Will the hon. the Minister please explain what this is all about?

Clause 11 has been deleted to comply with the promise which I made to the Bar Council that a post-1934 advocate would not have to wait for six months before starting his articles; he can start immediately and become an attorney two years later.

Omission of Clause 11 put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 16 and 18 put and agreed to.

I move—

To omit paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) and to substitute the following paragraph:

1. (a) Any person who—
   1. (i) has satisfied all the requirements for the degree of baccalaureus legum of any university in the Republic after pursuing a course of study for that degree of not less than five years which included not less than one course in the Afrikaans language, not less than one course in the English language and not less than one course in the Latin language; or
   2. (ii) after he has satisfied all the requirements for the degree of bachelor of any university in the Republic in any faculty other than the faculty of law after pursuing a course of study for that degree which included not less than one course in the Afrikaans language, not less than one course in the English language and not less than one course in the Latin language or after he has been admitted to the status of any such degree by any such university, has satisfied all the requirements for the degree of baccalaureus legum of any such university; or
   3. (iii) has been admitted by any university in the Republic to the status of the degree of baccalaureus legum referred to in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

; and in line 37, page 5, to omit “1971”, and to substitute “1974”.

The object of this amendment is simply to put beyond all doubt the fact that the ordinary B.A., LL.B, course will still be of force and effect in spite of the passing of this Bill. This will also hold good for the B.Com. course for those universities which prefer it, while the other universities can confer the ordinary baccalaureus legum degree, that is to say, the universities which I mentioned during the second-reading debate. Secondly, the amendment gives effect to the other undertaking which I gave—that a person will now have ten years in which to pass the examinations instead of up to 1971, as originally provided in the Bill.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has cleared up the matter he has referred to. I am sure that that was always the intention but the amendment makes the position clearer. The amendment which now provides that a person who qualifies overseas shall have ten years instead of seven years to qualify, is also very welcome.

Sir, I wish to raise a matter here which I raised at the second reading. The right of persons who are admitted to practise as barristers in England, Scotland and Ireland is being abolished by this Bill …

What about Wales?

Yes, I think Wales too, but I understand that advocates there are admitted to the English Bar and they are entitled to practise in Wales. While in principle we do not object to the right of an English barrister to practise here when he has completed certain examinations—we do not object to that principle because it is a matter of reciprocity; we are no longer entitled to practise in England upon the payment of a certain sum of money—nevertheless there are at present certain people registered at the English Inns of Court who would, but for the provisions of this measure, have been qualified, upon writing Roman-Dutch Law and Statute Law when they return, to practise as advocates in South Africa. Sir, it is traditional, it is customary and it is only right that persons whose rights are now to be prescribed by the provisions of a Bill such as this, without knowledge of the provisions of the Bill, who have already engaged on a course of study, should have those rights protected, at least until they have finished their studies so that they will not be prejudiced by the provisions of this measure of which they have no notice. I therefore wish to move an amendment to this clause—

To add the following sub-paragraph at the end of paragraph (c) of sub-section (2):

My amendment is designed to give effect to what I said, namely the protection of the already existing rights of persons already registered, when the Act is passed, at one of the Inns of Court or one of the other institutions in Scotland or Ireland which would entitle them to practise as barristers in those countries. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the amendment is not drafted in the form in which I necessarily expect the hon. the Minister to accept it, and indeed if the hon. the Minister will accept the principle which is involved here and undertake that he will move an amendment in the Other Place, then I will not press this amendment at all.

The wording of my amendment follows more or less the protection given in the Bill to students at present at English universities and Dutch universities. I move this amendment and I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the principle involved; that he will undertake to have a look at it and to move an appropriate amendment in the Other Place.

: I have not had an opportunity of studying this amendment. It may possibly extend the scope of the Bill, so I am holding it over for the moment before putting it to the committee.

The amendment which the hon. member has moved here was shown to me just after the bells started ringing and so I did not have the opportunity of studying it. There are three aspects which I want to mention to the hon. member: The one is the question of reciprocity which we have already dealt with. Britain summarily terminated reciprocity with us and it is my view and that of the Bar Council that we should act in the same way. What the hon. member has in mind is not completely clear to me. Does he have in mind students who are studying overseas at the moment?

Yes.

Then the amendment is not necessary because they have ten years in which to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Their position is therefore safe. The position of students who are already studying there is quite safe. My information is—and I agree that this is so—that their position is quite safe for the next ten years.

The Bill mentions a “university” but those are not universities.

Surely one has to obtain a degree before one can be admitted to the Bar in Britain?

No; all one has to do is to pass the Bar examination and attend a few dinners!

Really, we cannot make provision here for people who do nothing else but eat! After all, one can eat very much better here than one can over there. If, therefore, the hon. member does not have students in mind, then I honestly cannot, see that I can meet him in this regard. But I do not want to give a final decision in this connection as yet. I just want to tell the hon. member that for obvious reasons I cannot accept his amendment now. I shall discuss the matter with the hon. member at a later stage again after I have consulted with the officials of my Department. I do not think that I can assist the hon. member in this regard but if I can do so, I shall move the necessary amendment in the Other Place. I cannot make any promises at this stage.

I have now considered the amendment and I find that it seeks to extend the provisions of the Bill to a specific class of persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. I therefore am unable to accept the amendment.

Sir, may I address you on a point of order? The pre-Union legislation which is being repealed in the schedule of this Bill provides that, for example, in the Transvaal and in Natal the Supreme Court may admit and enrol such persons as shall have been admitted as barristers in England or Ireland, or advocates of the Session in Scotland, to act as advocates or attorneys in the said Supreme Court of Natal. Likewise in the Transvaal the pre-Union legislation referred to in the schedule to this Bill gives the right to the court to “approve, admit to practice and enrol as an advocate of the said court therein any person who shall have been admitted as a barrister in England or Ireland or as an advocate in the Court of Session of Scotland, or as an advocate in the Supreme Court in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope”, etc. That right is being abolished altogether by the abolition of the Acts and the amendment is merely designed to water down a little the hon. the Minister’s amendment; in other words, not to extend the scope of the Bill but merely to restrict its operation. I submit, with respect, that it is therefore a competent amendment.

The amendment, if accepted would entitle people to be admitted as advocates, whose admission was not contemplated at the second reading.

Sir, may I address you on that point?

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

May I just indicate to the hon. the Minister what is involved here. This Bill specifically refers to “universities”. It says: “Any persons who at the commencement of this Act was registered as a student at a university referred to in Section 1 of the Admission of Advocates Act.” There are seven universities referred to. Originally there was the University of Oxford and there were four Dutch universities. Later on the University of Cambridge and the University of London were added. The pre-Union legislation which I have just read and which is being repealed here, provided that if you were admitted as a barrister in Britain or Scotland you were entitled, if you wrote certain other examinations, to practise at the Bar in South Africa. In other words, the qualification as a barrister in Great Britain or Scotland was considered by our courts and by our legislation to be equivalent to a university degree of another country. In fact, this right was recognized long before we recognized the law degrees of overseas universities.

In England, irrespective of the number of degrees you have—you may have five degrees of doctor of law and five bachelor of law degrees—you may not be admitted to the Bar unless you have kept terms for three years; you keep your term by eating dinners in the Inns of Court, and you have to write your Bar final examination. Many of the students in England go to university but they nevertheless keep their terms in the Inns of Court and they have to write the Bar final examination. It is true that some exemptions are granted in relation to some university examinations in England; exemptions are granted from the examinations in the Bar final examination, but these persons are entitled to-day, in terms of the legislation which I have just read, to practise as advocates in South Africa if they have done Roman-Dutch law in their Bar final examination or, if they have not done so, write when they come back, when they write Statute Law. In other words, we placed them in the same position as university students. There are a number of people who are there at the present time. I can tell the hon. the Minister that the son-in-law of an hon. member here is there at the present time, and I know of at least four people who are presently there. They are under the impression that they are entitled to come back and practise here, which, of course they are. This Bill does remove that right and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate to us that he will give this his consideration and that he will, acting in accordance with the principles which we have always adopted in these cases, move this amendment in the Other Place. I hope he will indicate to us at this stage that he is prepared to accept it.

As far as reciprocity is concerned I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when some years ago the English Inns of Court abolished our reciprocal right to practise in England on payment of £100 if we had been practising here for three years—it was an automatic right without any further examination—they did give about three years’ notice, the normal time of three years which would qualify you to be a member of the English Bar. If the hon. the Minister now wishes to abolish our part of that reciprocity then I think he ought to give, perhaps not to 1971 but just three years, which is the normal period to qualify …

Have you discussed that with your colleagues at the Bar?

In the very little time that I have had I have discussed it with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman)

I mean with members of the Bar Council.

No, I am afraid I did not have the time to discuss it with members of the Bar Council, and, furthermore, I did not feel that it was proper for me to ask the members of the delegation of the Bar Council who saw the Minister, for information which was obviously confidential information. The hon. the Minister has indicated to me that he has consulted with them.

Order! The hon. member is actually addressing the Committee now on an amendment which was ruled to be out of order. I have allowed him to state his case very widely and I think he must leave it at that.

I may be able to assist the hon. member by telling him again that I cannot take the matter any further at this stage. All I can say is that I shall discuss it with him again. After having done so I shall discuss the matter with the General Bar Council, put his point of view to them and hear what they have to say in that regard, and then I shall discuss the matter with the officials of my Department again. I cannot take the matter any further now.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

This amendment is consequential upon the amendment to Clause 3 which I have already moved.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

When the hon. the Minister replied to the second-reading debate, he replied to a query I had raised relating to this point. In sub-section (2) it is provided in effect that advocates may be able, without incurring the displeasure of the courts and without it being unprofessional conduct, to indulge in partnerships at the Bar, to share their fees and generally to behave like partners as attorneys do. The hon. Minister told the House that this was a measure which the Bar itself had asked to be put in the Bill. He told us that the General Bar Council had sent him a draft Bill; he read the relevant section and it read word for word what is in this Bill. What disturbs me is that the hon. the Minister then said: “Well, this is a matter they want; I do not know why they want it; here it is in the Bill.” But the hon. the Minister is introducing this Bill; he is in charge of it; he must know why this was inserted in it. As a member of the profession I am very interested to know why this provision is being put in, why the hon. the Minister is sponsoring it and why he wants it in. Is it anticipated that partnerships will be allowed at the Bar? Because if they are it would be a most important change in the centuries-old traditions of the Bar. There must be a good reason for it because it will have all sorts of side-effects. It is something I should like to know the reasons for before I approve of it. I think this Committee is entitled to far more than the Minister gave to the House during the second reading, namely, that it was something the Bar wanted and that he did not know what it is all about, I hope he will not proceed with it.

The position is precisely as I explained it to the hon. member. This clause is word for word the same as that contained in the draft Bill drawn up by the General Bar Council themselves. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that there is scarcely one Bar in South Africa which has not at some or other stage discussed the question of partnerships. While I was a member of the Johannesburg Bar, we had a heated discussion on the question of whether partnerships should be permitted or not. The majority of the members at the Bar rejected that proposal. As Minister I cannot have a provision passed to the effect that advocates may not enter into partnerships. That is completely beyond my province.

That provision is in the law at the moment.

No, there is no law which states that advocates cannot enter into partnerships. The hon. member is aware of the fact that this is the practice at the Bar but there is no law at all which provides that advocates may not enter into partnerships. This matter is regulated by the individual decision of every Bar. It may be that Johannesburg, for example, decides to allow partnerships, while Durban may decide not to allow them. A decision of that nature is within the discretion of the Bar as such. I believe that, with this in mind, the General Bar Council would like a provision of that nature in this legislation. The hon. member is aware of the fact that an advocate who is instructed to appear is sometimes prevented from doing so because of certain circumstances. Even if a colleague of his appears for him, he still receives the fee in connection with that instruction. The hon. member knows of the practice that exists in this regard. From the nature of the case this matter is now being covered by this clause as far as the question of “sharing the trap” is concerned. I want to say again that I did not even take the trouble to inquire into why the Bar Council had asked for this provision because it is a completely domestic matter of the Bar Council which has nothing to do with me at all. It is not contrary to public policy; it is not harmful to morals or anything of that nature and that is why it does not concern me. If the Bar Council tell me that they want this provision, then in principle I cannot see any reason at all why I should not grant their request. They are a responsible body; they are a body who want to make their own decisions in regard to their own domestic affairs. Except when it is in conflict with public policy, I respect the wishes of the Bar Council to decide on their domestic policy themselves. Because this provision is contained in their own Bill, I fear that there is nothing I can say about it.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has given us that explanation. He did not give it to us before. Now we know what the position is.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move the amendment printed in my name—

In line 53, to omit “1971.” and to substitute “1974”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause, Schedule and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

This clause provides for new arrangements in regard to the financing of the bureau. There is the question of parliamentary control when it comes to investing any moneys that are surplus to the Estimates that will be presented by the Minister at the end of the financial year. These provisions are very similar to those contained in another measure affecting the C.S.I.R., a measure the House still has to deal with. I should therefore like to move the following amendment—

I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment. I think it is wrong that it should be left entirely in the discretion of the Standards Board as to how many should be invested. I think there should be adequate control.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I avail myself of the privilege of the half-hour? There are two aspects of the Minister’s Vote with which I wish to deal. The first relates to the Police Force. The Minister has indicated to the House that there is a shortage of policemen. The question which was originally asked him was whether there was a shortage of members of the Security Branch of the Police Force, or where the shortage was. There was a feeling that there was a shortage of patrol policemen as well and that the Police Force looked as if it might be getting a little top heavy. In answer to these questions the Minister indicated that he regarded the Security Branch, the Detective Force and the ordinary force as one force, so that he could not distinguish between the one branch and the other branch as to whether or not there were too few in the one and too many in the other. The result is that we have no real figures to go by. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some indication, although he regards the different branches as one force, how the men are allocated to each division. The hon. the Minister has said that there is a shortage of policemen. One of the complaints that one hears from all the urban centres is that there do not seem to be enough policemen on patrol duty. The hon. the Minister gave the House the figures in answer to a question but the figures which are available nonetheless seem to be inadequate. I do not wish to criticize the hon. the Minister in this regard. The hon. the Minister is trying to recruit more policemen and I wish him luck in his efforts to gain more men.

