. member as “stupid”.

I withdraw it, Sir, but the hon. member is not displaying exceptional wisdom. [Interjections.] I refer also to the provisions of section 10(1)(a)bis which make provision for restrictions on the freedom of movement of specific persons. Who are these people whose freedom of movement is now at issue?

They are not criminals.

The hon. member states that they are not criminals. I agree with him. They are not criminals because the issue here is not one of common law criminals. If so, they would have been brought before the court. The hon. member does not grasp what I have just tried to explain to him—that the very issue here is to prevent anyone from committing a specific crime or statutory offence. The issue is specifically one of preventive action, and therefore the hon. member was correct in his ignorance when he said that they were not criminals. [Interjections.] Against whom is action being taken in this regard? They are people who are engaged in the furtherance or the realization of the objectives of communism. Hon. members of the official Opposition say they are opposed to communism. [Interjections.] Surely they either are or they are not. The hon. members say they are opposed to communism. Surely, then, there can be no objection to this consideration. Or is it again merely a case of their performing lip service to their opposition to communism? Every time action is taken against communism, they find some reason to oppose such action.

It is a communist method you are using.

The second class of persons against whom action is being taken in terms of this section are those people who are endangering the security of the State.

That, too, is a communist method.

In the third instance they are people who are endangering the maintenance of law and order.

Another communist method.

The hon. member who is so talkative and who states that this is a communist method must tell me whether he in fact regards that as a communist method and if so, I challenge him to show me in what communist country the following control measures apply. Firstly, the hon. the Minister also has to provide reasons for his actions.

To whom?

To the person concerned. [Interjections.] Go and read the Act.

Absolute nonsense!

Of course, it is stated in the Act. [Interjections.] Has the hon. member not read the Act? [Interjections.] What is more, details of the restrictions are published in the Gazette. Provision is also made for a committee of review and a report is submitted to Parliament. Are those communist methods, Sir? If the hon. member states that they are, then I challenge him once again to show me in what country they apply.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that the man in the street does fear the law to a certain extent. The letter of the law affects every person directly in his life, freedom, property and one can literally say from the cradle to the grave. It is not only lawyers as such who come into contact with legislation, but everyone to a lesser or greater extent. One hears many complaints that one must really be a lawyer to be able to interpret our existing legislation.

The aim of the interpretation of laws is to determine the intention of the legislator and what he had in mind and this is done by examining the words he used. Normally words as such do not create problems; it is only the politicians who often play with words and who deliberately resort to ambiguity and vagueness and very often use words with a generalized meaning.

You are, of course, referring to the Opposition.

Yes, to the Opposition.

This can be convenient and I understand that it has even developed into an art form which is called “creative ambiguity”. This is absolute taboo to the legal draftsman. He must make use of quite the opposite. He may not choose any word which is ambiguous, vague or has a general meaning, but only words with a succinct meaning. An ambiguity could be contained in a meaning or word constructions—i.e. those referred to as “semantic, contextual or syntactic”.

Normally no problem is experienced with words, except that they have different meanings when one examines the translation. However, the rules of interpretation provide that the signed text will be the valid text. It may be ironic that the word which is used in the English text for the word “verskil” in the Afrikaans text which is the signed text, happens to be the word “conflict”. In my opinion there is a difference in emotional value between the two.

The problem arises because words are used in sentences and here great demands are made on the legal draftsman to make the expression of his intention easily understood. It must be clear and open to one interpretation only. Furthermore it must pass the test of making provision for all circumstances which may arise.

Legal draftsman as well as the draftsman of legal documents are inclined to cling to certain stereotyped expressions which have disappeared from the spoken language, the so-called “legal jargon”. It is true that the drafting of laws has greatly improved in the most recent past in particular, but we find that problems do still arise. The explanation which is normally given for this is that this form of expression has already been interpreted and given meaning by the courts and that is why they persist in using these terms even though they have to a certain extent disappeared from the spoken language. The very fact that the assistance of the courts has to be called in to give a textual interpretation, signifies that the use of such words has created problems and is continuing to create problems particularly for those who do not know or who do not have access to the verdicts of the courts.

Let me refer to one instrument which the legislator often uses, i.e. the question of the proviso, and by this is meant that a certain condition, provision, exception, restriction or compliance with a proviso is created on which the validity of the provision is based. In normal spoken language one would often use the word “but”, but we find that the legal draftsman is inclined to prefer the phrase “provided that”. We no longer use those words in the spoken language; in addition it jars on the ear and is not easy to understand. In legislation which has already been tabled “provided that” is used, whereas the legislator merely wants to say that ministerial permission is necessary. In other cases this phrase is used where the legislator merely wants to say that the man who is being fired has a right to appeal. But now it is being put in this way: He may be fired “provided that” he has a right of appeal. I maintain that word usage of this nature makes interpretation difficult. Furthermore, it is difficult to read and I believe there are words in the spoken language which are more suitable. As I have said, we do not use these words in our daily life and I believe that legal language ought to follow the spoken language. A great deal of progress has already been made, in particular in respect of sub-paragraphs and the substitution of long sentences which were the order of the day in the past. Numbered paragraphs and simpler syntax contribute greatly towards obtaining clarity on the meaning and the assistance of experts in interpreting the law is unnecessary in such cases. It has often been said jokingly that if the legislator does not say exactly what he means, he should say so.

Translations place an additional burden on the legal draftsman and as I have indicated, they cause problems, but on the other hand translation contributes to effective drafting of laws, for when one tries to translate a paragraph, one can usually ascertain how well or how poorly that paragraph has been drafted.

In the time I still have left to me I want to associate myself with other hon. members in thanking the officials of the department for their sound co-operation, and in my case I should like to thank the registrar. This does not imply that the other officials were not exceptionally helpful as well, but I had contact more often with the registrar and received only the best treatment and cooperation from him.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Nelspruit will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument as I wish to talk about something else. However, in so far as he is saying that he supports the idea of getting away from legal jargon, I support him. I would very much have liked to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, but the hon. member for Durban Central will do that presently. I would, however, like to react to one point he raised. I want to say: “I believe that what those lawyers are doing is in the highest tradition of the profession” and, secondly: he said “Well, they must not do that; they can go and get legal assistance that the Minister will provide”, and in the course of my speech I shall refer him to what the hon. Chief Justice has to say about something like that.

On Sunday a week ago, South Africa’s newest fledgeling State, Ciskei, detained 205 trade union leaders under proclamation R.252—the Ciskei’s 90-day law. The result of this detention without trial was simply that a large number of divided trade unions, representing about 100 000 workers, released a joint statement against two things, namely separate development and Ciskeian independence, and they are commencing a joint campaign on 26 September. Brig. Sebe has, by this one action of detention, forged a unity among a number of divided unions.

In South Africa, in 1977, the detention and subsequent death of Biko achieved two things. It achieved the unification of Black consciousness groups throughout the country and, secondly, the unification of the entire world against South Africa in an international arms embargo.

Not Biko’s detention; his death.

Just three months before Biko’s death, I spoke in this House and warned the hon. the Minister at that time of the dangers of detention, and I specifically spoke of deaths in detention. I said (Hansard, 6 June 1977, col. 9308)—

I further stated—

The hon. the Minister scoffed in his interjections, and hon. members know what happened to him after that.

On that point, the Gardner Commission in Ireland found that detention without trial was a cause of the worst explosions in Ireland, and it said in the report—

Today citizens are being detained and restricted all over South Africa under these laws that the hon. the Minister believes were created to give its victims the opportunity to cool off. For offences relating to the maintenance of law and order in South Africa, more people are now imprisoned by Cabinet Ministers than are imprisoned by the courts. In these matters the courts have become the exception, not the rule. [Interjections.] At Nyanga recently we saw the absolute futility of relying on the power of the law to try to suppress the political, social and economic pressures in South Africa. [Interjections.] Over the 30-odd years that this Government has ruled, the people of South Africa have seen the law in this country become, not a protection against power, but an instrument of power to be used and manipulated by those in power.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, I want to put a point of order and substantiate it on the basis of a point of order which was put earlier by the hon. member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that more people were imprisoned as a result of the actions of the hon. the Minister than those of the courts. [Interjections.]

That is not a point of order!

I say it is a blatant untruth. [Interjections.]

Sit down! You are wasting the hon. member’s time.

When the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said in a debate earlier this year that there was a guest in the public gallery who …

Mr. Chairman, he is wasting my time.

… was a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Sea Point said on a point of order that it was a blatant untruth and asked the hon. the Minister to withdraw his allegation. Mr. Speaker asked the hon. the Minister whether or not it was true.

You are wasting time!

I say the hon. member told a blatant untruth, and I should like you to rule, Mr. Chairman, whether he may continue in that way. [Interjections.]

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

Our once envied legal system in South Africa has become little more than an instrument to suppress the majority and to regulate the social, political and economic systems for the benefit of the minority.

With such speeches in this House we do not need enemies.

The people of South Africa have seen the law used to deprive a whole nation of the franchise, used to make honest work-seekers criminals in their own country and used to turn Cabinet Ministers into judges, prosecutors, policemen and gaolers in one and the same case. Whereas our liberty was once protected by judges, we are now at the mercy of Cabinet Ministers. How reliable is the judgment of such Cabinet Ministers? How much can we rely on a Cabinet Minister when he says that a citizen is advancing the aims of the enemies of South Africa? I say that because these hon. Ministers, in this very session, one after the other, starting with the hon. the Prime Minister, have repeatedly accused hon. members of Parliament of dangerous activities here, of consorting with representatives of foreign African States, of being “pleitbesorgers” for the ANC and of many other activities inimical to the interests of South Africa. The ordinary citizen in South Africa knows that his liberty is not safe in their hands.

South Africa was the inheritor of two of the great legal systems of the world, the Roman Dutch Law of Holland and the Common Law of England. Over many centuries of struggle these systems won the right of personal liberty, at great cost, by way of the writ of habeas corpus and the Interdict de Homine Libero Exhibendo. This heritage we have in South Africa is not that of the USSR of Uganda or the many other hypocritical little States that peddle their wares in the United Nations. Our heritage is one of personal liberty that has been jealously guarded by our judges in South Africa.

I am going to have to cut short what I wanted to say because of the long interruption I had from that hon. member. [Interjections.]

You were interrupted because you talked nonsense and told lies in Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, am I to have your protection?

Order!

In 1956 in Rex vs Slabbert the present Chief Justice of South Africa said the following—

He went on to say—

“Ondenkbaar” was the word he used—

What was unthinkable to thé hon. Chief Justice in 1956 is, however, commonplace today in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

These hard-won rights were transplanted to South Africa, where they were recognized and nurtured by our judges, but in two decades of NP rule they have been destroyed, and that is a very great loss to South Africa. Those who rule us in the next generation will have grown up in a country in which they have seen the process of law, not as a protection against power, but as no more than a convenient instrument of power. In the words of one of our very distinguished South African counsel—

He went on to ask whether there is any hope of restoring what has been lost, and his depressing answer to that was that it would not be realistic to say so. However, he said that realism, however sombre, is not to be confused with silence or acquiescence. He then quoted William of Orange when he said—

I hope that that counsel is wrong, and I hope that what we have lost in South Africa can be restored again.

It can hardly be restored after what you have said.

However, when I listen to the hon. the Minister of Justice and to the hon. member for Mossel Bay speaking about detention, it leaves me very cold.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Sandton.

†The hon. member mentioned the case of Jimmy and Eitel Kruger. I think the mentioning of that particular case is most unfortunate, irresponsible and not befitting a member of his seniority in the House. There are three reasons why I think so. First of all, this matter is sub judice. The case is still being heard in one of our courts, and the hon. member would do well to go and read Standing Order No. 129. The second point I should like to make is that the hon. member cast aspersions on the discretion of the Attorney-General, who is one of the impartial prosecutors in the country, a judicial officer of high integrity and standing. The hon. member cast aspersions, insinuating that the Attorney-General would have been swayed by political considerations to give preference to certain Ministers and people.

That is what I said explicitly. I cast no aspersions.

That is unbefitting an officer of the court who should know better, as that hon. member is. Thirdly, it was an unkind cut directed at the hon. the Minister, implying that he has no firm grip on his department. Indeed, the opposite has been proved in this case. The hon. the Minister called together all the Attorneys-General, with the effect that they reconsidered their previous ruling. If that does not constitute a grip on his department, I am at a loss to understand when one could ever be considered to have a firm grip on one’s department. I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister.

*I should now like to talk about the security legislation in the country. I should like to associate myself with previous speakers and say that when we talk about security legislation in the country, we should see whether we and the Opposition view these matters in the light of the same realities and in the same perspective. I want to start by asking them whether they agree that there is a total onslaught on the Republic. Can I assume that the Opposition agrees that there is a total onslaught? I do not hear a word. [Interjections.] They deny that there is a total onslaught, but one cannot argue with stupid people. One recalls the recent UN resolution on a boycott, but those hon. members deny that there is a total onslaught on South Africa. Those who do not wish to see, will not see, and one can barely argue with them.

The second point I want to raise is an important statement, namely that if we have the perspective of a total onslaught, we have to admit that it is aimed at one thing, the overthrow of the existing order. We must also admit that every possible method will be employed and that the aim is to establish a Marxist régime here. When you look at hon. members on that side of the House, we must take cognizance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pinetown.

†The hon. member for Pinetown is known as a person who acts like a bull in a china-shop. He rushes in where angels fear to tread. With reference to Nelson Mandela we heard him say that Nelson Mandela was suffering from a very acute illness, namely carcinoma. It has, however, been proved that that is incorrect and that it is a lie. Now, Sir, if the hon. member could rush in as regards Nelson Mandela, how futilely has he not also rushed in as regards Ciskei? He has criticized Ciskei for detaining 250 people.

I did not. I just told you what the results were.

I believe that the authorities in Ciskei are responsible people and have the best interests of their people at heart. If they then so decide, who am I to criticize, and who is that hon. member to criticize?

I did not attack them. I just told you what the results were.

What is the purpose of the attack on South Africa? It is to put a Marxist Government into power here. The question I want to put is how the attack manifests itself in the Justice Vote where the administration of justice and justice itself is of importance. In the field of the administration of justice we get the attack on the semantic level. Certain expressions are used which create an emotional value which is unrelated to the true meaning of those expressions. The first of those expressions is the so-called “rule of law”. The second is the so-called audi alteram partem rule. The third is “individual rights”.

These expressions have an emotional value. I want to ask whether our enemies apply these norms. The answer is “no”. However, they are applied to us in season and out of season by the hon. members of the Opposition. Let me give an example. The other day we were not allowed to speak in a debate at the UN. Did they apply the audi alteram partem rule on that occasion? On the contrary. What is strange, is that none of the hon. members on the other side object to that. I have heard no objection from them yet today.

Nonsense. That is not true.

Only old Harry did.

Yes, but one swallow does not make a summer. [Interjections.] If the sanctity of the administration of justice were a matter of principle to them, they would all have objected to that.

You do not like your own medicine.

I want to make a second point. What is the case with Swapo? Swapo is not elected, but the DTA, which was elected, is not recognized by the UN. Is this impartiality, is it just that this should happen? However, I very seldom hear hon. members opposite objecting to it. When it comes to the concept of individual rights I want to ask if they have never heard anything about the rights of the Polish trade union. Have they never heard about the political prisoners who were shot by Fapla? I hear nothing about that. We only hear these expressions when things are being said against South Africa. [Interjections.]

When the hon. members of the Opposition, who are now talking so loudly that I cannot hear myself, raise arguments against the Government, it makes me think of what happened once when Solzhenitsyn said something. I am quoting from the Daily Telegraph—

This also applies to the party opposite. Their reasoning has a veneer of cleverness, but it merely conceals their absolute denseness (toeheid)—I think the Afrikaans is so expressive.

In the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves we need security legislation. I should like to quote what Lord Denning said—there are hon. members on that side who have heard of Lord Denning—

If that is allowed, and if this is said by Lord Denning, then I want to know what is wrong with our security legislation as it is administered by the department of the hon. the Minister. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister to his department that we support him, that we are with him when he acts in the interests of the security of the State and of the public order. We are also with him when he clamps down on those who try to further the aims of communism.

We on this side of the House have the correct perspective with regard to the security of the State. We regard political prisoners and politically condemned persons in exactly the same tight as ordinary prisoners. There is nothing special, nothing holy, about those people. Therefore we also support the department in its action against them. Our view in this regard differs from that of the official Opposition. We maintain that hon. members of the Opposition have been brainwashed. They have been brainwashed by concepts such as the “rule of law”, “audi alteram partem” and “human rights”. They have been brainwashed to such an extent that their actions can also now be qualified with the words “pseudo-smart mental and moral denseness”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the statement made by the hon. member who has just sat down …

Pretoria West.

Where is that? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pretoria-West stated that there had been no protest from this side of the House …

Did you protest?

The hon. member for Sea Point, who happens to be the spokesman on foreign affairs of this party made a public statement in which he protested against the fact that South Africa had not been given the right to put its case to the United Nations. Therefore, the statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria-West is quite wrong. [Interjections.]

