intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Mr. Chairman, last night I reacted briefly to the hon. the Minister’s attack on my hon. colleague … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not be so noisy.

… in connection with the Catholic bishops and the report they have submitted. There were some very hard words spoken in the House last night about this matter. There were implications of untruths and even the words “high treason” were used, apparently by the Publications Control Board. One can only come to the conclusion that what was said and alleged yesterday constitutes nothing less than an assault on the integrity of Roman Catholic leaders in this country. Either the allegations were true or they were untrue. In both instances I believe they should have been published. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can identify one lie in the document, and if he can identify a lie, whether it would not have been better to have published the document together with the refutation of the allegation made and thus destroy the credibility of the document. Secondly, if it were true, shouldn’t we who are paying for the war in South West Africa, know what is being done there and particularly what is being done—in a statement of the hon. the Minister of Defence—to prevent similar circumstances occurring in future? Certainly one cannot be in control of everybody all the time and there are individual acts which perhaps could occur. What we think is necessary, is to have constant control over what happens. Either way, I believe that banning the publication creates impressions which lead both to uncertainty and to greater polarization of the South African society.

Yesterday when we stopped, I was talking about the number of immigrants in South Africa who have not taken out citizenship although they are entitled to. I posed the question why this was so. Why are so many of those who live here permanently and who have no real intention of returning to their countries of origin, reluctant to take out South African citizenship? I believe the answer lies in the fact that in applying for citizenship any prospective citizen has to surrender the passport of his country of origin.

The documentation I have here of how to become a South African citizen makes it quite clear that in making application for citizenship one has to send in the applicant’s passport. Secondly, having done this, and having acquired South African citizenship, that citizenship can be taken away if the citizen reapplies for a passport from his country of origin. This happens in terms of section 19bis of the South African Citizenship Act.

Last week I obtained information from six embassies in Cape Town. Five of the six have no problem with dual citizenship. They are Britain, America, France, Canada and Australia. All of them recognize dual citizenship and have no problem with it. Germany, the sixth country, does have a problem and does not recognize dual citizenship.

I believe that one cannot blame people for not wanting to cut off their ties with the land of their birth. I would hope that a South African girl who marries and who lives overseas would want to retain her South African citizenship and passport as well as becoming a citizen of her adopted land. I believe that many South African citizens have done so. Secondly, can one be surprised if people query the value of a South African passport for overseas travel in comparison with, for example, the six countries I have already mentioned? There are many countries which do not allow South African citizens in, even as simple tourists. Furthermore, there are many countries which require visas for South African passport holders. These are refused to, for example, sportsmen who wish to compete in their sports. I know of a case where a former South African national champion wished to visit Canada. Her visa was only granted after she gave an undertaking not to play her sport in Canada on any occasion. Can one wonder then why so many people are reluctant to surrender their original passports? I am aware that the hon. the Minister often grants permission to South African citizens to apply for and use other passports if they give an adequate reason. This in itself is an admission of the limitations of a South African passport overseas. I would therefore recommend that this requirement be removed permanently and dual citizenship be allowed. I believe this will be in South Africa’s own interests. I believe it will encourage more people to become citizens and thus increase their commitment to South Africa. I believe it will encourage their children in turn to have that commitment to become full citizens, with the consequent commitment to national service. I certainly do not believe that South Africa would be the loser by taking such a step. If the hon. the Minister still resists this idea, could we not even perhaps have an interim period, shall we say a six month lifting of the restriction, and let us see how many applicants we get for passports and South African citizenship under the conditions that those people can hold dual citizenship? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the topic I should like to deal with is the topic of immigration and I should like to begin with arguments to indicate why there is an urgent need to take additional steps to encourage immigration to South Africa. Europe and America, which are highly industrialized countries, have a serious unemployment problem. The vast majority of those who are unemployed there are people who have a considerable amount of training and, at the same time, belong to the juvenile portion of the population. These young unemployed often divert their energy towards anti-establishment protest groups through the sheer lack of challenge. Young people want to be involved and they want to be active. Frequently these people are highly intelligent: They have had considerable training and even if they are not trained in a specific field of skill that is immediately required in South Africa, their basic education and training would make them sufficiently adaptable to alternative skilled employment. South Africa offers a tremendous challenge and scope to people of skill to generate income on a basis of free enterprise system as a vehicle through which they can obtain their personal, material and social aims in life. Inevitably the unemployed will tend to seek a solution to their malady in socialism as a system. Unskilled unemployed tend towards a sort of African socialism. This is evident in Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other countries. Their type of socialistic battle cry is easily exploited by Marxism and communist imperialism. With the South African population being approximately 70% Third World and prone to such influences, I should like to draw attention to this fact and point out that in the interests of the security of the whole of Southern Africa it is necessary to take note of this potential flashpoint. More important, our strategic planners should plan to avert or minimize such a development. Massive unemployment amongst highly educated juveniles, as is now the case in Europe, has an even more catastrophic potential in that they tend to become the catalyst of revolution and the instigators of the masses of unskilled unemployed workers. Therefore attention should be given to eliminate or at least to minimize the circumstances that give rise to this problem.

In South Africa we have both a shortage of labour and a surplus of labour. We have a shortage of skilled workers and a surplus of unskilled workers. And we stand on the threshold of an expected upswing in our economy. According to Manpower Survey (No. 14 1981) issued by the Department of Manpower there was an overall shortage of something like 188 000 posts and that was when our economy was on the downturn. We can therefore expect a worsening of this position in 1984 when there is likely to be an economic upturn. Such a shortage of skilled labour causes two main problems. In the first place it causes a considerable pressure on wage rates, with a chain reaction of artificial wage increases, a soaring inflation rate, frequent job changes with a resultant loss in efficiency and productivity in the transition period. In the second place it seriously hampers the growth of the economy in that potential development, and therefore also job creation, is impeded.

Sir, I have sketched the background to this problem in order to stress the need for a more dynamic immigration programme, a selective programme, where the need will be focused on encouraging skilled, trained or educated people to come to South Africa, young people who can rise to the challenges of a free enterprise system and who are adaptable—in short, “mense wat lus is vir die lewe”. The benefits flowing from getting immigrants of this calibre on a larger scale are in the first place a multiplying effect not only a job creation for unskilled and semiskilled workers in that every skilled employee creates work for at least two or three unskilled people, but also in that every skilled worker contributes greatly to the training of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, thereby creating a further multiplying effect on the improvement of skills to the benefit of the substantial Third World component in Southern Africa. An extended immigration programme of skilled and educated immigrants should thus not be seen as a potential problem to the employment potential of the substantial numbers of unemployed in South Africa. It should rather be seen as of tremendous and immediate value to the Third World people in Southern Africa in that more jobs would be created for the semi-skilled and unskilled; the economy would be boosted thereby creating even more jobs and, thirdly, inflation would not be artificially fired by reducing the pressure on the available skilled manpower. The cost to the State of every trained and educated worker, from the time of his birth, through school, university or technical college, can probably be put at least R50 000 to R80 000 per person. Thus if we were to spend approximately R10 000 per immigrant, to get him here, we would save in the vicinity of R40 000 to R70 000 if we get skilled workers from overseas instead of training them here.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that one would of course prefer to get immigrants who would fit into the community pattern here in South Africa. Since there are at present large numbers of unemployed in Europe, particularly in Northern Europe, young people who no longer have a challenge in life, the present time is in my opinion a suitable and appropriate time to devise a dynamic scheme to recruit immigrants so that they will be able to make considerable contributions here in South Africa during the period of economic revival which is coming. I am convinced that this is an appropriate time to give attention to this matter. The Department of Internal Affairs, which is responsible for immigration, can give this matter the necessary attention in conjunction with the planners dealing with the economic planning of South Africa, but also in conjunction with the Department of Manpower. This is a matter which affects not only immigration but also the question of manpower, the economic revival of South Africa and the entire social structure of South Africa. It is necessary to give attention to this matter so as to eliminate, by means of job creation, the growing potential for unrest in this country which is being caused by unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he has just said.

The first matter I should like to raise is one in regard to the implementation of the Registration of Newspapers Amendment Act, which, the hon. the Minister will recall, was rushed through in the dying moments of the 1982 session of Parliament. Arising out of replies given to questions asked this year it is clear that the major aspects of that legislation have rightly been put on ice for the time being, and that the basic impracticability of the Act has been comprehended by the authorities. However, I have three questions to ask and one proposal to make in this connection. Firstly I shall put my questions.

We would welcome an up-date on the situation regarding the establishment of the new Media Council. Firstly, is it going to happen this year at all, or is a long delay being contemplated? If so, what are the factors that are delaying this development? The second question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is: How does he see the new council being an improvement on the existing situation, and what reasonable plans does he have to cover the case of the new Media Council refusing to exercise its punitive powers except in so far as truly voluntary members are concerned?

Thirdly, does the hon. the Minister really believe that it is necessary to dismantle the existing Press Council and its structure; if so, could he tell us why? In what manner does the Government feel that the existing Press Council has been ineffective?

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to refer to section 3(b) of the already mentioned Act. This is the section which brings the SABC within the ambit of the Publications Control Act. Here the situation is really quite laughable. Firstly, on principle and in practice, no broadcasting corporation broadcasting on a 24-hour basis numerous different programmes per day, can function effectively under a system of on-going censorship by an outside authority. That simply cannot work. Consequently, what has happened is this. The SABC has been brought under publications control on the one hand, and has been given exemption from that very control in 99% of its programmes at the same time. Surely this must be nonsensical. The SABC, already bound by its charter, and tightly controlled by the Government-appointed members of its board in so far as programme content is concerned, honestly does not need yet another Government bureaucracy to watch over it.

No wonder inflation continues to spiral. One Government-appointed body is now being appointed to censor the activities of another Government orientated body. Self-generating work proliferates. Red tape lengthens. The censors are going to be censored. When all is said and done, the SABC will carry on as it has done in the past. I want to say, however, that the hon. the Minister is being made a fool of. The SABC hierarchy publicly accommodates him but privately laughs at him. They think that the legislation is a mess. However, in order to appease the bureaucracy, the SABC will, at the taxpayers’ cost, go along with these new children’s games of having censors in the SABC.

My proposal, to which I now want to come, is a simple one. The Minister should admit—and it is not his fault that this Bill was passed; it was not a Bill of his making—that the SABC should not fall under the control of the Publications Act, and he should let this matter die, and, with it, the promulgation of this whole farcical piece of legislation. I would like to tell him that, if he does that, he will have our congratulations and the newspaper and media industry will say a thankful “Amen”.

I should now like to turn to another matter. The hon. the Minister is in charge of specific legislation affecting the Press. He is regularly in touch with the Newspaper Press Union, the Conference of Editors and the people who control the media. He is broadly seen as the Minister who Haises between the media and the Cabinet. Less than a week ago Mr. Harvey Tyson, the editor of The Star, speaking to 275 world editors at the conference of the International Press Institute in Amsterdam, Holland, said the following—

Mr. Tyson was referring to many facets, for example to the detention of journalists, difficulties being experienced by the media in reporting events relating to military and police matters, the threat of restrictive legislation, and even the intimidation of editors themselves.

It is this last point, the intimidation of editors themselves, that I should like to highlight this afternoon. One must realize that, excluding Pretoria, there are nine major newspapers published on the Highveld. Then it is absolutely mind-boggling to know that all except one of the nine editors concerned have been or are presently involved in defending criminal charges. Five of these editors, namely the editors of Die Beeld, Die Vaderland, The Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and Die Volksblad, have already been found guilty of technical offences and contraventions of various laws relating to the Press, and thus have criminal records. Two other editors, those of Rapport and The Star, have charges pending against them.

Sir, this is not an academic matter. Once a person has a criminal record, this affects him in many unhappy ways, for instance when he applies for a passport or when he applies for a visa to visit another country. A criminal record is an entry in the personal record of the person concerned and it is not easily erased. It carries a stigma.

Of what have these editors been convicted, or for what reasons were they charged? Some were charged because their newspapers published photographs of prisoners, others for quoting banned persons, yet others for contravening one of many legal restrictions placed in the path of a daily newspaper. These editors were convicted because they were in overall control of their newspapers, even though on some occasions they were not personally involved in the incident complained of.

I should like to make certain points to the Minister. Firstly, the morass of laws inhibiting the publishing of newspapers in this country is making criminals out of the editors of South Africa. Here I refer not to the ordinary criminals we speak of concerning every-day events, but to an entire professional class of people in this country, eminent leaders of our community. I say that this Government’s laws are making the editors a criminal professional class in South Africa and I say that this must stop.

Secondly, I believe it is quite wrong and unjust to single out individuals for intimidation of this sort, in the way that it is becoming customary to do. I believe this must stop.

Finally, in the difficult times that lie ahead for our country, with a pattern of escalating violence as we have seen over the past few days, the Government is behaving very stupidly in promoting what can only develop into an escalating Government-newspaper industry confrontation. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take to heart what I have said and that he will talk to his colleagues, being in the position that he is, about amending some of the silly laws that are causing editors to be brought before the courts for unnecessary reasons, and that he will certainly speak to his colleagues about how to deal with minor contraventions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton will forgive me if I do not react to the very important subject he raised here. I should like to touch on another subject.

I should like to discuss the development of Coloured communities, with specific reference to the rural Coloured areas under the jurisdiction of the department. In this connection I want to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department for the Rural Coloured Areas Amendment Bill and the Coloured Farmers’ Assistance Amendment Bill passed by Parliament earlier this session. The management and control of these rural areas is being facilitated by means of this legislation. It has also contributed to the people in these areas being able to lead a more viable and respectable life. In actual fact, the hon. the Minister and his department have, with this legislation, given meaningful content to the ideal of self-determination of the Coloured communities, as well as more substance to the Government’s policy in this connection. It is however, also true that the most meaningful content which can be given to the policy of any party or Government, is the fact that the people involved in the policy themselves give it substance. They do this putting the policy into effect and by using their abilities to convert the opportunities and resources into a resource, a form and a style of life. When one considers the rural Coloured communities in this sense, there are certain important aspects one has to take into consideration when one wants to give substance to the ideal of self-determination of these people and when one wants to absolutize that ideal of self-determination as the CP wants to do and wants to base a constitutional model on these areas.

If in the first place we consider the implement ability of a constitutional model based on these Coloured rural areas, one has to take into consideration that of these 23 areas 12 are nothing but villages that are already fully occupied by their registered owners. Of the remainder seven are larger areas of which a great number are situated in mountainous and the driest parts of the country. In addition the agricultural potential of large parts of this area are already been utilized by 200 farms that have been allocated to individual farmers. These areas cannot support a further increase in the population. With few exceptions there is no infrastructure or a potential for population development in these areas. Most important of all, however, is that if it were in fact possible to bring about high density development there, one would have to take into consideration that this would not only disturb the people in their love for their land but would also disturb their lifestyle, pattern of life and outlook on life. Now the question arises whether it is not in fact these very things which we as Whites ourselves wish to protect and build up. Is it not in fact these things which we use to give substance to the ideal of self-determination of people?

This brings me to the next point, which is that to implement a policy it must surely be acceptable to the people involved. I maintain that the fatal blunder in the CP’s philosophy on its homeland policy lies in the fact that they are proclaiming a philosophy here in Parliament and at meetings outside that they have not clarified and discussed with the people involved in it. Although it calls for great dreams and great imagination to envisage the 600 group areas scattered throughout the country ever being able to form a separate independent State, the total failure of the CP’s policy does not lie only in its constitutional impossibility. It lies in the rejection of that policy by the people living in these rural areas under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister’s department.

The hon. members of the CP and their eloquent leader announced a philosophy here and outside this House to Whites, and I now ask myself whether they have spoken to the Nama descendents at Kuboes in the Richtersveld. Have they spoken to the Cloetes of Steinkopf? Have they spoken to the Snyders of Mier and to the Dirks of Rietpoort? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterberg grew up in Piketberg and he knows what it means to have ties which bind one to family land. Some of the Coloured families living in these rural areas have been settled there for generations.

Who is threatening them?

The hon. member for Waterberg knows what it means and I also know what it means because I also occupy family land, land which has been in my family in an unbroken line for 150 years already. There are also the Carelses and the Julies families of Teslaarsdal. There are also the Du Plessis of Genadendal. When the hon. member for Waterberg and his party refer to the rural areas they want to use as heartlands, which also implies high density development, have they discussed this with these families and these people? [Interjections.] These leaders have not been consulted in the philosophy of the CP. The hon. member for Waterberg may be an important man in Waterberg. The hon. member for Waterberg may have received a Decoration for Meritorius Service to South Africa from the State President but he is not the leader of Coloured people and he and his party cannot speak for and on behalf of Coloured people. I have spoken to these people I have mentioned. I have consulted them. The first question I put to them was: Did Dr. Treurnicht or members of his party ever get into touch with you about the implementation of their policy of homelands? Without exception the reply was: No, we do not know him and we have never seen him. He has never spoken to us.

We consulted many of them and saw many of them. [Interjections.]

I also asked these people: What is your reaction to the policy of the CP? What will you do if the CP comes into power and they want to apply this policy to your land?

It is better than Buthelezi’s solution.

Without exception they told me, and the hon. member for Rissik had better listen to this, because he may learn a few lessons from this: Sir, we will not accept it. [Interjections.]

All I want to say is that the hon. members of the CP are putting the Coloureds’ backs up in this country because they think they are important here, important in Waterberg and important elsewhere. Believe me, they are really not important in the places where it matters and among the people about whom they make such eloquent statements.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister and his department that they should continue with their present programme of development of the Coloured rural areas to give substance to these people’s ideal of self-determination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central indicated that the hon. the Minister had made a somewhat fierce attack on the Archbishop in respect of the conference and the statements regarding South West Africa. Quite obviously I am not in the position to say whether they were seditionary or sectarian or that such a person was traitorous in making those statements. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not in a position to make comment in that regard, but I will say that the Catholic community to a very large extent is very unhappy indeed at the statements being made by Archbishop Hurley of Durban. I am not a Catholic, but members of my family are Catholics and I mix substantially with a big Catholic community and I can assure the Committee that His Grace the Archbishop is, in fact, as a consequence of his speeches, driving people away from the Catholic Church, and I know of several who have left as a consequence. I therefore just want to make the point clear that it is not all Catholics who feel that the Archbishop is making the right sort of statement.

Does he lie?

Oh, why does the hon. member not shut his mouth? That little boy should keep quiet.

Do you like the truth?

Yes, and I am talking the truth. I am not like that hon. member who only thinks he knows the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

The position is that it is not everybody who believes that what the Roman-Catholic Archbishop of Durban is speaking is really the truth. He may believe it to be the truth, and I am not going to denigrate him by saying that he knows that he is talking untruths. However, a lot of people do not like what he is saying and do not believe what he is saying.

They do not like the truth.

I want to make it clear further that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference is an organization which has bishops and archbishops from Tanzania, Zimbabwe, well, from all of the countries in the sub-Sahara area. To become chairman of it, one has to make jolly sure that one gets the votes of those bishops. I therefore imagine that one has to be a little on the liberal side. I merely make that submission.

Are liberal men untrue?

Order! The hon. member for Greytown must afford the hon. member for Umbilo the opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member for Umbilo may proceed.

The hon. member for Klip River touched on a point in regard to immigration. As an old-time immigrant myself I am very pleased with his attitude in respect of immigrants. I believe they are the salt of the earth; they are terrific people, and the more we can get of them, the better. However, I want to make one point, namely that in an earlier debate in the House the point was raised that there was some difficulty in the ship-building industry in Durban. Amongst the people who are going to be put out of work are a couple of hundred immigrants who were recruited at great expense to come and build ships. If we do not start building ships again, and soon, then those immigrants are going to have to leave the country. So, while it is all very well bringing immigrants into the country, I think that once you have them, you have to make sure that you can use them and that you can continue using them and can look after them for a number of years. I believe that most of them are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and are working hard if they have a job to do.

I would also like to point out in passing that as far as the immigration position at the moment is concerned, it is obviously improving enormously. The shortage of skilled labour we have at the moment, which is causing our overall unemployment problem, is a consequence of two mistakes made by the Government over many years. One is by stopping immigration for a very long period. Fortunately they have since seen the error of their ways and today we are getting large numbers of immigrants. However, it will take a long time to make up the backlog. The other mistake was the attitude towards the education of many of our non-White citizens. Today of course, as far as Coloureds and Indian citizens of South Africa are concerned, compulsory education is in fact enforced. However, in respect of Blacks this is only partially enforced. It is largely due to the fact that we do not have the facilities or the teachers, etc. However the point is that it took a long time to get around to realizing that our South African citizens of colour are capable of doing many of the skilled jobs for which we still have to bring in immigrants.

I must again take up the point raised by the hon. the Minister about the electoral procedure in respect of the referendum. This morning I read in The Citizen, and I have the cutting before me, that we must get the largest number of citizens possible to vote in the referendum and that a computer can be used to detect duplicate voters. I know that the hon. the Minister still intends talking to the different parties on an informal basis, but I do not think that that will solve the problem for him. I suppose I am one of the few old referendum agents of the 1960 referendum still knocking around in public life. Very often it has been said to me that it is remarkable how the anti-republican group, when the referendum was over, accepted the result. There was never any problem or any trouble about that. They accepted the result and have become full Republican citizens. This is perfectly true.

Did Douglas Mitchell not want to march to Pretoria, or something?

Sir, why cannot that hon. member dry up and make a proper speech instead of only an interjection?

The position is that those who were on the anti-Republican side at the time, accepted the result of the referendum because in spite of the fact that to ensure reasonable success South West Africa was brought into the referendum, the Coloureds were removed from the roll, etc., it was done within the framework of the law. The referendum procedures that were followed were accepted as being absolutely honest and as far as it was humanely possible beyond reproach. In other words, the referendum itself was fair and there was no possibility of cheating, in any event not more than in any other election.

In the proposals put forward by the hon. the Minister, I do not believe one is going to have that same confidence. What is more, I would just like to mention the sort of percentage poll one had in that particular referendum. The percentages polled were of the order of 90%, 93% and 94%. That is the sort of percentage poll one had at that time. In my own constituency it was 92%. The hon. the Minister wants to get high percentage polls and I do not believe that he will achieve that unless it is done on a constituency basis. Unless one gets behind the people and literally drives them into getting out and voting, one will not get them there. The very fact that they can go and vote almost anywhere is not going to make a great deal of difference. I believe that the hon. the Minister wants a high percentage poll, and I truly believe that in these circumstances it is essential to have a high percentage poll because if one does not there is going to be absolutely no credibility in the referendum at all. This is why I say although there may be reasons, of economy, of cutting back in staff or even political reasons, for not wanting to run the referendum on a constituency basis, if one wants credibility in the referendum, if one wants a good turnout and a high percentage poll, then I am firmly convinced that it is going to be essential to have a system that is going to be acceptable. That is why I suggested, why I believe it is important, that the system be approved by a Select Committee, in order ensure that we have a system, the credibility and honesty of which can be accepted by the public. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for a very welcome announcement yesterday, which was that in future the department would make use of prefabricated buildings to supplement the shortage of schools and classrooms. I myself have been involved with a Coloured school and a hostel on the platteland for 15 years now, and we should not carry this matter too far as we did in the case of the Whites. There are many white elephants, not only in the rural areas, but also in the cities. If there are 500 children in a residential area in a city and the residential area is fully built up, we build a school for 500 children, but after 20 years there are only 100 children because the children have left home and only old people are living there. We should make greater use of prefabricated buildings and we should do so in the rural areas as well. I built two classrooms and quarters for teachers. Eventually I was obliged to build a hostel as well because there was squatting on my farm. Later I added another classroom. But now things have got out of hand. I never thought that there would be more than 100 children at that school. Well, at present there are 150. There are five teachers. There are also double shifts. Recently the department again urged me to enlarge the school and I refused. I said that I was refusing because they were going to take over the school at the end of the year. I then said that I would not allow the department to add any further permanent accommodation either. I said that they could erect prefabricated buildings there. The same tendency which arose among the Whites, is also to be found among the Coloureds. They are moving to the cities.