However, there are a few suggestions I should like to make to him. One of them is in regard to the retiring age of policemen. As the hon. the Minister has also indicated in reply to a question policemen normally retire at the age of 58. At the end of last year Colonel Bill Ayres, known well to all of us in Natal, who was the Divisional Commissioner of the West Rand Police Command, said the following according to the Star—

That was what he said. The hon. the Minister has indicated that in practice they do keep these people on. I think I read something in the newspaper about something he said in the Other Place in this regard. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate to us whether he will consider the question of raising the retiring age of policemen.

The other factor which regard could be had to in relation to the shortage of police is the wastage which seems to occur in the Police Force itself. Over the last four years the Police College trained a large number of men but a great many left the force. The figures for last year were better than for previous years. I think the figures require some explanation from the hon. the Minister. In 1960 915 persons passed through the Police College and 393 subsequently resigned from the Police Force. In 1961 871 passed through the College and 332 subsequently resigned. In 1962 1,131 went through the College and 365 resigned. In 1963 1,461 went through the College and 166 resigned. The position obviously improved in 1963 but the fact that one-third resigned requires some explanation from the hon. the Minister. It seems that there is quite a lot of wastage of manpower in this regard.

The other aspect is whether the hon. the Minister has considered at all whether or not he can employ women to do certain duties so as to make more men available for patrol duty and the like.

As far as the hon. Minister’s use of his police is concerned I want to say in all sincerity to the Minister that the attitude which he adopts, namely, “my police, right or wrong” does not redound to the credit of the Police Force. I want to say this in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister …

When did I adopt that attitude?

I shall indicate to the Minister that he always adopts that attitude. When the hon. the Minister refuses to have a judicial commission of inquiry into the activities of the Police Force in certain respects he is not doing the police a service. He is not doing them a service when he says we want him to chop off the hands of the police. Good heavens, Sir, surely the majority of the police do not indulge in the practices which were referred to. We are quite satisfied that the majority do not. When the Minister refuses to have any sort of judicial inquiry into the matter …

Just for a few persons?

Yes, just for a few members. I believe only a few members are involved. But what happens? The Police Force get the general reputation when only a few people are involved.

Let me refer the hon. the Minister to this question of police trapping in immorality cases, brothel cases and kindred cases. My hon. Leader raised this matter in the no-confidence debate in relation to a case where it appeared that a White woman had been used as a trap. What the Judge said in that case was this—

Whatever technical description the hon. the Minister is going to give to the words “trap” and “trapping”, the fact of the matter is that we had hoped that this trapping had been abolished, at least in spirit if not in technical language, in 1959. The hon. Minister will recall that an instruction was issued at that time by the then Minister of Justice. This hon. Minister has ever since indicated that this instruction was still in force. He has also indicated that the word “trap” is used in that instruction. What is a trap? In the case where the man hid in the boot of a car the Minister said they were not acting as traps.

Certainly not.

There you are. What were the facts? There were two policemen apparently acting as a team because this had happened on more than one occasion in relation to the same two policemen. In fact, in relation to the one policeman, it happened a few years ago. The hon. Minister agrees that it had. These policemen go out, the one sits in the car and the other one hides in the boot. What is the object of the operation?

To get corroborating evidence.

Yes, to get corroborating evidence. Will the Minister say that in every single case they are looking for a particular person whom they know is a solicitor, is a prostitute?

They sat at the place where the public complained they were soliciting.

Do the policemen make any advances; do they say anything?

They sit in the car as any man from the public would sit.

And that is not a “trap”.

No, certainly not.

When the Minister replies will he indicate to us what a trap is? What does he regard as a trap? Since I put that question on the Order Paper one of my constituents wrote to me, and strangely enough, told me that one of the girls involved in this case happened to be his servant. She is a girl with no previous convictions of any kind at all, let alone any convictions under the Immorality Act. That was a fact which was taken into account by the court. Surely the hon. the Minister should not put his police in this position that they have to sit there. The one chap sits there and waits for someone to solicit him; or does he make a suggestion to someone else; does he look at them or ask them whether they want a lift or something of that sort? Because if the hon. Minister believes that they do not, he is very optimistic, I think. If they do so, this is a disgraceful practice.

I find nothing disgraceful about it whatsoever.

Then there was another case in which I believe the same sergeant was involved. He was investigating a complaint in relation to some Coloured woman. He went to her room with his colleague and he understood that she thought he was someone else. He allowed her to talk to him in endearing terms; he allowed her to kiss him …

She did not give him a chance.

Oh, he was so defenceless he had no chance! I see. Here is the hon. the Minister again making excuses all the time as if he has a brief always to defend every policeman in all circumstances. That is what the hon. Minister is doing this moment and that is what I have been telling him he is doing all the time. Consider this. Sir: She speaks to him in endearing terms— she called him “darling” according to the evidence. She talked to him for a while and he then formed the impression that she thought he and his colleague were some friends of hers. He allows her to kiss him; he allows her to undress and then allows her to ask for money. That takes time but in all that time he never once told her he was a policeman. Is that the sort of behaviour the hon. Minister approves of? Is there nothing wrong with that? Surely it was his duty to tell her he was a policeman, to tell her what the complaint was and to warn her. I do not want to tell the Minister what I think a policeman should do; let me tell him what a Judge of the Supreme Court said he thought a policeman should do in these cases. There was a case where a policeman followed a young couple—White and Coloured—all round the place, in and out of parks; he stood behind hedges and at the moment critique he rushed in and arrested them both. Justice Rosenow said—

That, I believe, is the attitude the police should adopt in these cases. If the hon. Minister says this is not a trap then it seems to me that his attitude is going to emasculate all the instructions which have been issued in this regard. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a “trap” as “a trick for betraying persons into speech or act”. It seems to me that this man who was hiding in the boot of the motor-car was either a trap as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary or he was suffering from the opposite of claustrophobia. The Minister cannot have it both ways, Sir. If he approves of this sort of conduct he is placing the police in a very difficult position. He is putting the policemen’s families in a very unsavoury position and in a very unnecessary position. If the hon. Minister cannot get his convictions any other way it seems to me the Minister should consider the laws he is administering. If the Minister were to say: “I do not approve of this sort of thing” I believe we would have no more difficulty. I believe he would be helping the other policemen. But I think his attitude towards the police is to encourage those things because as soon as something is raised which might be irregular or which looks irregular or unsavoury, although not contrary to instructions, the Minister always protects the policemen and encourages the few wrongdoers. I do not think he helps the policemen by doing so. If there is such a case, and he does not approve of it, he should do something about it.

I want to ask the Minister about one other aspect. I have raised this matter before but the Minister has not replied to it yet. I do not think he had the opportunity of replying to it. It is this: When in a court of law —Supreme Court or magistrate’s court—a confession which has been tendered by the State is rejected by the court on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily made, what happens to that case? Is that case investigated? I do not want the Minister to tell me that this is the concern of the Attorney-General, because it is not. The concern of the Attorney-General is to put the facts before the court. If he puts that as a piece of evidence before the court and the court rejects it then that is that. Then, I believe, the matter goes to the Minister’s Police Department or should do. I want to know from the Minister whether that file is just filed away or is an investigation made into the evidence which was led in that particular case? I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate what his attitude is.

I want to deal very briefly in the time still at my disposal with two questions in regard to the courts. One of the matters is the question of compulsory whipping. As the hon. Minister knows, our law provides for compulsory whipping in many cases, and I believe that this compulsion in relation to whipping does not help the course of justice, because very often where a compulsory whipping is required in respect of an offence, e.g. tampering with a motor-car, or entering a locked motor-car, the court is in the position that no matter how small the offence, no matter how minor the offence, it must impose a compulsory whipping. I have had many complaints about this from members on the Bench that they are almost in a position that they have to lean over backwards to see that the conviction is something other than the offence for which a compulsory whipping is prescribed. I think the whole basis should be reviewed. The hon. Minister said that it was being reviewed, and I hope that he can indicate to us what stage the investigations have got to, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that he is going to abolish the whole system.

The other matter which I want to deal with very briefly is the question of bonuses paid to the Attorney-General’s assistants. When they prosecute cases they get a bonus in certain instances. They get a bonus on the basis that they have handled the case well. Now, Sir, from the State’s point of view, I think a case is handled exceptionally well when a conviction is obtained in each case. Obviously this is a big feature. If you are briefed by the State, you are employed by the State to prosecute a case in respect of certain facts, and if you get a conviction it seems to me that you are likely to be looked at more favourably than if all the accused are acquitted and all the time of the State is wasted. I think it is undesirable, I think it is unfortunate that a man who is a prosecutor should have to be in the position that it pays him to get a conviction. Once our prosecutors feel that way, once they deviate from the duty which is to put all the facts before the court, honestly and openly, once they have it in their mind at all that it is to their benefit to get a conviction, I do not believe we will get justice in our courts. I hope the hon. Minister will be very wary of this thing and tell us exactly how he applies it and with what safeguards.

Before replying to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) it may interest the House to know that judgment in the Rivonia trial was given this morning. The judgment of Mr. Justice De Wet was that all the accused were found guilty on all charges, except accused number five who was only found guilty on charge number two, that is to say, the accused Kathrada, and that accused number six, Bernstein, was found not guilty on all four charges. Of course, there is a warrant out for Bernstein on various other charges which will take their course in the normal course of events. The court then adjourned until to-morrow morning. I understand that the court will then be addressed in regard to sentence.

I want to reply immediately to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) and I want to express my pleasure, without casting any reflection, that we have eventually started discussing the Vote which we were originally supposed to discuss. The hon. member asked me about the strength of the Police Force as a whole, and the transfer of police from one branch to the other. I told the hon. member on a previous occasion that everything depended upon circumstances. At the present moment, a large number of police whose services would otherwise be employed, are working for the Security Branch because their services are required there. As soon as their services are no longer required there, they will no longer be employed there. I want to tell the hon. member further that the facilities at the police college were very restricted for many years. Immediately I took over this portfolio I felt that we should take urgent steps to extend those facilities as soon as possible. There was a time when we could only train a few hundred policemen there. We increased the available facilities to such an extend that under very difficult circumstances we were able to train 1,000 policemen. With the sound co-operation of the Treasury and other State Departments, like Public Works, I can say that we have managed to eliminate all “red tape” and we have had the necessary buildings erected there at very great expense —R2,645,000—in order to make provision for our increased requirements. From next year we will be able to train 2,000 men per annum there. This was the target I set myself three years ago, and this is the target we shall achieve. I am also grateful to be able to tell the Committee that I believe that we will obtain the required number of recruits. In this connection I want very emphatically to reject the insinuation which I understand was made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that we do not attract the right type of person to the Police Force. I think that we have every reason to be very proud of the type of recruit we attract and the simple fact that people leave the service and find better positions elsewhere is simply because we attract such a good type of recruit and because they receive such a good training at the college that they are particularly sought after by employers in the country. In discussing this matter I may just as well tell the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) what the position is in connection with housing, which was a point which he raised. As far as housing is concerned I can tell the hon. member that I have discussed this question very thoroughly with the Commissioner because both the Commissioner and I are worried about the housing position. We have had discussions with my hon. colleague, Minister Botha, with the Treasury and with other bodies concerned, and I am very pleased that we have managed to iron out this matter to the satisfaction of all. If the hon. member will look at the Estimates for this year he will see that an amount has been voted to cover 361 houses for members of the Police Force. When next year’s Estimates are tabled the hon. member will find that provision will be made in those Estimates for a further 454 houses. It is true that there is a backlog in this connection. I am keenly aware of that fact. But I want to go so far as to say that we have taken the necessary steps to catch up on this backlog. As far as the houses at Empangeni in his constituency are concerned, I have promised the hon. member that we on our part will take the matter further and will ensure that those houses are built this year. Of course, my Department does not build these houses but I have been told by the Department responsible for the building of these houses that tenders for the houses will close on 16 July and that building operations will start immediately thereafter. I have also further been given the assurance that the houses will be ready by the end of the year. Of course, I cannot take the matter any further than this.

The hon. member for Durban (North) spoke about police women. We have already discussed this matter on many occasions. We are employing women to an increasing extent in the service to do clerical work but the composition of our population and the conditions of service are of such a nature that we cannot employ police women in the stricter sense of the word. We have already discussed this matter but I am afraid that I cannot take it any further.