What I should tike to know—since we are talking now about this principle of audi alteram partem—is what the hon. member for Pretoria-West and his party have done to undermine entirely the rule of law and habeas corpus in South Africa. I want to know exactly what right of protest has been given to the 61 people, presently residing in South Africa, who are banned and restricted in terms of the Internal Security Act. Never were those people told of the charges against them. They simply received a statement from the hon. the Minister of Justice to the effect that “I”—whatever the hon. the Minister’s name happened to be at the time—“am of the opinion that you, so-and-so, are advancing the aims of communism and that you are a danger to the internal security of South Africa.” No reason per se has ever been given to those people. They are never told exactly what it is they are supposed to be perpetrating against the safety of this country and they thereafter have to lead the life of restricted people, which is a very miserable life indeed.

I want to know whether Fatima Meer, for instance, has ever been given the opportunity of defending herself. She has recently been banned for a second five-year term. I want to know whether Priscilla Jama, a Johannesburg lawyer, who is also under banning orders, has ever been told exactly what it is that this Government has against her. I also want to know whether the people who are presently languishing under section 6 of the Terrorism Act—according to the August figure there were 75 of them—have ever been told what it is that the Government has against them.

Let the hon. member for Pretoria West not come along with his ideas of attempting to embarrass hon. members on this side of the House by stating that we do not believe in the principle of audi alteram partem.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Pinetown is back in this House. Before turning to the hon. member for Houghton I should tike to exchange a few words with the hon. member for Pinetown.

The hon. member for Pinetown alleged here this afternoon that the actions of the Government, the actions of this hon. the Minister, were the reason why there was unrest in this country. He put it to us in a harsh and unfriendly vein.

But it is true.

Of course it is not true. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who has just made that interjection, may rest assured that in the course of my speech I shall also come back to a remark he made in this House earlier this session. I shall exchange a few words with him too later. Every time the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North opens his mouth, he displays his ignorance even more than before. The hon. member for Pinetown maintained that the hon. the Minister was using our security legislation as “an instrument for the oppression of the majority”. What the hon. member is doing when he says that is to utter the greatest untruth imaginable. We reject it with the contempt it deserves. He alleged that through actions of this kind we are placing people “at the mercy of Cabinet Ministers”.

That is right.

That is not true. The hon. member for Pinelands who is putting his oar in now should be careful. I am still going to speak to him too this afternoon.

Are you threatening me? [Interjections.] Who are you to threaten me? I am not afraid of you.

The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to the total onslaught on South Africa. It is a fact that there is an onslaught on South Africa. The maintenance of law and order and the protection of the security of the citizens is an absolute priority in any civilized country today. At the same time this ensures the protection of civilized Christian standards in our set-up here in South Africa. A strong and reliable security structure, supported by security legislation and implemented by a responsible Government by way of its officials and Ministers, is in actual fact a guarantee not only for the freedom of the Whites, but of persons of colour as well. It is a guarantee for freedom of worship, of decision making on one’s own affairs and of the freedom of living in the conditions we have here. One finds this in all civilized countries of the world. Let us consider Great Britain for example. After all, the hon. member for Houghton is so fond of quoting Great Britain as an example to us. According to a report in The Times of 29 February 1980, 857 people were detained in Great Britain during 1979 under The Prevention of Terrorism Act. The report went on to state that since 1974 4 500 people had been detained in Britain under this Act and not even one fifth of them eventually appeared before the courts.

Yes, but they are given a chance to see lawyers.

Great Britain is held up to us as an example—and we are not criticizing them—but this is what is happening there. We are merely asking for the right to be able to do the same in this country as well.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the security power base on which any civilized State is built, is being eroded, that State inevitably collapses. Responsible people and Governments realize this, but not the PFP, judging from the denunciations of our security legislation we again heard today. I now state categorically that, at this moment, there is a single-minded onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. This is true, whether those hon. members want to admit it or not.

Helen says they deny it.

Yes, and I shall come to that right now. I am now going to quote what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said in this House earlier this year, on 26 August. He said in (Hansard, col. 2003)—

Does the hon. member still want to deny it? He tied his party down here. That hon. member does not realize what is going on. Surely these things do not happen of their own accord; they are being planned by people who are engaged in a subtle strategy to get at South Africa’s security power base. That hon. member really goes through life wearing blinkers. He does not know what is going on around him. He does not realize that he is being used and abused in this total onslaught on his fatherland. He does not realize that these people who are using and abusing him—and I shall presently demonstrate to him how these people are using and abusing him, people like him and other people—will not allow him to escape when they have taken over South Africa.

Take as an example Mr. John Jackson, who acted as advocate for Mr. Edgar Tekere in Zimbabwe. Where is Mr. Jackson now? He ended up in gaol in Zimbabwe and consequently he and his wife fled to South Africa—the dangerous South Africa where the people are being detained and where there is no freedom, if we are to believe the hon. members of the PFP. Sir, the hon. members of the PFP think they are embracing an angel but they do not realize that they have a devil by its tail. The worst aspect of all this is that these things which are being planned for South Africa, that the things which are being planned for the Free World, are no secret. The communists disclose these things. They said what they were going to do long ago. This is what a man by the name of George Dimitrov said as far back as 1938—

The tragedy is that those hon. members of the official Opposition do not believe this. They believe that something is being concealed here. This is not true and this is stated here for everyone to see. I say that this is subtle planning which is being done and that the hon. members of the PFP do not realize that they are being used and misused in this process to form part of the onslaught on the security power basis of this country.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that we on this side are being used to launch an attack on South Africa?

What exactly did the hon. member say?

Mr. Chairman, I did not insinuate that they were being used in an onslaught. I said that they were unwittingly being misused. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, we have a problem with unrest among certain students in South Africa and in this regard I should like to speak to the hon. member for Pinelands, who has such a lot to say for himself today, about student unrest in South Africa. There are serious problems at some of our universities as far as this matter is concerned and this Government considers unrest among the students to be a very serious matter. The reason for this is that students are the leaders of tomorrow. That is why we examine the situation with great care when there are signs of unrest among our student community. The University Christian Movement, about which the hon. member for Pinelands knows a great deal, said, inter alia, the following in a publication entitled “One for the Road” which appeared in 1968—

I could continue in this vein, but the fact of the matter is that this message was being disseminated among our students. Students are being used and abused by the enemies of our country in order to overthrow the orderly structure we have here. The 1968 conference of the UCM passed the following motion in connection with this article—

Who moved that?

The hon. member has asked me, and I shall give him the answer. The motion was moved by the hon. member himself.

Security legislation is indispensable to South Africa, as it is for any civilized country. The Government and the hon. the Minister will continue to implement security legislation in South Africa in the interests of all the people living here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with typical sanctimoniousness the hon. members opposite accused hon. members on this side and the Government of not having respect for the law and the administration of justice in this country. I want to suggest that that is the very last accusation that hon. members on that side of this House could make. One need only consider the past few weeks and all the events surrounding the squatter problem in which that side of the House was deeply involved, during which people were incited to civil disobedience in an inflammatory way. Is that respect for the law? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that hon. members on this side “was opruiend in the aanhitsing tot burgerlike ongehoorsaamheid”?

What exactly did the hon. member Mr. Schutte mean?

Sir, I said that they were involved in the squatter problem where people were encouraged in a reckless way.

The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon. members may deny this matter, but I should like to refer to a matter relating to respect for the legal tradition in this country. The hon. member for Pinetown referred to it as well, viz. the independence of our judiciary. I am referring here to the constitutional proposals from that side of the House and how they will affect our judiciary and its independence.

One of the four foundations of the constitutional proposals of that side of the House is a federal constitutional court. Such a court would then be the final arbiter between the Government and the individual, and would have the final say as to whether laws are valid and whether they comply with the constitution and the Bill of Rights. This means only one thing, viz. that like the Supreme Court in the USA we, too, are going to make our court an instrument of Government, and in that way we are going to drag our courts …

Is the Supreme Court an instrument of the Government? Surely that is ludicrous.

… and our judiciary knee-deep into politics. Just as in the USA, Supreme Court judges are to be appointed on the basis of their political affinities and their political usefulness. [Interjections.] We shall not be able to avoid that, for even if one does have a different body to appoint judges, that body must still be appointed. Every Government of the day is going to appoint people who are going to promote its policy. The fact of the matter is that those proposals can only cause the complete politicization of our judiciary.

Not only is this foreign to our constitutional system, in which Parliament does not grant the power of government to the judiciary, but if it were adopted, we should have unrealistic rulings and unrealistic government in this country originating with the judiciary such as, for example, the bussing system in the USA. Furthermore it is something that is foreign to our legal system, for if there is one thing of which we are and must be proud, it is the fact that we have an independent judiciary and that our judges are not appointed on the basis of political affinities or usefulness.

For the sake of its political expediency, the official Opposition has come forward with constitutional proposals which absolutely nullify the independence of our judiciary. In addition it then accuses this side of the House of not having respect for the legal tradition in this country. I can only apologize once again to the legal profession of our country on behalf of the official Opposition for their having come forward with such ill-conceived proposals. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to another matter which was disputed strongly by the official Opposition in 1977, viz. the new Criminal Procedure Act. This legislation has been in force for almost four years now, and this may be a good point at which to evaluate it. The major change effected by the Criminal Procedure Act relates to the procedure involved in entering a plea. In terms of section 115 a judge or magistrate is empowered to question the accused in respect of his defence. Section 112 stipulates that on a plea of guilty an accused may be found guilty only by way of questioning, i.e. without evidence.

One of the ways to ascertain whether this new procedure is effective is to see whether it is able to define the facts in dispute in the shortest possible time. An aspect which could prove this, is the number of witnesses called over the past few years. The statistics in this regard indicate that whereas the number of criminal cases declined by 10,1% between 1959-’79, the number of witnesses to whom witness’ fees was paid, declined by 43,8%. This means one thing only, viz. that as a result of the new Criminal Procedure Act, points of dispute were identified at an earlier stage and witnesses were not being summonsed before the court unnecessarily. This has resulted not only in witness’ fees declining in nominal terms by R170 000, or 28%, from 1975 to 1979, but also necessarily in a saving of thousands of rands in manpower hours.

A further aspect which can be singled out very clearly since the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Act is that there has been a 50% decline in the number of cases for automatic review. In terms of the procedure contained in section 57, admission of guilt fines may be paid directly to a magistrate’s court or police charge-office, or to the local authority in the area of jurisdiction of the court in question. This has resulted in a drop in the number of inter-office transfers, which has meant a major saving in manpower and commission payments.

However, time and money saving is not of the greatest importance. What is of more importance is whether this has resulted in a sound administration of justice. As far as this is concerned, it can only be stated emphatically that quite apart from the guidelines introduced by the Supreme Court in respect of the procedure involved in entering pleas, the courts have experienced very few problems with regard to the new Criminal Procedure Act, and it was very well received by the Supreme Court as well. A further indication as to whether the new Act has resulted in sound administration of justice, is the number of appeals. There has not been a sharp rise in this respect, and consequently one may assume that this legislation has in fact resulted in sound administration of justice. One cannot but congratulate the officials of the department once again on the smooth implementation of this Act in practice. Another matter I should like to raise, is that of pro deo fees. The last increase in this respect was in October 1975. Since then the cost of living has risen by more than 100%.

That is right, tell them!

As a result of the increased criminal jurisdiction of the regional courts, the average criminal work which is coming through to the Supreme Court is consequently of a far more serious nature. Consequently I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to increase these fees as soon as possible in order that this, too, may be placed on a more realistic level.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer, is the manpower situation in the department itself, and in particular the use of professional officers in the office of the Attorney-General. Unfortunately the second interim report of the Hoexter Commission does not go into this matter, but I should like to suggest that that division make far more use of the private sector. [Time expired.]

I just wish to say something in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

*Did the hon. member Mr. Schutte say that the Opposition incited people to commit illegal deeds?

No, Mr. Chairman.

You did not say that?

He said something similar. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said that they incited people to commit civil disobedience. [Interjections.] He spoke of “burgerlike ongehoorsaamheid”, of “civil disobedience”.

Mr. Chairman, I said they were involved in the squatter problem where there were people … [Interjections.]

Order! I shall look at the hon. member’s Hansard later.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte about pro deo counsel. Reading through Hansard, I see that this matter has been brought up repeatedly. It is a surprise to me, in fact, that the 1975 rates still apply. There is no doubt that this is an extremely valuable, necessary and well-carried-out aspect of our system of justice. I should therefore like to add our appeal from these benches to have those fees reviewed.

In reading through Hansard—more specifically the years during which we have had security laws—one notices the vast amount of debate that has taken place in connection with detention without trial. Both sides of the story, when properly put, do of course have an essential degree of truth. I think it is important for us on these benches once again to put our point of view because nobody in this House would disagree with findings from America and Great Britain about security legislation. In fact, I doubt very much whether anybody would disagree with the following paragraph in Hansard of 12 May 1978 (col. 6816)—

I quote another instance—

I think that the truth lies somewhere between the point of view adopted by the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the Government side and that of the hon. members of the official Opposition. In a situation in which a country like ours finds itself fighting an insurgency war, one of the most pertinent target areas would, in fact, be that of casting doubt on the justice of the cause of the people who are fighting such an insurgency war. In relation to our particular system of detention without trial, security laws and all the other relevant laws, we on these benches feel that detention which can be justified in order to prevent certain actions does not go far enough in engendering a feeling of the justice of the cause in the people within the country. Nobody in the House can say that he does not wonder why someone has been detained, how bad such a person’s action was or how necessary it was for a person to be detained under the relevant laws. It is our feeling that if we take this one step further, in taking preventative action, but not taking any legal follow-up action, we are negating our own cause by not reinforcing the feelings of the justice of this cause of the people who are fighting the many aspects of the onslaught against us. We take cognizance of the fact that the hon. the Minister made mention of the Rabie Commission. We should like to reinforce our statement that a judicial tribunal should hear the case of those detained as soon as possible. Terrorists who are captured on the borders of our country are first interrogated and then handed over to a civil authority to stand trial and perhaps be rehabilitated.

In many cases there is a good deal that is done towards maintaining the proper relationship with the population, e.g. granting amnesty. This is the area in which we allow the world to beat us with a heavy stick, because there is no legal follow-up to the necessary detention, or any preventative action. We on these benches are extremely hopeful that the Rabie Commission will bring into being a form of judicial tribunal to review these cases and thus remove any doubt about the justice of a specific act of detention.

There has been considerable discussion about salary scales and related matters in the department. Nothing specific was mentioned in the report of the Hoexter Commission concerning the Master’s division. The report by the Department of Justice states—

The report states further how important this is, etc. It is well-known that the Master’s division is fighting a tremendous battle. There are enormous delays, and one of the points I raised in the House, but to which I have not yet had a reply, though it is on the Order Paper, was the question of the comparative salary scales for legally trained staff in the magistrates’ courts and Master’s Division. At present the salary structures in the department are a cause for great concern. In certain sections of the department certain legally trained personnel are accorded professional status, whereas in others, like the Master’s office, legally trained men are not accorded professional status. The effect is that a large number of younger men commence in the magistrates’ courts with a salary and allowance in excess of R10 000 per annum, whereas an official in the Master’s office, who has taken his legal exams, after 20 years receives only R12 000 per year. I want to bring that point to the attention of the hon. the Minister so that specific attention may be given to the situation in the Master’s division where there is already a tremendous backlog. There are a great many untrained members of staff, and the burden on the trained members of the staff is enormous, bringing about even further delays.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town will excuse me if I do not take his argument any further. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply adequately to the matters he raised. I do, however, wish to associate myself very fully with the remarks he made previously in connection with the alarming increase at present in the crime of rape. You will recall, Sir, that the Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division, Mr. Justice Munnik, also commented on this a few days ago. I think it is a matter which should be viewed with very great concern by the House.

*What I find particularly disturbing in connection with the occurrence of the crime of rape, is that the incidence across the colour line is on the increase. It appears to me as if it is a new form of terrorism.

However, I do not want to discuss this. I should like to refer to a matter in calmer waters, viz. the new Divorce Law, No. 70 of 1979. It was preceded by a report by the Law Commission on the old divorce legislation. When Act No. 70 of 1979 was proclaimed, legal writers such as Prof. Hahlo maintained that a divorce would not be easier to obtain as a result of this Act and that there would not be a decrease or increase in the occurrence of divorce either. The legal writers were of the opinion that consideration such as industrialization, the population explosion, women’s lib and similar external factors would be more likely to influence the increase or decrease in the divorce rate.

Let us take a look at the divorce rate. At this stage it is probably the highest in the world. If one takes into account the population figures in South Africa, it paints a picture which gives one cause for reflection. According to figures provided by the hon. the Minister in response to a question by the hon. member for Germiston District a few days ago, it appears that 14 558 marriages were dissolved during the year 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979. This is the year that preceded the introduction of the new Act. In the following year, 18 757 marriages were dissolved and from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1981, 20 091 marriages were dissolved. In the first year the increase was therefore 28,84% and in the following year there was a further increase of 7%. The number of children involved increased from 14 849 in 1978 to 21 115 in 1980. This is an increase of 42,2%.