I am rather proud of that school and I do not want a mess to be made of it. It is the first State-aided primary school for Coloureds in the country. It is something to be proud of and to maintain. At present the school caters for pupils from an area of 80 square kilometres. I think it is unfair. There are at present 150 children, but the potential, if one were to take all the children, is 250. That is why I maintain that more schools should be built. They move to the cities if their children cannot go to school, and every group in this country is entitled to education and training.

I now want to make a few suggestions. No farm school should consist of more than two permanent classrooms. The rest should consist of prefabricated buildings, for even if that school starts with many children it will eventually consist of only two classrooms again. In that case the prefabricated classrooms can be removed and used elsewhere. The department should adjust a farm school to its environment.

I want to suggest that the department should provide a light tractor at every farm school, particularly since the schools are eventually going to become the property of the department. For example, I provided a borehole at the site of the primary school on my farm. A windmill had to be erected and the tractor was needed to convey pipes. At the same time we teach those boys to drive a tractor, an occupation which they could take up at a later stage of their lives. In any event, 50% of these children return to work on the farm, and any farmer is grateful if he has a worker who has passed Std. 4 and can drive a tractor, for then that worker can easily obtain a licence to drive a truck or a bakkie. He is immediately a useful worker. One can even go further than that. Milk has to be supplied to these schools. Therefore two cows can be kept at the school. The boys can be taught to milk them. The feed for these cows will not cost more than it would cost to supply the school with milk. At the same time the children are learning a profession. We must remember that most of these children, I would say 80% of them, do not progress beyond Std. 4. After that they go out to work, most of them on the farms.

The Government has done a great deal for the Coloureds. When the State took over Coloured education from the provinces in the early ’sixties, there was not a single Coloured inspector. Today virtually all inspectors for Coloured education are Coloureds. At that stage the teaching staff consisted mainly of Whites. Today there are 31 900 teachers, of whom only 2 000 are Whites. And the children are being trained in the right direction. There are six technikons; there are enough training colleges for teachers and a university. These people are therefore being trained, and we find that this training is not fruitless. We find that the Coloured today is a useful person in every sphere: In the police, in the Defence Force, behind counters—everywhere.

But there is one thing bothering me, and here I want to make an appeal to Coloured leaders. They should see to it that their people apply family planning. The Coloureds are looking with eager eyes at what we as Whites have. We got where we are and achieved a high standard of living because the Whites have fewer children. If this had not been the case, we would not have achieved today’s high standard of living. After all, one cannot maintain a high standard of living with a lot of children. The Coloureds will have to realize that if they also want to achieve this high standard of living—and this is possible with the training they are receiving and with the doors that have been opened for them—they will have to apply family planning. Their leaders will have to see to it that Coloured families plan better.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden made a very interesting and sound contribution. When I arrived here as a young Parliamentarian the hon. member was already a member of the NP study group on Coloured affairs. It is interesting still to have people here today who were members of this House as far back as 20 or 30 years ago and who can make a contribution today that attests to maturity and experience. In any case, I take it the hon. the Minister will react to the remarks made by the hon. member. The point I want to make is that the hon. member was in a position to say these things about the Brown people today because we in South Africa adopted a policy of separate development.

We still do.

The fact that today the Coloureds are usefully employed in various facets of society today, not only working for themselves, but also in the service of South Africa as a whole, is specifically the result of the policy of separate development. We can only look with gratitude to our forefathers for having initiated such a policy.

Now, however, I want to come to the hon. the Minister and his reply to my speech here yesterday. Yesterday the hon. member for Innesdal spoke about the Press, and with reference to that I briefly put the CP’s standpoint in regard to the freedom of the Press and said—

That is what I said yesterday. The hon. the Minister then reacted to that. Please allow me, Mr. Chairman, to say that in recent times the hon. the Minister has undergone a complete personality change. What did the hon. the Minister say about me yesterday? And let met add, Sir, that in many respects we still understand each other. With reference to my contribution, the hon. the Minister said—

Sir, I have nothing against the Press as such, as an institution of a modern society, a democracy. Throughout the years, however, I have consistently taken a stand against Afrikaans-language newspapers which, under the banner of nationalism, propagate liberalism. I remember, for example, Die Transvaler, under G. D. Scholtz and A. M. van Schoor, people I valued most highly. Whenever I have taken a stand against the Afrikaans-language newspapers, it has not been because they were Afrikaans-language newspapers, but because they were liberally inclined. The hon. the Minister went on to say yesterday that I had lodged a plea for the leftist-liberal Press. But surely that is not true, Mr. Chairman. That is surely not what I did. The hon. the Minister went on to say that they, i.e. the NP, would hound me with that wherever I happened to go. But the dilemma of the NP, Sir, is that they cannot hound us, because the principles we advocate are old-established NP principles. During the recent by-election, the hon. the Minister made a great fuss about so-called inaccuracies the CP supposedly propagated. But yesterday, in a short little speech, in fact in a single sentence, he drew these conclusions, all of them wrong, because his linking me to the liberal English-language Press and claiming that I am one of its supporters, is something I am sure the hon. the Minister merely meant as a joke. The hon. the Minister and I both come from the Transvaal, and part of the history of the NP in the Transvaal specifically involves the struggle to establish a Press for the NP in the Transvaal. I want to ask what has happened to that Press. That Press had to close down some of its newspapers. I do not want to discuss that matter in much more detail with the hon. the Minister, but I do want to tell him one more thing today, and that is that the liberalism of the Nasionale Pers group has specifically tried to destroy the old Verwoerd and Strijdom Press in the Transvaal, and the result is that today there are no longer any newspapers there that really publish the true standpoints of Strijdom, Verwoerd and Paul Kruger. [Interjections.]

I want to quote to the hon. the Minister what the managing director of Nasionale Pers, Adv. D. P. de Villiers, says.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time to answer any questions now.

You have shares in Nasionale Pers, Daan, do you not?

Of course I do, yes. I also have shares in Perskor. [Interjections.] I am trying to get them right from within. [Interjections.]

Order!

In regard to the posts this hon. Minister handles, specifically Coloured Affairs, Adv. D. P. de Villiers, managing director of Nasionale Pers, said the following—

That was said by the managing director of Nasionale Pers, a Press group which has, to a large extent, contributed to Perskor’s having lost its influence and its niche in the newspaper world in the Transvaal.

Mr. Chairman, this hon. Minister still has the Coloureds and the Indians as his temporary responsibility. The hon. the Minister must therefore realize, in his capacity as leader of the NP in the Transvaal, that he is increasingly going to have to shoulder the responsibility … [Interjections.]

Order! There is a dialogue in progress at the back there, in the corner. Would the hon. members involved please stop it? The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the moment we are all in such a convivial mood. In any case, the dialogue at the back there is not bothering me. I must say, however, that I feel sorry for this hon. Minister. In future he will not be able to get away from the NP, with its establishment, holding a totally different view of South Africa and its diversity of peoples to that held by the hon. the Minister himself. I am just giving the hon. the Minister that to reflect on.

Naturally Dr. Wimpie de Klerk is very often mentioned in conversation. I believe, of course, that this hon. Minister has his own views about this. I happen to know that. It is possible that Dr. Wimpie de Klerk drives the Press people to despondency, but this hon. Minister has always had his own standpoint about these things. In fact, that is what I like about him.

I must, of course, say that fortunately we are not the ones who are today struggling with a Nasionale Pers that wants to prescribe to us. The hon. the Minister, however, must be careful that he does not become a victim of the liberal Nasionale Pers which, even at this stage, when quite a few principles have already been relinquished, is going to put more pressure on him to accept the standpoint of Adv. D. P. de Villiers. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we so easily talk of the Afrikaans-language Press. Has the hon. the Minister read what Die Volksblad prescribed to its journalists a few years ago?

That is a good newspaper.

Die Volksblad told its political journalists that when they attended political meetings, they were to comply with the following provisions, and I quote—

What does Die Volksblad say of the opponents? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, we must remember that that is exactly what we have been experiencing in recent times, i.e. that our Afrikaans-language National newspapers are not giving a scientific analysis or a well-balanced picture …

Of how the stage is decorated? [Interjections.]

… of exactly what happens at the meetings. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North was a staff member of Die Volksblad. I think he should do a lot less talking. [Interjections.] What does Die Volksblad say? I want to warn the hon. the Minister that these people are going to hound him in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] I know they are going to hound him. I just want to try to help him. [Interjections.] Yes, I want to help him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I have not written this hon. Minister off yet. He is one of the most useful people in the NP’s ranks. I want to protect him. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, if they want to use him … [Interjections.] What more does Die Volksblad tell its people? I says the situation must not be abused by other people, and therefore its writers must concentrate on more shocking and farfetched utterances of members of the Opposition parties, those things that would anger Nationalists and show the Opposition parties up for what they are. Die Volksblad goes on to say—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that I agree with him that the hon. the Minister is probably one of the most useful people we have ever had in this Parliament. There is not much else about which I am able to agree with the hon. member, but in any case I am positive that the hon. the Minister will take him to task for what he said. The Hon. member complained about the NP newspapers that supposedly did not give a scientific analysis of specific meetings or gatherings. However, if there is one little newspaper in this country that has no idea at all of what scientific reporting means, it is Die Patriot which is absolutely teeming with untruths.

Quote a few.

I do not want to make any further reference to it.

The hon. member for Rissik also said that separate development was the old NP policy and that the CP stood by the principles of the NP. The sooner the CP, and the HNP as well, cease to peddle what is actually NP policy, the better things will be for them. Those hon. members do not adhere to NP policy. They are running away from NP policy. They ran away from the 1977 proposals. They did not adhere to them. They rejected them. In that respect they also rejected Mr. Vorster, although they bandy his name about. The sooner those hon. members adopt a clear standpoint on the 1977 proposals the sooner they will do a great leader of the past, Mr. Vorster, a great service in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Sir, I was merely trying to reply to the hon. member for Rissik.

I want to make a few remarks about the matter of publications control in South Africa. To a certain extent this also includes the question of press control. In the struggle against degeneracy in South Africa and because we in the NP have also adopted a Christian outlook on life and philosophy as our central theme, we, together with the parents, the school, the church and other educational and cultural bodies have a calling to ensure that our young people and adults will also participate in this struggle, and with that central premise. In this regard the State also has a calling and as a result, over a period of many years now and particularly since 1931, various measures have been placed on the Statute Book, measures which to a large extent were consolidated in the Publications Act, No. 42 of 1974, and which also occur in certain customs legislation. The 1974 Act was passed after a commission had investigated the entire matter. The hon. the Minister as well as the hon. member for Waterberg, who was still in the NP then, were among those who served on that commission.

The question which arises is who is responsible for the application and implementation of that Act. In terms of section 5 it is, in the first place, committees, in the second place the Directorate of Publications and in the third place the Publications Appeal Board. As far as the publications committees are concerned, these are appointed every three years by the Minister of Internal Affairs in terms of section 5(1) of the Act, from a list of persons considered suitable by him on the basis of their educational qualifications, their experience and background, and after proper advertisements have appeared in the daily Press and such people have applied. Every member of the community who feels that he has such qualifications may apply to serve on these publications committees.

Since we are so inclined to complain about our system of media and publications control, I feel the public should make proper use of the opportunity afforded them to serve on these specific committees. I just want to mention that of the 150 to 200 members serving on these committees, no less than 37 are clergymen. This represents approximately 20% of the members of these committees.

Another question which arises is how the Act is applied. All the control bodies take as their point of departure what is stated in section 1 of the Publications Act, namely—

This is also interpreted in the light of the preamble to the constitution and the provisions of the National Education Act. However, this is tempered by the realization that we have a heterogenous community and a large diversity of religions in South Africa. That is why this is accepted as a broad philosophical principle in our legislation. That is why the principle of tolerance is also needed in South Africa in laying down and interpreting this specific legislation.

I want to refer briefly in more detail to section 47(2) of the Act, paragraph (b) of which provides, inter alia, that in ascertaining whether a matter is blasphemous or not, the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the population structure of South Africa is thoroughly taken into consideration. When we consider the decisions of the Directorate of Publications and the Appeal Court, many of our voters become entangled in the intricacies of reaching a decision in terms of this specific Act. I want to appeal to members of the public, members of the publications committees and the Directorate of Publications for us as Christians to make ourselves heard in South Africa. Nowadays we all too easily allow our criticism to be overruled as emanating from so-called fanatics, particularly when it comes to taking the Lord’s name in vain. In everyday language, as well as in our newspapers, magazines and in other documents the taking of the Lord’s name in vain is far too readily tolerated. Through our conduct, through our churches, cultural associations and other associations, we need to voice our objections and strengthen the arm of the legislature, the Directorate of Publications and the publications committees in the steps which have to be taken in this connection. I also want to appeal to writers to guard against using the name of the Almighty. I honestly cannot see that the use of the name of the Almighty enhances the literary value of many of these books in any way. That is why many people in the community feel concerned and they become entangled in the complex decisions reached by our courts and boards in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I was truly sorry that the hon. the Minister found it necessary yesterday to introduce a kind of soap-box quality into this debate. Up to that stage, whatever criticism had been levelled at the hon. the Minister and his department and its activities had been quite mild. In those cases where the criticism had been strong, it was based on sound arguments. I personally think that this debate has otherwise been conducted in a very mature and sensible way. However, as a political leader who has failed to imbue his supporters with a political message of true idealism, the hon. the Minister had to resort to irrelevancies in order to make his arguments sound good in the ears of his listeners.

I want to come back for a moment to the issue of publications control which I criticized. I criticized this control in only one respect and that was in respect of the control of political publications. I do not wish to become involved with the hon. the Minister in semantics. I have no difficulty in referring to it as censorship or publications control. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am specifically interested in what they do.

First of all, in connection with the report of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the hon. the Minister in order to support his argument quoted to this Committee not from the report itself but from the report of the committee that banned the Catholic bishops’ report. The interesting thing is that the extracts the hon. the Minister quoted were also quotes in the Catholic bishops’ report of what people had actually said. They were not statements that they had made themselves. They were not even statements with which they necessarily associated themselves. These were quotes of certain statements people had made to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and which were embodied in the report.

I said that.

The hon. the Minister did not say that. I have his Hansard here. He did not say that at all. I think it is most unfair to make use of quotations that are second and third hand. This sort of thing does not help us to conduct a sensible debate. It makes a mess of the whole business and that is in fact what the hon. the Minister has done.

Just for the information of the hon. member for Umbilo who brought in a point that was quite irrelevant, I want to tell him that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference consists of the Bishops of South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland and South West Africa.

It is the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Southern Africa.

Yes. Those are the people of whom it consits and, in fact, the majority of the members of that conference are operating in South Africa. I believe therefore that his point was relevant to a very limited extent, if at all.

The other question that the hon. the Minister raised here was the question of communism and terrorism. I should like to quote him very briefly in this regard. He said—

There is not a word about communism or terrorism in the Publications Act, and understandably so, because there are a myriad pieces of legislation to deal with works of communism or terrorism in any event. There are many other laws dealing with that. This is not the function of Directorate of Publications in the first instance. The powers given to the publications system in the Publications Act are of a much more general nature and that is why I say that it is so important that the standard that one lays down should be a sensible one. I say that one cannot go too far because one then interferes with the operation of democracy and that is what I believe is happening in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister also addressed me on the question of polarization and asked whether I did not believe that publications that bring about polarization in this country should be banned. That is a strange question coming as it does from that side of the House because if there is any organization, any movement or any group of people that generates polarization from day to day it is the NP and this Government. I should like to refer in this connection to a recent event. The actions of the Government in respect of the KTC squatter camp, and the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, his officials and the Police in dealing with this problem, but mainly the politicians involved, were such that I believe that there is absolutely no word of communist or Marxist propaganda that has been used in this country over the past year that could have done as much harm to and polarized this country as effectively as that action did. It is time those hon. members opposite took a good look at themselves and realized the unbelievable harm they are doing to this country.

*I want to address the hon. the Minister on the provisions of Chapter 33 of the old Orange Free State Statute Book. That is the section of the Statute Book dealing with the position of Indians in the Orange Free State. It was brought to my attention that the hon. the Minister might in the course of the debate clear up certain aspects of the position of Indians in the Orange Free State, but I want to confine myself primarily to Chapter 33. It is interesting to note the wording of the chapter, but for the purposes of my argument one need actually only look at its heading. Reference is made to a law to resist the influx of Asiatic Coloureds and to remove White criminals from elsewhere who enter that State.

Indians are cheerfully placed in the same category as White criminals. At that stage it might have been something normal, but surely everyone in the Committee realizes that today we are living in different times. The prohibition begins with words such as the following: No Arab, Chinese, Coolie or other Asiatic Coloured. These are words no hon. member of the House would ever dream of using today.

In my opinion the prohibition per se is even more insulting than the words in the old Statute Book at this stage. I concede that perhaps people felt differently in those days, but the prohibition is a terrible insult to Indians. The hon. the Prime Minister’s protestations about this matter, that he cannot accept that the old Free State fathers, who passed this law, acted unchristianly or unethically, is totally irrelevant; after all, this is something that happened in the previous century.

This prohibition degrades the South African Indian to the status of an alien in his own country. He finds himself in the same position as a person who needs a visa to be able to visit South Africa. The prohibition makes it very clear that a South African Indian is an unwelcome guest in the Free State. I therefore believe that it is high time for us to have a look at this.

Of course, this kind of prohibition becomes so much more painful for South African Indians when a West Indian cricket team is cordially entertained in Welkom in the Orange Free State. I am convinced that the old fathers of the Free State would have had a lot to say about this contradiction.

Recently, of course, this matter enjoyed substantial publicity because the Chairman of the S.A. Indian Council made it clear to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that they could not co-operate with him if that prohibition were not removed. He then gave them the undertaking that he would raise the matter. In the course of the debate a number of interesting things were said. The most encouraging remark in this regard came from the Administrator of the Orange Free State, who said that his province would not stand in the way of statutory amendments whereby to promote the new constitutional dispensation. However, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was the man who immediately put an end to the whole debate and made it clear that no amendment would be considered.

I simply believe that no South African Indian with any self-respect can live with or accept this kind of prohibition. The Government will simply have to re-consider its inflexible attitude in this regard. I am convinced that in the first place the problem probably does not lie with the Free State; it lies with the NP and most probably with the hon. the Minister himself because at this stage he is very interested in his right-wing in the Transvaal.

Finally, I want to turn to what the hon. the Minister said about the question of the referendum yesterday. I want to make it clear that we have major reservations about the viewpoint adopted here. It seems very strange to us, in view of the fundi serving on the Select Committee on electoral Acts and discussing the matter—they are people with years of experience—that the Chairman of the Select Committee should come to this House and destroy his own work by saying that we should drop the whole thing.

One could debate the question of identification, but if we were to do away with the use of voter’s rolls, I want to make the point that it would be one of the most drastic changes we have ever had in the South African electoral system, and I foresee very big problems in this regard if we do not refer it to a Select Committee. If there is one system in this country that has worked very well until now, for the very reason that it was revised and improved so regularly, it is our electoral system. It is a system which, basically, works well enough. We discuss it and argue about it constantly. To my mind, to consider such drastic changes at this stage, shortly before a referendum, is looking for trouble. We are looking forward to a debate about this matter, but I am afraid that the hon. the Minister will have to be very careful in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point reacted to what the hon. the Minister and other hon. members said earlier in the debate. He also addressed the hon. the Minister on the position of Indians in the Free State, and I am convinced of the fact that in due course he will get a satisfactory reply to that. I therefore leave the hon. member at that.

More than eight years has elapsed since it was decided to establish relations committees in South Africa. I think that it is necessary and that it is also a good thing to review this exercise in human relations from time to time and to evaluate the results.

There are specific factors that draw the White and Brown population groups together, factors which they have in common and which can be regarded as exercising a positive influence on human relations. The most important of these factors is, firstly, the fact that both are predominantly Christianized communities. Secondly, there is the fact that they have a common history. For more than 330 years now the White people and Brown people have jointly inhabited the southern tip of Africa, and during this time there have been numerous jointly shared events. The third positive factor is the fact tht both are Western communities with Western norms, customs, ways of life, etc. Fourthly, there is the fact that they speak the same languages. Between 70% and 80% of the Brown people are Afrikaans-speaking, as against about 60% of the White people. The rest are chiefly English-speaking.

Over and against these positive factors there are, however, also certain negative factors which tend to drive the two groups apart. The most important of these is the difference in living conditions and the colour factor. Because of the socio-economic progress the Coloured have made during the past two to three decades, thanks to—I want to emphasize this—the policy and the assistance of successive National Party Governments, the effect of these negative factors is in the process of decreasing. It is still necessary, however, in the interests of both population groups, to neutralize the effects of these negatve factors on the promotion of better relations.

At Government level discussions between the leaders of the respective population groups are regularly held on matters of common concern. They would, however, have little value if similar discussions were not conducted at the local level, too, because it is there where bottlenecks and friction-producing factors are keenly felt and the peaceful co-existence of communities is directly endangered.

Relations committees are forums created to give the leaders of local White and Brown communities the opportunity to reflect, in a meaningful and orderly fashion, on the systematic elimination of bottlenecks which, in their own ranks, hurt people’s feelings and cloud relations. Discussions are held on matters that niggle and then, in consultation with one another, a decision is reached about eliminating those bottlenecks. Although the success of relations committees cannot always be measured in absolute terms, relatons committees have undoubtedly made an important contribution to the reasonably calm relations climate prevailing in the country at present. At present there is defintely greater understanding of one another’s circumstances, problems, aspirations and doubts than there was, for example, a decade or two ago. This undoubtely facilitates the Government’s task of reaching agreement with Coloured and Indian leaders, particularly on the question of constitutional adjustments. Without mutual trust, made possible by the creation of a calm and peaceful atmosphere, not only would the deliberations on constitutional reform have been doomed to failure, but there would also, in reality, have been little question of significant change in South Africa.

Today there are no fewer than 162 relations committees with virtually 3 000 White and Brown members. During 1982 these committees held a total of 595 meetings. Surely relations between peoples must benefit to some extent when 3 000 well-meaning representatives of the two population groups meet on virtually 600 occasions in only one year. Indeed, there mere fact that discussions are held around a table is already a significant indication of the willingness to meet each other, understand each other and help each other. Even though one does not always see spectacular monuments to human relations erected in the process, the fact that the local leaders of the two population groups are prepared to discuss matters with each other and to maintain contact is indeed the sole, indispensable foundation on which a peaceful, secure and prosperous fatherland for us and for future generations can be built.

In this field the relations committees have not only set the example, but have indeed prepared the way for the achievement of that ideal. But because there are always those who are not capable of any constructive contribution themselves, merely striving to denigrate others and sow suspicion about them, one must consistently guard against the destruction of what has already been achieved. Everything must be done to build further on the firm foundations that have been laid. In the future sensitive points of dispute will, as far as possible, have to be kept out of the political arena. They must reliably be entrusted to community leaders and, in consultation with the leaders of other communities, they must look for the answers. In the process emotions must be curtailed as much as possible, since stability and balance would otherwise be jeopardized. We shall have to be schooled in the techniques of consultation, consensus, cooperation and joint decision-making.

Since it would not, however, be possible to comply with unbridled demands, it is essential that the respective communities should so temper their claims and demands that the factors causing constraint are not stretched to breaking point. Only this would it be possible, in the long run, to bring about freedom, security and prosperity for all the people of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, for his very well argued speech. I think that in his speech he succeeded to a great extent in going right to the heart of the problems surrounding relations, and indeed, I should like to associate myself with the plea he made and agree that it is imperative that what he advocated should come about in South Africa.