The hon. member accused me of always defending the police. I make no apologies for defending the police force against attacks. I am their Minister and it is my duty to defend them. I hope that I shall always do so. In saying this I want to make it clear that I do not condone their actions when they are guilty of improper conduct. We bring them to court; we take disciplinary measures against them and they are reprimanded if they do wrong. But I shall certainly be neglecting my duty if I do not defend the South African Police. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that unjust attacks are made on the South African Police. So it is not only my duty to defend them but it is my privilege to do so. This is somehing I do with pleasure, particularly with a view to the enormous amount of work which these men do for us under very difficult circumstances. A policeman is not an ordinary civil servant who works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and then goes home. These men have to work at night; they have to work under all conditions; they have to do dangerous work; the public expect a great deal of them and they do not receive much thanks for what they do. The overt attacks which are made upon them, even in this House, leave their marks. It is true that on the one hand they are praised for what they are doing, because this is a popular thing to do, but the hon. member knows just as well as I do that there are people in this House who make use of every opportunity that they have to snipe at the police. I make no accusations in this regard. All we know is that there are people in this House who will do this if they are given half a chance to do so. The hon. member asked what is being done in connection with confessions which are not accepted. All I can tell him in this regard is what has been done over the years and is still being done, nothing more and nothing less. Confessions are submitted to the court and the Court either accepts or rejects them. If the court is of opinion, because the court has heard evidence in regard to the whole matter, and if it is said, that the confession was obtained under duress, the question of the compulsion used is investigated. If it is said that a person has been beaten in order to obtain a confession from him, then that evidence is before the court. If the court finds that there are irregularities which merit investigating, the court refers the matter to the Attorney-General. The hon. member is in practice and well knows what the position is. The court will not allow evidence to be led if an accused person has been beaten in order to make him confess. A court does not act in that way. Our courts say that it is wrong that this should be done. The Attorney-General is in court and the Judge tells the Attorney-General: “You must give your attention to this matter.” What is more, the hon. member knows that the Attorney-General decides; he or his representative is in the court and takes note of what transpires there and acts accordingly. This has been the position over the years. This is not something new that came into being yesterday or the day before yesterday. This was the position when hon. members opposite were in power and if they come into power again in 50 years’ time, they will find the position exactly the same. The hon. member will then be a little older than he is now but he will find the position to be the same then as it is now. There is nothing wrong with the line of conduct followed in this regard.

The hon. member referred to the question of compulsory corporal punishment. On a previous occasion I told the hon. member that I did not feel too happy about this matter. That was why I ordered an inquiry, an inquiry which investigated many aspects of the matter. I think that I shall be able to come to this House with legislation in this regard next year. I am not a protagonist of compulsory corporal punishment for second and third offenders, people who have been punished in this way before. A provisional survey in this connection shows that corporal punishment is a good thing for a first offence and that there is something to say for it as far as a second offence is concerned. But it appears to me that it should perhaps be done away with in regard to a person who is a third or fourth offender because in this connection it would appear not to have served the purpose which one had in mind for it. But in addition to this fact, the whole principle of compulsory corporal punishment is something to which I am going to give very serious consideration. I ask myself, without at this stage compromising either myself or the Department or making any promise in this regard, whether with a view to i all the circumstances, I should not leave the whole question of the imposition of corporal punishment in the discretion of the courts. This is a matter which weighs very heavily with me.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister also give consideration to reviewing the question of compulsory corporal punishment for juveniles? I believe that there is no automatic review in this regard.

Yes. I am also investigating that aspect of the matter and, as I have said, I think that I shall be able to come forward next year to this House with legislation in this connection.

The hon. member spoke about bonuses for the assistants of the Attorney-General. I have still to investigate this matter and I shall reply to the hon. member at a later stage in this regard.

I almost forgot the matter about which the hon. member has been asking questions throughout the entire Session—the question of “traps”. The public complain, they complain, a great deal and they complain vociferously— I say that they have every reason to complain to the police in this regard—that there are certain parts of our cities where they are pestered by women who solicit them. They demand that the police take action in this regard. They themselves do not want to go to court in this connection, the people who are pestered, the members of the public. There is a great deal of distasteful publicity given to matters of this nature, as the hon. member will realize. These people tell the police: “You must ensure that we are not pestered and solicited.” What does the hon. member expect us to do? Must we tell these people: “If you do not want to talk, if you do not want to give evidence, if you do not want to endure the publicity in this regard, then we can do nothing to assist you?” Will the hon. member tell me that that is what he expects us to tell them? Or must I protect the public in this connection? Is it fair that I should tell the public that they should come forward themselves with-evidence in this regard? Or must the police obtain the evidence? Has the hon. member ever put himself in the position of the police? What are the police doing now? They go to these places where the members of the public have complained that they have been solicited. Members of the public who complain say that they do nothing to encourage these people; they say that they are absolutely innocent. They say that they were sitting in a motor car waiting for a friend or a wife or a girl-friend and that these women solicited them while they were sitting in their car. The police then wait in cars at these places. What is wrong with that? That policeman acts in the same way as any other member of the public who has been solicited. But the police car is equipped in such a way that another policeman is able to hide away to provide the necessary evidence. Those women who pester members of the public then come along and solicit the policeman. Is it wrong that the police should act in this way? I find nothing wrong with it at all. I think that the public are perfectly entitled to that protection. I want to ask the hon. member whose case he is pleading. He is not pleading the case of the public; he is not pleading the case of his voters whom I protect in Durban; certainly not. The detective certainly does not entice those people into committing a crime. A decoy is a person who approaches an innocent or semi-innocent person and tries to get them to commit a crime. That is a decoy. But in these cases the public are protected and we will continue to take action of this nature in order to protect the public against these undesirable elements. If the hon. member knows of a better method of action in this regard will he tell me about it?

May I ask a question? Does the hon. the Minister adopt the same attitude in connection with brothels? If the public complain about brothels will he also send the police along to those places?

I shall come to that point. The hon. member is now trying to avoid the questions that I have put to him by means of this counter-question which he has put to me. But I never run away from a question. The position in regard to brothels is simple. An instruction has been issued that they are to have no part in any sex act. The hon. member will remember the fuss that was made some years ago, before I took over the portfolio—the fuss that was made in this connection. The hon. member knows the instructions that were given. Those instructions were simply carried out. The police have no part in the sex act. But we cannot allow immorality to flourish and not do anything to try to halt it. I want to repeat that if the hon. member knows of any better methods by means of which to combat this evil, I shall be very grateful if he will tell me about them. I make no promises to the hon. member. We now have new medals in the Police Force which can even be presented to civilians. I shall have pleasure in presenting the hon. member with one of these medals if he can suggest a better method than the method that we are using at the moment.

The hon. member also discussed a matter in regard to which he put a question to me—the question of the two police officials and the Coloured woman. The hon. member will remember the case. Here again the public complained that this sort of thing was happening in a certain neighbourhood. It greatly alarmed them and their children were scandalized. They approached the police and said: “You must investigate what is going on and you must take action.” The police went along to that neighbourhood and even before they could make themselves known or anything of that nature, this woman tried to solicit them and used certain terms to them. The police immediately arrested her. Members of the public had complained that this woman had thrown her arms around their necks and had tried to do all sorts of things with them. They asked the police to put an end to this state of affairs. What happened to certain members of the public also happened to the police. What did the police do wrong? Should they have made an arrest or should they have run away? Of course they made an arrest because the public had made complaints in that regard justifiable complaints.

It is so easy, it is terribly easy to criticize. It is also a part of human nature to criticize, and I do not resent the fact that this is what the hon. member has done. I want the hon. member to put himself for one moment in the position of a police official. He must also put himself in the position of members of the public who complain and who expect action to be taken. If he does so, I am sure that he will realize that most of his criticism is unfounded. I want to make it very clear that some of these things are distasteful. One would rather they did not happen. But part of the work of the police is very distasteful. A policeman is there to do what is distasteful for the sake of the public. This is not always an easy thing to do. They perform this duty to the best of their ability.

I want to bring a certain matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I have received repeated complaints over the past year from people living in the Coloured residential areas of Buffalo Flats and Parkside at East London in regard to the lack of police protection. On Sunday, 30 May, I visited the area myself. In one part of the Coloured residential area we came upon a group of young Coloured and young Bantu who were gambling. This was on Sunday afternoon at about 4 o’clock. They did not even look up when the car stopped because they knew that it could not be the police; the police never go there. In the week ended 30 May there were six burgularies in the Buffalo Flats area. In one case—I myself visited the home of those people—the furniture in the house was stolen. The position is not at all as it should be because the Bantu residential area known as Jo’burg adjoins the Coloured residential area. The two areas are supposed to be separated by a fence but the fence has been trampled down. The people come and go as they please. On the night of 29/30 May, two Coloured men, residents of Buffalo Flats, noticed two Bantu acting suspiciously. They caught one of them. I can give the hon. the Minister the names of these people. They caught one of them and one of the Coloured went to the telephone to telephone the police. After about an hour or so—they were holding the Bantu while waiting for the police to arrive—they gave him a hiding with a sjambok and let him go, and still the police had not turned up. I know what the difficulty is, and I shall deal with it later. That area is surrounded by thick bush and I am told by various people who live there that vagrant Bantu sleep in the bush there and steal from the residents an that area at night. It is high time that that bush was fine-combed and cleared. Unless I am mistaken, there is a training centre at East London for Coloured police and it may be good practice for them if they are used to clear that bush around the Buffalo Flats Parkside area. But in my opinion the reason why the people there cannot be given sufficient police protection is the fact that there are an insufficient number of Coloured police and I ascribe the shortage of Coloured police directly to the salaries paid to Coloured policemen. I have received many requests in this regard over the years. Coloured policemen have said: “Sir, please try to do something about our salaries.” I have here the salaries paid by the Department of Coloured Affairs and by the Department of Defence and have compared them with the salaries paid to the Coloured members of the Police Force. I have the official figures here and can give them to the hon. the Minister if he wants to see them. We find that a soldier in the Cape Corps starts on a salary of R55 per month. He is housed in barracks where he is well cared for. He is fed and his uniform and whatever else he requires is given to him gratis by the De partment. We find that a Coloured doorman in the Department of Coloured Affairs receive R43 per month. We find that a Coloured constable is paid a starting salary of R30 per month. Compare this with the starting salary of a White constable of R90 per month. In other words, a Coloured constable starts on one-third the salary on which a White constable starts. I have complained in this House on many occasions about the fact that a Coloured is paid only half the pension paid to a White person. But here we have a case where Coloured constables are paid one-third of the salaries paid to Whites. A Sergeant in the Cape Corps receives a salary of R95 Der month and a Coloured Sergeant in the Police Force is paid R55 per month. A Senior Sergeant in the Cape Corps receives R100 per month and a Coloured Senior Sergeant in the police receives R60 per month. In the first instance, it is quite clear that as a result of these low salaries the right man is not attracted to the force. It is well known that Coloured recruits to the Police Force come mostly from the platteland where they do not have other opportunities for employment, but there are virtually no Coloured recruits to the Police Force in the cities. A few months ago a Station Commander in a Coloured area in Cape Town was instructed to recruit new members for the force. He passed this instruction on to his best Coloured Sergeant who devoted his entire day to going from house to house in that area. At the end of the day he was only able to report a possible two recruits. The first question that is asked is the salary that is paid, and he has to tell these people that it is R30 per month. When he hon. the Minister replied just now to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), he said that the police have to do distasteful work and necessary and dangerous work. The fact remains that a Coloured constable bears the same responsibility as anyone else. He has to carry out his duties and he has to be a person who cannot be tempted by a bribe of R50 by evildoers—this is more than his month’s salary—simply to look the other way for half an hour. It is dangerous in this sense that apart from the fact that one does not attract the right type of person, the salary of the Coloured constable is so low that he is open to bribery. There are black sheep in any race group, but these people should not be exposed to temptations of this nature. I make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to give his attention to having something positive done in connection with the salaries of Coloured members of the Police Force.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to give urgent attention to the question of the police protection which is required particularly in the Coloured areas of East London. When one enters the Coloured area from the direction of East London (North) one has to pass through a deep valley which is a thickly wooded area. It happens regularly on Friday evenings that people are lain in wait for and robbed of their money. A few months ago the wife of a Coloured detective was criminally assaulted there and up to the present her assailant has not been arrested. She was dragged into the bush and even though she screamed and even though there were other people in the vicinity they were too afraid to go to her assistance because they had no protection. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the position there. I can assure him that an improvement in the salaries of Coloured constables will be welcomed throughout the country.

I want to reply immediately to the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) because I am afraid that I may forget to reply to him at a later stage. The hon. member referred to a certain residential area. Of course, I have no knowledge of that area but I have made a note of his complaint and I shall have the matter investigated.

As far as the salaries of Coloured constables and prison officials are concerned, the hon. member has a legitimate complaint. It is not only he who is of this opinion, the Department and everyone concerned in this matter is of the same opinion. The hon. member will remember that a short while ago the hon. the Minister of the Interior announced that something would be done in connection with the salaries of Coloured officials. These adjusted salaries of Coloured civil servants, including Coloured members of the police and prisons services, will be announced soon. These improvements have already been approved of in principle and will be announced shortly. I think that these improvements will be to the satisfaction of everybody. If the stumbling-block to recruitment is the question of salaries, the new salary structure will remove that stumbling-block. Notwithstanding this fact, however, I hold the view that the police deserve better salaries.