These are disturbing figures. Another alarming fact is that more than 50% of the divorces that take place, involve persons in the 20 to 34 age group. I read the report of the Law Commission carefully once again, and one is impressed again by the logic contained in it. For instance one discovers there that the law itself can contribute little towards the stability of marriage or the prevention of the breaking up of marriages. Furthermore, they also say that the question of the guilt principle in divorce actions should disappear, that in solving marital differences and matters that emanate from this—I am referring to the guilt principle here—it contributes further towards aggravating the enmity and unpleasantness that accompanies a divorce. Of course, I know that this matter rests chiefly with the hon. the Minister of Welfare and Pensions, and that he will definitely look at these aspects too. The evil of collusion, to which the courts are so strongly opposed, has not been stopped by the new law. If the claimant alleges under oath that he or she no longer has any interest in the marriage and accepts that, as far as he or she is concerned, the marriage has disintegrated beyond repair, the question arises how the defendant can prove the contrary. Therefore, the divorce court has gradually become more of an impersonal instrument, more impersonal than ever before. In the meantime the bulk of divorces are still being settled by way of agreement.

My request is that the hon. the Minister should give attention to giving the courts a true discretion to refuse to dissolve a marriage if one of the parties is not willing to divorce, and that that discretion should be exercised only after a social worker has undertaken a scientific investigation. I am thinking of the French law, for instance, in which a court of reconcihation is used, and where the parties concerned appear before the judge on an informal basis in order to attempt to settle their problems. In the nature of things, no one is inclined to admit that he or she is a failure; or that a task that they have undertaken, has failed. However, why is it so easy for someone to admit that he has failed in the most important decision that he has taken in his life, particularly in the case of people between the ages of 20 and 34 years? The Law Commission did in fact ascertain that the chances of reconciling the parties after divorce proceedings have been instituted, are extremely slim. This was also based upon the findings of the Law Commission in Britain.

However, the commission then concedes that although the parties cannot be forced into a reconciliation, there should be ample opportunity for reconciliation in the divorce law, and that the parties should be encouraged to avail themselves of that opportunity. However, with all due respect I must say that this does not happen. There is also an inkling in the report of the Law Commission that the manpower shortage may have something to do with the fact that a family court, with all the accompaniments of social workers, etc., cannot be used. It must also be borne in mind that those 21 115 children, who became the victims of divorces in the 1980 calendar year, are themselves a greater risk for a successful marriage in the future.

In conclusion I want to allege that we in South Africa are steeling ourselves against the onslaughts of enemies outside. We are preaching spiritual preparedness, and we are doing this with complete conviction and without restraint. We are striving towards succeeding for the sake of the Christian principles in which we believe. However, in the meantime we are allowing our family life, our marriages and our homes to crumble from within. Ultimately this must break down our will to stand firm.

Mr. Chairman, on 8 September this year a report was published in The Argus in connection with the evidence which Mrs. Mana Slabbert submitted to the Hoexter Commission, the commission which is investigating the structure and functioning of our courts. Under the heading “Resentment over lack of legal aid”, we have a report of Mrs. Slabbert’s evidence. In the same edition of the newspaper, there was also a leader in which Mrs. Slabbert’s evidence is referred to. The heading of the leader concerned read as follows: “Legal aid shortcomings”.

The report and the leader in the newspaper brings the whole matter of legal aid to the fore, and I should like to raise a few ideas about it. However, to begin with one must emphasize that it was the State that took the lead in granting legal aid to needy people in our country. Parliament introduced the Legal Aid Board in terms of Act No. 22 of 1969, and since then Parliament has been voting funds every year which are made available to that board so that it can carry out its work. Therefore, this House is faced today with the task of granting approval to voting an amount of R575 000 for the Legal Aid Board. After the State had taken the lead in this regard, various voluntary private bodies came into being in the same sphere. I can mention only a few. For instance, there is the Legal Aid Bureau in Johannesburg, the Legal Resources Centre, the Citizens Defence League and others. In addition, the law faculties of practically all our South African universities have introduced legal aid clinics on their campuses, where senior law students, under the supervision and with the guidance of their lecturers, render services and give legal advice to needy people. One should have a great deal of appreciation for the fact that these voluntary bodies are rendering this fine service to our community. The clinics at our universities are doing very valuable work, especially in two respects. In the first place they are providing a legal service to needy people and at the same time this is very valuable practical experience for the law students, as part of their training for working with people and their problems. However, it is a pity that some of these private bodies and organizations, particularly those that fall under the protection of politically motivated bodies, such as the S.A. Institute for Racial Affairs and the Black Sash, make statements from time to time which attempt to place the State’s own legal aid programme and scheme in a less favourable light. Sections of Mrs. Slabbert’s evidence as well as the newspaper’s leader are good examples of this type of behaviour. I should just like to quote two paragraphs from the leader in The Argus to which I have already referred. With reference to Mrs. Slabbert’s evidence, the article reads—

These are unfounded statements that are being made. Another quotation reads—

This afternoon we had another example from that same quarter when the hon. member for Durban Central made an interjection when the hon. member for Mossel Bay was speaking and made the statement that there is inadequate legal aid available for, for instance, the class of persons to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay was referring. It is from that quarter that this type of statement comes, and I just want to make two very brief remarks about this. The statement that there are insufficient funds and that there is a shortage of qualified staff for making the State’s legal aid scheme work, is quite unfounded. Every year this Parliament votes money for the scheme and there are perfectly adequate funds for complying with all the applications that come their way. In addition, this country has the services of thousands of attorneys and advocates who voluntarily place their services at the disposal of the Legal Aid Board. However, then we have accusations from this atmosphere that there is no money and “that there is a lack of professional staff’. This is entirely untrue. Another popular method that these people have, is to publish impressive figures about their activities and then to compare them with the statistics of the Legal Aid Board in a critical way. I think it is an extremely unfair way of behaving. The figures of these bodies always apply to the number of interviews that they have granted to people who have approached them, whilst the statistics of the Legal Aid Board relate to the number of persons who have been actively assisted, who have been referred to attorneys and to where lawsuits have taken place. Therefore, they are two completely different matters. If the figures of the Legal Aid Board, relating to the interviews that they conduct, are compared with the interviews conducted by the private bodies, then the figures of the private bodies fade away, and become entirely insignificant. In addition, if there are cases of people who approach the private bodies and it is clear that the problem is unavoidably heading for a court case, they do not deal with those cases themselves. What do they do? They refer these people to the State’s Legal Aid Board where they have to ask for help.

Why do they do this? They do so because the State has the free professional services of attorneys and advocates and—this is important—the State also carries the cost thereof. Granting free legal aid to a needy person regardless of race or colour is such a fine thing and it is such an essential part of our administration of justice, the quality of which is world renowned, that all those who deal with this matter, should show appreciation for what the State is achieving in this sphere and not bring the board into discredit in an unfair fashion by way of controversial statements like the ones that I have mentioned to hon. members.

The Legal Aid Board operates countrywide in contrast to the private organizations which are chiefly centred in the larger cities. The Legal Aid Board has full-fledged branch offices in the larger centres too, but what is important, is that there is a legal aid official at every magistrate’s court in the country. In fact, usually the magistrate himself is the legal aid official. This gives complete country-wide coverage in this important sphere. Furthermore, the assistance of the Legal Aid Board is available for all persons and the entire spectrum is covered—criminal cases, civil cases, quasi-judicial investigations, prison trials, military trials, workmen’s compensation commissioner investigations and appeals to the appeal court. One could go on in this way. In contrast to this—and this is the impression that I gain—most of the private bodies concentrate chiefly on the people of colour and they are particularly fond of granting aid in conflict situations, in other words, matters with a political slant.

Furthermore, the Legal Aid Board reports annually to this department on all its affairs, on how many people it has helped, on how it has spent its funds and with full details of its work. In contrast to this, as far as my knowledge goes, we have the private bodies that do not have to report anybody and about which one also hears very little in public. In this regard I should just like to mention a few figures. According to the latest report of the Legal Aid Board that I have here with me, 27 211 applications for legal aid were received, of which the board’s own officials were able to settle 8 152 cases themselves without having to go to court and of which 7 144 were referred to attorneys. From this report, and from what we know about the good work of the Legal Aid Board, it is very clear that it is succeeding par excellence at the aim for which it was created. The members of the Legal Aid Board and all the magistrates, the attorneys and the advocates who are striving for this purpose, merit the highest tribute of this Committee and of everyone in the country for the fine piece of work that they are doing.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my reply I shall also refer to the much appreciated contribution of the hon. member for Ermelo but I want to begin immediately by referring to the speech by the chief spokesman of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Sandton started on a high note as regards his statements relating to the Rumpff report and I want to thank him for that.

It is incredible how rapidly one can move from one branch to the next, because the very next moment the hon. member entered troubled waters by launching a direct attack, by implication, on the Attorneys-General of South Africa. I shall indicate how this worked out and why I came to the conclusion that the hon. member attacked them, I trust in ignorance.

In the course of 1980, and perhaps even earlier than that, the Attorneys-General of South Africa began to express misgivings concerning the justification for the regulations which were made in terms of section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act and which are prescriptive with regard to the utilization of certain speed control apparatus. The Attorneys-General began to feel so strongly about the matter that as early as the beginning of the year they issued instructions to their prosecutors not to depend on the speed control apparatus any longer. Why?

In the course of 1980 there were a number of court cases that began to cause certain prosecutors and Attorneys-General to doubt whether it was fair to the offender to place on him the onus of proving that the specific apparatuses were not used in a specific way. In the course of those court cases it came to light that the apparatus in question—and this applied to both types—were susceptible to outside disturbances which could result in faulty readings.

If it was the case that this could result in a faulty reading where a person was not in a position to prove his innocence, then in the opinion of the Attorneys-General that was not equitable. After they had made a submission to us, we said that they could continue. We did not make an announcement to that effect, but it was the practice throughout South Africa. Therefore there were indeed misgivings about certain facets of evidence in this regard.

Therefore, when an objection was raised and there was an indication of a possible defence, the Attorney-General of Transvaal withdrew such cases on certain occasions, whereas others he struck from the roll. In the course of doing so he dealt with the Kruger case as well. It was reported to me that he did so because he had reservations with regard to evidence.

The matter assumed such dimensions that it came to the attention of the department. They informed me of it and I considered the situation and realized that if cases were withdrawn at such a tremendous rate, speed control in South Africa would be jeopardized. What is more, a feeling could develop among the South African public that it was no longer necessary to obey laws and instructions. That feeling could also have spread to other spheres. Of course we could not allow anything of the kind, and we accordingly requested the Attorneys-General of South Africa to come together.

Over a period of virtually three and a half days we deliberated and struggled with the question. Eventually we reached the conclusion that it would be better if the regulations in question were officially repealed. We also came to the conclusion that the apparatus was in fact reliable but that their reliability and their possibilities as regards evidence in the courts would be increased if in practice the apparatuses were doubled up.

The Attorneys-General also informed me of their problem relating to the availability of expert witnesses who could testify on the apparatus itself, because the number of such expert witnesses is limited. Sometimes the available witnesses even had an interest in this matter. In the nature of the matter this therefore became an issue in court. After all, one cannot take it amiss of a good advocate for the defence for raising these points.

The Attorneys-General consulted with one another in regard to the issue of the availability of witnesses, and their approach was that it was indeed possible to find and exploit such sources. They reached the conclusion that this was an opportunity to persuade the traffic authorities, who also implement these measures, to ensure that the available witnesses would be present. To ensure that the public was satisfied, the traffic authorities had to comply with the directives of the Attorneys-General with regard to the evidence required and the obtaining of expert evidence.

Then, too, the Attorneys-General reached the important conclusion that we should indeed give a person greater satisfaction if he were to know that when he was caught in a speed trap, the case would go to court if he contested it. In other words, in the first place the Attorneys-General were determined to be as fair as possible towards the public and, on the other, to take traffic offenders to court. That is the effect of the deliberations of the Attorneys-General.

Other facets also came to the fore. As it happens, the hon. member for Roodepoort also referred to them, inter alia, to a case in which the attorney or advocate turns up with his client but, due to the state of the roll, their case has to be postponed. We have given attention to this too and I want to refer hon. members to the statement I issued in this regard on 20 July 1981. What it amounts to is that Attorneys-General will now take steps to avert the situation where a member of the public who is contesting a charge, turns up at the court, but the case is not heard. We are trying to persuade the public to indicate that they will contest a case, because that would enable the prosecutor to draw up his roll in advance. That, too, is part of my reply to the hon. member for Roodepoort.

The allegation that this is a blot on the name of the Attorney-General in question is therefore also a deplorable allegation against all the Attorneys-General, because they all deliberated about the problems in relation to evidence. I can assure you, Sir, that we did not mention the Kruger case by name. But I do not want to say anything more about what happened at that meeting. The name of Kruger was not mentioned at all, because it was a matter of the principle involved. I said to the Attorneys-General: “Gentlemen, here are the guidelines; you will implement them.” There were a large number of cases at issue, and after the Attorney-General of the Transvaal had satisfied himself that the problems of evidence had been eliminated and that there was to be uniformity in South Africa, he reached a decision.

I think the hon. member for Sandton should be afforded the opportunity to apologize. [Interjections.] However, I do not wish to discuss the further progress of the Kruger case, because the matter is really sub judice. The case has been postponed for trial, and I shall therefore leave the matter at that.

There is another matter, too, that is sub judice but which the hon. member nevertheless discussed, and that is something I find most unfortunate. There was a question on the Order Paper in connection with the investigation into Perskor.

As much as two weeks ago.

Yes, two weeks ago. However, we do not take overhasty decisions as that hon. member does, only to regret them later. We give a matter thought before taking a decision. In my reply I said that this matter had been referred to the Attorney-General, and I can say to hon. members that the Attorney-General has appointed a senior State advocate to investigate the matter. However, the Attorney-General, too, is himself taking an interest in the matter. This matter has been in the hands of the Attorney-General for barely a month. It is an extremely bulky dossier. Therefore I hope that we are not going to have a repetition in this case of allegations levelled at our Attorneys-General who, under enormous pressure, are succeeding in keeping crime in South Africa in check, even though certain hon. members opposite may not think so. I hope the hon. member will take the opportunity to discuss this as well.

†The hon. member also mentioned the Diemont Commission. I think the hon. member will concede that paragraph 32 of that report is of importance, and that as such I should at least have it referred to the Judge President of the Transvaal, the Chief Justice and all other interested parties. I think the hon. member would also concede that it would be preposterous for me to announce any decision when the report itself advises me not to do so. Nothing, however, prevents me from making my sentiments known to the hon. member. I think that an argument could well be made out for appeal jurisdiction for the local division. I think an argument could also be made out for the appointment of a deputy Judge President. I do, however, want to leave the matter at that. I trust the hon. member will be satisfied with that.

What about Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark?

Let me give my sentiments about that.

I represent them.

I am quite prepared to look into the matter if the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs lends his weight to the hon. member’s recommendation.

That hon. Minister does not care.

He does not know what is going on.

Sandton must solve its own problems.

For the rest the hon. member for Sandton was very positive and suggested a number of steps to solve our staff problems. I can assure the hon. member that it is not being kept from him that we have problems in the other divisions as well. However, I have also indicated that this department has the will to solve the problems and I have indicated that this has been the approach of the department for a number of years. The problem became serious in 1980, but it was solved. I am still waiting for the hon. member for Sandton to give the department the credit for that.

What must I give?

I am still waiting for the hon. member for Sandton to give us credit for the fact that the problems, highlighted by the Hoexter Commission, have been solved as far as legal services …

I said the situation has been stabilized.

Thank you, but I am still waiting for the hon. member to give us credit. He must at least thank the department, even if he does not want to thank me.

‘As regards the problems we are having in the other divisions, it is true that there are acute shortages. An investigation into the office of the Master of the Supreme Court is underway, and we trust that that investigation will give rise to a solution. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are in earnest in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister aware of the problems that have been caused—as opposed to the benefits derived—by the introduction of the professional allowance, in other words, the deprofessionalizing of the administrative section, and all that that means?

I am very much aware of it. It is possible for qualified members of staff in the administrative sections to ask for transfers. We have attended to such requests. The hon. member will, however, realize that legally qualified people are really at a premium. The Hoexter Commission recommended, in the first place, that we should attend to that problem. The hon. member is now reprimanding me for not going far enough. I have admitted to the hon. member that I am aware of the situation. The matter will, of course, also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, who has specially attended the debate this afternoon to listen to that hon. member, and I have no doubt that he will also give the matter his attention.

*For the moment I want to leave the hon. member for Sandton at that. I think he will understand when I tell him that his ideas are important to us. However, there is one other point he mentioned with which I want to conclude as far as he is concerned. The hon. member appealed to us to take the agency services away from the magistrate’s office. He said that this should be done on the platteland in particular. The significance of his appeal is that we should then appoint people with legal qualifications to perform legal work only. The hon. member is right, of course. He was referring to the platteland in particular. In this connection we have had the investigation under the chairmanship of Mr. Senekal, a member of the department of the hon. the Minister of State Administration. Certain recommendations have been made in an effort to deal with this problem, but we were not able to have those recommendations implemented. What we did do was to see to it that the people who work in the centres where less than 500 hours of legal work is done every year, were gradually transferred elsewhere. However, we have a very serious problem in this connection. We cannot allow legal services on the platteland, too, to be prejudiced. I contend that the unqualified argument of the hon. member for Sandton proves that he has no feeling for the platteland. He does not know how important the magistrate’s office is to oom Jan and oom Piet. He does not know that this office, together with the clergyman—perhaps he does know something about the role of the clergyman on the platteland—and the doctor are the heartbeat of the platteland. To take the magistrate away from the farmer is a serious matter.