At this point I should like to react to the contributions made by hon. members since late last night, and I should like to begin by referring in the first place to the hon. member for Green Point, specifically his contribution on the law prohibiting Indians from residing in the Orange Free State. In the first place, as far as the overall set-up is concerned, it is probably necessary for me just to point out that it is the policy of the Government that each of the separate population groups should have its own residential areas, and that certain areas are reserved for certain population groups. That is the policy of the Government, and I do not want us to get involved in a long debate on that at this point. I know that hon. members of the PFP differ with us in that regard. They say that there ought to be no reservation of areas for specific population groups; all areas should be thrown open for all people to enable them to go and live and work there, and there ought not to be any control of whatever nature. We therefore differ in this regard, and when we conduct political debates we can have the matter out with one another and discuss it further. That such a distinction will be drawn and that there will be separation and that firm arrangements will exist in this regard is indeed the point of departure of the Government.

When is the Government going to depart?

Accordingly, it is against that background that the Government’s standpoint as regards the right of Indians to reside in the Free State must be seen. The situation is that until some time ago the legal position of the Indians with regard to the Orange Free State was regulated by more than one measure. To be specific, it was regulated by chapter 33 of the Statutes of the Orange Free State, to which the hon. member for Green Point also referred. Provision is made therein that no Indian may reside in the Orange Free State or remain there for longer than two months without the permission of the State President.

Moreover, as the hon. member knows, there is of course a prohibition on the acquisition of property and the running of a commercial enterprise or farm by Indians in that province. There is no doubt about the validity and the effect of the provisions of Chapter 33. Accordingly, through the Prime Minister, the Government has indicated that there can be no question of the repeal of Chapter 33 without very extensive discussions with the elected leaders of the Orange Free State. That, then is the status quo. Therefore the prohibition stands. It is being maintained, and the leaders of the Orange Free State are still free to come forward and discuss the matter with the Government if they feel that there is reason for this to be amended. Therefore the Government is not closed to interaction and negotiations in this regard.

If the Minister of Justice were an Indian, what would you do?

If the hon. member for Bryanston would only listen to what I have to say about this, he would have a good idea of the matter.

If the Minister of Justice were an Indian he would ban you, Horace. [Interjections.]

Order!

Another aspect which must be taken into account is that there are no group areas for Indians in the Orange Free State and as a result, there is no other legislation in terms of which the present situation—viz. that residence there is confined to established groups—could be changed. However, there was another arrangement as well. In 1913 Gen. Smuts, in his capacity as acting Minister of Internal Affairs, issued a directive in terms of the provisions of Act 22 of 1913. The result of that directive was that Indians were not permitted in the Orange Free State. Now, hon. members must distinguish the concept “admitted” from the concept “reside for longer than two months” which is prohibited in Chapter 33, or “live”, which is also prohibited in Chapter 33. In terms of that directive issued by Gen. Smuts they were not allowed in at all without a permit at that time.

That Act of 1913 was replaced by the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, Act No. 59 of 1972. Section 13(1)(a) of the latter Act re-imposes the provision in terms of which that 1913 directive of Gen. Smuts was issued. On 12 June 1975 the then Minister of Indian Affairs issued a statement in this House—I refer hon. members to Hansard, cols. 8160 to 8163—and I wish to state what the essence of that statement was. It was, in the first place, that the directive of August 1913 was repealed with effect from 12 June 1975. Therefore Gen. Smuts’ directive was repealed by the statement by the then Minister of Indian Affairs. It further stipulated that with effect from 12 June 1975, all South African Indians would no longer be deemed unqualified persons for the purposes of section 13(1)(a) of Act 39 of 1972 with regard to the provinces of the Republic, that all Indians could move freely from one province to another and, thirdly, that with effect from 12 June 1975, all Indians could settle without approval in any province except the Orange Free State. At the time the Minister therefore said three things: He repealed the prohibition imposed by Gen. Smuts, viz. that they were not allowed in the Free State at all without a permit; secondly, he arranged that Indians move freely in South Africa; and, thirdly, he stated that Indians were still prohibited from settling in the Free State. Initially there was doubt as to the effect of the statement by the Minister of Indian affairs, apparently both among the Indians and in the former department of Indian Affairs. The result was that that department went on issuing, on demand, informal letters of permission to Indians who wanted to visit or work in the Orange Free State.

The Free State must withdraw from the Currie Cup.

Order! Hon. members have put several questions to the hon. the Minister and he is now replying to them. I therefore think it is only fair that hon. members should give him the opportunity to reply to those questions now without unnecessary interjections.

Thank you very much for your protection, Sir. I must say, however, I do not feel myself to be threatened by the hon. member for Bryanston. To tell the truth, he does not even make a dent.

The department examined very closely the situation I have sketched, and reconsidered the matter. We also obtained legal advice and ultimately came to the conclusion that the statement on 12 June 1975 by the then Minister of Indian Affairs constituted a repeal of the directive by Gen. Smuts in August 1913. It has therefore been repealed. Accordingly it has now been decided that because this is the position, the issuing of letters of permission to Indians merely to reside or be in the Free State will be stopped, and that no further applications in this regard will be considered. Therefore the present situation is that the position of Indians in the Orange Free State is regulated by Chapter 33 of the Orange Free State Statute Book and not by Act 59 of 1972 as well. As I said at the outset, the implication of this is that there is a prohibition on Indians residing in the Free State for longer than two months and there is a prohibition on the acquisition of property and the running of a business or farm in the province by Indians.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In the proposed new dispensation, justice is going to be a matter of common concern. If an Indian is appointed Minister of Justice, will he be permitted, for example, to visit Bloemfontein or purchase property in order to live there?

I have just stated the legal position. No Minister of colour will have any trouble paying a visit to Bloemfontein or being there on lawful business.

But may he live there?

I now come to the rest of the argument of the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. They spoke about the problem which arose in the debate with regard to the abbreviated report of the Bishops’ Conference in South West Africa that was found to be undesirable by a publications committee.

†I want to start by pointing out that nothing is banned in terms of our Publications Control Act. Something is declared undesirable. There is a difference. These two hon. members may accuse me of semantics, but I want to accuse them of using the wrong words to try to convey a particular impression. The words “ban” and “censorship” have a certain psychological content which those hon. members like to use because they want to create a certain impression. Publications control is not censorship. There is a very definite difference between the two concepts. The hon. member for Green Point, who is legally trained, should use the right words to describe what he talks about and should not use words which create a wrong impression. That is the first point that I wanted to make.

Secondly, the hon. member in his speech this afternoon tried to create the impression that I misled the House by the quotation from the report of the committee. He said that the most obnoxious quotations which I read out were also contained in the document and were not part of the report. I have never tried to create any other impression. He can read my Hansard. In the committee’s report itself it was stated—it was done by way of inverted commas—and I want to quote this portion again. I read now from the committee’s finding—

Then follows, in inverted commas, the following—

That portion stands in inverted commas. There are also references. I want to read the first paragraph again—

That was the opinion of the committee—

This is what was given to me by the committee.

I want to say a third thing about this and that is that I have at no time made an attack on the Roman Catholic Church or on any bishop as such. The bishops’ report was not found undesirable and was not considered by or submitted to the Directorate of Publications. A distorted summary—I do not know who drew it up or who was involved in putting it before the committee—created this image to which the committee referred as the whole tone of the document—not the bishops’ report but the summary of that report—as negative in the extreme and as something which borders on high treason. There is a difference between the two. Let me inform the hon. member of the position because he again did not make a proper study of the subject before he rose and just stumbled into it like a bull into a china shop. There was correspondence between the hon. the Prime Minister and Bishop Hurley about the bishops’ report, and I have a copy of that letter here. The hon. the Prime Minister, in return, sent some documents on South West Africa to Bishop Hurley and said, inter alia: “I trust that if you should publish your report, you would also give prominence to the contents of the attached document”. He ended his letter by inviting the bishop with regard to the real report, not the banned document, that, if he still wanted to see him about this after he had gone through the documents which he was then forwarding to the bishop, he was welcome to come and see him. This is the tone in which this report was dealt with by the Government. However, then this distorted summary was created and that was considered by the committee. I want to make a fourth point. If the committee’s finding is to be attacked, why is it that those who were involved in drawing it up, did not use the appeal mechanism? There was no appeal against this decision and the hon. member will know that there is the possibility of an appeal to an independently constituted appeal board. I can see, having regard for the report of the committee, why they did not appeal. The only question which I asked the hon. member yesterday was whether on the fact of the committee’s findings if he had served on that committee, he would have found that document undesirable or not. I now ask him that again, with the new information which I have now given. Once again he refuses to give an indication.

[Inaudible.]

Has the hon. member seen the document?

No, I have not.

The hon. member nevertheless defended it yesterday without seeing it and without acquainting himself with the reason why the publications committee found it undesirable. The hon. member immediately came forward and mentioned this as an example of the misuse of the publications control system and he suggested that this was a prime example of how we were misusing this to suppress honest and open criticism against the Government. We will not let the hon. member get away with this sort of argument. In conclusion, I want to say about this that the Government had no hand in the submission of the document to the publications committee or in the value judgment which was given. It was a value judgment given by a number of citizens who are not involved with politics or with the Government at all. They sit there having been selected from a panel which is drawn up regularly and consists of people with knowledge about the various subjects which come before the publications committee. Without making a proper study and without verifying his facts, the hon. member has therefore made an attack not against the Government but in fact against three innocent people who tried to do their level best to interpret an Act of this Parliament in a just and equitable manner. Whenever the decisions taken in respect of publications control are attacked, the people being attacked are people who are honestly trying to do a job within the framework of an Act that has been enacted by this Parliament.

*I now turn to the hon. member for Witbank. He raised two matters. In the first place he referred to intimidation at the ballot box. I share his concern at a tendency towards intimidation in connection with democratic processes. When we review the Electoral Act and the legislation on referendums, it seems to me as if we shall have to consider this matter. We know that in regard to other population groups, too, that may also participate in referendums in the foreseeable future, there has been clear evidence of intimidation. Therefore it seems to me as if intimidation is becoming more than merely a figment of the imagination with regard to our democratic processes, and that there are sufficient grounds—I say this also on the basis of personal experience—to compel us to give careful consideration to the question whether we ought to give the voter, too, adequate protection against intimidation so that he is able to exercise his right to draw his cross freely and effectively.

The hon. member went on to refer to Sunday legislation. I want to say to the hon. member that I think he made a good contribution. As he himself intimated, the specific Sunday legislation does not really fall under the Department of Internal Affairs, but under various other departments, and also under the provinces. I shall consider his plea that it all be brought together and consolidated in one act, but I do foresee problems, because we are dealing here with various disciplines administered by various people at various levels. However, I share his concern and agree with his sentiment that there is a tendency on the part of some people who would rather do business on a Sunday, to try persistently to change our traditional pattern of observance of the Sabbath in South Africa, and I should like to see us trying to combat that tendency effectively. Once again I think that in this regard, too, we are dealing with a sphere in which persuasion is greatly preferable and where statutory enforcement will not even necessarily achieve everything we want to achieve.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte and the hon. member for Klip River made interesting contributions in regard to our immigration policy. As regards the importance of immigration and the need for us to give constant consideration to whether it is necessary to go about this more intensively or to step up our immigration programme, I share their standpoint that in the interests of the country, and whenever it appears to be necessary, we must certainly see to it that we obtain the best immigrants here to fill the gaps that we have and to serve in those positions for which we lack the trained manpower. However, whenever we go through a phase when we have a special need in this regard, we are troubled somewhat by a few factors. The one factor is that we are not permitted in all countries to recruit and advertise and make contact with prospective immigrants by way of public invitation. Indeed, particularly in a country like Holland, significant difficulties are placed in our path as regards our efforts to recruit immigrants there. We have greater or lesser problems in several other countries, too, in our efforts to launch an effective full-scale immigration campaign. Moreover, we are of course influenced by the fluctuations of the economy. If things go well there, there are few applications; if things go badly here, there is a greater risk of unemployment and fewer vacancies. The result is that economic conditions, both internally and in the countries from which we draw our immigrants, have a strong influence on the real immigration pattern and the success we achieve.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte also referred to a declining trend in our expenditure. I should like to ascribe this to increased productivity. I think we should judge our immigration effort by immigration figures and not by the amount we spend to get them here. If he draws the graph relating to the number of immigrants, he will find that the graph looks somewhat different to that relating to expenditure. I think he should have praised us, instead of having had a fright.

The hon. member also called for a possible review of our legislation in this regard. He linked this to the statement that as far as certain categories are concerned, our standards may be too high. I should have liked to take this discussion with him further, but at this stage I just want to say that I believe that we should think very carefully before considering moving away in any respect from our basic norms, and they are that we admit immigrants who come here to perform a role for which we do not have the appropriate manpower. That is the basic point of departure of our immigration policy.

We are faced with growing populations, and we are faced by the challenge we accepted to train those people as well as possible. If we can train them to fill a vacancy and therefore, at the same time, enable them to help build up specific population groups, then I think we must give preference to that rather than bringing in people from outside.

Therefore there is an important place for immigration, but I see that place in terms of long-term advantage. However, there is also a sphere in regard to which we shall always have to determine how best to give preference to people who are already here and already have an interest here and for whom we are already responsible.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, apart from his effort to deal with the question of publications control and the summary of the report on the Bishops’ Conference, referred to the question of dual citizenship. In this regard I want to point out that there is no specific provision in our legislation which requires the person who applies for citizenship to abrogate his existing citizenship. He must hand in his passport, but he is not required to denounce his existing citizenship.

*There is no provision to the effect that when anyone obtains South African citizenship, he is automatically deprived of his citizenship of the other country. As regards the passport of such a person he may apply—the hon. member said so himself—to retain his old passport.

†He may apply to use his British or German passport instead of his South African passport. When such an application is submitted we consider it very sympathetically, and when a good case is made out which for instance indicates clearly that the use of that passport will enable him to visit countries which he may not visit on account of his South African passport, then we allow him to use his old passport. We also agree to the use of the old passport for various humanitarian reasons.

Why can he not just retain the other passport as well? Why must he apply?

We feel that a South African citizen should prefer his South African passport and be proud of being a South African. [Interjections.] We find that most people agree with us in that regard. Obviously there are certain instances where a South African passport will not open the door which a particular person would like to be opened for business or other reasons. This is so because of the enmity of a number of countries throughout the world against South Africa. That enmity is not born as a result of what this Government does. [Interjections.] It is because the majority of Whites in this country are not prepared to allow to happen to them what happened to Whites throughout the rest of Africa.

*What we are saying here, is a reflection of what is in the hearts of the majority of Whites in South Africa, and that is that they have an identity of their own, of which they are proud; that they want to remain what they are; that they achieved their freedom here and that they are not prepared to jeopardize or scrifice that freedom for the sake of any experiment whatever. That is what is at issue. I want to say to the hon. members that we are making progress with regard to the improvement of our international relations. This falls under the discussion of a different Vote and I do not wish to deal with it now, but in most of the world, except in the communist countries and the countries that are directly under their influence—we are not encountering problems as regards having our people, carrying our travel documents admitted to those countries.

†The hon. member for Sandton concentrated on my responsibilities towards the Press and asked me a number of questions in this regard. Firstly, he wanted to know when the Media Council would be established. The Government is not the operative organization to establish the Media Council. This is something for the media themselves. In other words, I am not in the saddle; the media are in the saddle with regard to the establishment of the Media Council. We have had discussions and during the discussions they indicated to me that it would take them approximately three months to institute the council. I have since been advised that for particular reasons they think it will take somewhat longer than the end of June, which I expected to be the date. However, I have just been informed of this. I am not entirely happy, but will take it up with them. The moment I have certainty, I will let the hon. member know when this council will actually be established. He asked me if there is a delay. There is no undue delay, but it is a fairly extensive operation which must be carried out, because there have to be nominations, etc. I think he is aware of all the details of how the council is to be constituted.

He also asked me whether the new Media Council will be an improvement on the existing system and almost in the same breath want to know what was wrong with the present system.

*I should now like to indicate to the hon. member a few of the things which in my opinion are improvements. In the first place, the Media Council will be more representative of the Press. The Conference of Editors and the Association of South African Journalists will now also be represented in the Media Council. This is already an improvement. Moreover, the representation of the Press and of the public is being extended. The 14 representatives of the public in the Media Council will in future be designated by a committee consisting of a former Chief Justice or a former Justice of Appeal and no longer by the Newspaper Press Union. The Media Council will therefore be representative not only of the media, but also of the users of the media, in a certain sense of the word, and will therefore have a balanced composition.

A further innovation in respect of which one could cherish quite high expectations is that in specific circumstances that are mentioned, the Media Council may appoint a conciliator, a person who is able to consider alleged infringements of the Press Code and who will be able to act as intermediary between parties in an effort to reach an agreement and prevent unnecessary lengthy procedures. Then, too, the arrangement introduced by the Press Council that the plaintiff should submit his complaint either to the Press Council or to the newspaper concerned, has been dropped. He now addresses his complaint directly to the Media Council. There is a further improvement, in my opinion, in the sense that complaints can still be submitted to the Media Council against newspapers that are not members of the NPU and that do not voluntarily subject themselves to the authority of the Council. That council can dismiss them but can also give an opinion on the merits of the matter or take such steps as may be necessary. There are a few more aspects I could have mentioned, but I think I have mentioned enough to reply, basically, to the hon. member’s question.

I also wish to say that the Government is not entirely happy in all respects with what is envisaged, but that it has been decided to give this arrangement a chance to establish itself and to see whether it will prove itself in practice.

†Thereafter the hon. member moved on to the SABC, and there we saw him in a somewhat strange role because in a sense he was pleading for the SABC. How he or his party can now suddenly act as advocates for the SABC after what they have been saying about the SABC during the past few months, I find a little bit difficult to understand, because is it not the hon. member and other hon. members of his party who in the past complained of discrimination because the SABC was not subject to publications control whereas the other media were?

*In this regard I want to say that if the same film is shown on television and in bioscope, it would be unfair if the film was not subjected to the same test. That is why we have introduced this and why exemption is granted in respect of those matters which are closer to the Press level—if I may put it that way—whereas the business that is competing, in a certain sense of the word, with the normal film that is shown for recreation, is subject to the same control. But we have practical problems with regard to episodes. The exemption is on a test basis, and if problems develop, it will be withdrawn and control may be imposed in regard to more matters. Let us give this arrangement a chance for a year. Then we can discuss how it works in practice next year, rather than discuss it ad nauseam now.

†In the last instance the hon. member complained of “harassment” of editors. I think the hon. member should first of all debate the legislation in terms of which editors have been taken to court under the Votes of the hon. Ministers concerned.

It is not practicable.

But I do not think it is correct to discuss a Justice matter or a defence matter under my Vote. However, I can discuss with the hon. member the principle that he brought forward.

That is perhaps important.

Firstly, the principle that we should have legislation which under particular circumstances will curtail the publication of certain facts, information of statements. We need this in this country at present. We are in a certain sense involved in a low intensity war. Need I again refer the hon. member to what happened last week in Pretoria? I do not think so. We need legislation; we need to be security-minded and, therefore even if we would like to be rid of this sort of legislation, I say we cannot for the sake of security and in the interest of all the peoples of South Africa do without legislation which enhances our security and which strengthens our ability to withstand the onslaught against South Africa.

Secondly I want to point out to the hon. member that surely he should know that it is a well established principle that the chief executive of a company has to accept the responsibility, and even stand trial, for anything perpetrated by any member of that company, whether he knew about it or not. That very same principle applies to the editor of a newspaper, or any other publication in this case. Therefore the hon. member’s protracted complaint about such editor’s criminal record as such, and all the rest of what he had to say, really is not a valid argument. I think that when an editor is taken to task in his official capacity on account of what a junior reporter wrote, it is taking the matter a little bit too far to say that that editor now has a criminal record around his neck. That may be true in respect of mismanagement, yes, because he is after all in charge of his newspaper. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, if anything goes wrong in the Department of Internal Affairs the hon. member will take me to task. He will not blame it on any junior official. I must accept full responsibility for everything that happens in my department. Why then should an editor of a newspaper not accept that very same responsibility for what is printed in his newspaper? [Interjections.]

Be careful now. These very words of yours might just be quoted to you some time in the future. [Interjections.]

It is only fair and just to accept that when a man is in an executive position he should assume all the responsibilities that go with it. [Interjections.]

*Then, too, some of the hon. members of the NP took part in this discussion as well. I should like to refer in particular to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden and the hon. member for Caledon, members who made positive and constructive contributions with regard to the interests of the Coloured community, their education and their rural development. The hon. the Deputy Minister will reply in more detail on the representations they made. I want to say to the hon. member, Mr. Van Staden, that the wisdom underlying his practical suggestions is recognized by all of us and that careful consideration will be given to the suggestions he put forward in order to determine whether we cannot increase our efficiency in this regard.

†Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the hon. member for Green Point and to the hon. member for Umbilo, who both dealt with the intention mentioned by me to amend the legislation in connection with the holding of referenda in South Africa. I do not want us to debate at this stage the details of any such amendment.

We can do that in a Select Committee.

We will do that firstly in discussion. I’m not totally opposed to the idea of a Select Committee. What I do want to ensure is that, if we are going to amend this legislation, it should be done before the end of this session of Parliament in order that the referendum is held on a new and better basis than the existing one.

I hope we can take your word for that.

We will have further discussions about this in the very near future. I do think, however, that the hon. member for Umbilo is a bit unduly concerned about the effects on his party’s organization of the suggestions I have mentioned.

No, not in the least.

All parties will have to adapt to the new system.

All I am interested in, is a fair result.

There will, however, be nothing that will impede the hon. member’s party or any other party from motivating their people or bringing them to the polling booths. But they will no longer be saddled with the burden of ensuring that each and every voter living in a particular constituency but not registered there, must be guided through the cumbersome procedure of registering a special vote. They can now organize their affairs so that they can bring that particular voter to the polling booth—that new voter in their constituency—on the same day on which all other voters in that same constituency register their vote.

But the voters’ roll is in a terrible shambles.

Just tell us how you are going to accomplish that.

Mr. Chairman, there is no problem with regard to the voters’ rolls. As I have already said to hon. members, the voters’ rolls will be made available to them in August. They will contain the latest possible data. As the hon. member for Umhlanga—who now says that “the voters’ rolls is a shambles”—ought to know, about every 10 years the State accepts the responsibility of undertaking a re-registration of voters. After that it is the duty of every voter to register, and traditionally it has become the task of the political parties to see to it that this happens; a task which they do, indeed, still accept. If the voters’ roll in that hon. member’s constituency is a shambles, he must accept joint responsibility, because it means that his organization is not good. [Interjections.]

It lies with your department …

This department has no obligation to run after a person who has changed his address to tell him he has to register. Our legislation provides that a man who does not re-register in those circumstances is guilty of an offence and may be fined. Instead of hurling accusations at one another because the voters’ roll is not up to date …

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

I shall give the hon. member a chance in a moment. Instead of hurling accusations at one another, we should rather influence people to regard their right to vote as something precious and therefore to see to it that when they change their address, they re-register. The hon. member must not point a finger at me, and I do not want to point a finger at him either. Let us rather foster the constructive approach that our people should regard the right to vote as something precious and should not adopt the attitude that the parties have to run after them and plead with them to exercise this wonderful right, which has been fought for in the course of our history. The hon. member may now ask his question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister which figue is correct, viz. the figure he gave yesterday of 137 000 people who do not have identity documents, or the figure of 500 000 given by the hon. member for Turffontein in his speech?

I never gave that figure. You are talking absolute tripe.

There is definitely a misunderstanding here. Obviously it is impossible to ascertain exactly how many people do not have identity books. It is impossible to ascertain a figure. However, the figure of 137 000 is a fair estimate based on census figures and on the number of identity books really issued. For that reason he can accept that figure as a fairly sound estimate. I think the figure of 500 000 referred to something totally different.