As a farmer I want to express a word of appreciation to the police for the way in which they are doing their duty. I want to express appreciation for the courteous way in which they treat people at all times and the way in which they try to give effect particularly to the wishes of the farmers. I want further to express appreciation for the way in which they are disciplined. I have had the opportunity of seeing these people perform their duties under extremely difficult circumstances and provocation and how they have remained calm and composed in performing those duties. When one sees things of this nature, one cannot do otherwise than to express one’s greatest respect for the police.

But there is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Last year I had the opportunity of watching an exhibition given by the police at the GoodwoodShowgrounds, an exhibition by mounted police. I did not feel too pleased about the horses which were used on that occasion. There are wonderful police horses and I want to mention, the names of Fleur and Nugget. When one sees a policeman mounted on one of those horses, one feels proud, particularly if one is a lover of horses. There are also other animals which look good and show up well but there are some horses which I feel should not participate in an exhibition of this nature. There is nothing more attractive than to see a man riding a horse which is full of life and well disciplined, but it is not so nice to see a policeman on a horse which looks weary before he mounts it and which looks even more weary once he is in the saddle. I asked for information in regard to the number of horses still being used by the police to-day. I was told that the number was 270. This is not many. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the horses acquired for the police are of a high standard so that justice can be done to the horse as well as to the rider. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to acceding to this request.

There is another matter I want to raise. It is estimated in regard to the Orange River project that between 4,000 and 5,000 nonWhite labourers will be employed from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam down to the end of the tunnel. I understand that most of them will be Bantu. I do not know what steps are going to be taken to exercise proper control over those thousands of Bantu, but they say that prevention is better than cure and that is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure …

We are at the moment making a survey of the requirements there.

I am very grateful in that regard. I have personal interests there. The tunnel passes under my land and I am sure the hon. the Minister will realize with what mixed feelings the farmers under whose land the tunnel will pass regard the fact that there will be thousands of Bantu.

Provision has already been made in this regard in the Estimates.

Then I shall not take up the time of the Committee any longer. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to my request in connection with the horses because I am very proud of them.

When the debate was adjourned last night I was raising with the Minister the question of the shortage of staff in certain important grades in the Police Force and I suggested certain methods whereby that shortage could be overcome. I dealt with the question of housing to which the Minister replied this morning, and I am glad to have the assurance he gave. I was aware that These items would be placed on the Estimates, but in some cases the complaint has been that whereas the money has been on the Estimates for years, the houses were not built.

But there is another aspect of the problem of the shortage of manpower in the Police Force. If you are short you must consider ways of using that force more efficiently. I believe there are certain avenues which should be explored whereby greater use can be made of the existing manpower. Firstly, if you want fewer men to go further, one method of overcoming that difficulty is to give them more transport to make them more mobile. This is a cry one gets from all quarters and not only from my own constituency. There is in almost every case the cry for more vehicles, particularly four-wheeled drive vehicles of the jeep or Land Rover variety. We have had tremendous Budget surpluses this year. Let us use some of that money to make available more vehicles in the country areas where long distances have to be covered in order to make better use of the few men available. One comes across the situation over and over that the policemen are at the police station, but because the one vehicle they have at that station is out in the country perhaps 20 miles away, the men who are left there cannot go out on a call but have to wait until the vehicle returns, and hours are lost. One can take it a stage further. Even the vehicle is not the complete answer if that vehicle is going to be away from the place where the messages are received for any length of time. I would urge on the Minister to make better use of his limited number of policemen by increasing the number of vehicles equipped with radio, and the number of centres from which they can operate. In times of emergency telephone services are really useless. The wires can be cut and in any case in many parts of the country the trunk lines are so heavily overloaded that one simply cannot get urgent messages through. If one looks at the recent reports of the Commissioner of Police, one sees that he also urges the necessity for radio communication. In the report for 1962 he says—

I would suggest in regard to that that there should be an increase in two-way radio vehicles, in addition to the fixed stations. Then he goes on to say—

I quite agree with that. In the time that has passed since 1962 that ground for urging the development of radio communication has naturally increased. He says—

In the same report one finds that in respect of border control in the Natal division there was one vehicle for the whole of Natal, in 1962, fitted with radio, and it was linked with a fixed station at Maklabatini. The report for 1963, whilst saying that radio communication by means of these vehicles has been extended, does not give as much detail as the previous report. One sees from the 1963 report that FM sets for urban use have been fitted to 417 vehicles, but the number of sets which can be used for long-distance communication is only 37, and there are only 37 FM portable sets. In view of the importance of the services which the police render, particularly in the country areas, and particularly where there are large concentrations of Natives, I would urge the Minister to expand this service greatly because it will have the effect of enabling him to use more efficiently such staff as he has in those areas.

Then there is the question of promotion. Very often one finds that policemen take leave to study for their examinations, but it does not necessarily follow that having passed the examinations they will be promoted. One can understand that there must be selection and that promotion cannot depend merely on a man’s ability to pass an examination, but I would suggest that the selection takes place prior to these people spending their time and energy, and very often their leave, in studying. If the examination takes place after the selection, that source of dissatisfaction will be done away with.

I raised last year, and I want to raise again, the question of encouraging policemen to learn Bantu languages. I hope the Minister will consider establishing a scheme whereby it will be made worth their while to learn these languages. It is quite impossible to interrogate a person successfully through an interpreter. The White policeman who can speak the Native language commands infinitely more respect from the Native than one who has to speak through an interpreter, and the number of young men who can speak the Native languages is unfortunately decreasing.

I rise to give the Committee certain information and not to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member. The hon. member will notice that provision is made this year for radio communications equipment and motor vehicles. The hon. member will see that additional provision has been made for 225 vehicles. This will wipe out the backlog that there has been in this regard. As far as radio communications equipment is concerned, the following provision is being made this year—

The hon. member will see therefore that provision is being made on the Estimates for this year for everything that he has mentioned.

We have once again had the opportunity of witnessing a spectacular attack by the Opposition upon this side of the House. This takes me back to the start of this Session. It has become clear to us on far more occasions than yesterday afternoon that we on this side do not know how to sum up the Opposition. On some days they stand up here and act like our fellow Afrikaners, when it suits them to do so; they share in the administration of the country and the safety of our country and nation in a hostile world.We have once again had the opportunity of witnessing a spectacular attack by the Opposition upon this side of the House. This takes me back to the start of this Session. It has become clear to us on far more occasions than yesterday afternoon that we on this side do not know how to sum up the Opposition. On some days they stand up here and act like our fellow Afrikaners, when it suits them to do so; they share in the administration of the country and the safety of our country and nation in a hostile world.We have once again had the opportunity of witnessing a spectacular attack by the Opposition upon this side of the House. This takes me back to the start of this Session. It has become clear to us on far more occasions than yesterday afternoon that we on this side do not know how to sum up the Opposition. On some days they stand up here and act like our fellow Afrikaners, when it suits them to do so; they share in the administration of the country and the safety of our country and nation in a hostile world.We have once again had the opportunity of witnessing a spectacular attack by the Opposition upon this side of the House. This takes me back to the start of this Session. It has become clear to us on far more occasions than yesterday afternoon that we on this side do not know how to sum up the Opposition. On some days they stand up here and act like our fellow Afrikaners, when it suits them to do so; they share in the administration of the country and the safety of our country and nation in a hostile world.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to discussing the Vote.

But the next day the United Party destroys what it has advocated on the previous day. This means that from time to time we have scenes such as that of yesterday. We are living in a hostile world and we must be careful of what we do, particularly in this House. We think of the many resolutions that have been adopted against us as a country and a nation with the idea of destroying us. It is absolutely farcical to say that apartheid is to blame for this fact. The main idea behind this feeling against South Africa is to overthrow the White Government in this country. That is why we have this trouble. We think of the winds of change story—that is where the trouble started. As far as we on this side are concerned the United Party must not resent the fact if we say that they are collaborating with the enemies of our country. The hon. the Minister is attacked from time to time, as happened again yesterday. All the safety measures that he has taken are also attacked. It cannot be denied that hon. members opposite are collaborating with the enemies of our people.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “collaborating with the enemies”.

I withdraw those words but I want to say that the Opposition are unfaithful in their actions in regard to the protection of our country and its people. They think that they can win seats by acting in this way but we are going to win seats as a result of their conduct yesterday. That is how their own voters feel. The voters know that everything is at stake—their safety and their possessions. The hon. the Minister has told us about the judgment in the Rivonia case. Can it be said that there is any reason to protect fifth columnists? Can it be said that the measures which are taken to protect the country are wrong? But hon. members opposite are always finding fault in this regard and launching attacks against the hon. the Minister. This fact has done them more harm than good. I want to assure the United Party that while they continue to act in this way, to find fault with the actions of the Government and the hon. the Minister and the steps taken by the police, they will get nowhere in this country. They must not resent the fact when I say that they have already given me the impression that they no longer have any confidence in the judgment of our courts.

Give us an example in that regard.

There are hundreds of examples. This has been the impression that they have created since the start of this Session—that there is tyrrany and cruelty as a result of the 90-day provision. The United Party has so much fault to find with this provision. But on each occasion it has been proved that there has been a reason for it when a person has been arrested and brought before the court. The judgments of the courts prove this and yet the Opposition find fault with us in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has the privilege of being a member of this House and to make the accusations which she thinks are justified. I want to tell her that if she approaches the mothers in this country she will find out that she is a most hated person because while we are trying in all respects to build up good relationships between White and non-White, she is trying to disturb those relationships. This is happening every day. My last word is a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister. I make so bold as to say on behalf of our country and our people that the name of John Vorster will be recorded in the annals of our people because of his actions in this time of crisis, to use the expression used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Had it not been for these measures, had it not been for this 90-day provision, we would have experienced murder and mayhem in South Africa. If this had happened, the properties of hon. members opposite would also have gone up in flames. We know the part that the East has already played in our country; we know the part that has already been played in our country by China and Russia. The apartheid policy of the Government is blamed for all these things. [Time limit.]

I have a number of matters to raise with the hon. the Minister, and I want to start by commenting on the Red Cross visitor whom the hon. the Minister said he had invited to visit this country. I am afraid that whether or not the gentleman’s report is favourable or not, it would still not really be relevant to the complaints that one had about the treatment of detainees, because the majority of the allegations of ill-treatment were made last year. These people have either left gaol or they have been charged and are serving sentences, and unless the Red Cross visitor was given access to detainees who actually were in detention last year at the time when all the complaints were coming forward, at the time when complaints were actually being lodged at the various police stations, I am afraid that if the visitor now finds that everything is in a far better condition than he had been led to believe, it will not really prove anything as far as the treatment of detainees last year is concerned.

I thought I made it quite plain that he also saw detainees.

Does the hon. the Minister mean that he produced ex-detainees from last year for him to interview, or does he mean present detainees?

Yes.

Including those who had made allegations of ill-treatment?

Yes.

For instance, the ones about whom the Bellville police had received complaints.

I am afraid I cannot say off-hand whether he saw those particular ones.

I am afraid the position is not very clear. The Minister said that he had been allowed to see detainees and that he had visited people in prison. My point is that unless he saw the actual people against whom ill treatment had been alleged, it will not really prove anything as far as the treatment of detainees last year is concerned. I personally have no doubt that things have improved very much this year. I have had no complaints recently about ill treatment of detainees and I have no doubt that strict instructions have gone out and that far better supervision is being kept. First of all, the number of detainees have dropped considerably; whereas it was 100 it is now only 39, and I have no doubt that the ordinary penal processes are being followed much more strictly than they were previously.

Then I want to come back to several other matters which I did not complete yesterday. The first is the number of people who are arrested under the security laws and against whom no charges are ultimately brought, and if charges are brought they are dismissed because the evidence is far too scanty to support a conviction. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could not do something now about instructing his Security Police at least to see that they have better evidence before they clap people into gaol. I want to quote some of the Minister’s own figures. During 1963 2,007 adults and 162 juveniles were arrested for what I call political crimes, that is to say, under the Suppression of Communism Act, the Riotous Assemblies Act, the Unlawful Organizations Act, and on charges of sabotage. Of the total of 2,169 persons arrested, 722 were released without trial and of the 1,447 brought to trial, 421 were found not guilty and 104 are still awaiting trial, so that out of the total of 2,169 arrested last year, 1,143 were either released without trial or found not guilty. But the point I want to make, is that these people are in custody for months before they are brought before the courts. Some of them have been in custody for as long as six months, others for four or five months, and during that time, of course, their families suffer; they lose their jobs and, as always happens with an African or any other non-White who is arrested under any political law, their jobs are gone, and if they are Black men they are endorsed out of the area time and time again simply because they have been arrested by the Security Police. The hon. the Minister of Justice cannot tell me that this is right I realize that not everybody who is arrested is ultimately found guilty, but it seems to me a very high figure that more than half of these people are in fact ultimately found not guilty by the courts, and that as many as 722, which is one-third of the number arrested, are released without trial. I think it is time these widespread arrests without any real grounds, now are brought under control by the hon. the Minister and his Security Police.

Then I want to deal with another matter. I asked the hon. the Minister for the figures in respect of persons arrested under the pass laws this year, and he said that it would involve too much work to get these figures.

I did not catch that.