No, he did not say that.

I want to state unequivocally that we shall not permit legal services on the platteland to deteriorate. Therefore we can expect the Hoexter Commission, which is investigating legal services in general, to go into all these plans and, it is to be hoped, to come forward with a solution so that the platteland need not forfeit the quality of its legal services.

At the same time, it is true that the magistrate’s offices perform agency services for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Pensions, the Department of Finance etc., and this exerts tremendous pressure on magistrates’ offices. If the hon. member argues that if we remove the legal staff there it will facilitate the problem for us, I want to tell him that that is not so. If we remove the legal staff there we still have to perform the administrative services there. In that case we still have to find people to do that work and, as the hon. member himself said, we are under tremendous pressure as far as administrative staff are concerned. Therefore it is not such an easy matter. I acknowledge the hon. member’s interest in the matter, but I just want to point out to him that to advance an unqualified argument as he has done is not right. I hope the hon. member will give the matter further productive thought. I hope, too, that he will be less critical and will debate the matter with me in the House more, rather than go to the newspapers.

I want to thank the hon. member for Waterkloof sincerely for his good wishes. He himself is a seasoned hand. Accordingly he can discuss the staff matters with authority and indicate to us that this is a seasonal problem which is linked to the economy. The hon. member, who has been in this House for 14 years now and is a lawyer, is certainly qualified to make this point.

The hon. member touched on a further point. It concerns the dignity of our courts. In this regard the hon. member touched on a very important facet of our administration of justice. He came to speak to me personally about young lawyers who do not act in a praiseworthy fashion in specific courts. I do not wish to go into details, but the fact remains that from the most junior lawyer to the most senior judge the image of the South African administration of Justice forms what has been up to now one important pillar of our democracy. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that his ideas in this regard are appreciated.

The hon. member for Roodepoort referred, inter alia, to the fact that our courts are overloaded with traffic cases. He is quite right. I am told that the Road Safety Council is thinking along the same lines, viz. to computerize data relating to cars and persons—I take it that these are the lines along which he is thinking—so that one need not search for accused parties and so that it will be easier to bring people before the court in this connection. Another possibility in this regard which could help to make a success of this is a separate dispensation for traffic cases. If the hon. member is pleading that we should decriminalize our traffic offences—if I may put it like that—then he will probably be the most popular man in South Africa. Here I also have in mind the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, a person who has certain opinions in regard to this matter. I believe that he in particular would be very happy to know that there is at least one hon. member in this House who feels that way, and that the Minister of Justice may also support the idea that traffic offences—particularly with regard to exceeding the speed limit—should no longer fall into that category of offences.

Then we would no longer call them fines, but simply levies.

The hon. member also requested that we arrange for the court documents to be kept by attorneys, because according to him this would reduce the burden on the administration. He also states that the magistrates’ courts have no interest in the matter. I have not gone into the matter, but I just wonder in passing what would happen if an attorney’s office were to lose those documents. What would happen if they were not dealt with in the same way that we preserve documents relating to the Sectional Titles Act, for example? After all, such documents have to be bound. Is the hon. member’s idea that we should retain certain documents, like notaries, and that they be bound then? This is an idea which would have to be developed in that way. I therefore want to say to the hon. member that we shall not get this idea passed. I take cognizance of it and it is a stimulating idea. I shall deal at a later stage with all the other matters which the hon. member raised.

†I should like to come now to the hon. member for King William’s Town. I want to congratulate him on his appointment as chief spokesman on Justice for the NRP. He is well-equipped for that task, and I believe he has actually made a meaningful contribution here today, especially in respect of one particular facet of current security legislation. The hon. member maintained that one side of the question was whether we should have such legislation at all. He put the question and gave the reply to it himself. His reply was in the affirmative. He also quoted authorities on this matter. I should therefore like to commend him for that. His thinking is completely in fine with his party’s policy which, I think, dates back to the time of its inception. An erstwhile member of his party, however, now belongs to the PFP, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, whilst, in 1979—believe it or not—he was the chief spokesman on Justice for the NRP. [Interjections.]

That hon. member will also join us in due course.

Never in a month of Sundays.

Never say “never”.

I should like to refer the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to what he said here in this House in 1979, during the discussion of the Justice vote. On that occasion the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central stated on behalf of his party that he supported the security legislation, the preventive measures, in South Africa. He was rather unequivocal about the whole matter. He was quite enthusiastic about it. As a matter of fact, I believe he virtually commended the hon. the Minister for those measures. [Interjections.] It seems to me …

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not, in that same debate I said that anybody detained in terms of those same security measures should have the right to be seen by a tribunal of judges.

I think the hon. member has put his foot right into it now. Is that still his point of view? [Interjections.] Is that still the hon. member’s point of view? It is very important that I should know. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is very important that the hon. member should tell us, Mr. Chairman. He has put his foot into it now. Is that still his point of view?

Yes, that is my view. [Interjections.]

Then, for the information of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I should like to point out that he is completely at variance with the hon. member for Pinelands, with the hon. member for Pinetown, with the hon. member for Houghton and with the hon. member for Sandton on this very important issue. I find it untenable that that hon. member is completely with us with regard to preventive measures, but he wants a tribunal to review …

I said they must be brought before a judge.

Must I quote the hon. member his own Hansard? Does the hon. member agree that he supported the need for such measures in this country? Nevertheless he argued, in the same way that the hon. member for King William’s Town was arguing, that we should bring them before a tribunal to have their cases reviewed. That was the hon. member’s argument. Is that still his view?

Give me the column number.

I think it is column 310.

Have you changed your mind about that?

It was May 1979. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member is at variance with his party, and I am sure that hon. members on this side of the House would like to have a further discussion with him. However, be that as it may. I want to compliment the hon. member for King William’s Town on this issue. The hon. member also addressed us on the incidence of rape, but the hon. member for Mossel Bay indicated that another hon. member also intends speaking on the incidence of rape and I shall therefore delay my reply on this until after that hon. member has spoken.

I should like to tell the hon. member that the question that he has put to me for written reply in regard to the difference in allowance between the administrative section and the legally qualified section, is valid. It is a matter that should receive attention, but on a different basis altogether, for the simple reason that this allowance pertains to members who are qualified in a particular field. I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of the Master’s office. We have a bill before the House of Parliament which may have the effect that a larger number of smaller estates will be wound up according to the shorter procedure. I hope hon. members will allow me to discuss this matter later tonight. I can assure the hon. member that we are also looking at other measures to alleviate the burden on the Master’s office, especially with regard to the curtailment of certain procedures. I trust that the hon. member will support such a procedure.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay touched on a very sensitive matter here and one which is of great importance to us. I did not see the newspaper report and therefore I do not want to express any opinion on it, but if what the hon. member told the House is true, viz. that there are lawyers who offered their services for the defence in certain cases, then we of the old school are shocked by that. That, too, is why the hon. member has acquired yet another grey hair. Whatever the case, I think this is a matter for the law societies and the Bar Council, and I think that if there has been an infringement in this regard they will certainly consider the matter. I do not want to interfere in that regard because they are autonomous bodies which have to look after the affairs of their own members in their own particular way.

Then, too, the hon. member discussed the preventive action of the Government. He referred to certain legislation and I think that he was clinically correct in that regard. I therefore wish to leave the matter at that. He did us one very important service in that he drew the hon. member for Pinetown into the debate.

In the minute that is left I just want to say to the hon. member for Nelspruit that he made a refreshing speech. It was clinically neat. This was a man who spoke with enthusiasm and I am pleased to say that we have in him a man who can play the role of the Senate, because he is going to vet the laws for us.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I should like to refer to the speech which the hon. member for King William’s Town made this afternoon, when he dealt with the crime of rape. I want to tell him that I have a high appreciation for what he said and I agree with most of the things that he alleged.

When one speaks about crime, one can definitely make one statement with which everyone present here will agree: The State alone cannot combat crime by means of its courts and police and therefore the community has an important role to play by means of its individuals, schools, clinics and societies—yes, by means of all these institutions together—and it has a very great responsibility to do so.

When referring to the crime of rape on this occasion, I want to describe the crime as a well-known judge described it on one occasion: I consider this crime, which does not end with the horror of the deed as in the case of murder, but which lives on with the victim over the years, as the most horrible of all crimes. In order to make a correct evaluation of the seriousness of this crime, one could perhaps point out a few statistics. During the past seven years no fewer than 61 814 people have been accused of the crime of rape or attempted rape. Of these, 29 940 were convicted and 41 were condemned to death.

That is why this crime is considered to be a capital crime in our administration of justice and our legal provisions and we find, for instance, in Roman-Dutch law that it is maintained that the death sentence be imposed for rape, but not necessarily in all cases. If one looks at the position abroad, one finds that until the late sixties the death penalty could be imposed for this crime in 18 States of the USA.

As far as our own penal law is concerned, there is no lack of clarity with regard to the penalty which is provided for in this regard. In this way, section 277 provides that for the crime of murder the judge is obliged to impose the death penalty unless there are extenuating circumstances, or subject to two other provisos set out in the section. In the case of rape, however, the judge may impose the death sentence, and this “may” is interpreted on the basis of a well-known Supreme Court case, as meaning “only in extreme cases”.

I think a reasonable question that we can ask one another on this occasion, is what the idea of a penalty is; why do we impose penalties? It is indicated in our administration of justice and our laws as well as by writers, that there are in fact five valid penal theories or ideals. The first two, which are known as the penal theory of retribution and the penal theory of penance, can to my mind be discounted in this case because they smack of the Middle Ages. I want to devote myself to the other three only, since I consider them to be valid theories, viz. the deterrent theory, the theory of prevention and the theory of reform. It will be noted that in the penalties imposed by our Bench viz. the death penalty, imprisonment, declaration as a habitual criminal, fines and—this is important—corporal punishment we can find these elements, all three or one or more of them, to some extent.

It is also true that if we can establish for ourselves why we impose penalties, we can ask whether we are succeeding in combating this particular crime by means of our penalties. In reply to this I must say in all modesty that I feel we are not quite succeeding in doing so. The reasons for this are twofold. In the first place the State actually stands alone in combating crime. To a large extent, the community does not want to become involved in combating crime.

One must take note of the fact that the themes of the films today always contain an element of crime or violence to some extent or other. One must also take note of the fact that provocative photographs of practically naked women are published from day to day. If one takes note of this, one must ask oneself whether the powerful women’s associations that we have in South Africa have ever protested against this. And the answer is no, because the community does not really want to become involved in this scene. What is more—I think we are all aware of this—Western civilization throughout the Free World is being threatened by a spirit of permissiveness which is attempting to affect and destroy what is finest in our civilization.

There is also a second reason why our penalties are not as successful as we would like them to be. This is because our penalties, except in the case of the death penalty for rape, do not really contain an element of determent. It is easy to explain this. The rapist who commits this awful crime, is not really concerned about ordinary imprisonment and so on. Now I could also be asked how we can combat this awful crime. I want to suggest that our hon. the Minister considers making provision, if the death penalty is not imposed, for a considerable, serious element of determent to be included in our penal legislation in the form of physical punishment, subject of course to extenuating circumstances, if they should exist. If we could do this, the three most important elements of punishment would be embodied in our legislation, viz. determent, prevention and retribution. Now I want to ask that if it should be possible for the hon. the Minister to comply with this request, we should also ask our community on this occasion to become involved in the mighty, important task of combating crime.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker must forgive me for not taking up the topic of rape which he has touched on, because I wish to deal with an aspect raised by the hon. member for Ermelo, namely the question of legal aid.

However, before doing that I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay. We heard from him that in his view the 100 lawyers who have decided to assist the victims of the Group Areas Act are misusing the courts for political purposes. In his view they are obstructing the process of the court. If one analyses that attitude, one realizes that it can only come from someone who has a completely twisted idea of what the principle of equality before the law is all about.

Obviously you can tell me all about it.

What is depressing is that these remarks are made by someone whom I believe is a lawyer himself and who even has a doctorate in law. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, i.e. that those lawyers who are prepared to act for those individuals are in fact …

Who volunteered to act for those individuals. That is the point.

And advertise.

… doing so for the purpose of misusing the courts? Does he agree with the hon. member that they are, in fact, obstructing the course of justice. If he does, this will be a sad day in the administration of justice in our country. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has suggested that they should go to the Legal Aid Board since legal aid is available. Does he know what the means test for legal aid is? He does not.

Of course I do.

Can the hon. member tell me what the means test for legal aid is?

You make your own speech. [Interjections.]

The amount which has been fixed by the Legal Aid Board is R170 per month for an individual. If you earn more than that you do not qualify. For a married couple it is R340. It is therefore utterly ridiculous for the hon. member for Mossel Bay to suggest that those individuals would qualify for legal aid. That is one of the defects of the legal aid system which I propose to deal with. Individuals are entitled to legal representation. That is a basic inherent right of every individual in our country.

The hon. member for Ermelo raised the question of legal aid boards and said that they were doing very good work. I agree with him on that score. I interjected earlier that no sufficient legal aid was available, and that is exactly what I mean. Legal aid boards have been doing their best, but there is tremendous room for improvement and expansion, and that is the aspect I should like to deal with this evening.

We in this country attempt to live according to a democratic ideology, and we accept—and I am sure that this is true of both sides of the House—that one of its main principles is that the law must apply equally to all citizens. In South Africa we have an even greater duty to apply this principle than most Western countries, because in our country the majority of the people who are subjected to the laws have not had a say in the drafting of those laws. A tremendous duty rests on us to see that those people have an equal chance before the law.

What about tribal law?

A visit to the magistrate’s court will immediately show that poverty, ignorance and fear of becoming entangled in the legal procedures of the court, constitute the main factors that prevent general equality before the law being obtained in our country. The only way in which we can attempt to alleviate this position, is to expand the concept of legal aid in South Africa. The legal aid boards have done good work. They have only been operating since 1970-’71 and a great deal has been achieved. One merely has to look at the annual reports to see how the numbers of people that have received aid have risen every year. Good work has also been done by legal advice bureaux at universities and at other establishments throughout the country but collectively all these organs that provide legal aid have only scratched the surface of the need that exists. When looking at the number of people in prisons and prosecuted during any one year, one finds that a minute percentage of those had legal representation.

A number of research projects have been launched in this direction, for instance by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cape Town. They found that of 425 cases selected at random that were heard in the Cape Town magistrate’s court over a period of one year, only 15% of the Blacks who appeared were legally represented. In the case of Coloureds the percentage was 21%, for Whites 58% and for Asians 66,6%. A similar study was made at the Retreat regional court and there the figures were far worse, namely, 0,8% of the Blacks, 7,7% of the Coloureds and 28% of the Whites were represented.

Another study was conducted by a senior lecturer in law at the University of Natal and was only published last week in The Daily News. This showed that 3% of the accused who appeared in the Durban and Umlazi juvenile courts during the periods of the study had legal representation and in Umlazi, 98 out of the 100 awaiting trial juveniles who were involved in the study, were kept in custody. This must to a large extent be due to the fact that they did not have legal representation.

The hon. member for Ermelo brushed aside the criticisms which were made by Mrs. Slabbert about our legal aid system. He brushed aside the suggestion by her that the legal aid provisions are inadequate. These figures show, Sir, that they are inadequate despite the good work that is being done. There is a backlog that needs to be overhauled. What is surprising, is that the Legal Aid Board concluded its 1980 financial year with an accumulated fund of R1,9 million. This accumulated fund has been increasing over the years. This can only lead us to understand that the public is not making use of these facilities which are being provided by the Legal Aid Board. Why are they not making use of these facilities? Again, research studies have shown that the population groups that should be making use of those facilities even more so than the Whites or the Asians, namely, the Blacks and the Coloureds, are of the view that the Legal Aid Board is not an independent body; that it is somehow an extension of the State’s arm. Therefore they feel that they will not receive fair treatment from it. That is an aspect which we have to look at. We have to look at the composition of the Legal Aid Board if we wish to extend and improve its effectiveness. It is my view that a Legal Aid Board should be established consisting of representatives from the Bench, the Bar, the Side Bar and the department but that the various representatives from the legal profession should be appointed by their bodies and not by the State. The representatives of the State would ensure that the money of the State was administered properly. Legal aid in South Africa cannot do without State funds but I submit that it can do without State administration. It should be left primarily to the legal profession. Secondly, there has to be far greater co-ordination between the activities of the Legal Aid Board and the various other organs that administer legal aid. That is not happening at the moment. Each one is doing its own thing without the knowledge of and close co-operation with the other. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential that, as happened in Natal in 1973, a congress be convened to examine the position of legal aid in order to improve the present situation. Surveys have shown that among Black and Coloured persons there exists a strong feeling of animosity towards our criminal justice system generally. They believe that it is based on privilege, and probably rightly so at the moment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to elaborate on what was discussed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat other than to say that if the protection of the law is either denied or withheld the citizens of this country for whatever reason, then I do believe that this places in question the integrity not only of this Parliament because we are the law makers here but also of our administration, the Police, the judiciary and the executive of this Parliament. That is what I wish to discuss this evening—the integrity of this Parliament, and I appeal to hon. members to lend me their ears in this regard for the 10 minutes at my disposal.