I never mentioned 500 000.

In any event, the hon. member for Umhlanga can check that in Hansard.

*Finally, I come to the hon. member for Rissik. He did his best to give me the kiss of death, but I want to tell him that I am certainly not kissing back. In the first place, he took it amiss of me for having said that he launched an attack on the Afrikaans Press yesterday. Sir, you heard him speak today. It seems to me that having read his own Hansard, he concluded that he had not been severe enough. So today, believe it or not, he developed that attack and tried to substantiate it. Therefore he was far more severe today than he was yesterday. He also took it amiss of me for having said that he was championing the cause of the English-language Press. If he, with his political background, with his cultural background and with his philosophy can make the statement that at present the opposition-minded Press presents a more objective picture and is a more reliable Press than the Afrikaans-language Press …

About us; about the CP.

… then what else is he doing? If he begins to say of those newspapers that they present such a fine image of the CP, then surely that has certain implications.

No, I said they were more effective.

From the point of view of the CP?

Yes. [Interjections.]

If that was the hon. member’s intention then I concede the point to him. Then he has not championed the cause of the English-language Press, but has accepted them as an instrument with which to promote the interests of his party. [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to what the managing director of Nasionale Pers had said. I do not know whether he quoted incorrectly, but I have no reason to question it. He said that that person had said that the Whites and the Coloureds were one people, or words to that effect.

It appears in Die Burger.

After all, we have conducted the debate about “volk” and nation at some length. Neither Adv. D. P. de Villiers nor anyone else who is not an office bearer of the NP holds any commission from the NP, or tries to intimate that he is acting on behalf of the NP.

But do you differ with him?

The NP’s standpoint has been clearly debated on more than one occasion. The hon. member knows that we say that the Coloureds are not a “volk”. The hon. member for Waterberg said—he is in trouble because he has now denied it—that we are not a nation state. This has given rise to the question whether those hon. members have a clear grasp of the concepts “volk” and “nasie”. We have no doubt that the Coloureds do not form part of the same “volk” as the Afrikaner. On the other hand we believe that the Coloureds form part of the nation concept of South Africa and that they form part of the South African nation. The confusion in this regard that has arisen in the Press is due to the fact that the word “volk” as a concept distinct from “nation” cannot be translated into English. This causes a great deal of confusion. As far as the Afrikaans terminology is concerned, there is no doubt as to where the NP stands. I differ with anyone who does not recognize this distinction. Surely I have now stated this clearly.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister says that the Afrikaner is a “volk” but that the Coloured is not a “volk”. If the Coloured is not a “volk” on its own, then surely it must be part of another “volk” because if it does not form part of another “volk”, then where does he fit in?

I want to try to remain within the framework of my Vote, but I do want to say to the hon. member that that is one reason why we think it is immoral and impractical to give the Coloureds an independent country of their own and make them sovereign; one important reason for this is that they are not a “volk”. Our policy in regard to the Black “volkere” illustrates our feeling for the best of what a “volk” is. We say that in this instance we are dealing with “volke” each of which has its own language, its own tradition, its own culture, its own history of constitutional self-government and even its own royal family. [Interjections.] That makes of them a “volk”. There is an English “volk”, a Scots “volk” and an Irish “volk”. There are various population groups in South Africa that are not “volke” on their own in the context in which they find themselves.

By his personal reference to me, and also by way of cross-reference to others in the NP, the hon. member for Rissik tried to create the impression that there are two streams, a dualism, in the NP. There was such a time in the history of the NP. [Interjections.] We were burdened with that for a long time. We all know that this caused internal tension in the party and gave rise to considerable discontent. Eventually it came about that that dualism in the NP was terminated. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that he need not praise me because he thinks I am unhappy where I am. I wholeheartedly support the NP together with the party leadership. I am happy and I fully accept the policy of the NP. I have no need to defend myself in this regard. After all, those hon. members have heard me speak since 1972. They can examine every speech I have made and they will find that the spirit, philosophy, thinking and idealism of today’s NP has been shared by me ever since I set foot in this House. However, the hon. member for Rissik cannot say that. We have no trouble. If those hon. members are hoping for a split in the NP in order to make progress, then they are waiting in vain.

In conclusion, I have a few remarks to make about the Press and the hon. member’s handling of the matter. One does not, of course, agree with everything that appears in the newspaper, from whatever stable it comes and whatever its name may be. Of course there are often grounds for disputes, just as there are disputes between us. Is a newspaper, then, only to say one thing at all times, whereas we in this House say so many different things? Does not the Press, according to the hon. member’s own speech yesterday, form part of the democratic process? Do we not often make the mistake of associating what an individual—be he academic or commentator—publishes under his own name in a newspaper, with the political standpoint of the party that newspaper supports? This is a tendency we have encountered among opposition parties. Anyone who is not a leadership figure or office-bearer of the NP publishes his own opinion in newspaper A, B or C, but because that individual is well-known and is perhaps also a supporter of the NP, it is said that the opinion of that individual is the official opinion of the NP. It is then quoted as if it were official policy and as if it also conflicted with party policy. That is a transparent mechanism and hon. members will not get very far with it. We on this side of the House know what we stand for and we really do not worry if an interesting opinion is published in a newspaper, even if it deviates from the official policy of the NP. In such a case we prefer to reply to it and enter into an open debate, because we have a good case that we can put forward.

When a person like Adv. D. P. de Villiers, the managing director of Nasionale Pers, says this about his point of view as regards peoples, does the hon. the Minister not think that this is a drastic deviation from the present standpoint of the NP?

I have already furnished the hon. member with a clear reply by saying that the standpoint of the NP differs from the standpoint he quoted, if Adv. De Villiers was correctly reported. I have stated this openly and clearly. However, he is entitled to state his standpoint in this country because, after all, we have freedom of speech and he need not be hanged for having said that. What we believe we state unequivocally, because we believe our cause is a just and good one.

Mr. Chairman, after a very close personal relationship with the Indian community which stretches over more than 15 years, I am proud to be this party’s spokesman on Indian affairs. I am of course embarrassed that they cannot be here in this very Parliament to discuss the affairs of South Africa.

The film Gandhi has focused the attention of the world on one of the great leaders of men and of the Indian people. It started with Gandhi’s struggles in South Africa for basic human rights for his people. It also portrayed the struggle and the final freeing of the Indian people from foreign rule in their own country. While the struggle in India is now only a part of history, in this country in the year 1983, the Indian people are still second-class citizens. They may now walk on the sidewalks of White South Africa, but they still cannot go into a restaurant of their own choice, select a movie of their own choice or go to a beach of their own choice. Like Gandhi, almost a century ago, they will still be thrown out of a first-class compartment on a train. Something that really causes alarm is that the current leadership of the political organization which was started by Mahatma Gandhi is still being harassed by this Government just as Gandhi was harassed when he fought for peaceful change and for rights for his people. Apart from bannings and detentions, this hon. Minister by means of withholding passports is certainly not helping to foster an attitude of reconciliation.

Earlier this year I asked a question in regard to the refusal of passports and I was given the following figures. Whites, 29 refusals, Coloureds, nine and Indians, 33. Assuming that the applications were received in the magic 4:2:1 ratio, which is quite unlikely because I know the economic situation of the Indian population, even then it means that Indian people have their passports refused about five times as often as do Whites. I happen to know quite a number of these 33 people whose passports were refused last year. I can only conclude that passports are witheld because of the legitimate political struggle on the part of these people for the rights of their people. I do not think that this view can be better expressed than in a letter addressed to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in respect of an application for a passport. The letter reads as follows—

This letter was written by Dr. Farouk Meer.

*This man has a very considerable influence on Indian opinion. His sister is Fatima Meer, a great spiritual leader and mother figure in the Indian community. She has been banned. Dr. Meer’s cousin is Shamin Mari, a well-known social worker among the Indian community. Her application for a passport for study purposes was also refused. These people to a great extent determine what the Indian community at this stage thinks of what is happening in this country.

†I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not only view this application favourably but also as one of those who advocates change will not allow his department to be used in adding to the process of polarization.

I want to turn now to the question of Indian education. As far as the provision and planning of schools is concerned, I want to ask that there be closer co-operation between the Directorate of Indian Education and the Department of Community Development and local authorities so that the construction of schools does not fall behind the construction of houses and general township development. In the design and the construction of townships in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, in which I was involved, I know that the number of school sites was over-estimated because pupils from the rural areas and even from adjacent newer suburbs and also children of tenants descended on the schools at the moment of their completion. The department therefore had an inflated idea of the number of school-going children per household. I therefore ask that we build schools in conjunction with the whole township development.

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction and unrest in Indian education over the last number of years. I do not intend repeating all that today, but it has had an effect on the pass rate as one can gather from the report. There may be a lull in the actual confrontation at this stage, but I want to warn the hon. the Minister that some of the causes of the unrest have not yet been removed. To put it bluntly, I think the split in Afrikanerdom has worked its way through into Indian education. The S.A. Indian Council does not merely have to put up with “broeders” in the department over which the Indian Council is supposed to have control, but it also appears that some of the “broeders” are still trying to implement the old NP policy of “voogdyskap”. The Director of Indian Education has a record of confrontationist policies and actions, many of which he has lost in the courts, and I suggest that his retirement by the hon. the Minister and the removal of other tortoises would be a sign of real intent at making Indian education an own affair.

The Indian community is also perturbed about the apparent haste to push through the legislation aimed at quotas for universities so that it could become one of the general laws concerning education and thus not only making a mockery of university autonomy but also of universities being an own affair of the Indian community.

One of the biggest single concerns in the Indian community is the Group Areas Act and the effect it has on their economic welfare, their housing and their general feeling of distress that they cannot as loyal South Africans partake fully in the development and sharing in the fruits of South Africa. I therefore plead with the Government to place a moratorium on any further designs to move Indian people around until such time as we know where constitutional and other changes will lead us. At the same time I should like to ask that we start creating a climate for reconciliation by immediately and seriously looking at removing those restrictions that force people to circumvent the old ideas of apartheid by all sorts of hypocritical mechanisms.

In this regard I refer to trading and owning property in business areas. The joke in Natal is that already half of West Street is owned by Indians and under White proxy. I think the same applies to every other city and town where traders and investors are forced to move to the outskirts from those places which used to be the outskirts but are now right in the centre of White areas.

The same applies to farming land. Many Indians used to make a living out of market gardening on a very intensive scale around and even inside the Greater Durban area.

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

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

Sir, as these people were forced off their land in the march of progress, they were forced off into the townships to compete for jobs in a type of environment that had no need for their skills. Again there are many willing buyers and many willing sellers, but the deal can never be finally concluded and some hypocritical way has to be sought around this dilemma. That is not beneficial to either the price of vegetables or good relations. No where has the effect and the stupidity of the Group Areas Act been so dramatically illustrated as at Cato Manor. There the city council and the Indian community are at loggerheads over a problem which is not of their own making. I have no time to relate the sad history of this blunder. All I can ask is that sanity be restored and that Cato Manor be developed or redeveloped as a matter of urgency by this Government, giving preference to those people who were displaced from there and those families who are still there. The Government should also take over that part of Cato Manor which belongs to the Durban Corporation, and the loss incurred by the Durban City Council as a result of the whole sorry state of affairs.

With regard to the threatened rezoning of Clairwood from a residential to an industrial area, I might just have to come to the hon. the Minister to ask him to intervene if the various parties involved cannot sort out their differences. At one stage Clairwood was the largest single Indian settlement outside of India. It used to be a viable community of some 40 000 people, but this number has slowly been eroded and now there are only about 12 000 people left. Considering the fact that there are about 100 000 Indian people waiting for houses in the Greater Durban area, and considering the fact that Clairwood represents the very last little pocket of land originally settled by Indians, their removal might forever lose us the goodwill of the Indian people in these times in which we are seeking change.

Finally, last year when the Referendums Bill was passed, I asked the then Minister whether the provisions of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act with regard to the sharing of platforms by people of different races will apply to referendums. That hon. Minister gave me as straight a reply as one could expect from him and I would like the hon. the Minister now to give me a categorical statement that if a referendum for one group is held to determine that group’s support for a constitution that is designed to bring different groups into one Parliament, that members of those other groups can express their views on one and the same platform in such a referendum.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greytown made a big fuss about Dr. Meer having been refused a passport because he supposedly disagrees with Government policy. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, since I do not have the facts before me. However, I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member on that score.

There are many people in South Africa—one acknowledges that a passport is a privilege and not a right—who are permitted to leave this country to visit foreign countries, attend congresses, etc., and who are not in favour of this Government’s policy.

Like Helen Suzman.

Yes, precisely. To create the impression now that it is the general rule that peoples’ applications for passports are refused, and that they are not allowed to leave the country because they disagree with Government policy, is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. member quoted from a letter written by Dr. Meer and he used this as an example, but I myself have here a fine example of a South African Indian who served on the President’s Council and who does not agree with the Government’s policy. He resigned from the President’s Council last year. It is necessary for us to retain a balanced view by pointing out what a South African Indian, who disagrees with government policy, had to say. That hon. member quoted from a letter, but I should like to read to him what Mr. Poovalingam had to say last year, viz.—

and this is important—

That is the attitude of a South African Indian who does not even agree with Government policy. However, he mentions what the attitude of his colleagues in the President’s Council is. That is the spirit that is being conveyed in South Africa today by this side of the House. One finds in our relations committees and at local level that increasingly more people, the Coloureds and the Asians, are prepared to adopt this attitude of reconciliation in respect of what is happening in South Africa today.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to divide my speech into three aspects. Firstly, I want to dwell for a moment on the progress of the Coloureds in the socio-economic sphere. Then there is another sign I have detected among these people, viz. the maturity and sophistication which is apparent among them today, and thirdly, the loyalty and partriotism we encounter among the Coloured population group in South Africa. I want to say a few words about each of these three aspects.

If there is one thing we in South Africa can be proud of, it is undoubtedly the fantastic progress the Coloureds have made in the socio-economic sphere. For example, one need only look at a place 45 kilometres outside Cape Town. One need only look at what has happened at a place like Atlantis, where today there are more employment opportunities than there are workers. 80% of those people are able to walk to their place of employment. 60% of those people own television sets. There are others who work outside that area. However, the Director of Development in that area, Mr. Piet Burger, estimates that in the near future no one will need to leave Atlantis. They will be in a position to work there. If one looks at the Market Research figures, one finds that in 1981 the Coloureds had an income of almost R2 000 million. Furthermore, we find that in the same year 13% of the families had an income of more than R800 per month. I am not saying that that is good. For example, if one looks at the income in our rural areas, this does not compare favourably. And then hon. members of the CP speak so glibly about a Coloured homeland. According to the latest report, in the 1 700 000 ha. Coloured area, revenue was only a little more that R2 million. 40% of that R2 million the Coloureds earned in 1981 was spent in the Peninsula alone.

One could also look at the progress in our schools and the increase in the number of pupils and students at present. A university such as Western Cape, which was only established 10 to 12 years ago, has a student enrolment figure of over 4 000 today. This is proof of the fantastic progress made by the Coloureds in the socio-economic sphere. I believe that it is a tribute to this side of the House that it has, in fact, done the most important things first, viz. to see to it that the education facilities of those people are improved. It is so easy for some people to say that education in South Africa should be completely integrated. However, I believe that we would be doing the Coloureds in South Africa the greatest disservice if we did not allow them to see to this important facet of their national life (“volkslewe”), their education and development, themselves.

Are they a “volk”, then? Why are you talking about their “volkslewe” now?

Oh well, call them a “volk” or a group or a population group; just as you like. After all, the hon. member for Rissik knows what I mean. Therefore it is not necessary for him to try and split hairs about that now. He also knows that the “volk” he is speaking about, is by no means the same “volk” I am speaking about. They are two completely different phenomena. [Interjections.] They are showing tremendous progress, and I believe that we would be doing them a disservice if we did not grant them the right to continue with that progress. They have already proved that they are capable of handling it, and they will handle it even better in future. I notice that there is talk of eight new training colleges for Coloureds in the future. This includes four existing colleges which are to undergo major changes. Therefore this will mean a tremendous increase in the number of Coloured teachers who will undergo training. I believe that the driving force for this comes from the Coloureds themselves. That is why we would be doing them a tremendous disservice by depriving them of that important function and responsibility.

In addition, we should take cognizance of the degree of maturity and sophistication the Coloureds have attained over the past few years. I believe they have attained this precisely as a result of their tremendous progress in the socio-economic field. However, it is also clearly visible in the political sphere. These are the same people who were able to tell Bishop Tutu that it was no use threatening them. When Bishop Tutu told them that the day of reckoning would come, none other than Rev. Hendrickse himself told him that the Coloureds would on no account allow themselves to be blackmailed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Kuilen will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he has said. I do believe, however, that the point he made about doing first things first is a very important one. However, there will undoubtedly be a difference of opinion in respect of what should indeed be done first. The most important thing, I should say, is to get on with the job and to apply one’s mind to areas in which one cannot have a rigid centralized policy causing the mill to grind on at great length until the next stage is ultimately reached. There are many ancillary things that one can do in the meantime, and that is exactly what I should like to talk about.

I must, however, request the hon. the Minister to excuse me directly after I have delivered my speech because I have to go to the other place. I shall be happy to learn at a later stage what his response to my speech has been.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is one very disturbing aspect that has entered into debates of this nature since the advent of the CP a little over a year ago. We have already listened here to debates about “magsdeling” carrying on for months. That topic has already become hackneyed and threadbare. Then there is of course also the question, which has now become a hardy annual, of “volk” and “nasie”, that too has become hackneyed. What is very interesting, however, is the question of “integrasie”, which the CP has been levelling at the Government for quite some time now across the floor of the House, with the Government back-tracking all the time. [Interjections.] The Government is so frightened of the word “integration”; it becomes quite petrified when that word is uttered. [Interjections.] I believe the attitude of the Government is quite ridiculous. It should rather adopt a far more aggressive stand. There has been integration in South Africa for years already. It has been spreading by degrees throughout the South African society for a very long time, and it even carries the blessing of the Government. In this respect I need only refer to the field of sport. There is also a degree of integration in the Defence Force, on the shop-floor …

And in Parliament.

There is going to be even more integration in future, and the Government should forget now about this ominous bogeyman …

There is also going to be integration in the Cabinet soon.

The Government should just leave hon. members of the CP to stew in their own juice. What they say will have no effect on the people at all. What is going to happen is that, by back-tracking on this, they are going to lose the little Opposition support they have. That is what the result is going to be if they now react to integration as if it were some terrible bogeyman.

I should like to use this opportunity to express the NRP’s attitude towards the handling of the affairs of the many smaller Indian communities across the length and breadth of South Africa. There is one exception, but I have no doubt that in due course that will be changed as well. I want to refer more particularly to the Government’s inflexible attitude towards local problems which the members of the specific community could so eaily solve for themselves by negotiation and consultation. I think this goes right back to the time when the NP rejected the Natal plan for local government which was painstakingly negotiated over two years, only to be endorsed five years later by the President’s Council. I think that in this respect the NP did South Africa a great disservice and committed a grave error of judgement, losing valuable years in which communities of all groups could have worked together. That is where reform should have started, right down at grass-roots level amongst communities. If that had happened, at this stage we would by now have ironed out a whole lot of problems which have not been tackled yet. I believe that there are areas in which the Government can, without picking up too much flak and without having to worry about losing too many voters to the right, do a great deal for the Indian community by not being so rigid about matters where there are small groups of Indians who are almost dependent on the White local authorities and have a very good understanding with them. If such a local authority were given its head, it could bring about a very much more desirable state of affairs. In fact, while the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the debate the other day quoted Mr. Chester Crocker at great length, I should like to say that the NP utterly missed the boat. It really did miss the boat in respect of local government and the changes proposed by this party.

Despite that marvellous instrument for the propagation of mostly Government propaganda, the SABC, a very erudite programme was broadcast on 19 April under the heading “Local Option”. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to one or two paragraphs in it which relate directly to the vital point I want to make. I quote—

We say that it must apply in respect of the smaller Coloured and Indian communities and that, if that is done, there will be a tremendous response and a solving at grassroots level of some of the problems the Government sees only in terms of a right-wing reaction and not in terms of the good it could do.

The maximum devolution of power and decentralization of administration to local authorities must finally result in local option. Otherwise one can only devolve it so far and one will never get the real benefit of local knowledge of a specific area. As it is stated in this article—

Despite a verbal commitment to a devolution of power, the Government misses the boat, it throws away a golden opportunity of allowing communities to get on with the task of really caring for one another and working for stability and creating mutual trust and confidence. This hon. Minister, together with the hon. the Minister of National Education, missed the boat when he refused Indian pupils admittance to a school in King William’s Town, a town which is becoming very cosmopolitan by virtue of the situation in which the Government has put it. The people there are entirely capable of handling the situation and they can make a real contribution towards better race relations. They already have Filipinos and Taiwanese in their schools. These people are playing a meaningful part in the cultural enrichment of those schools. In a situation like that where the hon. the Minister had that background together with a unanimous school committee decision—the hon. the Minister and his colleague had everything going for them—the hon. the Minister thought only of the CP, right-wing reaction and “integrasie”. The hon. the Minister missed the boat there.

Does the NRP stand for integration?

I am talking to the hon. the Minister now. I will come back to that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member whether that school committee was prepared to take in all the Indian children of King William’s Town.

The answer to that is “no”. I take it the hon. the Minister knows that in Umtata there is a school under the Cape Provincial Administration in which there are 18 different nationalities. Did the hon. the Minister know that? That school has developed a system of admitting people on merit where it would not be to their disadvantage by virtue of their previous education.

Where must the others go then?

That is the demerit of local option.

Local option has tremendous merit. The only policy that has any hope of resolving conflict and bringing about circumstances in which we can really learn to live together with the different groups, is that of local option. The Government cannot do away with group areas and the PFP simply wants to throw open all doors with all the resulting conflict. If one takes decisions at community level and if one gets down to real government, the devolution of power whereby democratic decisions are taken by the people themselves—in other words, using local option—most of the initial problems of reform will be ironed out and circumstances will be created in which far greater support for the genuine roots and direction of Government policies will be forthcoming. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today I want to lodge a plea for justice. The hon. member for King William’s Town must therefore please excuse me if I do not react any further to his speech.

I want to speak about the so-called nominee system. I have already spoken about this on a previous occasion and expressed my displeasure at this system, but I want to do so again today. Hon. members are aware of the fact that if an Indian businessman wants to do business outside the Indian group area, he must apply to the department for a permit. If the permit is refused, he simply legally circumvents the law by taking a White person into his undertaking as a partner. This means that the White person owns 51% of the shares and the Indian 49%. This, however, is merely how things stand on paper. The White man does not invest a thing in the undertaking. The White nominee has nothing at all to do with the undertaking, but annually it costs the Indian businessman hundreds of rands, and in some cases of which I am aware, thousands of rands, just to use the White person’s name. By our very legislation we are making White people unscrupulous blood-suckers. The nominee system is monstrous, a phenomenon that does not belong in any civilized community. It is something the Government would do well to destroy, roots and all. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to think very seriously about this whole matter. I consequently want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to appoint a departmental committee or a Select Committee to investigate the whole matter surrounding the nominee system.

I am very certain that in the new dispensation the Indians will, in the House of Representatives, ask for the appointment of such a committee, or for the total abolition of the nominee system. Mr. Chairman, you can be sure that the House of Representatives will unanimously support the abolition of the nominee system. Why wait till then, however, when we all know, even now, that it is an abhorrent system which allows abominable people to exploit others in an underhand manner.

I just wanted to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Greytown, but unfortunately that hon. member is not here at the moment, and it is therefore no use dealing with his speech now.