I asked the Minister my usual question about the number of convictions under the influx control and pass laws, although I must say immediately that this year I broke it down into “male and female”. The hon. the Minister said that it would involve too much work to obtain these figures. I am asking the hon. the Minister now whether, if I put this question again, leaving out the division into sexes, would he be able to give me those figures as he has done in previous years. I would like to have them for my own interest. I follow these pass laws convictions with particular interest, as the hon. the Minister knows. Then I should like to know whether the Minister has given instructions to the police as to the change in the law as the result of the passing this year of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act. The hon. the Minister will remember that the amending Bill provided that nonproduction of documents in itself was not to be regarded as a punishable offence. I asked at that time that this instruction be conveyed specifically to the police who arrest Africans for non-production of passes. I wonder if he can tell me whether that has been done because I believe that this would be an important measure to alleviate some of the racial friction, caused by the pass laws.

Surely you know that notice is given immediately of any law passed by this House.

Maybe notice is given, but we have been given these promises before, i.e. that the police will be asked to act more discretely and I want to know whether they have been emphatically told about this change.

Of course.

Well, I am glad to hear that.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the rebanning of ex-Chief Luthuli. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is something which I personally think should not have been done. [Interjection.] I do not like banning without trial. In this particular case I think the ban has been made even more restrictive. I should like to know what the reason for this is. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes that ex-Chief Luthuli is probably one of the best known South Africans in the entire world, and this constant banning is simply making him a martyr in the eyes of the whole world, with the result that every journalist who comes to South Africa attempts to get—and I am sure somehow gets, an interview with Chief Luthuli. We are doing a lot of damage to the image of South Africa abroad by this banning of ex-Chief Luthuli who has always pleaded for non-violence in his fight against apartheid. I believe that his banning is an ill-advised step. I personally feel that the Minister would be well advised to reconsider this matter.

Have you read the evidence at the Rivonia trial?

I have read some of it but I cannot say that I have read every word of it.

I would advise you to make a study of it.

Well, I will do so, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I can say from the past record of ex-Chief Luthuli that he was devoted to the cause of nonviolence, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will admit that. Before his banning he always pleaded for non-violence. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of something which Chief Luthuli said about six or seven years ago before he was banned. He was asked if he would stand put on this demand for complete rights for his people, the demand for one man one vote, and his comment at that time was very revealing. He said that if he and his colleagues who were then in the leadership of the African National Congress were to turn down an offer of reasonable concessions from the White man, his followers would throw him out and that he thought that they would be right in doing so. That was his attitude at that time. Banning may have changed his attitude. I believe that further banning and further restrictions are not going to assist in the cause of harmonious race relations. [Time limit.]

Now that this debate has taken on such a restful air that even the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has been able to put her case calmly, I also want to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I am always calm.

The first is in connection with the strength of our Police Force. In the second place, if time permits, I want to raise the question of the accommodation available for single members of the Police Force, because some of my colleagues have already discussed the housing problem in connection with married members of the force. It appears from the reports of the Commissioner that the reason why most policemen leave the Police Force year after year is because they purchase their discharge from the force voluntarily. This position can of course be completely normal if it flows from the circumstances which the hon. the Minister has already given in reply to a question by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), but it can also be of a more serious nature according to the reasons which the men give for purchasing their discharge from the force. I want therefore in the first place to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are not perhaps too many recruits who deliberately make issue of the truly excellent training facilities provided by the Police Force for purposes of their own. There may, for example, be some recruits who want to join the Police Force mainly with the idea of improving their academic qualifications and this, moreover, while they are earning a salary. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that there are few people in the country who are able to receive schooling and at the same time be paid for doing so. I should like to know whether there is any misuse being made of this great privilege by some of the men who purchase their discharge. There may also be those who want to avoid their compulsory military training by joining the Police Force, or, if they do not want to avoid their compulsory military training, want to make it more profitable in the sense that as students at the Police College they receive a higher salary than they would receive as a ballottee in the Critizen Force. There may also be those who deliberately make misuse of the training facilities at the Police College to prepare themselves better, both physically and mentally, for a civilian profession and who therefore never join the force with the actual idea of becoming a police official but actually only with the idea of being trained and of making use of that training in civilian life. If those malpractices occur to a reasonably large extent it indicates a position which in my opinion requires attention. When we think what it costs to train one single police official, then we realize that we must take steps to combat these malpractices, if they do exist. I wonder whether it is not possible to apply stricter methods of selection, perhaps even scientific staff selection methods, if they are not already being applied, before a person is admitted to the Police College and, furthermore, to compel persons who are trained to remain members of the Police Force for a longer period than is at present the case.

The second matter that I want to raise is in regard to the accommodation of single members of the Police Force. I am aware that it is the aim of the hon. the Minister to effect a great improvement in this respect. I have also seen some of the new single quarters which, I am sure, are of the best and most modern that one can find. I think that this is to the credit of the hon. the Minister and his Department but unfortunately, I am also aware of the fact that in the urban centres particularly there are still those barracks which date from the years just after the Anglo-Boer War. I really think that some of those barracks are not to the credit of our Police Force and I know that the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this regard. Unfortunately, I also know that these barracks may still have to serve for some years yet because under the present circumstances they simply cannot be replaced. Because the conditions in many of them are such as to make them inadequate and because the educational advantage to be obtained from the excellent training given to these men at the college is completely lost in these inadequate barracks, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot earmark a special amount under his Vote in the future for the purpose of renovating these old barracks which still have to do long service, not simply in the sense that they must be maintained in a good condition but that necessary improvements should be effected in this regard. I cannot imagine that this will require large amounts annually. I also want to ask that the police artisans would do this work themselves. I know that this matter is subject to certain restrictions but I think that the nature of the work is such that they will be able to do it within the limit of those restrictions. What I have in mind here is this: One finds, for example, that the bathing and toilet facilities at many of these single quarters are not even under the same roof as the living quarters and that the mess facilities are not connected with the living quarters at all; one also finds that up to six men sleep in one room, some of whom do night duty and others day duty. I feel that it ought to be possible to divide up these rooms into smaller units so that there will be two men to each room. Those doing night duty can then be grouped together and those doing day duty can be grouped together. I think that if the hon. the Minister can be persuaded to earmark a specific amount annually for this purpose, and that if part of this work can be performed by the police artisans, we ought eventually to be able to eliminate most of the inadequacies existing in this connection.

In conclusion, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is convinced, in the light of prevailing circumstances and the great demands made of our Police Force, that the present salary structure and conditions of service are the very best that can possibly be obtained within the framework of his Estimates.

I hope that in answering the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) the hon. the Minister will also answer for the information of the Committee, the questions, which I wish to raise very briefly. Sir, having regard to the fact that we were assured yesterday that everything in the country was peaceful and tranquil—“kalm en rustig”—I would like to know why, for example, there has been an increase in the Prisons Vote of some 14 per cent to R 12,550,000, especially having regard to the expected drop in the imprisonment of persons, due to the amendment of the Liquor Act; why the daily average prison population to 30 September 1963 has risen, from 62,000 in the previous year, to 67,503, and why the Secret Service Vote which was R20,000 for the year 1963 and which went up to R25,000 for last year, has now been quadrupled to R 100,000.

It will probably be more next year.

That is the point. It may well be more next year, and I hope the Minister will tell us why, if the situation is as peaceful and tranquil as he has indicated, there should be this tremendous expansion in his Secret Service, and why, for example, even the telephone account seems to have increased very substantially in his various Departments, now totalling over R500,000. For example, in the Justice Department it has risen to R 137,500 where the telephone account for the Department of the Interior for the same year appears to be only R18,700. All this may be significant of something which I do not wish to conjecture about, but which I hope the Minister will reveal when he replies.

Then there is another point in the Police Vote where the item “Lieutenants” has been increased from R287,390 to R690,350, without regard to the fact that the number of lieutenants has dropped from 297 in 1963-4 to 288 in 1964-5. The reason for this which is not clear from the statement in the Estimates.

The Public Service Commission made a salary adjustment which had not been made previously.

I want to deal more particularly now with the question of Emergency Planning which arises out of the Vote of some R40,000 in the Estimates. This represents a substantial increase over the previous year, when the figure was R18,000. The establishment, too, has been increased from seven to 16. The question arises: To what extent is the country being prepared for the emergency which the plans are designed to meet? Although we are told that there is no emergency at the present time, we are also told that on communist instruction, sabotage has been halted until the Rivonia trial verdicts come out. The Minister has just told us that that will happen to-morrow. If there is going to be sabotage, which I think was the broad hint which the Minister gave us yesterday when he made his statement about communist-inspired movements in this country, then the point of the preparedness of the country for any emergency becomes even more important. In general terms, in any case, I think it is fair to say that for R40,000 one cannot expect much planning and much preparation, and having regard to the booming economy of South Africa at the present time and the tremendous spending on other items of Government expenditure, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that a state of emergency which may arise—and naturally would arise without very much warning—whether due to attack from outside or unrest within the country, can be met without a far bigger expansion than is envisaged in the Estimates. As it is, the public knows very little about these emergency plans. It was announced at the end of 1963 that the Civilian Protective Services Department had been given the new name of Emergency Planning, and in the report of the Department of Justice there is reference to the execution of the “survival” plan, which is the joint responsibility of all levels of Government and private enterprise and so on; and one knows from Press reports that the three voluntary organizations, the Red Cross, the Noodhulpliga, and St John’s Ambulance Association are all in volved in the plan. But, Sir, very little else is known about this scheme, and I believe that if they are to take it seriously, the public will have to be altered to the importance of emergency planning in this country. It has been alerted for many years since the last war in other countries, whose pattern we are apparently going to follow. For example, in Britain there are schools, one of which I am sure is known to the hon. the Minister, where training is given especially in those subjects concerning the survival of the civilian population. We have no such school, at this stage, in this country. It may be premature, but I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should endeavour to obtain the services of certain experts, whether from Britain or the United States, in organizing a complete and comprehensive emergency plan, a plan for so-called survival in the event of the crisis or the climax which the Minister referred to yesterday as coming in, I think, 1965. I think one of the things which should be done is that there should be an appeal from the very highest level, say from the State President, or from the Prime Minister, to the civilian population to take an interest in this matter of emergency planning, to learn what it means to have to fend for oneself in an emergency, for example, so that the householder would know how to make short shrift of imflammable materials in his home and also know immediately what to do when there is an alert or a warning of any unrest or emergency. Sir, we have not done those things. They can be done, for example, by publicity in the Press; they can be done through an appeal from the highest level, and they can be achieved also by the use of the radio, where the regular inclusion of talks on emergency planning and what the individual can and should do, would be of far greater value than some of the arid political talks that we get nowadays in the S.A.B.C. programmes.

Another suggestion I would like to make to the hon. the Minister is that in view of the fact that some 30,000 ballottees coming forward every year, of whom, as far as I remember, about 19,000 to 21,000 are taken into the Active Citizen Force and the various gymnasia, and so on, which leaves a balance of 9,000 or 10,000 young men who will not receive training in that particular year, surely great use can be made of those ballottees by giving them instruction in the Emergency Planning of the Government and in regard to the way in which they can be of service to themselves and others, in the event of an emergency. [Time limit.]

There is just one more matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is the question of the dismissal of Miss Pat Davidson from the service of the Department of Justice. There has been a good deal of publicity about the case of this young lady and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us some more information. Miss Davidson, a B.A., LL.B, graduate from the University of Cape Town, had joined the service and was going on a course for public prosecutors. She was actually working in the office of the Chief Magistrate in Johannesburg and she was to start a course for public prosecutors in Pretoria. Miss Davidson was dismissed and she is under the impression—that is certainly the statement that she gave to the Press—that she was dismissed purely and simply because she had been residing with Mr. and Mrs. Abraham Fischer in Johannesburg. Mr. Fischer, of course, is the well-known Q.C. He is also on the banned list.

She herself is to blame for what appeared in the Press.

That is correct; she herself gave an interview to the Press. On the other hand, she did write to the Department asking if she could be given the reasons for her dismissal because she took this as a reflection on her capability, or rather she thought that it might prejudice her future employment since she was dismissed without any reason and simply given a month’s notice after she had been told that she was to go on this public prosecutors’ course. She also understood that her work had been satisfactory in the Chief Magistrate’s office in Johannesburg, and she therefore asked for the reasons for her dismissal. She assumed—and I want to know whether she was right in her assumption—that she was dismissed purely and simply because she had been staying with Mr. and Mrs. Fischer. Her mother happened to be a particular friend of Mrs. Fischer, a friend of many years’ standing, and when this young woman came to Johannesburg, it was considered desirable that she should live with friends of the family until she could find suitable accommodation. She was told apparently by somebody in the Department in Johannesburg that it would be advisable for her to change her address. She then informed the person that she had found a flat which she was going to occupy after returning from her course. Thereafter she thought everything was satisfactory, but apparently not, because she received a letter dismissing her from the service. As I say, Sir, she has been given no official reasons for her dismissal. I understand the Department does not have to give any reasons for dismissing somebody from the service but I would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister whether or not Miss Davidson was right in her assumption that the only reason for her dismissal was the fact that she had stayed with the Fischers? I believe both the Fischers are on the list but does this mean that they have to be socially ostracized for ever more even by people who are completely non-political in their actions, as indeed was the case with Miss Davidson?

We have apparently come to the end of the discussion on this Vote, and I should like to reply briefly to what hon. members have said in this regard.