I wish now to refer the hon. the Minister to a question of which he is aware, which I raised in February this year. I am referring here to the question of the Supreme Court case of Bowens vs Benson or, alternatively Golden Disc. I do not have the time to go into the history of this case but I want to refer the hon. the Minister to Questions Nos. 20-22 of 26 August of this year, one of which was directed to this hon. Minister, which certainly reveal the tremendous difficulties of these people who have been defrauded of something like R20 million involving some 200 000 shareholders in South Africa. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look into the answers to these questions which clearly indicate how these people have for nearly 11 years been fighting to try to see justice done.

As a result of the Supreme Court case, the hon. the Minister of Police received a letter from the attorneys of one of the parties involved. I want to quote from this letter from the attorney, Mr. Bartholomew, to the hon. the Minister of Police. He said—

He goes further—

On instruction from his client this attorney offered assistance to the hon. the Minister of Police in this investigation, and in a postscript he said—

This is the crux of the whole complaint by the many shareholders, namely that despite the provisions of the Companies Act, this company did not answer the questions and did not give the shareholders the answers to which they were entitled. Attached to that letter was the notice calling the meeting in terms of section 181 of the Companies Act, Act No. 61 of 1973. As a result of this letter, I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Police on the Order Paper asking him whether his investigation into the matter—and I believe the docket is now before the Attorney-General—did in fact get replies to these questions. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Justice that unless these replies have been obtained, which is the right of shareholders under the Companies Act, no one will ever be satisfied with the finding of the Attorney-General. When I placed the question on the Order Paper, the hon. the Minister of Police replied—

The matter is now in the hands of the Attorney-General who falls under the hon. the Minister of Justice. As I have said, no one—and this applies to qualified attorneys and advocates who sit in this House—should be satisfied until the shareholders have replies to these questions which, according to law, I believe they are entitled.

Were those questions raised on behalf of Benson?

These questions were raised on behalf of the shareholders who called the meeting in terms of the Act. They have never received replies to these questions, replies which they require in order to fight their civil case before the court. This is what they are being denied.

Is justice being denied?

Justice, I believe, must be done. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members: How can justice be done and be seen to be done until these people have the replies they require, and how can they obtain the replies to these questions if the commercial branch of the police do not support them?

Why is the Press keeping so quiet about it?

If it was a common criminal act, if someone robbed a bank or if someone raped a person, the police, the judiciary and the public at large would know their duty in this regard. Here, however, we have a case where some 200 000 shareholders were defrauded of something like R20 million by a company. These shareholders have been fighting for 11 years but wherever they appeal they find nothing but frustration. As a result of the publicity in recent times, letters have been received by Mr. Benson which reflect the public concern about this. I quote from one such letter—

That was from a small investor. Here is another letter, this one from a specialist surgeon—

Is that Harry’s friend?

I quote further—

I have quoted the letters of two shareholders, one who invested something like R24 000 and lost the lot and the other a poor pensioner. Mr. Benson personally lost something like R70 000 in this scandal, but since 1969 he has spent nearly R100 000 of his own money to see justice done. He spent R50 000 on his recent Supreme Court case. In order to get the verbatim record of that case so that he can further his case, he has been told he will have to pay another R7 500. That is what he has to pay just to get that evidence so that he can fight his civil case.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that something is wrong here, something is utterly and completely wrong. If the Attorney-General finds that there is cause for prosecution, I believe it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to institute the necessary procedure and even if necessary to introduce legislation to recover these funds so that what is left of them can be distributed among those who have been defrauded. We had the Information scandal when a special trust fund was set up to recover funds. Those were State funds, but in this case R20 million of the public’s funds, shareholders’ funds, are involved which, according to the evidence in the Supreme Court case, have been stolen. If the integrity of Parliament, of our Administration, of the NP and of the Cabinet is to be held high, I believe that the hon. the Minister has to find the answers to these questions so as to allow the ordinary citizen and shareholder to fight his case before a civil court.

Mr. Chairman, I ended my previous speech with an answer to the hon. member for Nelspruit. I now come to the hon. member for Pinetown. I think that in general his speech could have elicited further discussion, but owing to a lack of time there is only one specific point I wish to clear up with him this evening. The hon. member and other hon. members expect responsible behaviour from us. The hon. member argued that by one single act on our part we brought together certain factions. He referred to two factions which oppose the system of government. I find it interesting that he acknowledges that role of theirs. The point is that those factions already existed, as he, too, acknowledged. The Black Power Movement already exists, the ANC already exists and the PAC already exists. They have revolutionary goals, and now he wants to blame the NP Ministers for this. Surely that is absurd. If there were even a vestige of truth in this, I would acknowledge it, but then in his turn the hon. member must acknowledge that it is a fact that these bodies want to overthrow the system of government. Why do they not acknowledge it, so that we know where we stand with one another. Now he wants to lay the blame at the door of the NP. Surely that is not right.

As far as irresponsible behaviour is concerned, I have an account to settle with the hon. member. The hon. member’s remark in connection with Mr. Nelson Mandela’s alleged cancer initiated a whole chain reaction. Mandela’s daughter repudiated the hon. member. She did so quite correctly. She rapped him on the knuckles and reprimanded him. However, we had to act responsibly. We immediately ordered an examination by a medical specialist. An intensive medical examination was undertaken. I had it done as soon as possible. Do hon. members know what this cost us? It cost the State over R1 300 to refute a single allegation made by the hon. member for Pinetown, a single unfounded allegation. [Interjections.] Who is going to pay for this? Will the hon. member pay for this? Can I send the hon. member the account? [Interjections.] Can I seek legal advice on this matter?

What about all the money you gave to the HNP? [Interjections.]

Oh, really, Chamber of Horace! [Interjections.] I prefer not to react to lightning conductors. The fact remains, however, that at some stage the hon. member for Pinetown must openly acknowledge that he was wrong and apologize to the State. He need not apologize to the NP Government. He must apologize to the State. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria West made a valuable contribution here in connection with the total onslaught against South Africa. In addition, of course, he also thoroughly reprimanded the hon. member for Sandton. He went on to speak of a total onslaught against us on the strength of concrete information and he asked hon. members of the official Opposition whether they agreed. However, there was a deathly silence on that side of the House. This simple question as to whether there is a total onslaught against South Africa was answered by a deathly hush. It is a very simple question. The hon. member wanted to know what their answer to this was. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central would just listen to me I could call him as a witness.

The fact of the matter is that hon. members of the Opposition so often take us to task because we supposedly want to take over the functions of the courts on the basis of what the security situation in South Africa is supposed to be. This evening I wish to state unequivocally that the NP Government is guided by concrete evidence and incontrovertibly proven facts. The NP Government also takes cognizance of appeal court decisions and other decisions.

This evening I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton—the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central can also answer this question—if they agree with a ruling by Mr. Justice Ogilvie-Thompson in 1972 when he made the categorical finding—the reference can be found on page 440 of the S.A. Law Reports, 1972, vol. 3—that the ANC has a specific plan to overthrow the system of government in South Africa. I have never heard hon. members opposite argue this at all. I see the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is rising. He must please not leave this House now. The hon. member has admitted that he supports the question of preventive action. I refer to a speech made by the hon. member in 1979 in this House during the discussion of the Justice Vote. What he said on that occasion and what I am now referring to can be found in col. 528 of the report of the Standing Committee. On that occasion the hon. member said that he thought the Minister should retain his powers of restriction, in the light of the total onslaught against South Africa. [Interjections.] It is there in black and white. It appears in the report of the Standing Committee. [Interjections.] The hon. member can therefore accept what I have just said. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central whether he agrees with the hon. member for Pretoria West that South Africa is subject to a total onslaught.

No.

The hon. member for Sandton says “no”. What does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central say?

No. [Interjections.]

He also says “no”. Merely by gaining membership of the PFP, the total onslaught against South Africa is eliminated. After all, that is what it amounts to. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

By obtaining membership of a political party the total onslaught against South Africa is eliminated. This is the conclusion we are forced to. [Interjections.] This is what we are forced to conclude. This is a serious matter.

†It is a very serious matter when by joining another party that member has signed away his conviction that South Africa is the subject of a total onslaught. Those were his words previously.

*I shall leave it at that. I think hon. members have enough trouble to occupy their minds.

†The hon. member for Houghton only filled a gap and I am sure she will enter the debate later and will then have more time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

*The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made a very interesting speech, for which I thank him, in which he expressed his concern about students and their activities. I share his grave concern. The fact of the matter is that the State has an interest in students, not only as a result of their potential as future manpower, but also due to the subsidy which the State pays to universities. I called for figures in respect of universities and the official figures given to me show that the amount per student for 1979-’80 was R3 435 per student.

That is not much.

I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was completely justified in voicing his concern about the activities of certain students. No one should intercede for students who have activist or revolutionary tendencies. No one should encourage them in any way to try to change the system of government in any way other than by constitutional means. I must confess that those means unfortunately also include the PFP. However, it is a fact of life, and I would welcome it if those students all became members of the PFP. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who would not welcome it if those students on the campuses which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg had in mind, became active members of the PFP. At this juncture I also want to put an end to the argument that the NP is in any way interested in applying preventive action in respect of its political opponents. That is the greatest nonsense under the sun, and I wish to state categorically that we have no interest in the activities of students which are along constitutional lines.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte made a valuable contribution by analysing the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Act and pointing out the advantages of this Act by way of statistics. While I am discussing statistics I wish to point out in passing that the Free State beat the Eastern Province by 26 points to 12 this afternoon.

The hon. member for Brakpan also made a very valuable contribution. The figures the hon. member gave here, and the arguments he raised, are all valid. Of course we are all concerned about the increasing number of divorces in South Africa nowadays and especially about the fact that the number of divorces has increased to such an extent since the Act came into force. Having said this, we must think about this matter objectively. We must think about this soberly because we could take steps which may not include the entire package, or do one thing and neglect to do another. For this reason I say we must consider the situation calmly for a moment. It is true that before this Act was passed, a number of disputed divorce cases had built up. As a result, the roll was over-full and eventually this backlog of cases had to be worked through. But in the mean while other divorce cases occurred which had to be dealt with according to the new principles, and because they were largely unopposed, perhaps because guilt had fallen away, we had a larger number of divorce cases on the roll. It may also be due to the lack of publicity that divorce cases pass through the courts more quickly.

I feel we should calmly consider whether this is all to be ascribed to the legislation in question. For this reason, and because the Law Commission spent so much time on this matter and the Act concerned had only been on the Statute Book for about two years when these figures were brought to my attention, I referred the matter back to the Law Commission with the request that they ascertain the effect of the Act and whether any steps can be taken in terms of the Act or by means of a revision of the Act which could have an effect on this matter.

As I have already indicated there are many aspects involved. There are socioeconomic considerations, and I wish to draw attention to one of these. It is a fact that so many people marry at a younger age nowadays and it is possible that such marriages end on the rocks as a result of a decision taken too early. There is an example of this in our history. One can look at the statistics on divorces during the Second World War. It is very interesting that from 1939 to 1940, the divorce rate rose by almost 100%. Between 1944 and 1946 the divorce rate rose again by almost 100%, whereas in other years during that period it rose by only about 25%.

We must therefore not lose sight of our own circumstances and should always bear in mind that socio-economic factors are also involved. Because this is so applicable and because we are so concerned about the matter, I think it would be as well for us to refer the hon. member’s speech and other ideas advanced here to those bodies that are not involved with this specific Act, so that we can cover the entire spectrum. I thank the hon. member for dealing with it so thoroughly.

As regards the facet of children, I wish to point out that this is a matter of heartfelt importance to all of us. One would want to see to it that when dealing with children, this is done after due investigation by a probation officer. This, too, is a facet which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. This is a facet which is dealt with by another department, and I think one must make sure that when one makes such a service available to consider such matters, it be given due attention. For this reason I shall refer this facet, too, to the bodies concerned.

There is another facet we should not lose sight of. The Hoexter Commission was directed to investigate the establishment of a family court as a branch of the court. It is possible they will make a recommendation which could lead to a dispensation which could investigate this issue in a more specialized way.

This brings me to the hon. member for Ermelo and also the hon. member for Durban Central. I wish to say immediately that legal aid in South Africa is a service which is still in its infancy. We must most definitely consider its possible development. For this reason we are looking into problem situations. We have also already referred certain facets of this to the Human Sciences Research Council in order to ascertain how we can improve our service further. We took cognizance of what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say about greater representation in the Legal Aid Board, but I think the hon. member made a mistake. The hon. member should perhaps look at the Act and the annual report. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member’s request that independent people be appointed if they are nominated by their professional bodies, is already contained in the Act. How is the Legal Aid Board constituted? The board has a judge of the Supreme Court as a member.

The Minister makes the appointments. That is the difference.

If the hon. member would just be a little patient, he may learn something. That judge is the Judge President of a provincial division, and that Judge President is held in high esteem. If the hon. member is suggesting that this man will oblige the Government because of his appointment, he is making a mistake. I think the hon. member should rather not start his career in this House with suggestions of this nature, because they are uncalled for. The other statement made by the hon. member is also incorrect. The other members of the Legal Aid Board are not appointed by the Government. A practising advocate and four practising attorneys are nominated by the General Bar Council of South Africa and the Association of Law Societies of the Republic without the authorities having any say. The hon. member’s entire submission regarding the so-called lack of independence of the Legal Aid Board, the so-called suspicion existing in respect of this board, therefore falls flat.

Not so-called; it is a fact.

The hon. member began by trying to flatter this body to death and then he tried to talk it to death with the wrong facts. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member made a suggestion, but how does he know it is true? Did the hon. member undertake an opinion poll?

There has already been an opinion poll.

Did the hon. member undertake an opinion poll?

No I did not, but there was already an opinion poll.

How reliable is it? I suggest that the hon. member send it to the department so that we can look at it. The fact remains, however, that the bottom has fallen out of the hon. member’s argument.

As far as this point is concerned, I wish to conclude by saying that the Legal Aid Board is in fact trying to expand the aid it provides, that it is in fact trying to give the best service throughout South Africa, and we must therefore give it a chance under the chairmanship of Judge President Boshoff who has made himself available for a further term of office, for which I thank him. I think this should suffice at this stage. If the hon. member has such interesting information he must do his duty and send it to us. We shall then look at it.

This brings me, in conclusion, to a matter raised by the hon. members for King William’s Town and Newton Park. This is a very serious matter, namely the question of rape. It is true that this is one of the most serious crimes against a person. It is a crime which leaves scars long after it has taken place. It is a crime which has been condemned through the ages and has been punished most severely, whatever the theories behind those punishments. People committing this crime were punished most severely. As the hon. member has made an interesting proposal I wish to point out that the permanent penal review committee under the chairmanship of Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Viljoen is mindful at all times of the incidence of a specific crime and the punishment and other measures necessary to combat that crime. For this reason we shall send the speech by the hon. member for Newton Park to the penal review committee. I wish to reiterate that we must be objective about this matter. The number of convictions has not risen all that much since 1975. It has varied between 4 500 and 4 600 per year out of a total of 60 000 cases. What does appear to have changed is the degree and intensity of the violence involved. I can however assure hon. members that our courts, with their inherent jurisdiction in respect of the imposing of punishments, take cognizance of this, as Judge President Munnik showed within the last 14 days when he imposed a severe punishment. In addition to the penal review committee which is going into this matter, our courts react like a barometer to the incidence and intensity of this crime. However, I do not wish to suggest that the hon. member was not quite correct in asking that attention be given to this question, but I do wish to emphasize one further aspect. The spectrum of this type of crime is of course very wide. The hon. member suggested a few possible causes to which our moral reformers should give serious attention. I believe they should take note of the ideas voiced by the hon. member. But I am not going to say anything more about this matter. I think our penal system lends itself to dealing effectively with this sort of crime.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also deserves an answer. I had actually assumed that the hon. member ought to be satisfied because the question he asked was reacted to in detail, so that I almost thought it was no longer necessary to answer it. I indicated clearly that this matter is now in the hands of the Attorney-General and has been dealt with by various bodies. I did not hide anything from the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I actually gave him ammunition for this evening, and I feel he ought to thank me for that. I answered him honestly and comprehensively and hid nothing from him. I want to help him further by telling him that it is disturbing to read the judgment of Miss Justice Leo van den Heever and see what she has to say in connection with the interests of the shareholders. The closing lines of the judgment read—

In this connection a company and not the Government is being referred to. On this basis the hon. member raised the matter in this House, and in my opinion he has every right to do so. He also asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to look into the matter, and the Minister has said that it is receiving attention. We referred the matter back to the police. Mr. Benson himself also has a few problems, however, and I do not wish to make matters any worse for him. If the hon. member reads the judgment on page 62, he will come across less flattering remarks concerning Mr. Benson. However, I do not wish to go into this matter. If Miss Justice Van den Heever had to say in her judgment that it was an extremely complex case and that that was the reason why she herself delayed her judgment for a long time, the hon. member will understand why I tell him in my reply that the Attorney-General has only recently been able to peruse the dossier, which is very bulky and complicated. I thank the hon. member for raising this matter here and I assure him that the Attorney-General is giving it the necessary attention. If there should be a prosecution, the rights of the shareholders may be at issue, but for the moment we must leave the matter in the hands of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the second half-hour.