I should like to go further. This debate concerns the Indians and the matters affecting them. I think it is now an opportune time to put a few questions to the hon. the leader of the CP in the Free State, since for many years he was chairman of the NP Indian affairs study group. I find it remarkable that the CP still adheres to a policy that the NP has rejected for many years now and still does reject, i.e. the policy of Indian and Coloured homelands. Not one of the CP speakers stood up and cast any further light on the envisaged Coloured and Indian homelands.

Surely that is not relevant here.

Of course it is. This hon. Minister is responsible for Coloured and Indian Affairs.

There are 800 000 Indians in South Africa, with 80% of them living in Natal, chiefly in Durban and Pinetown. I take it that their envisaged Indian homeland would therefore chiefly be situated in Natal. I therefore want to put a few questions to the hon. member for Rissik. Firstly I want to ask him: With whom did the hon. member or the CP as a whole negotiate and who did they confront or consult on the question of whether a need existed in the Indian community for accommodation in such a homeland? The questions I am putting to the CP, I am putting in all honesty, because I should very much like to obtain clarity on this matter. One of the hon. members of the CP said, on occasion, that the CP would not make the same mistake as the NP in giving land to the Black people. If the CP therefore gives land to the Indians and Coloureds for the establishment of their homelands, the Indians and Coloureds would have to purchase that land with their own funds. I would just like to know if that assumption is correct.

Yes.

The hon. member for Rissik says “yes”. He is therefore saying that all the land that has to be purchased for a Coloured homeland and an Indian homeland would have to be purchased by the Indians themselves—let us speak now only of the Indians. If that is so, surely it is also correct that what applies to the Indians and Coloureds, applies equally to the Blacks. If Gatsha Buthelezi were to come to the hon. member for Rissik and say that he was also prepared to accept sovereign independence on the same conditions as those in accordance with which the Coloureds and Indians can obtain their homelands, i.e. by purchasing land with their own funds, the CP would have no other choice but to tell Gatsha Buthelezi: “Yes, you can obtain independence by purchasing land with your own funds.” That is surely a logical deduction.

That is completely wrong.

No, the assumption must be correct if those hon. members say that if the Indians wanted more land for their homeland area, they could purchase it with their own funds. If Gatsha Buthelezi went to those hon. members and said he accepted his independence on the same conditions, what reasons would those hon. members have for refusing him permission to buy land with his own funds too? That is the CP’s dilemma.

But surely they have a quota.

There is no quota. The Coloureds do not have a quota either.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know very well what am I talking about. The difference between me and the hon. member for Waterberg is simply that I rejected the policy of Coloured and Indian homelands many years back, whilst those hon. members, who once endorsed the 1977 proposals but do not endorse them any longer, had to make a quick grab at an Indian homelands concept, something that has never had any validity in South Africa.

That Indian homeland that has to be established, and which the Indians can, in the course of time, enlarge by way of their own funds …

They might perhaps buy the whole of Waterberg. [Interjections.]

I want to state that that Indian homeland would be overrun, particularly by Indians from outside South Africa, and even from outside Africa. [Interjections.] I would be very glad if those hon. members would spell this out for us in the course of this debate, or in a subsequent debate, so that we can know where we stand with each other.

I also want to state that if Indians were able to purchase land with their own funds, Indians from all over the world would go out of their way to make millions of rand available for the purchase of the whole of Natal for the Indians. The fact of the matter is that the hon. members have not yet thought of the consequences of the policy of a homeland for Indians. [Interjections.]

Order!

The same applies to the Coloureds. In the 628 group areas that exist, and are to become part of an independent Coloured homeland, the leaders of the homeland can surely decide to abolish all forms of apartheid, for example the legal provisions relating to mixed marriages and immorality.

Lesotho can also do so.

That is correct. Lesotho can also do so, but the differenee in South Africa is that adjacent to each White town there is a Coloured group area, and adjacent to each White holiday resort there is also a Coloured group area. [Interjections.]

Order!

Each of those Coloured group areas must, according to the hon. leader of the CP, form part of an independent Coloured homeland with absolute freedom …

And each has its own casino.

Yes, casinos could also be erected there, here on the Flats and in Woodstock; no one could stop that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the time to reply to the hon. member’s argument, but I am sure that in the course of this debate or a later debate somebody will reply. I find the hon. member’s argument quite incredible. There is, however, one encouraging note in what he said today and that is that he recognizes the evils of a nominee systems. We agree with him, and I should like to point out that there is a very simple solution, viz. to open up the central business districts. We do not need a commission of inquiry to look into that.

I should like to talk tonight about facilities for handicapped children in South Africa. For Coloured handicapped children there are facilities here in the Western Cape only and these provide for some 1 240 children. There are facilities in Pietermaritzburg, Durban and Lenasia to provide for some 720 children. For Whites facilities are scattered fairly evenly throughout the country and we provide for some 5 120 children in State-assisted schools.

There are a few points which emerge from this. For Coloured children, having facilities only in the Cape, there is a desperate lack of facilities in other provinces, and of course the same applies to Indians. I know that it is impossible to provide facilties in each province because, thankfully, there is just not the demand and it therefore does not warrant putting up additional schools for handicapped children throughout the country. Government policy of course makes this even more difficult because it is the policy that facilities are to be erected for each population group. So we must have separate schools for Coloured, Indian and White blind handicapped children. Of course, this spreads the schools even further. What this means is that any child wanting to attend one of these schools is virtually forced to leave home and go to boarding-school. This often means the breaking up of the family which can be very traumatic especially for a child. When that child is handicapped I imagine that the trauma is very much worse. This also often means that the family has to move which causes them great inconvenience and involves them in great expense. I have two examples here to illustrate this point. The one deals with a question that was asked by the hon. member for Houghton some while back in regard to whether there were any schools for autistic Coloured children in the Transvaal. The answer of the Minister was that there were none and that the reason was that there simply was not the demand for schools for such children. I accept that answer but arising from it the hon. member for Houghton asked another question as to whether the Minister would consider subsidizing Coloured children in the Transvaal to attend the school for autistic children here in the Cape.

Subsidies are available.

Another example I wish to mention which the hon. the Minister is considering at the moment is a matter which I brought to his attention of a child who is going blind, a White child in my own constituency. There are two options open to this child, either to go to school in Pretoria or to come to school here in the Cape. For reasons that I have already outlined to the hon. the Minister it is not practical for the child to board and it is not practical for the child’s family to move down to the Cape or up to Pretoria. There is a school for blind children in Pietermaritzburg and the hon. the Minister is at the moment considering whether of not that child will be able to attend that school. I mention these examples simply in order to show the type of difficulty that exists in respect of handicapped children. We on these benches believe that this is one situation in which it is totally impractical to have separate schools for the separate racial groups in the country. It makes far more sense to have schools for handicapped children generally. I say this because expensive facilities can be rationalized. There can also be rationalization as far as teachers are concerned. These teachers have to be highly trained and there is already a shortage of this type of teacher.

Another point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that a precedent in this regard has already been established. For example, where there are no ordinary schools available for Coloured children, those children can attend Indian schools. Where there are no normal schools available for Indian children, they can in fact attend other schools. Therefore, this precedent has already been established and I cannot see any moral or logical reason as to why in fact White children should be left out if it is in fact necessary for them to attend such schools. Of course, another point is that these schools are not entirely subsidized by the State. There are other sources of subsidy as well and this fact strengthens the case for having them integrated.

In the short time left to me I should like to refer to another matter that cropped up during the hon. the Minister’s speech yesterday. He was discussing the Press reporting relating to the Pretoria bombing. At the outset he spoke very favourably about the initial reports that had appeared in the Press but then he went on to criticize the later reporting of this incident by the Press. In this regard he said—

Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the hon. the Minister entirely misunderstood what the Press were trying to say. Nobody says that it was not a horrific and terrible action. Nobody says that it was not the ANC who were responsible for that atrocity. Nobody has said either that there is not a serious threat facing us. We know that. After all, what further evidence do we need after that bomb blast in Pretoria? Nobody has said any of those things and nobody is trying to underplay the fact that it was a most ghastly event.

What are they trying to say then?

I shall tell the hon. member what they are saying. People are asking: Are things going to get better or are they going to get worse? I think that that is a very reasonable question for any man in the street to ask.

I can answer that question easily.

I will answer it for you. There are many people in this country who are deeply concerned about the fact that they are not going to get better, because as long as we have constitutional proposals the very foundation of which is based on racial inequality, where we exclude 70 people … [Interjections.] That is what worries us. We do not think things are going to get better as long as we have those types of situations in our country. That is of deep concern to everybody.

I want to come back to what the hon. the Minister said later on in his Hansard. He said—

I do not say it will improve immediately, but I am certain that we can say to people outside that things are going to get better. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister can say that now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said in his speech, amongst other things, that apart from the Cape Province, physically handicapped Coloured and Indian children have no facilities in the other provinces. That is true, but I want to point out to the hon. member that there are very few members of these two population groups living in the other provinces. Recently I was privileged to open the Eros school for cerebral palsied children in Cape Town. This school was erected, and is being maintained, at a cost of approximately R3 000 per pupil. The hon. member will therefore understand that this requires vast expenditure. However, the department is not unsympathetic in this respect. In future we shall be considering similar institutions for the other provinces.

Often—and this is probably only logical—hard and bitter debates have been conducted here, debates on the Coloured population group in particular. I do not think anyone would deny that some of the harshest debates that have been conducted in this House have been on the Coloured population group. This year perhaps is an exception. However, the fact is that year after year we have conducted debates on the interests, the development and the welfare of another population group when they themselves were unable to participate. Even the councils and liaison machinery that were set up were unable to compensate for that and fulfil this very important need. I think we have now come to the final, or at least the penultimate, debate of this nature. To me the greatest asset of the new constitutional dispensation is the fact that full-fledged self-determination can now be practiced, in accordance with fixed statutory provisions, by the Coloured community. The hon. member for Rissik said that the development that had taken place in the ranks of the Coloureds was the product of the policy of separate development.

Do you agree?

The hon. member is not wrong; nevertheless there is a vast difference between him and me. He placed the emphasis on separateness, whereas I am emphasizing development, and in future we shall continue to place the emphasis on development. We shall give the Coloureds the full opportunity of exercising their right to self-determination in accordance with fixed statutory provisions.

I was speaking about the liaison machinery and the councils that had been instituted. We are all aware that the old Union Council for Coloureds, the CRC and all the other liaison machinery have not worked. I should like to quote from an unpublished speech made by the former Prime Minister in February 1974 at an NP candidates’ conference in the Cape. He said—

And now?

Hon. members must listen now. Let me quote further—

Now we have devised it. We have not got bogged down along the way like that hon. member did years ago. We have devised the machinery. And what is happening now? Self-determination for the Whites will be finding expression in this House, and that applies to the Coloureds as well. For the first time they will have the opportunity of having a full say in their own affairs. [Interjections.] I trust that this opportunity the Coloureds are going to have will be fully utilized by them for their further development. My confidence is reinforced by the goodwill which exists and which I have experienced in the ranks of the Coloureds over the past year. I do not only speak about these people; I also speak to them. I was privileged to be able to liaise with these people in all spheres, with political leaders, with leaders at the local level, and others.

Did you speak to them about the Cango Caves as well?

Yes, I did speak about the Cango Caves. I spoke to leaders at the relations level, to relations committees and at conferences. I was able to speak to leaders in education. I was able to speak to leaders in the welfare field, and I want to emphasize the benevolence, the goodwill and the fine spirit which exists. South Africa alone will suffer if we do not accept this and exploit it. I want to say today that if we, the Whites, and more specifically the Afrikaners, reject the benevolence, the goodwill and positive spirit among the Coloureds, South Africa will suffer. I am aware of opposition. I am aware that there is hatred among the Coloureds. Last week I was told that Coloureds do not speak Afrikaans because they hate the Afrikaner. I am aware of this. I am aware of the militancy that exists and is encountered chiefly among the action groups, the community action groups in particular. However, tonight I want to appeal to the Coloured leaders who are working towards this end to put a stop to this, since we will achieve absolutely nothing by following that course.

Despite the one-sided debate we have been conducting on the Coloureds over the years, a great deal of development has nevertheless taken place. I therefore want to pay tribute to Coloured leaders and officials of the former Department of Coloured Relations, the Coloured Affairs Administration and the present Department of Intertial Affairs. I want to emphasize what the hon. member for De Kuilen said when he referred to the tremendous socio-economic development that has taken place. I do not wish to burden hon. members with statistics, but they would do well to look at Chapter 2 of the annual report of the Department of Internal Affairs. It is 76 pages long and is a complete success story.

The product of separate development.

Yes, it is indeed the product of separate development. I admit that. But what has that hon. member contributed? He contributed absolutely nothing. We were working on it when that hon. member was going around holding meetings in the dark of night. The hon. member was advocating a homeland policy and was consequently not assisting us. Those 76 pages tell us the story of the dedicated work, the hard work that has been done over the years by leaders and officials, and I want to put this to the hon. member for Rissik in no uncertain terms. I am fully aware, however, of the many bottlenecks that still exist, but we are giving this our consistant attention, and a new spirit prevails. There is dialogue. There is no longer a boycott spirit. Coloured leaders are prepared to speak to us. They are prepared to speak about these bottlenecks.

What is the Coloured community asking for?

Hand over the “goodies”.

I am saying this to everyone: They are not asking for integration. The Coloureds are not asking for integration.

Last week I visited Natal. I held talks at Richards Bay, Eshowe, Vryheid, Dundee, as well as in Durban. What came up for discussion in those talks, Mr. Chairman?

Power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Housing. People are asking for decent houses to live in. They are asking for accommodation for their children—school accommodation. They are asking for playgrounds. They are asking us to see to their welfare.

The Whites are asking for that, too.

Really, can that hon. member not keep quiet for just a minute? [Interjections.] Let him rather keep quiet and go make some cheese … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must please restrain himself.

The issue is the needs of communities, communities asking for recognition and acceptance in their fatherland. This is what the Coloured community is asking for. They are asking us to recognize and accept them as part of South Africa.

However, this evening we cannot deny that the Coloured community is a community that is handicapped and thwarted in many respects. I just want to point to a few of the obstacles in their path. The first, and probably the most important, is their lack of elected representatives and a say in politics. If that had happened to the Afrikaner, if we had not had elected representatives for 50 years or more, if we had not had a say in our political development, would we still have developed and progressed to where we are this evening?

We have never taken over the Parliaments of other people. [Interjections.]

Even though the Coloureds did not have elected representatives …

That is what you did to them.

Even though the Coloureds did not have a say in their own political structure, we nevertheless expected them to develop. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to state clearly tonight that this has been a tremendous disadvantage to the Coloureds. Now, in the new dispensation, a much greater responsibility will rest on the shoulders of the Coloured leaders, and that is why I want to appeal to them to come forward. The strong leaders in the Coloured community must come forward and avail themselves of the opportunity they are being given now.

There is a second obstacle in the path of the Coloureds, and that is that they are unskilled, and that has been the cause of the lower incomes they have commanded. Today education and training is within everyone’s reach.

This evening I want to take up the cudgels for technical training. We have already succeeded in introducing technical fields of study at eight senior secondary schools. The fields in which technical studies may be undertaken are at present limited to welding, metalwork, woodwork and electrical work. We already have 857 pupils studying in these technical fields at those eight schools. Unfortunately many Coloured parents still have the wrong attitude; they believe that we merely want their children to be labourers and that we begrudge them any other opportunities. However, I trust it will get through to these Coloured parents that there must also be specialization in occupational spheres.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden asked us to have tractors at primary schools in the rural areas, and in some cases even a cow. Personally, I do not think that this is possible. I want to point out, however, that agriculture is studied as a subject at some senior secondary schools.

There is a third obstacle in the path of the Coloureds, and that is poverty, something that has impeded their progress tremendously

The Coloureds are good people. I know them. I grew up with them.

Of course, nowadays poverty is being eliminated to a large extent as a result of improved wages which, in turn, are the result of better qualifications. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden referred to this as well, and rightly so.

Then there is a fourth obstacle in the path of the Coloureds, and that is a completely disproportionate growth in population which has had negative socio-economic consequences. However, I am grateful to be able to say this evening that this state of affairs is also changing.

A fifth obstacle in the path of the development of the Coloureds has been the lack of a fixed and traditional community life. I wonder whether we ever consider that in most cases Coloured residential areas and Coloured communities are no more than 30 years old. We have the Group Areas Act, and removals and resettlement have taken place, and there are very few Coloured communities that are older than 30 years. In other words, the roots, which should be characteristic of a community, are lacking in most cases. This has been the obstacle in the path of the development of this population group. Development, in the first instance comunity development, can, however, be stimulated now.

By removing the dividing fine.

If we were to remove the dividing line, they would not even want to receive that hon. member in their presence. As far as community development is concerned, I am able to say that community committees employing community workers are already in existence. I have addressed numerous communities on this subject, and community leaders are prepared to co-operate. There will have to be social workers for the professional welfare services, but the community worker, who has to promote the development of the community, has become a vital and urgent necessity. We have made great strides in the field of community development. There are community committees. At Wellington there is a fine community committee where someone like Mr. Herman Bailey is doing excellent work, too, among the farm laboureres. There are community committees at Ashton and at Robertson. There is a fine community committee in the Hex River valley. Community workers are engaged in improving life in communities everywhere.

This development would be further stimulated if there were a positive spirit and attitude prevailing in education. This must come from the department, but also from the teachers, parents and pupils. In the Coloured community the school must fully come into its own as an educational centre. It cannot come into its own if it remains a political centre. It must become an educational centre and, consequently, sufficient accommodation, including boarding facilities, are essential. I welcome the announcement of the hon. the Minister that we will be able to make use of prefabricated classrooms.

This evening I want to give an indication of how far we have progressed in the provision of accommodation. For example, in the 1980-’81 financial year we spent R27 million on this; R57 million in 1981-’82; R72 million in 1982-’83, and we will have another R72 million at our disposal in the present financial year. In 1980 we were able to provide 893 additional classrooms; 1 124 in 1981; 1 777 in 1982, and this year we will be providing an additional 1 614 classrooms. The department is therefore intent on seeing to it that every child will be within reach of a school building.

We need boarding facilities. At present there are only a few school hostels in the country towns and often children have to board under extremely unfavourable conditions. The department will give this the necessary attention as well. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden said that we sometimes neglected the rural areas. I want to tell him that this is not the case. We have tremendous distances to contend with, but we will also take care of the Coloured children in the rural areas, just as we take care of the Coloured children in the cities. There is a further way in which we can stimulate this development even more, and that is by improving relations between the White and Brown communities in South Africa. This has to happen. There is one thing, however, that we cannot avoid: In South Africa this issue will basically always revolve around the question of relationships. The question of relations will always be present in politics. We cannot separate the two. This evening I want to mention, with the utmost gratitude and appreciation, the relations campaign which is in progress and which must be developed further. At present relations committees are virtually the only organizations where White and Coloured people meet formally at the local level. This campaign is advantageous in that it contributes greatly to the development of a positive attitude towards one another in the various communities. I conclude by expressing the hope that we do not relinquish this attitude.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see the hon. the Deputy Minister in the House tonight. I listened carefully to his speech before business was suspended for supper. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his speech, for I have never heard a more reasoned explanation of why the NP’s policy in respect of the Coloureds has been a total failure. I have never heard a better explanation of why apartheid should no longer be implemented in our country in future. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned five obstacles which the Government had placed in the way of the Coloureds. I want to recapitulate them to him. The first obstacle is the lack of political rights. The second obstacle is poor education.

I did not say it was because of poor education.

The third obstacle is poverty. [Interjections.] The fourth obstacle is large families, which are due to the NP Government.

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

The hon. member may ask a question later if I have some time left. The fifth point made by the hon. the Deputy Minister was the removal of this group of people from their residential areas to places which are far removed from their jobs and their traditional areas. In this connection one has only to mention District Six to prove what the Government has done to the Coloured people.

Of course, these obstacles have not only been placed by the NP in the way of the Coloured people and of development, but also in the way of the Indians and the Blacks. They are still being places in their way by the Government.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister claims that the new constitution will remove all these obstacles. His explanation as to why there will be improvements was totally unconvincing. Actually it was pathetic. I am sure it will not even fool the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister’s good intentions and I also trust the good intentions of Coloured leaders, but these five obstacles are all the direct result of racial discrimination. The hon. the Deputy Minister must know that. These obstacles will never disappear while discrimination is still on our Statute Book and while the NP’s policies are based on racial discrimination. One cannot expect anything to improve.

Where else can this discrimination be better explained than in the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs or in the annual report? The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible for Coloured and Asian welfare and in the annual report we read what is being done for Asian and Coloured welfare in South Africa. What better proof do we have of the discrimination by the Government?

Marius, you can be more positive than that. Why are you so negative?

I want to suggest to that hon. member that the only positive thing that he can do is to send telegrams.

State allowances by the Government is another proof of the discrimination—or the “struikelblokke” as the hon. the Deputy Minister calls them—among the various races. Let me mention these State allowances to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to please explain to the Committee why there is a differentiation among the various races. I will give the figures for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. Although I am sure the Government is ashamed of what is given to Blacks, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will allow me to use those figures as well. Monthly old-age pensions amount to R122 for Whites, R71 for Coloureds and R40 for Blacks. Disability pensions: R122 for Whites, R71 for Coloureds and R40 for Blacks. Blinds pensions: R122 for Whites, R71 for Coloureds … the Government seems to have a fixation for R71. I do not know why. They seem to be convinced that R71 is adequate for Coloureds and R40 for Blacks. Parents’ grants are R120 for Whites, R71 for Coloureds and R40 for Blacks. In the case of foster care it is R90 for Whites, R71 for Coloureds and R40 for Blacks. I listened to the hon. the Minister very carefully today and although I must admit that I have not been present during the whole debate, it seems as if the NP speakers have been particularly quiet about welfare. However, in this report there is a tremendous amount written about welfare. I believe it plays a very important part in the social life of South Africa’s people. Can the hon. the Minister give us a satisfactory explanation as to why there is this difference between Whites and Coloureds? I will not ask him about Blacks. I just want to ask him why there is this difference between Whites and Coloureds. Is there a difference between them in regard to the price of bread, of food, of electricity etc.? In the case of old age homes the figures are R282 for Whites and R79 for Coloureds. Is a Coloured worth only 25% of a White man once he is old? Is that what the Minister is trying to tell us? No, Sir. I think the hon. the Minister should be ashamed of what I have told him here. The hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House. He is keen to explain policies so why does he not explain to the Coloureds and the Asians of South Africa why there is this difference? I think that this is a disgrace and further evidence of the “struikelblokke” used by this Government. Welfare is humane, not racial. Welfare is for human beings despite their pigmentation, their race or their “volk”, which is a new word. It is for human beings. That is what welfare is for. The hon. the Minister should be ashamed of his Government’s welfare policy. We on this side believe that the Minister’s statement concerning the salaries of welfare workers, was very important and we are very grateful for that. However, it is not enough. In spite of the repeated protests and memoranda on this subject, the Minister and his Government blithely continue the fragmentation of social work services between the different race groups of this country. This report again proves it. The hon. the Minister’s vote also proves it. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what will happen under the new constitution? Will it be further fragmented? The hon. the Minister is at present responsible for Coloureds and Asians but will there then be separate Coloured and Asian welfare groups in this country? I can assure him that that will continue to result in different policies for the different race groups with no co-ordination of any kind as is the case among the present four departments and as will also be the case among the further five or six departments. I believe that this system results in an utter waste of public money. It results in inferior welfare services whereas there should be healthy welfare sharing. The co-ordination of social work in one department will result in a desperately needed increase in social work services for all South Africans.