In the first place I should like to deal with our prison population and the escapes. This matter was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others. I should like to take this opportunity to make an analysis of the number of people in our prisons and to give the reason for the increase in our prison population. An interesting tendency is revealing itself in connection with this matter, not only in our country but it is consistently revealing itself throughout the world, namely that there is an increase in the number of prisoners. Hon. members are aware of that. When you refer to the figures of South Africa for the past years, it is very interesting to note that in 1945, e.g. there were 22,000 prisoners. Since 1945—I did not go further back than that—the figure has virtually consistently increased by 1,000 per annum to the figures we have at the present time. There were 23,000 in 1946, 24,000 in 1947, 25,000 in 1948. If the number of those awaiting trial are deducted from our present figure the figure of 59,000 is arrived at.

I have also been asked a question in regard to escapes. I have caused a survey to be made of the percentage of escapes in the past and at the present time. On analysing the figures for the years from 1945 to 1948, in comparison with the present position, I find that the percentage of escapes to the percentage of detainees from 1945 to 1948 was .0041 per cent, while at the present time it is .0051 per cent. If one wishes to be captious, one could argue about .001 per cent. I merely wish to point out that the number of warders has not increased in proportion to the number of prisoners. I should like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, furthermore—and I shall give him the figures—that of the 1,000-odd escapes he referred to, only 163 escaped from institutions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact, and I have personally seen it, that many of our institutions are very old. A child could as it were escape from many of our institutions because they were built many years ago, and with the improved saws placed at the disposal of prisoners—not by the Department but by the people who visit them or saws that are smuggled in—it is much easier to break out of these old types of prisons than it was years ago. Do not ask me now how they get hold of the saws. You will be surprised, Mr. Chairman. I cannot even tell you here in public how they get it in, but they do manage to get it in. We are aware of that. People of course also become more ingenious as the years go by in that regard. We are not the only ones who have to contend with this problem; the whole world has the same problem. As I have said, only 163 escaped from our institutions. I am sorry this happens. One is sorry about the unnecessary work it involves to which the hon.

member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has referred. I am sorry the hon. member is not here now, because I have to apologize to him; I unjustly asked whether he is a friend of Hamilton Russell. The hon. member said he is not and I accept that he is not. I have done him an injustice by calling him a friend of such a fellow. I am sorry I did so.

You said he is a kindred spirit.

That makes it still worse, and therefore my apology is greater.

The other people who have escaped, escaped from where they were working outside. The number may appear to be big, but the majority of them are recaptured before they have run very far, because they are pursued. However, it counts as an escape if he merely runs away. It is our policy, and I cannot alter that policy, and I do not wish to change that policy, and I shall not change that policy, to have the prisoners do as much constructive work in the open air as possible, instead of keeping them locked up in the gaols. Hon. members know of the developments there have been in this connection in recent years. A peculiar state of affairs reveals itself in this connection. I could mention dozens of instances to hon. members. A man knows his time will expire next week and he knows that he will be freed for good, but he runs away this week if he works outside. We had a case of a person who was to have been freed the next day; he knew it, but the previous day he ran away. He could not wait.

Or did he wish to stay longer?

Maybe.

It is so pleasant there now.

Why do you complain about the 90 days then?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says it is so pleasant there. I am not looking for recruits at the moment. My problem in that regard is therefore, as I have told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that people have to be employed outside and there is only one warder. The people have to eat and the warder also must eat. Now he must eat and watch them simultaneously. That makes the position terribly difficult. One can understand that people escape under those circumstances. The people who escape are not the dangerous type, for they do not work outside. The dangerous types are kept within the institution and they escape in that way.

As the prison population increases, the charge is made that so many thousands are in gaol for trivial offences. If this were true then it is a charge hon. members could make against me and therefore I should like to make an analysis of the prison population. Hon. members will remember that I have discussed this matter with them. I told hon. members that I held a conference with heads of departments to see whether we could not considerably reduce the number of people who have to go to gaol for minor offences. I may tell hon. members we have made considerable progress in this connection. I wish to compare the sentences of 1962 with those for 1963, sentences of one month and less. Those are for minor offences. In 1962 the number of offences justifying one month or less was 185,000. In 1963 we brought it down to 134,000. That was a decrease of 51,000 during one year. I think that is very good. We should like to continue in that direction. Take the sentences of more than one month to four months. In 1962 the figure was 111,000 and in 1963 we brought this down to 103,000; a decrease of 8,000. We are working in that direction and we are doing everything in our power to bring it down because we do not wish to have people gaoled for petty offences.

Let me now analyse the daily average figure of prisoners of 71,000. These are people who are detained in police cells and all over— punished and unpunished. In the first place there must be deducted the 11,380 who are awaiting trial in all courts in the Republic. That is for the month of January. There now remain over 59,855 convicts. What does this figure consist of? It consists of the prisoners who have been sentenced up to one month, that is to say, the people who are there for petty offences. People think there are thousands of them, but that is not true. There are only 3,664 who have to serve less than one month’s imprisonment. Those who have to serve one month to six months—that is virtually the maximum jurisdiction of the inferior courts—number 13,543. There are 8,723 who have to serve longer than six months to less than two years. Now I come to those who have to serve from two to four years. Hon. members, particularly the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has practised, know that when a person is sentenced to imprisonment for two or more years, he must have done something seriously wrong. They number 7,601. Hon. members know that several years ago we introduced the system of corrective imprisonment, that is to say, where a man may be imprisoned for two to four years, depending on whether he is being rehabilitated or not. This system is producing very good results and our courts are applying that system if a person seems to them to be capable of rehabilitation. We have had 10,193 of them.

When business was suspended, I was replying to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Op position in connection with prisoners who escape. I have given him the figures in this regard. If I have omitted something, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should just tell me.

Were you not going to give me another figure?

I have given the hon. member the figure; it was the 163.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Do the figures the Minister has given us include those prisoners who are hired out to farmers for their full term?

The figures include the lot. I was breaking up the figure of 59,855 into the various categories. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there were 7,601 serving sentences of two to four years; that the figure of those sentenced to corrective imprisonment, i.e. those who are serving two to four years, was 10,193. There are 3,143 serving sentences of four to eight years. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, the court may sentence a person who has a very bad record, under given circumstances, to preventive imprisonment in which case he has to remain in prison for five years before he may be released. I point out to the hon. the Leader, furthermore, that there are 2,032 who have been sentenced to longer than eight years by the courts. Those serving life sentences number 358, and those serving the indeterminate sentence number 7,007.

It amounts to this then, that of a total of 59,855, 33,922 have to serve sentences of two years or longer. So you see, Mr. Chairman, that more than half are serving sentences of two years or longer. Add to that those who are serving sentences of six months to two years, and compare with these those who have received sentences of less than one month, that is to say, those who have been convicted of minor offences, then the argument falls away that people are sent to gaol for trivial offences, or that thousands are being sent to gaol wholly for trivial offences. Having regard to the other figures I have given the Leader of the Opposition and how we have reduced those figures, he can see that the position has improved considerably in that regard.

Permit me to say this in conclusion: Mr. Chairman, the work of a warder surely is the most thankless work there can be because of the nature of his work and because of the type of people with whom he has to work. Latterly his work is being made more difficult by the terrorists who are now ending up in gaol. They are brutal, insolent and difficult. As if that is not enough, they are still being incited from outside to be brutal and cheeky. It is a very difficult task, and I have the greatest respect and esteem for the manner in which the warders are doing their work. One so easily condemns. One condemns it; you do not want it and it must not happen. But hon. members must realize that a warder is only a human being too, a human being who has to work on Sundays and public holidays; he is a human being who does not work regular hours as you and I do, Sir; he is a man who is provoked and jeered at. Can hon. members appreciate that now and then he must lose his temper and slap someone? I can understand that. I do not approve of it. On the contrary, they are punished if they do so, but I can understand it that they do come to the end of their tether sometimes. In spite of that, Mr. Chairman, our prisons have a splendid record as regards this aspect of the matter.

As regards the high-ranking officers of the prisons they are well qualified penologists. They are people who have taken pains to qualify themselves. Do hon. members realize that if they were to take the four most senior officers in the Prisons Department at the present time, they will find that two have their B.A. degrees, one his B.A. Honours, while Commissioner-General Steyn has his M.A. degree. I do not know whether one will find this in a Department of Prisons anywhere else in the world. We know what Mr. Verster, the retired director, did in this connection. He rendered invaluable service through the years. One paid tribute to him for that and one shall always continue to pay tribute to him for that.

I do not think it will be wrong of me to tell hon. members this: The representative of the Red Cross who was here informed me that his summing up of the high-ranking officers of the Department of Prisons was that they are some of the best people he has ever come across in this connection. He said the Commissioner of Prisons is a penologist of world stature. That is very high praise from a man who knows what he is talking about.

I now come to the other matter raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), namely the question of civil protection. Hon. members will know that we have been collecting information in this regard for years. It is difficult to find one’s way in that connection. It is true that we were for some time somewhat tardy in connection with this matter, but after the matter was properly investigated we have now placed it on a proper basis. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that when this matter was finally assigned to me by the Cabinet, I appointed a committee on the directions of the Cabinet, a committee consisting of an officer of the Department of Defence, an officer of the Department of Justice and a senior police officer, which assumed responsibility for this matter. These people received a secretariat and they have done invaluable work in this connection. They have planned very broadly and on a very large scale. Time does not permit me to elaborate on that, but I may tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they have planned on a large and broad scale. However, they did not leave it at planning only. They established a sub-department of the Department of Justice, a sub-department which is functioning very smoothly and well, and subdepartment which has effected much in the very short time of its existence. The most important things to be done in this connection have either been completed or is in process of completion, namely to co-ordinate the various organizations concerned with civil protection. Much progress has been made on that road. Let me mention to the hon. the Leader firstly: Almost one of the most important matters is the care of persons in case of an attack or an internal disturbance in which many people may be injured, or where people may have to be evacuated. The people must be looked after then. In that connection there have been discussions not only with the three bodies which had to be approached, namely the Red Cross, St. John’s and the First Aid League. There have been discussions with these people, and Treasury was asked for funds and funds were provided to subsidize these people to enable people to be trained to give assistance. A complete programme has been devised, and the three organizations lent themselves fully for that purpose, and the requisite persons will soon complete their training under that scheme. Once that training scheme has been completed, those people in turn will go out and train the people of every community as to what they should do under the circumstances. Handbooks and brochures have been prepared or are in process of preparation, and it will be distributed among our people on a large scale so that they will know precisely what to do under every circumstance that is envisaged. The literature available on the matter, as regards other countries, has been collected and adapted and used in that process. Discussions have taken place with local authorities, fire fighting services have been co-ordinated, and provision has been made for every possible contingency and during the recess the people of South Africa will be enlightened on a large scale, and they will be informed as to what exactly they must do under certain circumstances. I was asked; what about an atomic war? Let me say at once that our resources will not, of course, permit us to be able to build atomic shelters. I say honestly I do not see my way clear to that. The finances at our disposal will not permit us. But provision will be made at existing buildings as far as possible in this regard. To summarize then: The sub-department has, as far as it’s planning is concerned, impressed me that they know what they are doing, and as far as giving effect to that is concerned, I am convinced that the matter will be a success.

With reference to the visit of Dr. Hoffman, the hon. the leader once again adopted the point of view that it is all good and well that I did so, but what I really should have done was to have appointed a commission of inquiry which has to hold its sessions in public. I am not prepared to appoint such a commission. What will be the consequence of such a commission? The hon. member for Houghton has already told us. We are not in the dark, therefore, as to what she and the liberalists will do in this regard. Every Jack, Tom and Harry will be called to appear before that commission to lay a charge against the police or against the prison authorities. Irrespective of whether or not it is true, or when it took place, and for months propaganda will be made against South Africa in that regard; and after those allegations have been made, they are refuted with the necessary evidence, but the harm will have been done already. That is exactly what these people want. They are not interested in the truth of the matter. They are interested only in the propaganda they can make against South Africa. They are interested only in spreading abroad all the malicious gossip and then giving it a cloak of truth because it was presented to a commission. Let me give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an example. Now we are concerned with the highest councils in the world. The hon. the leader knows what was said in respect of Mini Khaba and Khayinga. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw the reply of the Government of South Africa to that. All our newspapers, even the Argus and the Times, had leaders on the matter and lauded the Government for its reply drafted in that connection. But that did not receive publicity in the world. One would have expected that at least there would have been an acknowledgment of it. If that happens to the green tree there, what will not happen to the withered one! I wish to repeat my attitude. I am prepared at all times, and the Commissioner of Prisons and the police are prepared to investigate any complaint with the typical thoroughness such complaints always have been dealt with, and to take the requisite steps if people have done wrong. Now it is the viewpoint of the hon. the leader and other members that it is not fair to the police and it is not good enough that the police should be used to make those inquiries themselves. Whom must I use then? I was inclined to think of what an elderly Jewish friend told me about King Solomon when he told me: “You know the good king Solomon had two armies, the one army that was watching the wives and the other army that was watching the army that was watching the wives.” I cannot maintain two investigating bodies. Must I now maintain the police as an investigating body and then in addition another police force to investigate that police force? It just does not work. The hon. the Prime Minister stated the attitude of the Government very clearly during the discussions of his Vote, that such a commission is possible only when it can be proved that the police are incompetent, that they cannot be trusted, or that it is not possible for them to investigate that matter. There has never been any such proof from any source, not from the hon. member for Houghton, not from the Liberal Party, not from the Official Opposition. Not a single person has complained that the police are not competent or not willing or that it is not within their province to make the investigation. I am satisfied that theinquiries made into the complaints lodged in the past, have been properly disposed of. I am satisfied that they received the necessary attention from the Attorney-General, that he took steps where he had to take steps, and that he did not take steps where the circumstances did not warrant it. My reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore is once again, for the reasons I have given here, that I do not see my way clear to doing that. And there are people in the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who accept this. That was the reason for a proposal on their part that I should not have a public commission, but that it should be a kind of Denning Commission in this connection. I dealt with that argument in the Other Place when it was put to me, and I do not intend to do so again here. I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member did not address me now. The hon. member spoke about Nusas. For the moment I did not know whether he was Saul among the prophets or Daniel in the Lion’s Den. In any event, I am very glad. I stated my point of view on Nusas last year. I thought it was necessary for me to do so on that occasion, and I made a full statement on it. I recall that one Mr. Marais Steyn on that occasion said I had made an “unwarranted and vicious attack” on Nusas. I shall now read to the hon. member what I said on that occasion. After tabulating my evidence, one piece after another, I said the following. The hon. member may argue now whether or not it is true, and whether or not it was exaggerated. We may argue on that. But you cannot call a stated fact “vicious”. And that is what the hon. member did. But I concluded by writing as follows—