The hon. the Minister has been very busy answering the speeches made by other hon. members and thus there is very little for me to say about the speech that he has just made. I just want to remind him that the R1 300 which he claims the hon. member for Pinetown has cost the country is a very small amount indeed compared to those enormous amounts which the State has in fact cost the taxpayers of South Africa in, for instance, the Biko case where well over R40 000 was paid to Biko’s family and where, I might add, an amount of R6 450 had to be paid in damages to prisoners presently on Robben Island in respect of claims arising out of alleged assaults upon them by warders in a Transvaal prison in 1977, not to mention all the millions that went down the drain over the Information scandal. However, let us leave the matter at that for the moment.

I want now to come back to the Prisons Vote and I want to begin by saying that as usual, of course, the first comment that one has to make under this Vote is to draw attention to the fact that our daily average prison population—the figure mentioned in the report in Table VIII—is alarmingly high. It is a 100 677 to be exact, according to the latest report. That figure is probably the highest in the Western World. It is certainly very much higher, not only pro rata but in absolute figures, than the figures for the UK which also these days has a heterogenous population, because that is always the excuse that is given, and which is also at the moment experiencing a rising crime rate. The figure is higher pro rata than the figure for the USA which also has a heterogenous population and a rising crime rate. The result of the very high daily average prison population is, of course, that our prisons are grossly overcrowded.

A question put by the hon. member for Sandton not very long ago—I think it was last week—revealed a very alarming picture of gross overcrowding in our prisons. This has, of course, led in turn to gang rule in the prisons and to an alarming number of deaths in our prisons. For instance, over the past five years the number of deaths in prisons resulting from assaults by fellow prisoners numbered 142 and the number of actual gang murders over the past five years numbered 41. I wish to commend to the hon. the Minister and his department a treatise that has been produced by the department of criminology of the University of Cape Town which goes into the whole question of prison gangs and the danger to which ordinary convicts are exposed when they enter prisons. I believe that this is to a large extent due to the fact that our prisons are grossly overcrowded.

The causes of this overcrowding are to be found, firstly, in the very high crime rate which presently obtains particularly in Black urban townships like Soweto. There are, of course, socio-economic reasons for this, namely, poverty, bad social conditions, inadequate housing, overcrowding, one parent families and the migrant labour system, all of which are part and parcel of the system that is presently being followed by the Government through not providing sufficient housing, encouraging migrant labour and so forth. This therefore requires fundamental change which, of course, I cannot lay at the feet of this hon. the Minister. Nevertheless, he should be talking to some of his colleagues about this state of affairs.

Secondly, the prison population is so large because of the huge number of people who land in jail because of the vast array of statutory offences that remain on our Statute Book despite all the promises of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. These result, as the hon. the Minister knows, in thousands of people being sent to jail for infringements of such laws as influx control, the pass laws, trespass, the production of documents and taxation which account for a high percentage of our prison population. Table X of the annual report reveals that 77,87% of prisoners in jail have sentences of up to six months and I think it is fair to assume that a very considerable proportion of these are in prison because of these statutory offences. Therefore I believe that the hon. the Minister of Prisons should talk to the hon. the Minister of Justice, which means he should talk to himself, and he should then talk to the Minister of Co-operation and Development to persuade him to get a move on in bringing about the repeal and amendment of the laws which result in so many people going to jail because of statutory offences.

I might also mention an interesting article which states that a ¼ million people are locked up needlessly every year. These are people who are never convicted. They are simply arrested and kept in jail for an average of 19 days before they come to trial. These figures were revealed by a lecturer at the University of Natal, Mr. N. C. Steytler. A quarter of a million people are in gaol every year who, according to this lecturer in criminology, should never be kept in gaol while awaiting sentence but that bail should be granted.

Another factor which I believe is one of the causes contributing to the swollen prison population in South Africa, is the severity of the legislation concerning drug abuse in South Africa. I wonder if I could have the hon. the Minister’s attention? Thank you. Statistics which I have obtained from the hon. the Minister show that over 8 800 people were imprisoned as a result of convictions connected with the legislation concerning drug abuse. The vast majority of those people were Black and the convictions were mostly for the use and possession of dagga. I believe it is high time that Parliament took another look at this law which has had to be amended once already because it laid down mandatory sentences for possession. I think it is time we had another look at this because, as a result of the existing law, 26 700 people obtained criminal records in 1980 because of the existence of a law which in many other countries has been largely discarded.

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

No, I have no time. I have a lot of things to get through.

I do not know how many people watched that programme on television last night, but it is quite clear that the real drug which should be attacked in this country through education and otherwise, is alcohol. In short, I believe that simply to build more gaols to cope with the overcrowded conditions in our gaols is not the answer. What we should be doing, of course, is to look at the whole penal system and amend some of the laws that send so many people to gaol every year for minor statutory offences. Many of the valuable recommendations of the Viljoen Commission which investigated penal reform have yet to be implemented. While I am talking of commissions, I must say that I find it extraordinary that we still have not had sight of the Rabie Commission’s report. I do not know when this commission is going to report …

Which commission?

The Rabie Commission. The hon. the Minister mentioned it at the beginning of his speech this afternoon. The Rabie Commission investigated the efficacy and fairness of our security legislation. That report is overdue. The commission was appointed in August 1979, more than two years ago. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he at least intends to give the commissioner a nudge so that we will soon get sight of the report. I believe that if the report in any way reflects what it should reflect, it might bring some comfort to the miserable people presently restricted under the Internal Security Act and also to the miserable people detained under the Terrorism Act.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister ever pays a visit to the people who are being held in solitary confinement under the Terrorism Act. I wonder if he has ever had a look at the isolation cells and seen the size of those cells in which many people have been held for several months at a time.

I want to say something about the prisoners who are serving sentences for crimes against the State, the so-called politicals. I cannot understand why they were entirely excluded as a category from the amnesty which was granted at the Republic Festival celebration. I believe each case should have been considered on merit and I have no doubt that, had there not been this mandatory exclusion, many of them would have been favourably considered. They would then have figured among the 21 000 people who were released under the amnesty and the some 50 000 who are due to have their sentences reduced. Apart from the long-term political prisoners, some of whom have already served very long sentences indeed, there are hundreds of young people who are serving sentences for sabotage, public violence and so on who were caught up in the violent unrest from 1976 onwards in Soweto. I believe that, if their cases had been considered objectively by the Release Board, many of them would have received either a reduction of sentence or been released entirely.

I want to say something more about the “politicals”. I was able to visit Robben Island last year and this year I paid a visit to the Pretoria Gaol. I should be thanking the hon. the Minister, but I am not going to, because I believe it should be a right of public representatives to visit the gaols. I do not believe that this right should be restricted to judges and magistrates, many of whom do not bother to exercise this privilege or right—indeed it is a duty. I think that the number of people who should be allowed to visit the prison should be extended so that public representatives who take an interest in prisoners, who are after all the most helpless of all human beings, would be included in the people who have the right to visit prisons.

I want to say at once that, so far as the White political prisoners in Pretoria are concerned, I found their conditions to be as reasonable as could be expected in the circumstances of a maximum security gaol, although I think it is time to overhaul some of the regulations to allow more visits, particularly to the long-term prisoners, and also to allow contact visits, for these people have a very hard life indeed from the point of view that they are deprived …

They are angels, not so?

… of their freedom for very lengthy periods of time. I can tell the hon. member that Mr. Winston Churchill once said that the level of civilization of a country can be judged by the way in which it treats its prisoners. He ought to realize that; and I see what his level of civilization is. [Interjections.]

Having said that, I now want to come to rather severe criticism of what I found in the case of other prisoners in Pretoria. I believe that in some of the prisons in South Africa there is a flagrant breach of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the law as contained in the Prisons Act. Convicted prisoners—I do not know whether the hon. the Minister even knows this—are being kept in segregation. I am now very careful about semantics. I am not saying they are being kept in solitary confinement, because that often means dietary deprivation as well, and various other deprivations. But they are being kept in segregation, which does mean alone, by themselves, for very long periods, far longer indeed than is permitted in law in cases where section 80 has been invoked. That is the isolation section of the Act. The isolation section lays down rules as to how such prisoners may be held. It can only be used for very serious breaches such as displays or threats of violence by a prisoner, or where an escaped prisoner has been recaptured, or where a prisoner threatens to escape. The section uses language which makes it very clear that isolation is considered a drastic punishment. It says that, “as long as it is urgently and absolutely necessary”, a prisoner may be confined to an isolation cell. The regulations go further as far as the diet is concerned, which can be restricted, but—and I think it is an enormously important “but”—the Act lays down a maximum period of one month only during which a prisoner may be kept in isolation by the prison authorities. Thereafter only the Commissioner of Prisons can order a further period of two months. After that only the Minister, after evidence has been brought before him, can extend the period of isolation further. Three months, therefore, is the normal maximum period. Isolation, as I have said, is considered a drastic punishment.

Section 78 is the section that deals with the segregation of prisoners. That makes it clear that “the rule for convicted prisoners shall be association at work and segregation at rest”. In other words, association of prisoners with each other. The point that I am making is that convicted prisoners are not supposed to be kept alone or deprived of the company of other human beings. Although the section does allow, on the order of the Commissioner, for the complete segregation for any period of convicted prisoners, I refuse to believe, and I believe a court would refuse to believe that it was ever intended that such prisoners could be kept alone for lengthy periods because the isolation, which is the punishment section, does not allow isolation for longer than three months without special circumstances. In this connection I am not referring to the unfortunate people held under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. They, of course, can be kept in isolation indefinitely, and that Act was in fact designed to inflict cruel and unnatural punishment. However, our Prisons Act was not designed to inflict cruel and unnatural punishment, but I believe that that is what is happening in some cases and I am going to give some examples.

There is the case of a man called Patsa who is serving a sentence in the Bethal gaol. In March he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for refusing to give evidence at a trial which was being conducted in terms of the Terrorism Act. He has been in segregation for the entire period since his conviction, i.e. seven months, but in fact, the period is very much longer because it dates from November 1979. He was first arrested under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, he was kept in isolation, charges were withdrawn against him and he was then again detained under section 6 and later convicted for refusing to give evidence. All in all he has been in segregation for some 22 months. His attorneys applied for permission for a psychiatrist to see him but permission has been refused.

I have here the affidavits of three women prisoners serving sentences under the Terrorism Act at Pretoria gaol. Two of the women were kept in segregation for about nine months each. Their segregation ended on 1 August after representations had been made to the Commissioner. The affidavits tell a sorry story of constant conflict over relatively minor incidents between two obviously hostile prisoners and equally hostile prison authorities who are unable to deal with the situation. The third example is the worst of all. It concerns a woman prisoner who is still in segregation—I have the affidavit here—and she has been in segregation for nearly 2½ years. She has been alone in a cell for 2½ years. She is locked up for 23 hours out of the 24 and allowed out for half an hour’s exercise, alone, in the morning and half an hour’s exercise, alone, in the afternoon. She is serving a sentence of five years for offences under the Terrorism Act. I saw this woman and she is certainly a difficult customer; there is no doubt about that.

Well, if you think she is difficult, she must be difficult!

She is defiant and she does not show much respect for the prison authorities. But she is being drastically punished, well beyond what I believe the Prisons Act is supposed to allow. She is being punished constantly, unremittingly and, most important of all, clearly with no positive results whatsoever. In my opinion that woman is now mentally disturbed and I believe she requires proper psychiatric treatment. She is a young woman of 26 and she is one of the tragic results of the Soweto unrest of 1976. She has now been in prison for nearly four years, over two years of which she has been locked up for 23 hours out of the 24. I want to know what hope of rehabilitation, which is also in our Prisons Act, can there possibly be for this young woman after the treatment that has been meted out to her. I believe that using segregation for long periods against convicted prisoners is a blot on a prison system that prides itself on its dynamic approach. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to see that this sort of segregation is discontinued. For all I know, it can be widespread, where people are kept alone for month after month despite the fact, as I say, that it was never the intention of the Prisons Act to use segregation as a drastic punishment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton referred to certain specific cases, the facts of which are not available to me, with the result that I cannot reply. However, I am very sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to her effectively.

However, the hon. member for Houghton also made certain general remarks which I believe cannot be allowed to pass without comment. For the hon. member for Houghton to allege that “the Terrorism Act has been designed to effect a cruel and unnatural punishment”—those were her words—is, I believe, an outrageous statement to make. For her to say that this Parliament passed legislation for the purpose of meting out a cruel and unnatural punishment is outrageous.

The purpose of the Terrorism Act, Act No. 83 of 1967, is undoubtedly to ensure the security of this country and of all its people. For the hon. member for Houghton to impute such an intention to a piece of legislation, therefore, is in my opinion an outrageous and irresponsible and reckless statement on the part of an hon. member of this House. [Interjections.] It is meant as a reflection on the Government of the Republic of South Africa, and it has the effect of seriously harming South Africa’s good name. [Interjections.]

I also want to react to the allegation made by the hon. member for Houghton …

You will find a good market for laws of that kind behind the Iron Curtain. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the allegation made by the hon. member for Houghton that every hon. member of this House should have the right to visit a prison whenever he wishes. In this connection I must point out that all hon. members find the prison authorities very co-operative when we visit prisons. The hon. member for Houghton has paid other visits to prisons, together with other hon. members on this side of the House. She saw things there which, if she had wanted to be fair, would have compelled her to speak in glowing terms of the prison service here today. At the Baviaanspoort prison, prisoners receive the best possible treatment. The hon. member saw the food that was served. She also saw how that food was prepared. She tasted it. Afterwards she wrote in the visitor’s book that the food was tasty and well prepared. But here, in the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa, she only voices complaints and criticisms and she has only negative remarks to make.

The hon. member for Houghton knows very well that the work done by the prison service is of such a nature that she and I are indeed able to say like Churchill that it is proof of the fact that this country and its people have achieved a high level of civilization, because the treatment of prisoners by the prison service is of a high quality.

Louis, are you saying thank you for your nomination? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has made a remark. He is the one political joke that is no longer taken seriously in this House. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I should like to refer to another allegation which has been made here today. It is a remark which was made by the hon. member for Pinetown. In his speech he said—

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? I should like to establish what the hon. member for Pretoria Central has in his hand. I am sure he has there the notes I used for my speech. He is not supposed to have those notes in his possession. [Interjections.]

He stole them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has in his possession the notes for my speech, notes which I sent to Hansard with a request that it be sent back to me. The hon. member for Pretoria Central is apparently holding in his hand the notes for my speech. He is not supposed to be in possession of those notes. They are mine. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member for Pretoria Central in possession of the notes of the hon. member for Pinetown?

Of course not, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is talking nonsense, as usual. I have his Hansard in my hand. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown has for a long time … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pinetown has made the allegation that the hon. member for Pretoria Central has in his possession—either in his hand or in front of him on his desk—a copy of a speech which he should not have in his possession. We want to have your ruling on this matter, Mr. Chairman.

He has got Pitman’s Hansard. Did you not hear what he said? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pinetown makes the allegation that the hon. member for Pretoria Central has in his possession, either in his hand or on his desk, a copy of a speech which should not be in his possession and we should like to have a ruling on that.

I should like to hear from the hon. member for Pretoria Central whether he has in his possession at this moment the notes of the hon. member for Pinetown.

Sir, I have in my possession the notes of the hon. member …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria Central must be called upon to give an explanation as to how he obtained the notes for a speech by an hon. member of this side of the House.

Sir, I shall tell you how I obtained them. The hon. member for Pinetown told me—the remark he made in this House concerning a personal conversation I regard as scandalous—that he was not so sure whether he had said in this House what is actually said in his notes. He then asked me …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Sir, may I be afforded the opportunity of explaining?

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central has been asked to explain how he came into possession of those notes and he must be given the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member then told me that he thought I should first examine his speech.

His Hansard.

He asked me to examine his speech. He also said that unfortunately he did not have his speech with him at that moment. He had given it to Hansard. However, he also told me that as soon as the speech came back from Hansard, I could have a look at it. The speech was subsequently put on my table, and then, before dinner, the hon. member for Pinetown came and sat down beside me. He took the speech which was lying before me and said that he just wanted to point out to me exactly what he had said. He then showed me what he had said, and we discussed it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central is still explaining how he came into possession of those notes.