I should also like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the question of social workers. How is he to supply the people to do the work? I should like to talk to him about occupational therapists if time allows. Occupational therapists play a very important role in the rehabilitation of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks—this is the way we have to talk in this unfortunate country. Occupational therapists are needed to enable a sick or injured person to get back to work. The hon. the Minister will agree that this is terribly important in South Africa today in view of the lack of skilled workers. An occupational therapist plays a vital role in this respect. It has been worked out that we need one therapist for 16 000 people of the population. According to statistics in the year 1990 we will need 256 Coloured occupational therapists while at present we have only two. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, now that we have come to the end of this discussion, and before replying to hon. members who have participated in the latter part of this debate, I wish to convey my thanks to the officials, the Director-General and all those who work with him in the department, for their hard work over the past year. Our officials often perform a thankless task, and I want to say tonight that apart from the fact that we are proud of our officials in general, I have experienced a great deal of kindness and warm support during the short time I have been involved with this department, since August 1982, and I have observed the dedication of the officials. Because of this I must tell the Committee tonight that I am proud of these men and of what they are doing. They are making an invaluable contribution. They never refuse when they are asked to render special services after hours. What impresses me most, however, is their dedication to their task, their concern about matters such as those which the hon. member for Parktown has just referred to, their search for solutions to these problems—to refer to welfare alone—and their attempts to find the best ways of dealing with these enormous disadvantages which exist in the Coloured community. I want to say to them tonight: Thank you very much and please carry on as you are doing. The country has reason to be proud of what you are doing in this department.

I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister, not only for his valuable contributions in this House, but also for his support and his service as Deputy Minister of this department. While the Battle of the Bergs and the Valleys was in progress, a heavy burden rested on his shoulders, and I want to thank him very much for the able way in which he acquitted himself of that task.

I also wish to thank all speakers who have taken part in this debate. On balance it has been a constructive debate, and it was encouraging to observe the interest taken in the wide range of activities of the department.

Before replying to specific hon. members, I just want to deal with one factual situation. This is the statement made by an hon. member who is not present at the moment to the effect that the hon. member for Turffontein had said that there were 500 000 people who had not yet received identity documents, while I had said that there were only 137 000. I should be glad if the hon. members of the NRP would convey this fact to their hon. colleague who made this erroneous statement. He alleged that there was a difference of opinion between me and an hon. member on my side. I said there were 137 000 people who did not yet have an identity document and he says the hon. member for Turffontein said there were 500 000. The hon. member must have been labouring under a misunderstanding when he made this statement, because the hon. member for Turffontein never referred to 500 000 people without identity documents. What he did say was that there was a much greater figure among the Coloureds, Asians and Whites. Therefore it seems to me that there was a misunderstanding in this connection and I just wanted to correct it.

There was also a mistake in The Citizen in that the hon. member was reported as having said that we were receiving 50 000 applications every day, while it is 50 000 applications per month. I just wanted to set the record straight in this connection. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon. members for De Kuilen and Roodepoort, to whom I did not refer this afternoon, for their positive contributions and for their explanation of NP policy, and—what is more important—for the sympathetic way in which they dealt with the problems we have to contend with in this department.

I come now to the hon. member for Greytown. He seems to me the new chief spokesman on the Indian Affairs subdivision of the department, and he addressed the Committee for 20 minutes. I should like to congratulate him on his nomination, but I must commisserate with his party; they have committed an error of judgment. I regret that I have to express myself in such strong terms on the occasion of the hon. member’s first performance as chief spokesman, but he was guilty of quite a few things in the course of his speech.

In the first place, he accused the Government and the department of the “harassment of Indians”. That was what his argument boiled down to. He accused me of not promoting the interests of the Indians and said that the things we were doing in connection with education and welfare and the whole constitutional development exercise which we were going through at the moment were not aimed at promoting the interests of the Indian population. He may feel that we are not seeking to promote their interests in the right way—then we should be debating at a mature level—but to argue that our intention in everything we do is to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible—that was what he alleged—is to descend to a level of debate that does not belong in this Committee. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member pleaded for greater co-operation between the Department of Community Development and my department. In this connection I want to tell him that we are doing our best.

†Schools are planned well in advance and there is close co-operation between the Division of Indian Education in the department and local authorities in providing schools in developing areas. This is another matter to which he referred. I want to quote an example. Many schools in Pietermaritzburg and the Phoenix area were completed in advance of the housing programme. The elimination of platoon classes in Pietermaritzburg is proof of the advanced planning of the Division of Indian Education. It is not clear to me what is meant by the hon. member’s reference to “the effect of unrest in Indian schools on examination results”. I do not know whether he failed to acquaint himself or whether he could not understand it, but the pass rate at the Senior Certificate level for Indians in 1982 was 83,99%. What is his complaint? [Interjections.] He must compare this percentage with other results and then he will realize that wonderful results have been achieved.

Yes, because they work hard.

Yes, and because they have a sound education system which is properly run, but we could not perceive that from what the hon. member said.

Sites for schools in residential areas are determined by professional educational planners using population figures and accepted growth-rate norms of populations. It is common practice to find that in developing residential areas that are sites which are unused at the moment, but obviously these unused sites will be utilized as the population grows in future, or is it the hon. member’s suggestion that we should not plan in advance and that we should then expropriate developed properties at great costs to develop schools in future? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member had the gall to attack the Director of Indian Education. He went as far as to refer to him and other officials in that division as “tortoises”.

“Broeders”.

No, not only as “Broeders” but as “tortoises” too. In any event, we can check on that in his Hansard.

I want to tell the hon. member that the man in respect of whom he has taken the liberty to speak so glibly is a man who has devoted almost his whole life to Indian education. All educationists will tell him that Indian education and the dramatic improvement over the past decade in that department, is one of the success stories of Southern Africa. We have succeeded in attaining marvellous results in Indian education in the shortest possible space of time. Educationists in other departments in South Africa are looking at this department and are asking what we have done in that department to attain such marvellous results. What does this man and the people who have performed this magnificent task with him get from the PFP’s official spokesman on this subject?

May I ask the Minister a question?

No, please sit down. This man is called a “tortoise” …

He is a “Broeder”; the others are “tortoises”.

You are an idiot.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

By dealing as he did with the officials of the Directorate of Indian Education of the Department of Internal Affairs, the hon. member destroyed his credibility within five minutes.

What is the view taken by the South African Indian Council of that official and of the other officials to whom I referred?

Perhaps we are now getting to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that the hon. member has been listening to other people. It does not seem to me that he studied the annual report. It does not seem to me that he examined the factual circumstances of that division. It does not seem to me that he acquainted himself with the facts at all. Someone whispered something in his ear. [Interjections.] How many of those hon. members repeat things on hearsay in this House without having ascertained the facts? We have had other examples of this in the debate. I talk to the Indian Council directly and I really do not need this hon. inexperienced member to tell me how the Indian Council feels and thinks about matters.

†The hon. member also referred to the refusal of a passport to a certain Dr. Farouk Meer. I am not prepared to disclose the reasons why the passport was refused. It is not our practice to do so. However, I do want to avail myself of the opportunity to make a general statement with regard to our general approach to applications for passports and the granting or the refusal thereof.

*The granting, refusal or withdrawal of the passports of South African citizens takes place in terms of a prerogative vested in the State President as Head of State. This prerogative is exercised by the Minister of Internal Affairrs on behalf of the State President. A passport is a testimonial issued by the State President, telling all countries in the world that the person to whom the passport has been issued will not cause them any trouble. It is also a testimonial which tells the inhabitants of South Africa that we can allow its holder to leave the country; he will not disgrace our country and he will not do anything abroad which would harm the interests of our country.

Where do you get that definition?

A passport is a right.

No. A passport is a privilege. The hon. member should study the passport policies of all developed Western countries and he should find out how many passports are refused by America, France and West Germany. But he should rather confine himself to eggs. He is much better at that than at passports.

What requirements must an applicant for a passport comply with before he can receive one? He must be a South African citizen. He must be a suitable person to hold a passport. He must be in a financial position to travel. In addition, the proposed trip abroad should not present a danger to the State. Normally, reasons for the refusal of passports may include the following: The granting of a passport may result in a financial burden on the State, for example, in the case of an applicant who has in the past become destitute while abroad, as a result of his injudicious conduct, and has had to be repatriated to the Republic at State expense.

Does that apply to Dr. Mia?

Listening to that hon. member, I think it may apply to him. Another reason is when the applicant’s proposed journey could embarrass himself and the State, or the country which he intends to visit. We have had cases of mentally disturbed persons or of people with serious crime records. A third consideration is whether the proposed trip abroad might endanger the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order.

Does that apply to Dr. Mia?

Order! If the hon. member for Bryanston wishes to ask a question, he must follow the rules and ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to answer a question. Does the hon. the Minister wish to answer a question?

No. Not from that hon. member. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed and the hon. member for Bryanston must now afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether any of the reasons he has just mentioned are applicable to Dr. Mia?

I have not even given all the reasons. Does the hon. member not wish to hear all the reasons first?

You have read us three reasons now.

Order! The hon. member has asked his question and he must now contain himself.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member has asked his question. He must now please resume his seat. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I just want to complete the list of reasons first. A third reason is if the proposed visit would endanger the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order, for example: Firstly, when the conduct and activities of the applicant may promote terrorism or subversion, or secondly, when he advocates revolution, sabotage or violence against the State. His/her statements abroad may also be calculated to harm the Republic economically or otherwise, or the passport may be used to evade national service. The refusal of a passport may be related to personal and confidential particulars. Where security considerations apply, it may be necessary for security reasons to treat all particulars as confidential. That is why the public is generally not informed of the reasons for refusing a passport. Naturally, the person concerned will usually know why a negative decision has been taken in his case. [Interjections.] Against the background of these reasons, the hon. member will just have to ask the person concerned. No doubt he will be able to hazard a guess.

I want to reply further to the hon. member for Greytown. The hon. member raised a lot of matters which have nothing to do with the Department of Internal Affairs and which he should rather mention during the discussion of the Votes of hon. Ministers responsible for these matters. The Department of Internal Affairs does not administer the Group Areas Act, nor does it deal with the various other matters raised by the hon. member.

Finally, the hon. member inquired about the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and its effect on referenda. We devoted almost the whole of one Friday to this subject in this House. The hon. member should read up those debates in Hansard. He will find that I made the situation clear during those debates.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town asked that he should be excused. I hope the hon. member for Durban Point will convey my reply to him. The hon. member for Durban Point might also reply to some questions I wish to put to his party. I think I will get some good replies from him to a few of my questions. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the NP should not be afraid of integration, and he accused us of adopting too rigid an attitude to the question of integration.

Of the word “integration”.

All right. Then I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether the policy of the NRP is one of integration.

It is a policy of local option. [Interjections.]

Then I wonder why one of the hon. members of his party should find it necessary to give us a sermon and to tell us that we should accept integration as part of our policy. That is apparently what he meant. I must, however, admit in all honesty that he did refer to local option too.

That is quite right, yes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town referred to the Government’s refusal to allow a number of Indian children to attend a certain White school in King William’s Town. I then asked the hon. member whether that White school and its committee were prepared to accommodate all the Indian children of King William’s Town. His reply to that was no. I am now stating the fact, Mr. Chairman, that they were only prepared to allow a limited number of those Indian children, apparently selected according to whether the parents were able to make a contribution to the school or whether the particular child was academically fit to attend that school.

That is selective, partial local option.

That, Mr. Chairman, is then what the NRP’s local option amounts to. Hon. members shake their heads to confirm that that is indeed what their policy of local option means. If that is so I must tell them that the policy of local option as they advocate it, is to us an unacceptable policy. [Interjections.]

I have to conclude from this, Mr. Chairman, that an unintelligent Indian child in King William’s Town has to go to the nearest Indian school…

Or a poor Indian child.

… but if an Indian child is intelligent enough he is welcome to attend that White school, and then integration is acceptable.

That is disgusting.

It is indeed disgusting. For once, Mr. Chairman, I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Bryanston. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us, if it is in order for a White school to agree to accept a Black pupil because he happens to be from a family of diplomats, why then should not another school he allowed, at its own choice, to accept specified pupils whom that school believes will fit in well there?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows very well that at no time during this Government’s long term of office have we ever taken any other viewpoint than that a diplomatic envoy has, in terms of our legislation, no colour. [Interjections.]

They are all regarded as Whites.

No, they are all transparent. [Interjections.]

Anyone who is a member of the diplomatic corps is in an absolutely different category from all other people, and that is the position in all countries throughout the world. [Interjections.] When it comes to education we do not discriminate on the basis of colour as such. In the Transvaal I am not allowed to send my child to an English-medium school.

That is your party’s own policy. [Interjections.]

That is quite correct. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members opposite may not agree with that, but it still proves a point. That is that our education policy is not built on colour discrimination per se. Our education policy is built upon education principles, one of which is native tongue education.

What does the De Lange Comittee have to say about that? It certainly does not agree with that. [Interjections.]

Local option, if it means discrimination against the poor and the less privileged in favour of the wealthy and the more privileged, I believe, is disgusting. We will never be able to agree with that. [Interjections.]

That is not what our policy of local option entails. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I can tell the hon. member for Rissik that we have never been in agreement with the NRP. They are living in a dream-world. They set up straw dolls and then they shoot them down one by one. Now I have shot down one of their dolls, and that is the story they are spreading to the effect that we are in league with the NRP.

Are you not in league with them?

There are differences of principles between us. However, there are also a few important similarities. When it comes to patriotism, the security of the country and a few other important matters, I fully trust the hon. members of the NRP.

Do you not trust us, then? [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not distrust the hon. members, but I have reason to believe at the moment their hate for the NP is greater than their love for South Africa. [Interjections.]

One difference is that we are always five years ahead of you.

As far as this policy of local option is concerned, they are 100 years behind us, because this is the old imperialistic policy of the old British imperialism which we in this party have never accepted.

The hon. member for Kimberley South referred to the system of nominees. That does not fall under this department. Nevertheless, I want to tell him that I am not happy with this phenomenon either. Many of us feel unhappy about it. The Minister of Community Development has indeed referred it to the Strydom Committee, where it will receive attention. For the rest I enjoyed listening to his analysis of the foolishness of the CP and the impracticability of its policy.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the problems created for people living far away from certain special schools. All I want to say is that the Government, as any reasonable institution would, and that I, as any reasonable man should …

No, you are going too far now.

… stand extremely sympathetic towards the plight of these unfortunate handicapped children. It is true that, because of the wide expanse of South Africa and the long distance in this country, many families are disrupted by being far away from the school or educational institution which has to serve them. I do not want to go into detail with regard to any specific matter raised by the hon. member, but I can say that obviously we will, within the framework of Government policy, look sympathetically at any case we can accommodate without disrupting the overall goals which are also so important for the maintenance of order and for good group relations in South Africa.

Those children are blind.

Order!

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Parktown. He referred to the welfare work that was being done in this department. I do not know where he is at the moment.

He is in a Standing Committee.

That is a good excuse. Can we go and make sure? [Interjections.] Never mind, I shall reply to him. He said our annual report was an indictment of the NP for its discriminatory policies. I have just expressed it better than he did. He struggled a little to put it across. Firstly, I want to ask him whether he believes that the average White pensioner finds himself in the same economic framework as the Coloured person, the Black man or the Asian in terms of our present circumstances. There are fundamental differences in the basic economic infrastructure provided by the State. It is a historic difference.

Bread costs the same.

Bread costs the same, but a plot does not cost the same. Nor does transport cost the same. I could mention some other things that do not cost the same either. The chief item is housing. I could have expected the hon. member for Parktown rather to approach this problem from the point of view that we are struggling here with a major problem and that we have thousands, even millions of people who are living under the breadline and who find themselves in a very disadvantaged position. I could have expected him to compare what we spent in this connection ten years ago with what we are spending today, and to draw a graph and to determine whether the Government is keeping its word when it says that it is doing everything in its power to resolve this problem effectively within the financial means of the country. If he had done that, he would have come to a different conclusion. Then he would have seen that year after year there has been a strong real increase in the expenditure on welfare and education, while in many other departments there has even been a real decline in expenditure, when inflation is taken into consideration. He would also have seen that the gap is shrinking year after year and that progress and breakthroughs are being made in removing what he so scathingly dismissed as discrimination.

It is our declared intention to eliminate unnecessary discrimination. We are making good progress in that connection.

Sir, we cannot wait for the day when the constitutional development will have progressed to the point where we shall no longer have to listen to the distorted pleas of the PFP on behalf of the Coloureds and Asians, because those people will be able to speak for themselves. The PFP does not express the true feelings of those people.

Mr. Chairman, I should just briefly like to respond to a number of issues which were raised. The hon. the Minister found himself in an argument with the hon. leader of the NRP over the question of Indian schoolchildren having to be transported over long distances. I must say that I agree with his analysis and condemnation of the attitude which the NRP takes to this kind of thing. If local option is no more than an elegant way of escaping the central issues facing this country, then it does not deserve our serious consideration. On the other hand I must make the point that the Government’s policy is probably worse, in the sense that it prohibits children purely on the basis of race from attending certain schools. There is no getting away from that. One can argue until one is blue in the face that there are cultural reasons underlying it. It has been shown over the years that there really is no substance in that argument.

I want to refer specifically to one argument raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He raised the issue of dual citizenship and dual passports. The hon. the Minister reacted by saying that when a person becomes a South African citizen he is not required to surrender his citizenship of another country. He is only asked to surrender his passport of that country. Let me say right away that in by far the majority of cases the problem is the passport and not the citizenship. I do not think there are so many people who really are terribly concerned about retaining their citizenship of another country when they acquire the citizenship of South Africa. Passports, as the hon. the Minister knows, are a very real problem because on a South African passport one’s travel possibilities over the world are severely limited, for all sorts of reasons. Let me make this point very clear that even if the hon. the Minister gives permission to a South African citizen to hold a passport of another country, that does not have a legal status. There is no legal status to it because there is no specific provision in the law for the hon. the Minister to give such permission. The law merely gives the hon. the Minister the discretion to strip a South African citizen of his citizenship if he holds the passport of another country. The permission given—and I have read some of these letters—merely reads that the hon. the Minister does not intend taking away the citizenship of a particular person because he holds another passport when such an application is made; in other words, it merely expresses an intention. The point that I am making is that it gives very little legal certainty to the applicant for the privilege of holding the passport of another country. The hon. the Minister is legally perfectly entitled to remove that permission—if one can even call it permission—and to change his intention virtually from one moment to the other because the provision in the law is not clear in that regard. The letter giving permission makes it very clear because it states that the Minister does not intend stripping that person of his citizenship. It does not say that it gives him permission and that this situation will apply for a particular length of time. In fact, I am making the point that it is legally possible that while that person is, in fact, overseas the hon. the Minister can strip him of his citizenship. For that reason I believe it deserves the hon. the Minister’s further attention.

I want to make one final point and that is to appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to make some special arrangement for accommodating spouses of South African citizens or permanent residents. I believe that we are one of the few countries where there is no special arrangement in regard to those people. When a South African marries a non-South African somewhere in the world while he is studying there or while he is living there for a while and brings that spouse back, that person has to go through the same rigmarole that the normal immigrant must go through. The fact of the matter is very simply that one is never sure in advance whether one can bring in such a person and, in a sense, one subjects one’s choice of a marriage partner to the immigration arrangements applicable to one’s own country. I believe that that is not a fair system and I also believe that one should take the example of other countries and try to make some sort of special arrangement even if we have to change the law at some stage. However, I do believe that this matter certainly merits our serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we had reached the end of the debate. However, I should like to reply to the two points raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

In regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, namely the permission granted to a person to use the passport of another country, my recollection of that permission is not as negative as the hon. member’s interpretation of it. However, I shall investigate the matter further. It is not the intention to create a position of uncertainty on the part of the users of that letter but actually to give them the assurance that as long as they act within the framework of the conditions laid down in the letter, they can use it without any problems whatsoever. However, they must produce that letter at the official places of exit and entry and a note must be made in that regard. That is the only condition that is imposed. Apart from that it is not the intention to place such people in a position of uncertainty.

With regard to the second point raised by the hon. member, I do not wish to take up any further time of this Committee. We may be making inroads into the time allocated for the discussion of the next Vote. However, I shall carefully consider the representations made by the hon. member and let him have a reply in due course.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 12.—“Commission for Administration” and Vote No. 25.—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957, as amended, the Commission for Administration has certain powers, functions and duties. In terms of section 6(2)(a) the commission shall make recommendations as to the transfer of functions from one department to another. I wish to refer in particular to the Military Pensions Act, No. 84 of 1976, which is at present being administered by the department of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. The title of this Act is a complete misnomer because it is in effect a military compensation Act in terms of which if a person during his military service is physically disabled, his disability is considered by a board of defence medical officers and the totality of that disability is assessed. On this assessment a monthly pension for life is paid.

With the coming into effect of the Defence Amendment Act last year every White male between the ages of 18 and 55 years can be subject to military duty and, as the hon. the Minister said today, with the increase in this so-called onslaught, this matter becomes even more important. Just as the Workmen’s Compensation Act rightly falls under the hon. the Minister of Manpower so should military compensation fall under the hon. the Minister of Defence, and more so now because of his increased responsibility to those who have to devote so much of their time to the defence of their country. I wish to recommend that the Commission for Administration investigate the question of whether the Military Pensions Act should not be placed under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Defence and that the title of the Act be changed to the Military Compensation Act.

I wish now to deal with another topic. In terms of section 25 of the Public Service Act there shall be established a council to be known as the Public Service Joint Advisory Council in which there has to be equal representation between the commission and the Public Servants’ Association recognized by the commission. No meeting has been held of this Joint Advisory Council since 11 September 1980. On page 57 of its report for 1981-’82, the Commission for Administration has the following to say—

The chairman and vice-chairman in their capacities as representatives of the official and the staff sides agreed to cancel future meetings of this council established by Parliament because of the opportunities that the commission now grants to the Public Servants’ Association to communicate directly with it on questions concerning officials. One of the reasons given for this is that the six persons nominated by the commission and the six persons nominated by the Public Servants’ Association were all members of the Public Servants’ Association. The situation became ludicrous because the officers of the commission were talking with six of their own members of the association. No wonder it became an ineffective channel of communication. By eliminating this council the public servants have direct access to the commission and to the Minister and, in this case, to the Prime Minister. It must be remembered that although this department is being discussed in conjunction with the Internal Affairs Vote, this Minister is really only looking after the department on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe, however, that these relationships have been most cordial and that discussions have been held in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and understanding. Thus has the Public Servants Association de facto established a trade union organization negotiation procedure which they desire and which they believe serves their purpose well. It would seem that this modus operandi should now be entrenched in law. What the Public Servants’ Association wants is that the commission be obligated by a law passed by this House to discuss as of right all matters pertaining to general service conditions in the Public Service, particularly in respect of pay and emoluments, with the Public Servants’ Association before any decision is finalized. I am informed that representations to this effect have already been made to the authorities and I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to reply. I should appreciate a reply from the hon. the Minister as to what the attitude of the government is towards this demand by the Public Servants’ Association.

I should also like to know why the commission has allowed the joint advisory council, brought into existence by this very House, to fall into disuse. There were two options to the commission and the Government. It could have precluded all its employees from being members of the Public Servant’s Association on the basis that the commission is an employers’ organization. If the commission felt, however, that it could not impinge upon the right of the individual to belong to an organization like the Public Servants’ Association, it could have followed another course.

Section 25 of the Act dealing with the advisory council should already have been amended. Section 25(1)(a) need only have been amended by the deletion of the words “officers who shall be nominated by the commission” and substituted by “the Public Service Commission”. One would then have the Public Service Commission on the one hand and the Public Servants’ Association on the other. Section 25(2) could have been amended to provide that the functions and duties of the board would be to discuss with and advise the Minister from time to time on all matters dealt with under the Act, proposed legislation and any proposed regulations. In other words section 25 could have been amended so as to provide an industrial council with the State as the employer and the Public Servants’ Association as an organization representing employees. Thus the labour relationship between the State and the Public Servants could have been formalized, and I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s opinion on that.