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville is saying now too, is it not—

Then I quote—

Surely the hon. member for Yeoville does not subscribe to that. Nor do I subscribe to that. But surely it is not “vicious” to say so if both he and I do not believe it—

That is how I concluded. Is the hon. member not just a little bit sorry for what he said about me? The hon. member a few months later was compelled to say substantially the same thing I had said. In fact, the hon. member went even further. The hon. member issued an ultimatum to them on behalf of his party, and told them: if this nonsense does not stop now, and if they do not put their house in order, he will withdraw his hand from them and no longer protect them. I did not even go as far as that. I left them to themselves with good effect. I made proselytes. I found people who rallied around me and who joined the ranks of those supporting me, although for various motives, it is true. But I do not inquire into the motive of a man who supports me in a conflict against Nusas. That is why I say thank you very much to the hon. member for Yeoville. I think the hon. member was right in adopting this attitude towards Nusas. I do not wish to make political capital out of it. What can I make out of it now? They are not my people. They are the supporters of hon. members opposite. The children of their supporters are at stake here. I have said this on previous occasions. And I was very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when the opportunity presented itself to become honorary president of the organization …

I was never invited.

I am sorry, but I thought the invitation had reached the hon. Leader.

The allegation was made last night, but I never recieved such an invitation.

I accept that. I wish to make a promise to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have a little influence among the students. I shall see to it that it reaches him.

Come let us laugh now.

No, it is a serious matter to me. It was such a serious matter to the hon. member for Yeoville but I must say now that if the hon. member for Yeoville becomes angry now …

Apparently it is not serious to you.

It is a matter of profound seriousness to me, but if the hon. member for Yeoville becomes angry, must I then cry too? The hon. member need not become hot under the collar about it now.

Why then adopt this attitude towards the Leader of the Opposition, after his denial?

I cannot help it if the hon. member becomes angry. I cannot dampen my sense of humour because he feels fed-up.

Ridiculous.

Yes, the hon. member may attack me on that score, but he need not become angry about it. Why did the hon. member fly up so suddenly when that report appeared in the papers? Why did he fly up to Johannesburg to go and talk to the students there?

When?

This year. It was in the papers, and not only in my papers, it was in the newspapers supporting the Opposition.

It must have been the Nat. Press.

No, I shall show the hon. member the reports some time. I shall tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposiion why I was concerned about it and why I think he ought to be concerned about it. I have on a previous occasion said …

After Durban.

No, apart from the fact that he went to Durban, it was reported in the newspapers that he went to Johannesburg also to go and consult with the students there.

That is wrong.

I accept the hon. member’s word for that, but I shall show him the Press reports.

I did consult the students, but never flew up specially.

Let me put it right for the record then: The hon. member went to Johannesburg on other business and he then availed himself of the opportunity to consult the students.

The students availed themselves of the opportunity to interview me.

Good; the students took the opportunity to interview the hon. member on the report that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be a candidate.

No, that is wrong. It is a complete misunderstanding. Your police have misinformed you.

No, I get my information from the Press only, as far as this matter is concerned. But I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why I am perturbed. I should like to repeat what I said in public, and it is a profoundly serious matter to me: The children of his supporters are involved in this. What is the resolution adopted unanimously at the last Nusas congress when they had to elect an honorary president? They chose Luthuli. That is bad enough already. But the reasons why they chose him—and the hon. the Leader should be concerned about this if he has the interests of the children of his supporters at heart—are these—

Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not alarmed that the children of his supporters are saying such things? The hon. member for Yeoville argued with the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) last night when this matter was being discussed. He referred to the “multi-racialism” of Nusas, and the hon. member for Innesdal told the hon. member for Yeoville that he did not know what he was talking about because Nusas does not even stand for “multi-racialism”. It is in favour of “non-racialism”. But here they are saying it in this resolution are they not?—

Surely there is a world of difference between multi-racialism and non-racialism? I reject both. The hon. member for Yeoville accepts multi-racialism. He says he has always advocated that and his party also advocates that. I reject it, but it is what Nusas stands for, not multi-racialism, but “non-racialism”. I do not wish to add anything to what hon. members have said in connection with Nusas and in connection with Botha’s Hill. I do not wish to devote any more time to it, except merely to say that it is very clear to me, from the Botha’s Hill document, that what Mr. Driver presented there was his personal point of view, that he is misleading the students when he says that he himself is not subscribing to it. From the whole tenor it is very clear that this is so. The hon. member for Yeoville has done brilliant work when he referred to the public front of Nusas and the back-room activities of Nusas. I am very grateful to him for that. I merely wish to supplement that now. I think the time has arrived for Mr. Driver to explain to the students of South Africa the nature of the discussions he had in London last year when he was there with the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. refugees, apart from the other things the hon. member for Yeoville asked him to explain. He had discussions with them. He did not only have discussions with the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. in London, but also had discussions with Patrick Duncan. I think Mr. Driver must explain that to his people. He should explain it to the students. I think hon. members opposite who have more influence than I in those circles should ask Driver what he meant, and he should permit the students to see the circular he sent out in which he directed them, some of his people, that under no circumstances must they say they are anti-totalitarian. They must not say they are anti-communistic, because then they will be offending the communists and it will make their position difficult. Can the hon. member for Yeoville understand now why I said that? I did not say Nusas is communistic. I said communistic influences were infiltrating into Nusas. That was my complaint. Does the hon. member for Yeoville not think there was some substance in my complaint?

There is a distinction between a complaint against an individual and a complaint against an organization.

Will the hon. member for Yeoville then give it to me for nothing: If I mention the name of Mr. Driver here, instead of mentioning Nusas here, will I than be correct?

According to the information you have, yes.

I am thankful to the hon. member for the admission, because I wish to say that Mr. Driver’s record is filling up more and more. I adopted the point of view at the time, and I shall continue to hold that view, that I do not wish to interfere with student organization. I leave it to them. I have made my position very clear. But I shall be neglecting my duty—and I am not making any threats now, I am merely stating my viewpoint—when individuals step over the traces, if I do not act in the interests of South Africa. Let me mention another example. The representative of Nusas, Legassick, who left them a week or two ago—while he was their representative, he was a collaborator a communist paper called Revolution, and he wrote articles for Revolution under his name, and in the latest article, I think it was in February, he wrote the filthiest things about South Africa one could ever have read. In that article he refers to the S.A. Police as “26.000 legalized gangsters”, drawn from the lowliest groups of the people of South Africa. He calls them the “flotsam” and he continues in that way. I had plenty of information in that regard, and in my attack I very clearly said that not all the members of Nusas are communists. That is here in my statement. But all communists are members of Nusas. I said that too. There is not a single complaint I made against Nusas which could not be substantiated, and which the circumstances have not proved true. But I have faith in the youth of South Africa, and faith in the students of South Africa too, and like the hon. member for Yeoville, I too say that the test will come at the congress in July when the students will have to decide whether they are going to put their house in order or not.

We play the fool with each other, we even make a little political capital out of it, the hon. member for Yeoville and I, but it should be a matter of profound earnestness with both of us that we should save our young people from this blemish. We must co-operate in this. Each of us should use his influence in this matter. Therefore I repeat: If the A.S.B. wish to make me their president, I shall be their president. There is nothing wrong in that. And if they wish to make the hon. the Leader of the Opposition president of Nusas, why should he not accept it? Surely it is not a disgrace? They are the children of your nation, the children of your party. Why should he not become president. I am not trying to make political capital out of it.

Oh!

To me there is nothing strange in it at all. Just before I resume my seat I should like to discuss only one further small matter with the Leader of the Opposition, but the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) has referred to certain matters. My reply to him is that the seven year housing plan drawn up by the police, i.e. provides for the housing of unmarried persons. The Cabinet has approved the provision of 100 per cent accommodation for the unmarried staff. That also involves the replacement of existing barracks which do not comply with modern requirements. The hon. member will see that an amount of R30,000 has been included in these Estimates, mainly for spending on minor works to be carried out by the artisans of the Department themselves. A considerable amount of this will be spent on the barracks. In addition to this amount an amount of R200,000 has been made available by the Department of Public Works for minor works, and a considerable portion of this will also be used for barracks. The hon. member referred to the selection and the abuse that may occur in that persons who do not intend to remain in the Police Force are receiving training. When students are taken into service there is a very strict selection, but nobody can predict when a person is taken into service that he has any ulterior motives when he joins up. However, it has been accepted now that a member must serve in the police for two years at least before he can obtain exemption from compulsory military training. Thus far they have made use of it to obtain exemption.

May I in passing tell the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) in respect of promotions to commissioned rank that the selection is made before the prescribed examinations are made already. It is proposed to introduce such selection gradually in respect of promotion to other ranks.

All that remains before I conclude is the point made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in respect of Miss Davidson. I may say that I interviewed the relatives of Miss Davidson—I do not wish to mention names now—at the request of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). I explained the circumstances to the relatives and they fully understand the position. There is no quarrel between them and me. But what is the position here? We are concerned here with a prosecutor who lived in the house of two listed communists and not only listed communists, but acknowledged and active communists, and of course I could not permit that. The hon. member may now criticize me because of that if she wishes, but I cannot permit that. But what is more, I do not want to paint Miss Davidson black here. I do not wish to discuss her activities, her acts and omissions. I just want to tell the hon. member to go and talk to Miss Davidson and ask her, regardless of these communists with whom she was living, what her other associations with other communists have been. Then the hon. member will also realize, if she also adopts the standpoint (I do not know whether that is her view) that a person who associates with communists ought not to be a public prosecutor.

She denies any political affiliations.

I shall give the hon. member information privately, which she may discuss with the lady in question. Then she will realize that it was simply impossible for me to do anything else.

I believe I have now dealt with all the matters except one outstanding between me and the Leader of the Opposition, namely the charge he made against me once again, arising from the discussion of the Bultfontein case, that I dealt with that matter light-heartedly. I reject that allegation. I did not handle the matter in a light-hearted fashion when it occurred nor when months later it was discussed in the House of Assembly. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition raised the matter, not under this Vote, but he felt it was so urgent that he wanted to raise it under the Prime Minister’s Vote. Then I rose, under that Vote, under which I normally do not appear, to explain the facts. I said the Leader of the Opposition was thankful he could use it as a lightning conductor because he had been severely manhandled by the Prime Minister. That was my opinion at the time. I still think so, and I was not the only one to think so. In the Press there appeared reports in similar vein. All of us are human. My face sometimes gives me away and the face of the hon. Leader may sometimes give him away. That is the impression I gained and I said so to him because I believed it. Was it light-hearted of me to tell him that? I continued to condemn the act, and I presented the facts calmly and succinctly. There were harassing interjections on the part of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and when she interjected for the third time, I reacted to it. Perhaps I should not have reacted the way I did, but I did so. Is that a sign of light-heartedness now? I think it is more a sign of annoyance. I have read my Hansard again and the hon. member cannot show me a single passage in my speech where I handled this matter light-heartedly. Is it fair now to repeat such a charge? I reject that accusation with all the emphasis at my command. I think the Leader of the Opposition is doing me an injustice by accusing me once again, and I expect him, if he makes that allegation against me, to show me in Hansard where I was frivolous. But he can read my whole Hansard and he will not be able to show me a single paragraph, except if he regards the two things have just mentioned as frivolous. No, I dealt with the matter with the requisite seriousness, and not only that, I caused the necessary action to be taken. Both in public and in the House I expressed myself very strongly on the matter, and I do not know what further the hon. Leader expects of me. Now that I have put that matter right for the record, I do not think there is anything more outstanding.

I think there are just three points on which perhaps there should be clarity. The first is the complaint I have against the Minister of Justice for his attitude when the Bultfontein case was raised in the House. I do not suppose that either he or I can expect to see recorded in Hansard the atmosphere in the House at the time or the Minister’s attempts at humour when he got up to reply.

Such as what?

It is not a matter of “such as what”. The Minister and I know each other.

But when you speak of attempts, surely you can name one or two?