Meanwhile, I had received the Hansard of the hon. member for Pinetown. I had not intended to examine his speech only on the basis of his notes, and for that reason I went to fetch his Hansard. The quotation I made was a quotation from the Hansard of the hon. member for Pinetown. I want to state categorically that after the hon. member had made the speech—he knows that what he said is untrue and outrageous—he tried to tone down the matter. He trotted after me like a puppy to tell me where he had got his information from and that I should examine it. He tried two or three times to explain the matter to prevent me from attacking him. I sat there listening to him and said: I am listening to what you are saying. I do not have the speech in my possession without the hon. member’s permission. I discussed the speech with him and he sat beside me and also held the speech in his hand. Then he had no objection whatsoever. I sincerely hope the hon. Whips are going to give me a few extra minutes because so much of my time has already been wasted.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria Central has stated that he obtained the speech with the consent of the hon. member for Pinetown. Will you please ask the hon. member for Pinetown whether this is so?

I do not think I can go further into the situation. I think the hon. member for Pinetown may make use of an opportunity to make a speech of his own.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think it is not the time now to answer all these allegations … [Interjections.]

Order!

I asked Hansard for the notes for my speech and later an usher came over to me and said he had taken the envelope to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I thereupon went over to the hon. member. He then took it away and put it on his left-hand side. I should like those notes back. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am entitled to have them back. I did not give him my consent.

Mr. Chairman, on the allegation made by the hon. member for Pinetown that he did not give his consent, I ask, as a question of privilege, you to have this matter investigated as to how and under what circumstances the hon. member came into possession of the personal notes belonging to the hon. member for Pinetown.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think it has been ruled in the past that when a member has given an explanation, it must be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to consider my point …

The points of order will be considered. The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Bryanstown alleged that the hon. member for Pretoria Central had stolen these notes. Is that permissible?

Did the hon. member for Bryanston say that?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, until it has been proved.

Order! No, the hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman …

Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of order?

No, Mr. Chairman, I am rising to speak …

I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Pretoria Central was so much interrupted that he could not continue his speech. From my side I should like to address a single explanatory remark to the hon. member for Houghton with regard to segregation, not solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is imposed as a penalty by the presiding magistrate or officer at a disciplinary hearing and is accompanied by dietary punishment. A segregated prisoner continues to receive his full rations. In addition, a prisoner in solitary confinement does not do any work, while a segregated prisoner continues to work whenever possible. I do not know whether that means anything to the hon. member.

However, I want to deal with the unsentenced prisoner tonight. Before I come to the treatment and privileges of the unsentenced prisoner, I just wish to mention that the unsentenced prisoner has to some extent become a problem for our administration of justice. Citizens of our neighbouring States in particular cross borders without the necessary documents and permission and are employed in this country. An evil which we experience here is that unauthorized persons, or shall I say undesirable immigrants, cross the borders of our country, and are then employed here without the employer making any enquiries to find out whether the employee concerned is legally in the Republic. Nor does the employer take the trouble to have the employee registered, as is actually required by law. At some stage such an employee then has an encounter with the police and is arrested. Because this employee does not want to leave the land of milk and honey, he now creates these problems and becomes one of the ten kinds of unsentenced prisoners. Usually such a man does not have any documents. This is where the battle of the police and the staff of the Department of Prisons begins. The prisoner will then say, for example, that he comes from Plumtree, in Zimbabwe. After a lot of fuss and bother it is ascertained that this information was wrong. Then the man says, for example, that he comes from Mozambique, only for the Department of Prisons to find out once again that this information, too, was false. What must be remembered is that the prisoner has not been sentenced and is still being detained in prison. After all, the prisoner cannot be released as long as the authorities are still trying to find out where he comes from. In this way, a person can be detained for months without being deported. Surely the Department of Prisons cannot be blamed for this detention, nor can any other department. Surely the prisoner himself is the cause of his detention. He himself is to blame for the fact that he has to stay in prison, while could have been moving about freely outside, either in his own country or in the Republic, if he is in this country legally and with the necessary authorization. When it is eventually ascertained where the prisoner comes from, he is usually prosecuted and deported, if other charges are not also laid against him.

Perhaps I should say here that particularly employers who employ people from other countries while those employees are not entitled to be in the Republic should be much more severely dealt with than otherwise. Our people must realize that in the times in which we are living, such people are a security risk to themselves and to the State.

In order to substantiate the allegation that there are unsentenced prisoners in our jails of the kind I have described here, I want to tell the House that I visited a prison in the company of the deputy bailiff and a judge. All the prisoners were brought out of the cells and everyone had an opportunity personally to convey any complaints or grievances to the judge. Most complainants alleged that they were not being charged and sentenced. On closer investigation it appeared that these were the prisoners I have just spoken about. Hon. members can understand, therefore, what problems this can create for the department, through no fault of any member of the prison authorities.

I want to point out—I should like to have this confirmed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North—that our judges, especially those who preside at trials in the circuit court, regularly visit the prisons and hear complaints by prisoners. This has been my personal experience as well, because it was with a judge who was on circuit that I had the opportunity of visiting a prison.

As far as the treatment of our unsentenced prisoners is concerned, I can tell hon. members that until such time as they can be tried, everything possible is done for these prisoners. They are entitled to the same medical services as those which convicted prisoners receive, but can even have the services of private doctors and dentists if this will not involve the State in any extra expense. They may also wear their own clothes, but these have to be approved by the department. To the hon. the Minister and his department I just want to say that we are grateful for the treatment and the privileges enjoyed by the unsentenced prisoners in our jails, and we trust that they will continue on this basis.

Mr. Chairman, there is something I should like to make very clear. When I rose a short while ago and read what the hon. member for Pinetown had said, I was quoting from his Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pinetown has just gone to get his Hansard and he will be back in a few moments. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. member waits until he returns. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to request the Chair to protect me, because I believe that this is a deliberate attempt to waste my time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member’s insinuation that hon. members on this side of the House are making a deliberate effort … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, when you asked me afterwards whether I had the speech with me, I said yes, I had it with me.

How did you get hold of it?

I want to make it quite clear that the hon. member for Pinetown spoke to me. He approached me three times … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria Central is now expanding on a point of order that is under consideration by you, and I suggest that that is improper of him.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: Is it in order for hon. members of the official Opposition to keep raising points of order, although so far not one of them has been upheld?

Order! Hon. members are allowed to raise points of order. I have already ruled that I shall examine the question of whether the point of order in respect of privilege was correctly taken. I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central must now leave this matter and proceed with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that earlier this year, during the election, the hon. member for Pinetown was guilty of telling a public fie, as the hon. the Minister of Justice has said. He publicized the story that Mandela was suffering from cancer. That remark of his was irresponsible.

I did not say that.

It was untrue and it harmed the State and South Africa. It was a violation of the right to privacy which even a prisoner has, the right not to have such allegations concerning him publicized. This is the same hon. member who recently alleged in the newspapers that he had had an interview with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, which was also untrue.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central where he obtained the information that the hon. member for Pinetown had stated that Nelson Mandela had cancer.

Mr. Chairman, it was published in many newspapers.

I want to come now to the information and liaison services of the Department of Prisons. This information and liaison services are divided into three sections, namely the liaison section, the publicity section and the information section. The task of the liaison section is to liaise with the public media and to answer their inquiries. The policy of the department is that except for those cases where prisoners have committed offences relating to the security of the State, anything may be published about the prisons of South Africa as long as it is the truth. The section has a 24-hour liaison service and is equipped to answer inquiries as promptly as possible, if not immediately. During the year under review, the section received 355 inquiries. It is important to point out that the section is aware of the fact that the various newspapers go to press at certain times and therefore they try to answer all queries as promptly as possible.

We are glad to be able to say today that the co-operation between the department and the media is very good. I am not aware of a single complaint by a newspaper about the co-operation of the prison services, and therefore we are pleased to congratulate the person at the head of the whole section, Colonel Faan Malan, and Mr. Buks Jordaan, who is the head of this particular section, on the success they are making of their work. I think we can appeal to the newspapers to make greater use of this excellent service.

In the second place, there is the publicity section. The task of the publicity section is to keep the image of the prison service at a very high level. The prison service must be able to compete with the other services on the open market for staff, and since a warder usually has to do his work behind walls, it is very important to undertake a positive image-building programme and various projects. We can say today that the three prison service bands have performed at 21 shows and at 65 other occasions before 170 000 people from all the various population groups. The departmental dog show teams gave successful performances at 57 occasions before approximately 74 000 people. The performances of both the bands—and this is my personal experience—and the dogs are always of a high quality and are also very popular.

The mobile information unit of the department was used at 14 shows and photographic exhibitions at 15 career exhibitions were seen by 89 500 people.

Finally, as a part of this information and liaison service, there is the information section. In virtually all countries where South Africa has diplomatic missions, the prison service has contacted the various prison service authorities through our missions in those countries. In fact, our prison service exchanges information with other countries and keeps abreast of any possible development in other civilized countries. This is the only way in which one can indeed be sure that the work of the prison service is always of world standard. We are pleased to be able to say that the prison service in South Africa is in fact one of the jewels of our Public Service. The service is very well organized indeed, and is led by a young and dynamic person, the 47-year-old General Johan Otto. He is still a young man, and we shall watch his career, in the prison service as well as in the Department of Justice. Prison services concentrate on rehabilitating and training prisoners, and highly scientific programmes are followed in the interests of the prisoners. As has been said, the level of civilization of a country can be measured in terms of the treatment of its prisoners. In spite of the attacks that have been made, we can say today with the greatest confidence that our prison service is rendering a great service to all of South Africa in this connection, and for this we convey our sincere thanks to them.

Mr. Chairman, because under this Vote we are concerned with the essential character of the State, with the State’s relation to the individual and the community, we know that the difference between the Opposition and our selves will always be very much to the fore in this regard. In our view the State has a nature, foundation and aim all its own. The State is a legal concept and not a religious, welfare or humanistic concept which implies an arithmetic sum of individuals. The State is a legal concept. It is of cardinal importance to understand the typical and unique character and nature of the State. If one is unable to understand this, one gets off the track and acquires a distorted image of the function and purpose of the State and of this department. The Opposition is in error in that amongst other things, it subordinates the interests of the State to those of the individual. I shall come back to this point later.

It therefore follows logically that one’s standpoint as regards the functions of the State and its relation to the individual and human rights will depend on one’s view of the structure and place of the State in society. Let me put it differently: If one has blue-tinted spectacles, one’s view of the world is blue. If one has red-tinted spectacles, the world is red.

Helen is wearing black-tinted spectacles.

Sometimes I think she has red-tinted spectacles. There is only one correct pair of spectacles and that is the one that gives one the correct insight into the origin, meaning and destination of life and the world, including the State and the department. Those spectacles comprise one’s religious viewpoint and one’s view of life and the world. One’s view of the function of the State and its relation to the individual will depend on one’s view of life and the world.

If one idolizes man, one’s view of the State and the rights of the individual will be entirely different. One’s view will then be humanistic. Take as an example liberalism, which makes of human freedom an absolute. Liberalism places so much emphasis on the freedom of man that there is no respect for the authority of the State. The individual then has the freedom to join the communist party, use drugs and undermine the authority of the State.

In contrast, we adopt the Christian standpoint, viz. that man and the State are creatures of God and are limited by His law. According to that standpoint, no person or form of life is absolutely free; all have obligations. This is a basic error in the thinking of the humanists, because they do not realize that no person is absolutely free but is limited, inter alia, by the authority of the State. That is why the Opposition is unable to understand measures to ensure the security of the State and the community. The State, in accordance with its legal character, has to maintain a public legal order and, if necessary, curtail the rights of the individual by legislation. If it does not do so, the authorities will be neglecting their duty and the State will come to grief. That is why security legislation and the other measures at issue here this evening are not objectionable to us on this side of the House as they are to the Opposition. That is why it is easier for us to realize that a citizen, or even a prisoner, has not only rights but also obligations.

Before going into detail in this regard I just want to make a few statements which in my opinion are irrefutable.

The first statement is that South Africa’s prison department is second to none in the world. Here I have in mind in particular the specialized treatment undergone by prisoners, e.g. with regard to educational services, spiritual services, health services, social work, training programmes in agriculture etc. Why is the Opposition always so negative and critical about our prisons?

The second statement I want to make is that our prison department meets all international requirements. Why do the Opposition not tell that, for once, to their overseas friends and agents, to the UN and the liberals of the world? The third statement I want to formulate by way of a request to the Opposition: When the world is shouting and moaning about human rights the Opposition must tell these enemies of South Africa how humanely prisoners in South Africa are dealt with. One final statement: Last year, and again this evening, the hon. member said, inter alia, that Sir Winston Churchill had said that the level of civilization of a country should be measured in terms of how it treated its prisoners. Accordingly I should like to request the Opposition to make it clear in and out of season to the world at large and to their overseas friends that according to the criterion set by that great statesman who has been quoted, the level of civilization in our country must be the highest in the world.

Let us test our prison system against that high criterion. Let us illustrate it on the basis of one legal norm, viz. the norm of constant development and reform. In the latest annual report we have an example of the constant renewal in our prison system. It is the team approach with regard to the treatment of prisoners, including the conditions of release of prisoners with sentences of two years and more. In order to develop parole successes and prevent parole failures, which are often written about by newspapers and members of the public—in most instances without acquainting themselves with the facts—release boards were instituted as from last year and institutional committees have been established. The task of the institutional committees is to submit factual reports regarding the prisoner’s adaptation, training, general treatment and crime history to the release board. This altered policy has created a new dimension within the context of the treatment programme. For example, the head of the prison and his staff, as well as the professional staff, now form a team and this is all being done in order to create a better and healthier prison administration in general. I should like to stress this: The release of long-term prisoners forms part of the whole treatment process. In the same way as his other needs are considered, the release and the conditions on which the prisoner is released all form part of a unitary scientific treatment process.

To conclude, I wish to give an example for the edification of the humanists who are so obsessed with human rights. Although a person is a prisoner he has not only obligations but also rights in terms of our prison system. These rights are explained to him on his admission to the prison. What is more, every prisoner has the right to put requests or complaints to the head of the prison every day. It is characteristic of certain prisons that they write letters in which they expound their complaints. The hon. member for Houghton said in this House last year that prisoners wrote letters to her. She can set the minds of those prisoners—and her own mind, too—at rest, in the knowledge that the prisoners in South Africa get the best treatment in the world.

It was the hon. the Minister who opened the old fort in Bloemfontein after it had been officially restored. I should like to know what he is going to do with the old fort in Johannesburg.

Order! Before I see the next hon. member, I wish to deal with the point of order raised by hon. members of the official Opposition on the question of an alleged abuse of privilege. This issue concerns a dispute between two hon. members. It does not affect the privilege of hon. members or of this Committee. I therefore rule that it is not an issue on which the Chair need give a ruling.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a few remarks in connection with the rights of prisoners. It is a pity that a community has to have deviant people in its ranks, people who have to serve sentences because their behaviour is of such a nature that they are not … [Interjections.] … acceptable to the rest of community. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is just in the process of leaving the House, as he went past these benches said he did not want to walk past the Progs because “they stink”. [Interjections.]

Really John, must you place that on record? [Interjections.]

Order! The allegation is made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that the hon. member for Pretoria Central said he did not wish to walk past the benches occupied by hon. members of the official Opposition because “they stink”. Did the hon. member for Pretoria Central say that?

Mr. Chairman, I did say that. Will you please allow me to explain? [Interjections.]

Order! The question is simply whether the hon. member said it or not.

Mr. Chairman, I did say it.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. I just want to add that I did not mean it literally, but figuratively. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Springs may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, these people that we do not want in our midst, are not the hon. members of the official Opposition. They are the …

Of course it is them. [Interjections.]

I am referring to prisoners. Prisoners are living in unnatural circumstances.

So are the Progs. [Interjections.]

The court has decided that these people must be detained in a prison, where in the nature of things, the circumstances are not normal. They are quite different to the circumstances to which they have been accustomed. When someone fives in these unnatural conditions, we can expect his thoughts to be almost exclusively aimed at himself, and that this will determine his attitude towards all his requirements, as well as to the requests that he will make. Therefore, his total approach to life and his entire thought processes are hyper-subjective.

The prison service is fully aware of this situation. It is fully aware of the fact that these people are living in conditions which are abnormal, and they will develop certain needs, which may give rise to certain complaints, and that certain requests will also come from them. In the process the prison service has created the opportunity for these people to comply with those needs of theirs.

At least once every day each prisoner has the opportunity of making certain representations and raising certain complaints. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria Central and the hon. member for Roodeplaat have just walked past the official Opposition benches holding their noses. I submit that that constitutes a gesture of defiance and that it compounds the situation which arose prior to the point of order put by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central a few minutes ago. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the two hon. members held their noses, a gesture clearly intimating that hon. members of the official Opposition were foul smelling. I suggest that that constitutes an insult by way of gesture. I ask consideration be given to the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the conduct of the two hon. members in question, conduct which, I submit, may constitute an act of contempt of privilege in terms of the Standing Orders of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall consider the matter and give my ruling at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I submit to you that Parliament has a certain dignity …

It used to have.

What has just happened is, I submit, a very serious reflection, not only on you, Mr. Chairman, but also on the dignity of this House. I submit with great respect that unless you take steps now in order to preserve the dignity of this House, the whole reputation of Parliament is put to stake. What is happening now is that the dignity of this House, the dignity of the Legislature of this county, is being brought into contempt. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already indicated that I shall consider the matter and give a ruling at a later stage.