I should like to put to the hon. the Minister a very delicate question and then discuss it with him. The delicate question I want to put to him is: What role should a member of this House play who wished to take an interest in the affairs of State administration? Two bodies are affected. On the one hand he must see the Commission of Administration that acts on behalf of the State as employer. In this respect I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I found the chairman and the staff of the commission to be most courteous and open in all discussions I ever had with them. On the other hand, how does a member of the House officially establish relationships with the public servants themselves without upsetting the relationship between the State and its employees? This is a responsibility that the hon. member of the House will also have to respect.

On the one hand one can glean information from the annual report and discuss it in the House, but I believe this is a very superficial attitude which may be adopted by many but which I am not prepared to adopt. On the other hand the MP is a legislator and a decision-maker; his job is not to administer. Parliament is a supreme authority in that it creates the Commission for Administration and the Public Service and seeks by taxation and loans to obtain the necessary money to remunerate the public servants.

I also note that in terms of section 24(2) of the Public Service Act the political rights of officers and employees are recognized in that they are entitled to be members of and to serve on the management of any lawful political party. They may attend public meetings but may not speak and they are precluded from writing or speaking publicly to promote or prejudice the interests of any political party.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip.

This brings me to a matter of some delicacy which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister because it impinges upon the work of members of Parliament entrusted to pay attention to the affairs of State administration. As spokesman for the official Opposition I believe it is necessary that some avenue must be created whereby they can consult without fear or duress members of the Public Service openly and personally. I have had the opportunity to meet informally with the chairman of the Public Servants’ Association and to discuss matters with him in very general terms. However, there can be no formal link with his association because they consider that my talking to them brings politics into their affairs. It came to a head when I telephoned the chairman of the Public Servants’ Association and asked him if I could be invited to their 1982 annual congress. I did this in all sincerity because I believed that I would then have an over-view of their side of the fence and what they were seeking in order to satisfy their demands. I would rather not go into the telephone conversation I had with the chairman in detail, although I have my notes. In essence the chairman stated that he could not acquiesce because he maintained that the spokesman for the official Opposition was only there in a political capacity while the Minister, who had been invited, was their employer and had been invited in his official capacity.

I wrote to the chairman of the Public Servants’ Association outlining my reasons for wanting to attend their congress. I would like to read their reply to the Committee. The chairman wrote—

I do not hold anything against them for that. I quote further—

I cannot understand how a Minister acquires an administrative responsibility if he does not get it through his political capacity. That is how this hon. Minister became the Minister responsible for State administration. The letter goes on—

That also applies to all members in this House. I go on—

It is a very strange situation that has arisen. We as members of Parliament grant public servants the right to participate openly in politics, yet they preclude members of this House, other than Ministers, from attending their congress or even from discussing things with them, on the basis that it involves politics. This creates an absurd situation.

If this is the case, the hon. the Minister must inform this House what avenues he is prepared to establish in this what we consider to be democratic country run by a democratically elected Parliament, in order to allow any member of Parliament of whatever party he belongs to, who might be interested in State administration to visit and enquire from public servants openly what their problems are. If the Public Servants’ Association is by their own statute prevented from allowing members of Parliament to discuss without fear or favour the problems of service in the Public Service, then the Minister must tell this House what avenues he is prepared to create so that we can pursue our job of getting a better knowledge of what is happening in this particular department.

I want now to deal with the annual report as such. It contains some strange figures which one has to analyse to make sure what they are all about. One thing one must be sure about when one studies statistics, is to be sure one understands what one is looking at. One sees a tremendous amount of so-called development in the Public Service in that the number of employees has increased from 167 000 in 1977 to 240 000 in 1982. This is an increase in the Public Service, superficially, of 73 000. However, one has to go through all the statistics to see that it is only in a limited number of posts that this dramatic growth took place. The number of teachers, White and Black, increased from 45 000 to 95 000, an increase of 50 000 in the five-year period.

Are you against that?

I have nothing against it. I am just trying to show how the figures are hidden and do not reflect the truth of the situation unless one makes a proper investigation. One cannot simply read the figures. They do not indicate the exact position until one starts investigating the matter. The number of Black teachers increased from 39 000 to 86 000. I praise the Government for employing so many. Unfortunately, the number of these Black teachers who have a matric certificate plus a three-year teaching diploma, which is the minimum qualification for a teacher, is very small. This is one aspect of the work that the commission must do—to try to ensure that the number of Black teachers who are unqualified will become qualified. Every effort must be made to train them because it is no use having a large number of teachers if they are not qualified. I fully understand the present problems but something must be done in that respect.

Finally, I should like to deal with two or three problems. One is the manpower shortage. There is still a great shortage of people. Next I want to deal with general salary adjustments. The main problem here is that general salary adjustments have not kept pace with inflation. One top-ranking official informed me that with all his new emoluments, after deductions, his take-home pay increased by only R10 per month. Unless the State is prepared to give the additional 15% that is asked for by the Public Servants’ Association, it is in danger of losing staff. However, I want to congratulate the commission on the work that it has done in respect of occupational differentiation. It has made a difference—but it is not sufficient—because if one looks at the newspapers and if one listens to what else has been said one will see that it is the younger staff who tend to leave. One also sees that there is a very large number of people who are on the temporary staff. As a matter of fact, the temporary staff constitutes 21% of the total number of employees, and the number of vacancies at present is also approximately 20%.

In conclusion, I should like to deal with the housing scheme in the Public Service. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the fact that there is likely to be a perks tax in the near future the commission and the hon. the Minister have gone into the matter because it may happen that public servants find themselves worse off.

Mr. Chairman, with great fanfare the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stood here fighting with the hon. the Minister about the Public Servants Association which did not want to invite them to its annual general meeting. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. I think it is ridiculous of the Public Servants Association to say that apart from the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister, politicians do not need to be present there. When all is said and done, it is in the best interests of all the officials in South Africa that there should be the utmost possible consultation and communication. Since the Public Servants Association is a staff body, a body handling the interests of officials, I believe there should be very close liaison between politicians and the Public Servants Association, because I think we all have something to say to one another. I think, in fact, that we as politicians can help them, but I really think that fighting with the hon. the Minister about it is quite wrong. The hon. member also asked where we stood as far as the commission was concerned, and that is my plea, for what it might be worth, because I honestly believe that in future it will be essential for us, in the light of the new dispensation to have closer parliamentary liaison. On a previous occasion I asked for this, and I want to repeat that in future we must have a standard Parliamentary Select Committee for the Public Service and that that Select Committee should consist of all members of all parties.

Must it be a mixed Public Service?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik lives in such a dream world that he has simply not maintained any contact with reality. He can make a speech at a later stage, however. I just want to ask him to turn to page 18 of the annual report. There he will see that 42% of the posts in the Public Service are at present reserved for Whites, whilst 58% of the posts are destined for people of other colours.

Are you now speaking solely of the top posts?

You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik is again wandering around where the top posts are. As long as the non-White officials occupy the bottom posts, everything is as it should be. They must just not move up the ladder. There we have, once more the true master-servant politics of the CP. [Interjections.]

Who is going to be your Minister?

Definitely not you, Ferdi. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to advocate that in future we should maintain very close parliamentary liaison with the Commission for Administration. Therefore, on behalf of all hon. members of this House—I believe—I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Commission for Administration and all the officials in its employ, including all public servants throughout the country, for all the services they render, in all the Government departments, under very difficult circumstances. South Africa is a country bowed down by a great labour force shortage, and the majority of public servants work long hours under very difficult circumstances. This evening I specifically also want to convey our thanks to the officials doing parliamentary duty. Here I have in mind, for example, our legal advisers. I think hon. members will all agree with me when I say that we understand what difficult circumstances they work under. We are also grateful for the great job they are doing in the interests of our country. We are all united in our pride in the Public Service of South Africa.

Most of my personal friends are public servants. I say this because it is a great honour for me. Some of the most competent people I know in South Africa are public servants. The top officials in the Public Service, in particular, work under tremendous stress because of the great problem in the middle echelons. I am therefore gratified to see, in the latest annual report of the commission, that there has recently been an influx of young people to the Public Service.

Definitely not enough yet.

When we note the tremendous number of man-hours we lost last year, one is really given cause for concern. These man-hours that were lost as a result of experienced people leaving the Public Service. I therefore believe that this new programme of action, that of occupational differentiation, could in future help solve this problem for us in the Public Service, thus firstly enabling us to keep more people in the service, secondly, to draw good people to the Public Service and, thirdly, to enable all those good young men to gain the necessary experience. If we were to calculate what it costs South Africa, and what it is we lose because we do not have enough experienced people, and if we were also to calculate what the loss of experience costs us, we would really get a big fright. It takes a very long time to train a person, and when such a trained person leaves the Public Service, one is certain to have problems in training someone to replace him. There is an interruption in the efficient service rendered, which in turn leads to other unavoidable problems. About this we all agree wholeheartedly.

I think that occupational differentiation and its implementation have brought about a dramatic improvement in the Public Service, and I should therefore like to commend the commission and everyone who helped to bring that about. If, for example, we look at the financial year 1981-’82, we see that 82 occupational classes were differentiated, a procedure embracing 174 000 people. Here we find categories such as those of deeds controllers, typists and fully qualified educationists. This also included the increase applicable to teachers. Also included in this were police officials and officials in the Prisons Service. During the financial year 1981-’82 occupational differentiation cost the State the phenomenal amount of R745 million.

If one wants to form any idea of how vast the Public Service is, one need only bear in mind that it costs R67,5 million to grant an increase of 1% to each employee in the Public Service. That is why there is no other way in which this question of salaries can be put right, in order to bring salaries in the Public Service more in line with those in the private sector, than by way of the system of occupational differentiation, which is in fact being applied. In the 1982-’83 financial year there were 188 differentiated occupational classes. There were 197 000 officials involved in this. During this period the most important people were probably the nurses. 43 of these 188 groups can be grouped together as industrial technicians, i.e. the people who assist engineers, architects and such people. They furnish support services for these people. The occupational differentiation in that financial year cost the State approximately R856 million.

That is cheap.

If we look at the financial year 1983-’84, we see that we are dealing with large categories of people who have to be declared occupationally differentiated. Under Vote 25 this year we have an amount of R295 million being voted for occupational differentiation.

That is cheap.

By the process of occupational differentiation the salaries of social workers recently increased by 47%. So even though there was no general annual increase, these large amounts voted by the State for occupational differentiation made it possible for the State’s officials, the various categories of officials, to be brought in line with those in the private sector. We thank the hon. the Minister and the commission very sincerely for the work being done in this connection. The fact that we could vote R295 million for occupational differentiation for public servants this year, in these difficult times, is most certainly, I think, an indication of a Government that has the interests of the officials at heart.

I should just quickly like to touch on one aspect of housing. It is a matter that I have also advocated on a previous occasion. Perhaps it is more in the province of the Minister of Community Development, because it concerns the functional housing granted to officials of the police, the Prisons Service and the Defence Force in large urban areas like Pretoria. I have, on a previous occasion, lodged a plea in this connection, because I have some of those people in my own constituency. There are blocks of flats in which officials of the Prisons Service and the Police live. I want to ask the State to abolish this system completely. We must do away with it completely. We should rather place the relevant people in a position to purchase their own houses. If one uses State funds to provide people with cheap houses for the rest of their lives, when they come to the end of their careers, they find that with increasing inflation they simply cannot purchase a house.

I shall support you.

I therefore think that this functional housing is wrong in principle. In a city like Pretoria, and in other large cities, on the other hand, we are faced, at the moment, with tremendous problems involving young officials. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to let us have a look at a kind of transitional housing scheme, so that the people being transferred from the smaller centres to the larger centres can be properly housed until they are in a position to obtain their own housing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just firstly want to refer to a remark which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made when he expressed concern at the inadequate training of Black teachers. This matter has already been dealt with having been fully discussed under the Education and Training Vote. I think that the task of training Black teachers lies with that department and is not relevant here.

The importance of an effective national economy can certainly not be over-emphasized. There is probably no hon. member in this Committee who would disagree with that. It is probably just as obvious that an effective and efficient public service will, if possible, have to be even bigger in the new constitutional dispensation. Politically, on a party basis, we can have the finest and best constitutional planning, and politically we can build up good group relations and human relations, but if the State machinery is unable to propagate and implement the conceived pattern, the whole exercise is futile and worthless. Therefore it is certainly fitting to thank the officials in the public sector for their unfailing loyalty to this country which they serve so unstintingly.

In the latest budget the officials did not receive a general salary increase. We realize that it is a virtually impossible sacrifice that was expected of them, but characteristic of, and true to their deep-seated loyalty, they not only resigned themselves to it, the situation, but were even prepared, and still are prepared, not to insist on a general salary increase, but rather to wait until South Africa’s financial position had improved. We are aware of the fact that this has meant personal sacrifices. The struggle against inflationary trends certainly means that belts will have to be tightened. At present they are doing this with great responsibility. It is therefore fitting, on this occasion, to convey to all officials and to the Public Servants Association, the thanks of this committee, as well as that of the consumers, in fact all the inhabitants of South Africa. In this way South Africa as a whole is served. One accepts the fact that when it has become possible to grant a salary increase, the present sacrifices will be borne in mind.

In the past I have expressed my concern about the lack of co-ordination between the Public Service, the S.A. Transport Services and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications as far as salaries and conditions of service are concerned. I furnished a plea for greater co-ordination and parity in this connection. I am therefore grateful to read in the annual report of the Commission for Administration that successful discussions were recently held on this issue. I quote from the report—

The difference that existed, and probably still exists, does not serve the cause of the Government sectors concerned. Continuous discussions and consultation will remain of the utmost importance in the future.

The share that all population groups have in the national economy, still remains an important factor and will probably become increasingly important in the future. On 30 June of last year there were 100 672 posts—i.e. 42% for Whites, whilst there were 139 738 posts—i.e. 58%—for other population groups in the total staff establishment. I have already referred to this in the past, but I should like to repeat that in future it is going to be increasingly important for suitable manpower from the various population groups to be available to serve their own people when it comes to their own affairs. White collar workers are not reserved for the Whites alone. Sophisticated work groups for the various population groups cannot always consist solely of Whites. The other population groups will have to gear themselves to making their contribution at the executive level. Therefore I want to advocate that their labour force be mobilized so as to enable them to be served by their own people when it comes to their own affairs. This would only be possible, however, with a sustained training and educational programme. The training of people of other colours is therefore not only in the interests of their own groups, but is also of the utmost importance to the Whites in South Africa. It must not solely be directed at academic training, for we shall also have to give attention to the technological field. It is necessary to have a dramatic increase in the numbers in this field. The annual report puts it as follows—

It is this challenge of today that we shall have to come to grips with in the immediate future. Therefore we gratefully note the training objectives and strategy of the Commission for Administration. The national economy must also, together with the various population groups, accept its responsibility of purposefully and determinedly coming forward to man the Public Service.

I want to conclude by referring to the Public Service bursary scheme. It is a scheme that has been in existence for 27 years now, and more than R30 million per annum is being voted for this purpose. On 30 June 1982 8 093 bursary students completed their studies, 6 607 of whom entered the Public Service. This is a reasonable crop if we bear in mind that those that trickled away represented only 16% or 1 400. I therefore want to advocate that those in the Public Service who make use of this bursary scheme should plough back their effort into the national economy in the form of the creation of manpower.

I want to conclude by thanking the Commission for Administration and its staff for the very neat annual report we received. It made for pleasant reading. I also want to congratulate the individual who has become a member of the commission since the previous discussion of this Vote, i.e. Dr. De Beer. I think it is also fitting, on this occasion, to thank Mr. Gerrie van Zyl—who was secretary of the commission and has now been promoted—for his services and to welcome Mr. Steenekamp, who has been promoted into his post.

Mr. Chairman, at the very start I want to thank the Commission for Administration for the exceptional annual report we have received. The first portion, which is descriptive, is particularly illuminating, informative and of great importance. I want to associate myself, however, with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who said that the statistics at the end of the annual report were quite difficult to fathom. One must really get an overall picture of those statistics if one really wants to understand them or gain a good insight into them. I nevertheless found them very illuminating.

When one comes to the Public Service and the functions of the Commission for Administration, I think one is getting to the heart of the State’s functions. Then one is getting to the very core of the State’s functions, because what are involved here are the officials, those people who are in the employ of the State and must carry out the functions of Government departments and see to it that they run smoothly. On this occasion I therefore want to say that we on this side of the House have the utmost appreciation for the work done by public servants, from the lowest to the highest in the State’s employ. I believe that in this country more people are inclined towards criticizing Government departments, sometimes scornfully and sometimes jokingly, but the fact of the matter is, I believe, that there are more people who are inclined to criticize than there are people who praise them in the knowledge of what these people have to do each day of their lives. What they do is frequently routine work in the sense that from day to day, in their specific departments or sections, they deal with the same kind of work from day to day. It can be tiring and fatiguing, and I therefore believe that the general public should realize how important the work is that these people have to do.

I also want to state that the Public Service is a very important advertisement for our country. In this regard I believe that we must ensure that our Public Service as not simply satisfied with having too few people merely because we argue that the private sector entices these people away from us. If the State is to furnish an effective service, from which the private sector greatly benefits, the public must accept the fact that the Public Service must get the necessary people so as to have this machine run as effectively as possible. The private sector expects the State, each department, to give it the most effective and quick service possible. If that is what we expect from State Departments, however, we must be reasonable enough to realize that if other bodies frequently entice experienced officials away from the State, the State cannot, with what it is left with, always furnish this quick and efficient service. I therefore think that the general public must also realize that the State is frequently faced with a staff shortage and with staff which have not yet had sufficient training, which do not, in all respects, have the experience to really furnish that quick and efficient service.

The Public Service competes with the private sector for officials, but the State lags behind in the sense that it cannot always compete. I believe the State cannot ever really compete when it comes to remunerating its employees. That is its difficulty. I can well understand that when poor economic conditions prevail in a country, and the State is not in a position to make salary adjustments, it poses a problem for the State. My plea this evening, in all seriousness, is that we should not adopt the attitude that, in the event of a slump in the economy, one’s first idea should not be to withhold salary increases to officials in order to save. After all, officials are also people worthy of the salaries they earn. I should like to compare them to oxen who must not be muzzled when they are thirsty. Like everyone else, officials also have a certain standard of living to maintain. They must also provide for a roof over their heads and for their family’s needs. Their salaries must continue to compete with the cost of living. We could argue that over the past few years they received salary increases in excess of the inflation rate of the increase in the cost of living. I always find that kind of reasoning a bit simplistic, because one’s needs do not always take account of these specific increases. Therefore, if it is at all possible, I do not believe that our very first thought, when it comes to saving, should be to effect such savings by way of these people’s salaries. I rather think we should see if we cannot effect the saving at some other point.

I have a great deal of appreciation for the fact that the Public Service is attempting to effect occupational differentiation. I also have a great deal of appreciation for the announcement concerning social workers. I believe that in the past this category in particular, as a professional group furnishing an absolutely professional service of a high standard, was too poorly remunerated and that this has been the case for too long a time now. As a result of that, this profession, like so many other professions, for the most part lost male staff. I trust that the adjustment that have now been brought about will help to bring men back into the social work profession, because they also have a particular function to fulfil.

I am still concerned at the fact that within certain State Departments the rationalization, on which a start has been made, has not yet been fully completed. I also want to express concern at the thought that some of the departments, as far as I could ascertain, are faced with the problem that because of staff shortages the rationalization cannot be implemented fully and taken as far as one would like to have it taken. There are consequently shortcomings that must be bridged.

On one matter I want to link up with the hon. member for Gezina, and that is the Public Service in the new dispensation.

I really hope you will not be linking up with him.

I just want to link up with what he said; not with the party to which he belongs or the principle he adheres to. Let me quickly correct that impression.

As far as the Public Service in the new dispensation is concerned, I want to point out that in the light of schedule 1 of the Constitution Bill, paragraph 13, and the relevant explanatory memorandum, the Public Service will, in future, still be seen in its overall context, as a unit within the new system, but in spite of its large, umbrella-like unity, the Public Service can nevertheless be seen as consisting of four separate groups, a group which will handle the Whites’ own affairs … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rather sorry that the hon. member for Koedoespoort could not complete his argument, because I got the impression that he also wanted to compartmentalize the Public Service in such an absolutely dogmatic way that no one would be able to deal with anyone else’s affairs.

I want to return to what the hon. member for Rissik said. I want to ask him a very simple question: Let us take a revenue office of the Department of Revenue as an example. If we have two people there to do their work, a Coloured who is very competent and a White who is not, what does he feel should be done in the interests of South Africa?

In our dispensation there will not be a mixed Public Service.

Then I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik to participate in the debate next year and indicate to us how we in South Africa, where so much has to be done and where the Public Service has such an extensive personnel structure, are to get things done. I want to point out to the hon. member that the nation and all public servants are laughing at this foolishness of the CP that we can compartmentalize South Africa in such an absolute way.

Not in Innesdal.

The hon. member says not in Innesdal. Last year the hon. member for Rissik said that he would accompany me to the university hostels in his constituency and that we could hold a debate there. Afterwards he said he would accompany me to Innesdal to do the same thing there. I want to tell the hon. member that I have a constituency of public servants. There are 22 branches in my constituency and I want to invite the hon. member to visit those 22 branches with me. After that he and I can visit the hostels of the University of Pretoria one by one and also discuss the Public Service with those people. [Interjections.] He did not do this at the time because he was afraid. However, I shall not pursue the matter.

I should now like to raise another matter in connection with housing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot arrive at the point where we can make investments with building societies from the Government Service Pension Fund so that we can assist our officials with loans so that an increasing number of them can become independent home owners.

May I accompany you to address those meetings?

I shall discuss that with the hon. member later.

I should like to make the point that I am of the opinion that we should consider investing money from the Government Service Pension Fund with building societies so that officials may borrow money against that to purchase houses for themselves. I believe that we in South Africa should look at the Public Service in general terms. In the first place, the State should do as little as possible itself, in other words, the least government is the best government. Put another way, we have to try to remove the “govern” from “government”. If we then have a Public Service which is as small as possible and which functions as effectively as possible, I believe that we shall be able to pay the officials in that Public Service the kind of salaries that will do justice to the quality of people serving in it. I honestly believe that it is also our responsibility as legislature to ensure that we do not eventually have so many Acts that have to be administered that we have to pay too much to everyone and in the process cannot do justice to the individual above-average achiever.

I should like to mention another matter. I was one of the people who had a hand in giving public servants the right to participate in politics and to serve on party committees. Dr. Connie Mulder was the Minister who piloted that legislation through Parliament at the time. There are public servants serving on the divisional committee in my constituency and I am certain that there are also public servants serving on some of the divisional committees of the CP members. I doubt whether the Progs will get anyone from the Public Service. I am not concerned about a public servant exercising his civil rights. What I am concerned about is that there is a certain tendency which has recently begun to crop up. Certain officials—fortunately there are very few of them—who participate in active politics, have become confused about their obligations to the political party they belong to and their obligations to the State. Today I want to appeal to all public servants who are involved in partypolitical activities to do so in such a way that in time to come we will not be obliged to tell any of them that they have overstepped the mark; that they are no longer merely political enemies of the National Party, but in actual fact also enemies of the State, because they are doing their work in such a way that they are in actual fact undermining the State. If an official takes knowledge and information from his Public Service office to practise party politics—there have been court cases where this has been proved—the public servant is overstepping the mark. I want to appeal to all public servants who are participating in politics to do so in such a way that it will not be necessary at some time in the future for us to have to say to ourselves that those people can no longer draw that distinction.

Here I also want to refer specifically to teachers who are also coming into the picture. I was very alarmed to learn, not about teachers who have political standpoints—and I am referring to a very small group—but to teachers who think that it is necessary and a good thing to disparage and criticize the State as such and the symbols of the State, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers—structures of State authority—in their classrooms. I think it will be a tragic day for South Africa if the teachers of South Africa do not realize in the first place that education means that one has to get all children, irrespective of the political standpoints in their homes, to realize that they have to respect the symbols of State and the State as such. I think it will be a sad day if it were to become part of our education for us to criticize a Prime Minister and other State leaders in such a way that, when I hear what children have to say, I sometimes ask myself the question: Is this really the level my people have sunk to?