*The hon. member for Springs may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, one of the duties of the head of a prison is to speak to each prisoner every day, and on this occasion each prisoner has the right to put every possible request or complaint to that head of the prison. Prisoners also have other opportunities when they can raise their complaints.

I should like to refer to the visits paid, inter alia, to the prisoners by judges and magistrates. The hon. member for Houghton thought fit to say that is the right of such people to visit prisoners, but that they do not exercise this right or, as she suggested, if they do go there, they simply do so out of a sense of duty and that is why the visits do not really mean anything. I want to reject this remark by the hon. member very strongly. I also reject the suggestion that these people are neglecting their duty by not paying such visits. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the annual report, she would have noticed that 669 different people visited prisons during the year. 42 of these people were judges, 241 were magistrates, 40 were foreign visitors and 346 were people who are actively involved in the problem of crime in general.

The hon. member alleges that the judges and the magistrates are not interested in the people who are sent to prison to serve sentences there. This is the type of politics which we on this side of the House are slowly becoming weary of. I feel it is a type of politics that is so negative that it is impossible to administer a country on the basis thereof.

I have the greatest respect for the department and its officials. I think that they are amongst the top officials in this country. I think the prison services of the world would be proud if they could have only a quarter of these officials in their employ. However, these people are being criticized by someone who did not even take the trouble to read the annual report.

I do not believe that one can administer the country properly with this type of Opposition. I really think that South Africa deserves a better understanding than the understanding that the hon. members on the other side of the House have of these matters.

South Africa deserves a better Government.

One day we can discuss the question of a good Government, but I must point out that if this was a poor Government, it would not have been governing for 33 years already, because then the people of South Africa, the enfranchised South Africans would have ensured that there was another Government here.

It is often said that the prison service wants to hide its activities and wants to act in secret. In sharp contrast to this allegation, is the fact that our prison service opens its doors to visitors and even allowed a visit by the Press, with excellent results. The commentary which is received from time to time, from independent bodies too, who visit these services on a regular basis, is extremely positive. I want to associate myself with hon. members who said that if a nation’s cultural status can be measured by the way in which it treats its prisoners, the nation of South Africa is living on the highest peak of cultural development.

Mention was made of certain people who do not want to use recognized channels and make use of letters. However, there is also another group that ensures that they appear in court for their crimes. Then, when they appear before the court, they avail themselves of the opportunity to trouble the presiding judge or magistrate with their complaints—usually these are not proven complaints. The whole idea is to achieve an elevated status in the eyes of criminal gangs and, of course, to criticize the officials of the service.

The channels are wide open for everyone in our prison service to make any request or submit any complaint. In the first place such a person has the right to take his complaint to the head of the prison service and from there he can appeal straight to the Commissioner. He can also turn to the visiting judges and magistrates, as has already been indicated.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to commence by dealing with a number of matters that were raised by the hon. member for Houghton. She complains that she is not afforded adequate opportunity to visit our gaols. I gather that she has visited at least some of the gaols and she has also been frank about the treatment of the prisoners there of which she does approve occasionally. However, she saw fit to draw attention to certain matters in this House. She stated that the opportunity to visit these prisons should be afforded more to members of this House and less to judges and magistrates.

No, I did not say that.

If that was not her argument, then her argument was at least that she wanted sufficient opportunity to visit our gaols. What actually happens when either a judge or a magistrate visits a gaol? I receive a detailed report from such a judge or magistrate and if he should find anything amiss, then either the Commissioner, the Director-General or myself is placed in the position to take immediate action to remedy such a defect. But what did the hon. member for Houghton do?

I wrote to you.

The hon. member complained to me about the security prisoners in Pretoria but it seems to me that she first waited for a couple of months before raising the question of segregation or solitary confinement. She has now raised this matter in the House. If I am wrong I shall apologize to her.

You are wrong.

However, I shall leave the matter at that for the moment. The fact of the matter is that neither a judge nor a magistrate abuses the opportunity to visit a gaol as I believe the hon. member has done in the case of the security prisoners to whom she has referred. I say this because if my information is correct then what she says cannot be correct too. I am dealing now with the two women prisoners to whom the hon. member referred. These two girls were actually held in segregation in terms of section 78 of the Act.

Girls?

These women.

They are young women.

Yes, they are young women. I am not referring to them as girls in any derogatory fashion. This action was taken after due consideration by the Commissioner or the person to whom he delegated that authority. However, this action was taken due to the behaviour of these women. I think the hon. member for Houghton has conceded that their behaviour was of such a nature that it was not in the interests of the other prisoners that they should be brought into contact with those prisoners.

Only one of them.

Does the hon. member agree with that? Therefore I ask: Did the authority concerned exceed his power? I say no.

After two years?

I say no because this particular section gives him the power to order segregation for an unlimited period of time.

You know that is not the intention of the Act.

What alternative is there?

What is more, psychiatric treatment was given in respect of at least one of the women and in another case this treatment had positive results. I therefore cannot understand why the hon. member is raising this particular matter in the House.

You will be appearing in court anyway; I can tell you that.

I should also like to know from the hon. member why she is so interested in people of a particular breed or rather, belonging to a particular category who are convicted in terms of the security laws.

Breed? Category?

I have been told that in respect of Beelders and Van der Westhuizen …

What breed?

… the hon. member was given the opportunity to visit them as well. I believe she did not.

The men who shot at Eglin’s flat.

I believe …

Of course I did not.

What breed? [Interjections.]

Yes, I appreciate that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must be given the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Bryanston wishes to make a speech on this subject, I can accommodate him later, otherwise he must now give me an opportunity to make mine.

The fact of the matter is that these two women belonged to a category of persons who were convicted of a crime in terms of this legislation. Since the hon. member is giving special attention to them, I just want to ask her: Why not also give attention to the other people involved? I mentioned the names Beelders and Van der Westhuizen to her. Would it not matter to that hon. member if the same treatment were meted out to them? The hon. member can tell us whether she is discriminating in this case.

I was asked by the women’s attorney, that is why.

I am trying to make an issue of this. All I am asking the hon. member is whether or not she is acting in the general interests here.

In regard to the question of whether there is a difference between solitary confinement and segregation, I can say that there is a difference. They serve different purposes, and the relevant legislation makes it very clear that in the one case it is the privilege of the Commissioner to take such a decision in the interests of a specific objective. If there is an indication of an escape and if there is an indication of conduct which could undermine discipline, a prisoner can similarly be sentenced to solitary confinement.

I should like to conclude as far as this particular point is concerned. The hon. member for Houghton has not yet let me have the correspondence, but I want to suggest that that hon. member, when she visits our prisons, should do the same as judges do, and that is to let us know as soon as possible what faults she found so that we can remedy them. I am not saying that there will not be any faults, but all we want is an opportunity to remedy them immediately. That is the only point I want to make.

The hon. member for Houghton raised a few other matters as well and they were also in connection with security. She made inquiries about the Rabie Commission and in this connection I can tell the hon. member that the commission expected to complete its activities by the middle of this year. However, it so happened that evidence was received from specific persons and bodies at a late stage. The last evidence was taken on 2 July 1981. According to my information the report is now in the final stages of preparation, and parts of it have already been sent to the Language Service Bureau for translation. It is expected that the report will be tabled at the beginning of next year. I hope the hon. member accepts this.

The hon. member for Houghton also discussed the overcrowding of prisons and before I deal rather comprehensively with that subject with her, I just want to reply to her on one point. The hon. member referred to certain persons who are being detained in terms of the legislation on habit-forming substances and drugs. I followed the hon. member’s argument. There are elements which I should like to examine and I shall let the hon. member have a written reply.

I will read your letter …

The hon. member knows that I always reply readily.

I should now like to refer to the question of overcrowded prisons, an aspect which the hon. member for Houghton raised. That hon. member touched on a subject here which has been in the news quite a good deal lately, and she quoted statistics which were available to her, viz. those pertaining to the situation up to June 1980. I want to concede at once that it is not a promising picture. However, the fact of the matter is that this matter is reported on year after year, and reference is also made to building programmes. If the hon. member were to look at the report tabled by the Minister of Community Development she will see that R32 million was budgeted for the past financial year, an amount which was in fact spent on various prisons. From other replies she could also have inferred that the department itself is to a large extent involved in building programmes and that we are engaged in renovation programmes at at least five prisons. In addition to that, 60 prisons are being planned. This is one side of the coin, i.e. to build more prisons to accommodate prisoners. However, this is not the whole answer. I want to say at once that we do not proceed from the standpoint that more and better prisons are the answer. When we are drawing up plans for the construction of prisons, we must take into consideration the normal population growth and the normal crime trend. I want to say at once that the Commissioner and his predecessors have been modernizing our prisons over a long period, and the hon. member knows what I am talking about. In comparison with the rest of the world, our prisons are among the best. Unfortunately I do not have enough time now, but I can show the hon. member letters from visitors to our country in which they stated unequivocally that our prisoners were being detained in exceptionally good circumstances in prisons, and that our prisons were among the best in the world. The hon. member for Houghton is nodding her head in agreement.

Are you saying that the prisons are so full because they are so popular?

They are undoubtedly model buildings, and we are constantly endeavouring to improve them even further. However, we must remember that they are not intended to be five-star hotels. The intention remains that the object of punishment, i.e. to be a deterrent, must be achieved.

Recently the Prisons Service has expanded one branch of its task, i.e. rehabilitation, tremendously, and considerable success has been achieved. The fact of the matter is, however, that this particular branch of the service also has other needs, for example employment opportunities and the therapeutic application of such opportunities, which in turn requires the skill of trained personnel such as psychologists. To provide such services in old and dilapidated buildings is impossible, and for this reason we need new buildings. The hon. member will therefore understand that we have to give this matter our constant attention.

As regards other measures to prevent the number of prisoners increasing excessively in proportion to the population, we have the penal reform committee of Mr. Justice Viljoen, who made certain recommendations in his original report. Hon. members know about that. One of these was to look at the question of control measures, and so on.

There was also a reference to the question of a parole board, on which a leading article appeared in one of our newspapers in Cape Town. I just want to say that the time may now have arrived, now that we have replaced the large number of prisons boards with release boards and institutional committees, and with one central Release Board, to take another look at Mr. Justice Viljoen’s recommendation, viz. to include the Bench, which we should very much like to involve in this situation, possibly in an advisory capacity. I do not want to commit myself in this connection, but I should like to give this matter my attention.

I now wish to return to the other part of the reply as far as extramural prisoners are concerned. How are we dealing with this matter? Some time ago I announced that we had appointed the Krugel Committee to investigate and improve on any courses of action which these two directorates, Prisons and Justice, might initiate. I also gave an indication that we would reactivate the interdepartmental committee, which could commit the various departments to a course of action, when this committee of Magistrate Krugel had completed its task. In this effort to reduce the above normal number of prisoners, Magistrate Krugel is investigating alternative forms of imprisonment. He is investigating ways of reducing the awaiting trial period—the hon. member raised the matter of the large number of persons awaiting trial. Magistrate Krugel is also investigating the question of better coordination between investigating officers and the courts in expediting the finalization of cases. In this process this committee has already studied 500 questionnaires and has paid a large number of visits throughout the country. On 25-26 June they also held a symposium, a departmental symposium which more than 200 people attended. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I cherish high expectations of this effort, as well as the subsequent effort which will be launched with the interdepartmental committee, to co-ordinate all the courses of action. Having said this, I must also say that it is not solely the responsibility of the State to ensure that the number of prisoners is reduced. The matter must be dealt with at its source. It should be dealt with at the root cause of crime. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to gangs. We shall take another look at this later. However, the fact remains that we cannot expect the State to deal with these matters alone. I think we are entitled to say that this is a problem that the whole of South Africa should take a look at, and on a local level as well. In this connection the hon. member for Newton Park appealed to certain organizations in the private sector to give this matter their attention, and I think it is fitting that we say here that the private sector should take cognizance of the fact that it has a responsibility to investigate the cause of crime, and deal with it at the source. Let me also add at once that we welcome any kind of interest in this connection, and that we will process all contributions that are made in this connection. We shall not dismiss any interest that is shown.

Having said all that, I also want to add that this whole question of the overcrowding of our prisons has been wrested out of context completely, if one considers a few cases which I want to mention to you. In the first place there are the statistics in regard to the so-called influx control offenders. These people are offenders convicted in terms of the laws mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. This is very interesting, because the question which arises is whether the various recommendations—those made by Riekert, Wiehahn and Viljoen—have had any results. I just want to give the hon. member the latest statistics. The fact of the matter is that for the period 1.7.80 to 30.6.81 the number of convicted control offenders comprised only 12,9% of the total number of convicted persons. This is a considerable improvement, but what is more, on 31 July 1981 the total number of control offenders which spent that night in prisons, was less than 2%. Hon. members can therefore see that, although the stream has dwindled considerably over a specific period, i.e. to 12,9%, the intake for a specific night was less than 2%. I do not wish to discuss the other courses of action we are taking to deal with this problem any further now, but I wish to content myself by telling the hon. member that in regard to her request for amnesty for those who contravened security legislation, they are people who were convicted of a crime in terms of the policy of this Government, a policy which has applied for many years now. They will not receive amnesty. The reason for this is very simple. Amnesty was granted on the occasion of the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Republic. Those for whom the hon. member for Houghton is now requesting amnesty, are the people who wish to overthrow the State. That is the point.

Not all of them. A lot of young people were involved.

The philosophy behind this was that those people who refused to recognize the State, as well as those who had been guilty of perjury, did not receive amnesty. They wish to undermine the authority of the State. They wish to overthrow the State, and were convicted in terms of that legislation. Consequently they did not receive amnesty. Having said this, I am not implying that they cannot, under specific circumstances and in terms of a specific policy, come into consideration for parole or release. We have demonstrated this in the past in respect of Mr. Robert Sobukwe, for example, and others as well. We also granted parole to Mr. Bram Fischer. These were under completely special circumstances. The fact of the matter, however, is that it cannot be excluded that a different approach could be developed.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton does not understand the philosophy involving a State celebrating its 20th anniversary. I think I have now finished dealing with the points raised by the hon. member for Houghton.

I come next to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. This hon. member had a very difficult evening, probably one of the most difficult evenings in his entire career here in this House. I do not think that he deserved it, because he is an hon. member who always makes very substantial contributions. I am sorry that the Opposition did not hear the hon. member out.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central was conducting a very interesting conversation with the hon. member for Durban Central, and that was where the time went. The hon. member for Durban Central challenged the hon. member for Pretoria Central and said that he had said nothing about Mr. Mandela allegedly suffering from cancer, as had been reported in the newspapers. If I understand it correctly, the hon. member for Durban Central denied this.

Pinetown.

I beg your pardon, the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Pinetown denied it. I do not wish to kick up a great fuss about this now, but I do want to ask the Whip who is responsible for this debate on the Opposition side to take cognizance of the fact that this report appeared in The Star of 24 April 1981. Would the hon. Whip be so kind as to convey this to the hon. member for Pinetown, so that he can, when he gets a chance, write a note and send it to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, in which he offers that hon. member an apology? I think it would be appropriate if he would convey that message.

I thank the hon. member for Losberg for a very positive contribution and for the words of appreciation which he addressed to the officials.

To return for a moment to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, he also referred to the liaison and the publicity service of our prisons service. It is true that this is a 24-hour service, by means of which one can find out anything about the prisons service. It is available to the Press and to the public. That liaison division provides a 24-hour service. I think this is a unique service. The fact that the prisons service has, in spite of its very difficult task, succeeded in retaining a very healthy image, is I believe attributable to this liaison service.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East also asked me what was being planned in respect of the Old Fort in Johannesburg. The Old Fort lends itself to one purpose only, viz. conversion into a museum. I do not think that the hon. member for Houghton would associate with that building the same sentiments a few old Boer prisoners, whom I have heard about, would. I am referring to people who were detained there during the Anglo Boer War, or during the Rebellion. She would not attach similar sentiments or memories to that building, but because she is really interested in the prisons service, I think that she will support this idea. I do not wish to ask her now to travel all over the countryside collecting documents and articles, but surely she can promote this idea among interested persons.

The Old Fort has already been declared to be a national monument, and I think it can fittingly be converted into a museum. We have approved the Commissioner of Prisons taking the necessary steps to turn the Old Fort into a museum.

That is a very good idea.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a very interesting speech on an approach to prisoners in society, the approach which one ought to have in this regard—if I understood him correctly—and also on the steps which should be taken to rehabilitate a prisoner. He is now giving me an opportunity to refer to very significant statistics on our prisons. They indicate that on 30 June 1967 there were 33 554 prisoners in custody for periods exceeding two years. That figure rose to 57 509 on 3 June 1980. It is very interesting to note that the total number of admissions in this category during the past 13 years was 231 824, of whom 170 476 had to receive new series numbers. This means that 73,1% of the board case prisoners released over the past 13 years were not readmitted to prisons with sentences of two years or longer. This is silent evidence of the success of the release treatment. We thank the prisons service for this tangible success, and we shall try to improve on the statistics.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.