In making this appeal, I am doing so in all seriousness. I have no objection to a PFP teacher, an HNP teacher or any other teacher teaching my child. But I am extremely worried when that teacher thinks it is his task and duty to criticize the figures of authority in the State. If that teacher thinks that it is his task to ensure that the child’s attitude towards the State as an institution is such that in the future that child will have no loyalty to the State, that child will in future have absolutely no respect for parental and other authority either.

But that is what you have been doing for 30 years.

Order!

I do not think it befits our people; that is why I am making this very serious appeal. In making this appeal to certain of our teachers, I am doing so particularly to certain school principals. I am saying this for a reason and with justification because in my part of the world where it may apply I will speak directly to those people. I do not care to what extent politics is discussed in the staff room of a school, but when those politics have to lead to our not being able to differentiate between the State, its symbols and authority, and a political party, we are looking for trouble in future.

In conclusion, with regard to this point, I want to ask officials in the field of education and in the Public Service to make use of the concession of being able to participate in party politics in such a way that in future we shall be justified in saying as proud democrats that we have the right to participate in party politics, but that we also have respect for the Government of the day. As a young official I worked under officials who were members of the United Party, some of the best and most capable officials we had in our State machinery at that time. They did not agree with the political standpoint of the Government of the day, yet they carried out the orders of the Government of the day conscientiously and precisely and showed respect for the Government of the day. I therefore want to make an appeal for us not to lose our way, but consistently to differentiate between the Government of the day and a political party of our choice.

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a word with the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He is finding it extremely difficult to interpret the figures submitted to us by the Commission for Administration in its annual report. I think the Commission did an excellent job; the figures are quite clear. When one looks at these figures, one knows exactly what they want to say. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is an idiot. I am not allowed to say that, of course, and I am not saying it either, Mr. Chairman, but it must be very difficult for someone with an IQ of one to be able to understand these figures.

Order! The hon. member is now skating on very thin ice.

I shall withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

This evening I should like to discuss professional manpower management in the Public Service. In the first place I want to congratulate the Commission for Administration on its professional approach to the utilization of manpower, and I want to add that there are probably very few private companies in South Africa undertaking personnel management at such a high professional level. I have watched the progress in this sphere with interest since the 1979-’80 report, when a start was made on consulting private individuals from outside. Then the emphasis was placed on better manpower utilization and on productivity. The improvement shown during 1979-’8O was sustained in 1980-’81. For example, projects were undertaken on a variety of topics, and bottlenecks were also investigated, inter alia in connection with housing matters personally affecting public servants, remuneration for overtime, recreational facilities and collective bargaining. Processes of work analysis, the defining and evaluation of posts classification and determination of norms for the creation of posts gained further momentum, and positive attention was also given to improving conditions of service.

In the latest report of the Commission—the 1981-’82 report—an indication is given of how these efforts were also sustained during the past year. Development and improvements in manpower management are continuing, with the emphasis on managerial self-sufficiency of departments, job satisfaction among officials and a positive attempt at improving the capabilities of officials by means of training and development programmes. We need only page through the latest report to see all the aspects that have received attention during the past year. I want to point out a few of these. There were, inter alia, training goals and strategies, systems development, personnel structuring, employment and career supervision, and numerous other facets. I believe this is indeed a paradise for the real manpower expert, who can, in every respect, really have a field-day with every facet of manpower management.

In spite of all this, we are still experiencing a problem in recruiting personnel in the initial ranks. This is a great source of concern. However, before we give a little more attention to this, allow me, Mr. Chairman, to say that I believe that the position would have been a great deal worse if these advanced manpower management practices had not been applied. The problem of manpower shortages is, of course, not the same in all departments. As a matter of fact, the report also indicated this to us. It is particularly in the professional and technical spheres where we have serious problems, and in certain spheres the number of vacancies exceeds half the approved establishment. Why does a situation of this kind arise? I really believe—and I am sure that few people here this evening will disagree with me on this—that the private sector is not doing its share, and it is the smaller to medium-sized undertakings, in particular, which are creating problems for us in this regard.

Plans have nevertheless been made to overcome this problem. Temporary and part-time personnel have been employed. Retired officials have also been re-employed, and officials who wanted to stay on after reaching retirement age have been allowed to do so.

There was also, in my opinion, a further important onslaught on this problem, and that was that the Public Service decided to form out specialized technical work on contract to private undertakings. In any event, this also caused a minor problem. I believe that I should make an appeal to private organizations here this evening not to lure away the few technical people we still have left in the Public Service to assist them in doing this work we have farmed out to them.

In my opinion the South African Posts and Telecommunications Services adopted a very sound approach in this connection. Before they farmed put work to such outside organizations, they obtained an undertaking that no Government official from their department would be recruited to do this work unless that official had left their service at least six to 12 months prior to that. This did a great deal to combat that problem and I believe that if this problem were to rear its head in our present State set-up, this solution could also be of great value to us. However, this does not solve the problem of other companies recruiting people from the Public Service. In this regard we are only able to make a serious appeal to private companies not to milk our public sector to such an extent that it is eventually impossible for us to continue working. A great deal of use is still being made of overtime. This evening, however, I want to issue a warning that there is an optimum point after which overtime becomes counter-productive. This is a fact.

Although we had a slight increase in the number of public servants during the past financial year, I get really worried when I think of what will happen when we experience an economic upswing, which might quite possibly happen early next year. It is also interesting to note, as statistics indicate, that although we really entered an economic crisis phase last year, the number of people who left the Public Service or retired from it last year, including all other staff losses, remained virtually the same as the 1981 figure. This is really a problem. If this figure remains constant in a levelling-off year, in a poor financial year, I shudder to think what may happen when we really experience an economic upswing. There are going to be unscrupulous employers who are going to lure these people away from us with attractive salaries. Regardless of what other members say, I want to say that it is simply impossible for the Public Service to keep pace with the salaries private companies pay. It is simply impossible. I want to make another appeal to the private sector not to milk us dry.

At the same time I want to ask a question. How long can the Public Service remain the refuge and haven of people who only use it as an employer when the security offered by outside companies is shaky, particularly in times of economic stress. It is surely not fair for the Public Service to have a shortage of thousands of workers year after year simply because it has to reserve vacancies in case there is a levelling-off in the economy and we again have to employ people. The situation is going to arise where we will have to decide whether we want little or no service in certain departments or whether we would be prepared to employ people of colour. Then the CP can get excited and say I am talking about a mixed Public Service again. I want to ask them: If they alone were employed in the Public Service, who do they think would make tea for them or clean their toilets? Would they do so themselves? [Interjections.] I still want to see what they would do with an absolutely pure White Public Service with only White personnel. They really have to awake from that dream world of theirs.

Are you saying that non-Whites must clean the toilets?

No, I did not say that. [Interjections.] I asked who they wanted to clean the toilets, the non-White toilets, the Coloured toilets and the White toilets. The hon. member for Bryanston should listen before he talks. The Public Service is doing everything in its power to maintain its complement of workers according to its traditional pattern. If this eventually means that no service will be available, at some or other time urgent consideration will have to be given to the traditional employment pattern. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since this is the first occasion on which I am dealing with this Vote in Parliament, I should like to make a few personal remarks. Firstly, I wish to convey my thanks to my predecessor, the present Minister of National Education, who, although he only dealt with this Vote for a very short time, had already left his imprint on the activies of this department. I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the retired secretary of the Commission, at present Deputy Secretary to the Department of Internal Affairs, Mr. Gerrie van Zyl, and also to a recently retired member of the Commission, Mr. Fouché. We welcome their successors, Mr. Steenekamp as secretary, and Dr. De Beer as new member.

During this short while it was pleasant to get to know the commission and the officials and I was impressed by their competence, their dedication and particularly by their willingness in this time of reform, when we are not only introducing it in the constitutional sphere but also in respect of the organization of our State administration, to play a leading role in regard to that reform.

You will allow me at the outset, Sir, to make a few general observations. Firstly I want to say that I shall try to use all my influence with the Whips to have the discussion of this Vote next year held at a more appropriate time of the day, although I am not saying that a Wednesday evening is an inferior time. This is such an important subject that one would like to see more hon. members present when we discuss the welfare, role and importance of the Public Service and how we can improve its effectiveness. I am not reproaching anyone. I am merely saying that there are a few absentees on a Wednesday evening. Not everyone is involved in the Standing Committees in the Senate Chamber. The hon. member for Sea Point knows that.

Effective government is impossible without effective State administration. Without it no government is able to put its policy into effect. Similarly the interests of every citizen on behalf of whom the government takes decisions—when all is said and done, the main concern is their interests—require an efficient Public Service. This is the objective of the Government as well as the CFA. To succeed in doing so it goes without saying that proper care should be taken of public servants. The Government is trying to do this to the best of its ability. In recent years there has been improvement in their conditions of service, inter alia by means of general salary adjustments, occupation centred investigations, improved pension benefits, housing subsidies and improved medical aid scheme benefits. We are not asking the officials—this is something against which the hon. member for Koedoespoort also warned—to be the only ones to suffer because of national economy is passing through a difficult time. Sir, if you take a look at what has been done during the past three or four years in respect of the interests of our officials, you will find that the largest amounts in our entire history were involved. A dramatic improvement in the position of officials occurred. Besides the large and generous general increases—I realize these were granted in a time of high inflation and therefore I am not saying that people should fall over backwards out of gratitude—occupational differentiation has introduced a new dimension. Those in occupational categories that have already been investigated can confirm that in general many inhibitory factors were alleviated and that the remuneration set-up also benefited from this new method. This is an ongoing process which we will never finalize. It will have to continue indefinitely and constant adjustments will have to be made. However, the fact of the matter is that we have moved away from stagnation and from the practice of confining everyone to the positions they occupied. What we are saying is that we will regularly consider whether there are any new circumstances which justify special claims in specific occupations. However, it is not going to end here. The Government will continue to give attention to further improvements.

In respect of a general salary increase I should like to remind people that it was clearly stated that, financial conditions permitting, the possibility of doing something about this by October this year would be examined. This is what can be expected on the part of the Government.

The officials also have a role to play if we wish to realize this objective of a truly efficient Public Service. I want to summarize it briefly: The country requires from them undivided fidelity and loyalty to the Government of the day as their employer, devotion to duty and responsibility in the performance of his or her task, constructive and productive utilization of his or her official working hours in order to produce an efficient service and, perhaps the most important of all, a profound realization that we are all engaged in serving the citizens of our country and that every idea, word or deed should serve to promote the common good and well-being of those people whom we are serving. The principal instrument in our national structure as far as personnel administration is concerned, which on the one hand is conducive to an efficient Public Service and on the other hand is involved in looking after the interests of the officials, is the Commission for Administration, which does its work with great distinction. In striving for greater efficiency therefore it has also become necessary, because this instrument, the CFA, is so important, to ask whether that Commission for Administration should not itself also be reformed. Consequently the Commission took a critical look at itself with reference inter alia to its methods of working, its composition and its general functions. Subsequently the Commission for Administration made specific proposals to the Government and the Government recently adopted certain resolutions. I do not wish to deal with all these proposals and resolutions this evening, yet it is important that some of them should be made known to hon. members this evening.

In the first place the Cabinet considered whether the existence of a central personnel institution such as the Commission for Administration was justified. All the evidence indicated that it was in fact desirable. The status of the Commission vis-à-vis the governmental authority and their interrelationship were also scrutinized and I think this may best be summarized in the words of an article which appeared recently in SAIPA, the publication of the South African Institute for Public Administration. I quote—

Consequently it was further resolved in principle that the Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957, should be revised and that separate legislation for the establishment of a Commission be placed on the Statute Book. This would ensure that the central personnel institution will function in the interests of efficient national administration and at the same time see to it that the officials are dealt with fairly and that justice is done to them.

A further aspect of the overall governmental service which will receive specific attention in accordance with the resolution of the Cabinet is merit. The Government has great appreciation for the services of many competent officials. There must be no doubt about this. However, it is in fact in the interests of those competent and dutiful officials that those within the Public Service who do not perform according to their abilities or who are guilty of dereliction of duty should be subjected to a close scrutiny. It is necessary to guard against the excessive protection of employees, because it mitigates against efficiency. Discipline, and where necessary even dismissal, must emerge more prominently as part of the pattern of State administration in South Africa. With the revision of the Public Service Act the present protective measures will consequently be thoroughly scrutinized. However, I want to give those officials who discharge their obligations properly the assurance that they need not feel threatened in any way. It is only those who are shirkers—and I believe, and know, that they are relatively small in number—who have reason to feel uneasy.

You are now threatening the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I still want to move a motion that we should also be able to scrutinize certain members of this House if they do not respect the dignity of the House. The future holds exciting challenges for us all. In South Africa we need men and women of vision, initiative, daring and enthusiasm more than ever before, and within our governmental services as well. We already have them there, and we need more of them. With a view to the new constitutional dispensation and everything which that entails, I believe that there are exciting career prospects in our services. I can think of no institution in the private sector or elsewhere which offers as many opportunities for work satisfaction and concomitant reward than the Public Service. To bring this fact home the Cabinet has consequently decided that a special project will be launched during 1984 by means of which career opportunities will be publicized in a comprehensive and effective way. I am not saying now that it will be a Public Service Year, but we are really going to sell the Public Service in 1984 because it has a good case and has a good story to tell.

This year the Public Service is 71 years old. This is not an advanced age for a country’s administration. On the contrary, one could rather see it as a coming of age. The Government has decided to present a symbolic coming-of-age key to all the Government departments by means of the transfer of greater managerial self-sufficiency. This step reflects the confidence which the Government reposes in the top management of the various departments. The necessary proclamation was signed today by the State President and will appear shortly in the Gazette, in terms of which certain responsibilities are being entrusted to Ministers with effect from 1 July, responsibilities which have up to now been exercised by the commmission itself. Ministers will then in their turn, in co-operation with their departmental heads, decide on the necessary delegations within departments. This is a far-reaching decision. I want to give one example of how momentous it is.

At present certain delegations from the Commission for Administration to departments exist, which entail that the departments may create posts and they make appointments up to the level of Administrative Officer, with a salary of R9 234 rising to a maximum of R13 740. With effect from 1 July 1983 Ministers and their departmental heads will in general be able to create posts and make appointments up to a level below that of director, with a salary of R30 255. This represents approximately 99% of that department’s posts. Consequently this amounts to effective decentralization of personnel administration to the respective department’s. In certain cases where fixed bases for appointments to high posts have been laid down, even greater powers are being conferred. This is a gesture of confidence in departments, enabling them by means of their Ministers, to function almost independently in this respect.

In addition to this decision we have also arrived at a second decision, and that is that we are providing a definition of what the managerial cadre of the Public Service is. It will be the offices of Director, Chief Director, Deputy Director-General, and Director-General, with the exception of certain functional posts. In their case the commission will still have to furnish the necessary recommendations. The Cabinet has agreed to these proposals, which were based on the need to expedite matters and for greater efficiency, and resolutions to that effect were adopted. This places a greater responsibility on departments. It calls for special attention to the identification of managerial potential and to the development of managerial skills and expertise. The Government places a very high premium on this as well. For that reason a further proposal was agreed to, and that was the establishment of a separate training facility for the Public Service, able to produce well-trained professional officers. In the near future departmental heads and their top management will undergo special courses in management science to orientate them in respect of the new demands being made on them. Special attention will also be given to the middle-and lower-ranking cadres and their training. The time is at an end when promotion could take place solely on the basis of seniority. Merit, competition and career orientation are already recognized in appointing the most suitable person to a post. It is also on this basis that special promotion schemes have been created and further recognition given to occupation centred investigations.

You may now ask, Sir, whether there would still be a task for the Commission with this increased managerial self-sufficiency. The reply to that is a definite “yes”. The nature of their function has certainly changed drastically, and in my opinion for the better. Up to now the Commission has exercised a comprehensive control function. This function is primarily being entrusted to the departments. In future, however, they will still continue to maintain overall supervision, to plan, to determine policy and develop new practices and measures. They will concentrate on the monitoring function. Hon. members may rest assured, the Commission will as in the past report to Parliament. In addition the Commission will preeminently be the institution which has to ensure that fairness and justice prevail. An aggrieved official will still be able to state his case to the Commission for investigation and consideration, and the officials are not being deprived of this right.

There are a few other matters which the Cabinet approved and to which I wish to refer in conclusion. The report year of the Commission at present ends on 30 June, which means that the data which hon. members receive are nine to ten months old when the Vote comes up for discussion. It is undesirable to conduct this debate on the basis of obsolete data, and for that reason it was decided at the request of the Commission itself that the report year will in future end on 31 December. I am certain that this will be generally welcomed by hon. members. We shall make provision for this in the revision of the Public Service Act.

To ensure the greatest measure of flexibility in the acquisition of expertise by the Public Service, the measures for the preservation and transferability of pensions will have to be re-examined. We need a greater interaction and exchange of personnel among the public, semi-State and private sectors and this can only be to the good of those sectors and also of all the personnel concerned. For that reason we shall re-examine means of furthering this aspect.

Furthermore, the Cabinet decided that the system of consultation between the Commission and the private sector would continue. This also serves as a reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Stilfontein. This consultation ensures that the private and public sectors do not develop in isolation from one another. Skilled and experienced personnel are scarce, and if we develop the one sector at the expense of the other, everyone will suffer in the end. An equilibrium must always be maintained and both sectors must contribute their share to the development and training of personnel from all race groups.

The Commission also submitted further proposals aimed at eliminating delays, proposals with which the Government is satisfied. In future appointments which they are still responsible for will be made far more rapidly. Departmental heads will be involved on an ad hoc basis to deliberate on innovative initiatives. Consequently there will be a greater interaction between the Commission and departmental heads. Departments will be involved in recruitment campaigns. Departments will to a large extent play a part in the allocation of bursaries. The advertising of posts outside the Public Service will, where possible, be left to the departments themselves.

With all these proposals and the resultant resolutions of the Government, I believe that the Public Service is entering a new, dynamic era. The Commission set the example by carrying out a probing investigation of itself, by means of a self-examination. I believe that many of the problems which have been identified in debates for years now, have been addressed here by this investigation and the decisions which were taken.

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

Well, it will make an inroad into my reply to his hon. colleague.

The departments will set their own salary scales, but how does one co-ordinate them?

The Commission has a very powerful co-ordinating role as far as emoluments are concerned. It is concerned to a greater extent with appointments and promotions, as well as the norms applied in the department.

†The Commission will play a co-ordinating role and will still have the function of a sort of overseer; it will influence and co-ordinate the policies followed in the different departments, otherwise we may get chaos.

*It is not only the Commission that is engaged in self-examination; our departments are also doing this. Innovation and improvement through rationalization is the watchword. Naturally many of these initiatives will not become visible overnight in perceptible results, but I am convinced that the course which has been embarked on will prove beneficial to us.

I wish to thank the Commission for this comprehensive task which it has carried out by applying self-criticism and for the wonderful, positive spirit in which they themselves have thought innovatively and in that way introduced a new dimension to our personnel administration. Many thanks to them.

†I now come to the members who participated in the debate. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised a number of matters. I will look into the suggestion as to which department should control military pensions. There is a reason why it is where it is, but we will nevertheless investigate what the hon. member suggested.

The hon. member also referred to the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. The official members are not personnel members of the commission. The council has the right to decide about its meetings. The hon. member asked when last a meeting was held. I may inform him that the last meeting took place on 22 November 1982.

It is not in the report.

No, it is not in the report. In the new scheme of things it would have been in the report.

There has been a comprehensive investigation into how we should arrange relations between the State and its employees. That has reached an advanced stage and during our discussion next year we will have the fruits and the results of that available. The hon. member also referred to the Public Servants’ Association. As the hon. member for Innesdal has pointed out, it is an independent body and neither the commission nor the Minister can dictate to the association. However, I must tell the hon. member that there are various ways in which to make contact with and to ascertain the needs of public servants. All departments have doors that are open to hon. members sitting here. Any Director-General can be approached by any member who will always be given a warm and friendly reception. The members of the commission themselves are prepared to sit down and discuss things with members. Its officials are also prepared to do so. In the final analysis, the place for hon. members in this House to debate, to discuss, to probe and to find out, is this Chamber. This is where it should be done.

We want to do research outside.

I suggest to the hon. member that if he is in need of communication, he should use the channels available to him effectively. He will then not have any further problems.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the perks tax and the housing of public servants. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the commission and I, who are acting for the Prime Minister with regard to State administration, have made our views in this regard known to the hon. the Minister of Finance. They will be considered in due course and we will look after the interests of public servants in this respect.

*The hon. member asked what we were doing in connection with improvements to the present dispensation by means of occupational differentiation. He conceded that a great deal was being done, but said it was not enough. We would like to move more rapidly, but there are problems. Our own manpower is a restrictive factor. The amount of money available is a restrictive factor. However, if one considers what the Commission has accomplished with the manpower at its disposal, one will realize that we are in great earnest about this matter, as will be demonstrated again this year. I have already replied to the hon. member on the question of the training of Black teachers.

I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for his elucidation of the extent of the activities and what has been achieved in connection with occupational differentiation. He made a few interesting observations on housing. Recently a comprehensive investigation of certain aspects of housing was completed. Inputs are being made and decisions in this regard will soon be taken. Many of the matters to which the hon. member referred are being examined and I would be anticipating decision-making if I committed myself at this early stage to a specific standpoint. The hon. member referred to the question of politics and how politics should be practiced in the Public Service. I think he brought up a very important subject. The Government has confirmed the right of officials to participate in politics, but it is a right which, like any other, must be exercised with responsibility. In the Public Service, under whatever Government may be in power, we dare not allow the political activities of officials to become intermingled with his activities in the implementation of the policy of the Government of the day. That conflict, if there should be one, would be greatly to the disadvantage of our country. I want to appeal to everyone to arrange their affairs in such a way that they maintain the separation between personal political activities and the performance of their bounden duties which I tried to sketch in my speech.

The hon. member for Innesdal also asked for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Public Service. In reality we as we are sitting here are a Select Committee, but there is merit in the suggestion for more regular consideration of these matters and I shall go into this properly.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gezi113 very sincerely for his effective elucidation of a few important facets with which I in general agree. He gave clear facts and answers to those who had questions concerning the question of participation of Whites and non-Whites. We already have an effective pattern in that people, in so far as this is possible with the available manpower—I can give the percentages—are already being served by members of their own population groups. However, there is still room for improvement and this is, of course, the direction in which we are moving.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to a number of matters. In my introductory speech I really covered most of those matters. Statistics merely depend upon one’s ability to interpret them. Fortunately no hon. member accused the commission of statistics having been ommitted from the annual report or of erroneous statistics having been published. The hon. member for Koedoespoort made a constructive contribution and made interesting observations on rationalization. I wish to suggest to him that if he has problems with rationalization in a specific department, he should also raise the matter when the Vote of that department is being discussed.

Finally: The hon. member for Stilfontein made an interesting contribution on professional manpower administration. I want to thank him for a constructive contribution which testified to expertise.

I shall be resuming my seat in a moment at the end of a debate that has lasted for two long days, and I say thank you very much to all those hon. members for participating. As a parting shot to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I just wish to say that if he finds no solution as to how to ascertain what is happening in the Public Service, he should ask the hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Gezina. They have thousands of officials in their constituencies and they have their finger on the pulse. They will be able to give the hon. member all the information.

I say thank you very much to all hon. members—the debate was constructive—for the good spirit in which we were able to conduct this debate. I am looking forward to next year’s debate on these matters.

Votes agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 22—“Environment Affairs”, had agreed to the Vote.