I can. The Minister says one’s face gives one away. His face gave him away. He got up to try and laugh it off, and he knows that my first comment to him across the floor of the House was: “John Vorster, you are trying to play politics with this.” I have not got the Hansard in front of me. The Minister has been studying it and if he wanted a detailed reply from me he could have given me notice of it. As far as I am concerned, he tried to play politics in one of the most serious matters we have ever had in the political history of South Africa. What is more, he tried to score debating points in what I regarded as a cheap manner.

There is one other point of difference between us, and that is the question of NUSAS and the offer to me that I should become president of NUSAS. I am very glad he raised it again, because there was an hon. member over there last night who alleged that I was invited to be honorary president of NUSAS. I may say that if a decision of that kind was taken— and I do not believe it was—it was never communicated to me. Probably what he is talking about is that one of the Afrikaans newspapers rang me and said: We understand you have been invited to be president of NUSAS; what is your attitude? My reply was: No comment, I know nothing about it. I hope the hon. member will now withdraw that allegation, because at no time was I ever invited to be president of NUSAS.

There is a third point which I may say worries me, and that is the non-posthumous attitude of the Minister in regard to civil defence. I get the feeling that he says: We are going to organize all sorts of things and we cannot consider atom bomb shelters; our finances are inadequate. Well, if we cannot consider shelters of any kind, our casualties will be 80 per cent plus.

I said I could not consider them as such.

Then I misunderstood you, but I thought you made it very clear that you could not consider atom bomb shelters as such. Well, if you cannot consider them as such, then our casualties will be 80 per cent plus at the first attack, and I say that without any fear of contradiction. I think that is perhaps the most serious thing outstanding between the Minister and me, because if civil defence is to mean anything then provision has to be made for some kind of protection.

I said there were plans.

Well, I do not see any plans and the people of South Africa know nothing about it. I accept that there may be planning taking place, but so far there is precious little comfort to the people of South Africa if they are to be exposed to atom bomb attacks. I think that is the matter which, apart from politics, is the most serious thing outstanding between the Minister and me.

I should like to say just one last thing. I think we are educating the Minister. I think he is improving quite a lot. I do not propose to move a reduction in his salary. I think this year he has really tried. If we keep on, we will make a job of him yet.

May I be permitted to reply briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He paid me a compliment. He said that I was improving. I am sorry I cannot return the compliment. (Laughter.) The closest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to substantiating his accusation was his statement that he did not like the expression on my face when we were discussing the Bultfontein case. I am grateful for the suggestion made by him. I will try to get different faces for different occasions. As far as civil defence is concerned I explained to him that the necessary shelters would be planned in consultation with the authorities concerned, with due regard to the existing facilities, and that the public would be informed in this connection during the recess.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 47.—“Prisons”, R 12,550,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 48.—“Police”, R49,192,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 49.—“Information”, R3,180,000,

If there is one thing which is commendable about the hon. the Minister’s administration of his portfolio in the last 12 months, since we last discussed it, it is the admirable silence the Minister personally has maintained as Minister of Information. There are one or two examples of where the Minister has expressed his views, but I notice that they have mostly been in regard to the observations made by prominent persons who have visited our shores. There is one other aspect in regard to which I wish to make an observation before coming to my main remarks, and that is that I think it is appropriate to congratulate the administrative head of the Department, Mr. Brand Fourie, on his appointment, and to say to the Minister that, as far we on this side are concerned probably no better appointment could have been made, particularly if it is considered that the emphasis of this Department should be on the propagation of information about our country overseas. The experience that Mr. Fourie has had for many years in the Department of Foreign Affairs will certainly stand the work of the Department of Information in very good stead.

In the year just past the Minister spent something like R2.75 million to improve what he described at the time we voted the money, as the false image of our country which has been built up over the years and which remained largely unchanged. In other words, when we voted this money last year the position overseas, as far as South Africa’s image is concerned, was as bad as it could possibly be. Now, when we are called upon to vote an additional R400,000, making a total of R3.180,000, for the administration of this Department, I think we are entitled to put certain questions in regard to this expenditure. The first question we are entitled to ask the Minister is: Have any results been achieved by the expenditure of this R2.75 million? Is there any improvement in the disastrous image generally held by the outside world of our country? I think we are also entitled to ask whether it is possible that this Minister and the methods he uses, and the operations of his Department, are likely to yield any results in the next 12 months? The only assessment we can make in attempting to answer these questions in the light of the admirable silence of the Minister during the past 12 months, and the only evidence we have before us as to whether or not there have been any successes or any results achieved at all can be based on the report that the Minister tabled recently about the activities of his Department. While, let me say at the outset, it is a far more objective report than we have been accustomed to from that Department in the past, it certainly revealed a world full of animosity and resistance to accepting the propaganda of the Minister and anything dealing with the Government’s race policy. A close study of the report shows that in nearly every theatre of operations of the Minister’s Department overseas there is resistance to the work of the Department and a cynical acceptance of the propaganda handouts that are distributed. Now I know what we will get from the Minister in reply, so in order to anticipate it perhaps I had better substantiate my observations.

Let us take the report. What does it say about Italy? It says that the attitude of the Italian Press has become more critical towards South Africa’s problems, and there was no improvement. In regard to Switzerland, it says that the Swiss newspapers contained much adverse criticism of South Africa. If you go to another continent, to Canada, the report says that in the Press at large derogatory statements about South Africa continue. Or we can go back to Europe, to a little country, where the report says that venomous articles about South Africa still appear. I think if any other evidence is needed of the failure of the Minister to make an improvement in the situation, there is no better evidence than that submitted by the Minister of Justice in the Vote we have just disposed of. The Minister quoted cables based entirely on an incorrect presentation of the facts in South Africa as understood to Australia and other countries. Therefore it is no wonder that the report tabled by the Minister says that during the past year ignorance about South Africa and misconception and prejudice still prevail as a stumbling-block to the work of the Department.

Now, before the Minister or hon. members opposite start the usual old tactics about talking about the overseas Press and stringers, etc., and saying that all the good work the Minister has done abroad is immediately destroyed by the false reports from stringers originating in South Africa, it is perhaps relevant to quote what the report has to say about that aspect. I say that before hon. members start their old tactics, and particularely the hon. member for Vereeniging, they had better read the report, because it says quite clearly that a degree of objectivity was noticed in responsible overseas newspapers and news agencies in reporting South African affairs. But what does it say about stringers? There is the most interesting observation—

But the point is that on the basis of this evidence it is clear that the activities of the Minister’s Department have had a largely negative result in regard to helping to break down the barriers of hatred and suspicion which have isolated South Africa from the world. It therefore follows that the tactics adopted by the Minister’s Department of attempting to sell on a mass basis, as it is called in the departmental film, the anatomy of apartheid, is a complete and utter failure. In fact, as one overseas commentator put it—

He made that comment on the basis that there are in fact only three persons in the world who present the policies of this Government abroad, namely Elijah Mohammed, Governor Wallace of Alabama and our own Prime Minister. In view of the Minister’s failure to achieve any results in obtaining a better atmosphere for South Africa abroad, two questions arise, and to my mind only two alternatives remain for the Minister. The first alternative I would suggest is that he change his tactics in his attempt to sell apartheid. In other words, he must get away from the mass media approach. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that the hon. the Minister has had less to say this year than in previous years. In the words of the hon. the Minister of Justice, I cannot, unfortunately, return the compliment as far as the hon. member is concerned, except in regard to the short time when he felt very frustrated because of the actions of his own party, and gave the newspapers to understand that we would be saddled with him. The hon. member used the worst examples appearing in the report. I contend that any objective reader of the report will gain the impression that, notwithstanding the many stumbling blocks encountered abroad by the Department of Information and its staff, they have achieved a large measure of success in their work. The hon. member spoke about the more objective attitude that they are adopting, and I want, in ff>e first place, to congratulate the Department on this comprehensive report which they have made available to us, and on the great success they have achieved, because, notwithstanding the fact that there are people in South Africa who made their job more difficult—and amongst these people I include, not only the “stringers”, but also the United Party —they are meeting with success. Let me put one question to the hon. member. What has either he or his party ever done to assist in improving the image of South Africa abroad? On the contrary, it has been apparent throughout this debate, and it was demonstrated here last night, that the Opposition are continually trying to blacken the image of South Africa abroad. They are continually trying to besmirch that image of South Africa abroad, instead of making a contribution towards improving that image as responsible members of an Opposition who we hope love South Africa just as much as we do. This is one way in which they help to make the work of the Department more difficult.

Not only have they made no contribution in this regard, but they have actually tried to derive political advantage from the distorted image of South Africa abroad. They have been hoping that that distorted image, an image which is created deliberately by certain bodies and to the creation of which they have contributed, will be to their political advantage. One can only be thankful that we have experienced peace and quiet in this country recently which has enabled us to bring about that greater measure of objectivity abroad. One can be thankful for such things as the successful establishment of the Transkei State and the election which took place there, because I think what happened in the Transkei nas made a very great contribution towards encouraging more sober thinking abroad and making our policy better understood. One is grateful for the fact that the Government has ensured that things are going well in the economic sphere; that the safety of the State is being maintained; and that the State is preventing episodes which can give the “stringers” and people who are not favourably disposed towards South Africa the opportunity to vilify our country. I want to say that the Department has to overcome many stumbling blocks. But one impression which one does gain from this report, if one is objective and does not try to bring its weakest points to the fore, as was done by the hon. member for Turffontein, is that there has, in fact, been an improvement in the position. If one wants to be honest, one must admit that, notwithstanding many stumbling blocks, the Department has achieved a large measure of success, and that it has built up a comprehensive organization in an attempt to improve the image of South Africa and to increase her standing abroad. The hon. member has told us that when one reads the report one gains that impression. He spoke of Switzerland. Let me quote to the House what the report has to say about Switzerland —

That is what this report has to say about Switzerland, although they also say that there is much criticism of South Africa. They say that there is at least a better understanding of the position in South Africa. This is what the report says about Western Europe—

Of Belgium, the report says this—

In other words, the examples quoted by the hon. member were the worst examples that it was possible to find. The report says of France that there are editors of important newspapers who are stepping into the breach for South Africa. That is why I say that the hon. member quoted only the worst examples from this report in order to try to support his arguments.

In conclusion, I want to say this: I think hon. members opposite ought to get away from this attitude that they are adopting. We are fortunate in that there is more sober thinking to-day in certain respects in South Africa in regard to the problems facing us. That is fortunately the case, but there is one thing which will never do the Opposition any good at all, and that is the attitude which they continually adopt of painting the blackest picture of South Africa that they possibly can for the sake of political gain.

Nonsense.

It is true. They try to paint the blackest picture of South Africa for the purpose of party political gain, but I can tell them that they will not win votes in South Africa by acting in that way. Instead of co-operating with us in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the survival of the White man in South Africa, and in order to create a better image of South Africa, they are undermining that more sober attitude both abroad and in South Africa in regard to our country’s problems.

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, I will deal with the accusation made by the hon. member who has just sat down that this side of the House does nothing to improve the image of South Africa.

I intend to present to the hon. the Minister to-day, for the information of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), certain positive proposals as to how he can profitably spend the money that we are now being called upon to vote. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that as far as defending South Africa is concerned and giving the correct image of South Africa in the outside world, he can thank this side of the House for the fact that the rest of the world still recognizes that democratic viewpoints prevail in South Africa to-day. My colleague on my left will give the hon. member a few more specific examples of efforts made by this side of the House to improve South Africa’s image overseas. [Interjections.] I am making a statement here on the basis of the case submitted by the hon. the Minister himself that the report shows clearly that there is no acceptance of Government race policy, the propagation of which has been the major aspect of the activities of the Minister’s Department in the past 12 months. The hon. member need not quote the extracts which he quoted here; I only quoted a few passages from the report. Why does he not quote the main introduction to this report, because the Department said here quite clearly that it remains difficult to secure adequate and fair attention in the overseas Press. Why? For the reason that I stated a minute ago and that is that there is no acceptance abroad of the Government’s race policy. That brings me back to the point where I left off. I submit to the hon. the Minister, in view of this failure, that there are only two alternatives open to him. The first alternative is that he should change his tactics in his attempt to sell apartheid, or alternatively that he should scrap altogether the idea of selling Government race policies and substitute for it, as the main activity of his Department, the policy of selling South Africa and her peoples, which are two entirely different things.

With regard to the first alternative it is clear that no headway will ever be made against the general condemnatory view held by the world’s Press and media influencing world opinion in the main, for the simple reason that the thinkers and the intellectual who influence this opinion in the world’s Press and the general media such as the radio, television or other sources of information, have only accepted the multiracial concept on the basic assumption that men of goodwill can live together either socially, economically or politically in any society of mixed races. The point which I put to the Minister is that on the basis of this first alternative it would seem to me that the Minister’s propaganda should be directed to the few, to the intellectuals and to the thinkers so that on this basis some of the intelligence, some of the imagination and energy and compassion which men of goodwill, according to the Minister’s theory, waste in seeking to demonstrate how races can live together, can be concentrated instead on studying how they can be helped to live apart. I think frankly that this alternative of attempting to spend this money overseas amongst the intellectuals and the thinkers would be so much wasted effort. I think it would be wasted effort on the part of the Minister, just as it has been wasted money and effort in attempting to sell Government race policies in the mass media. I say that for three main reasons. The first reason I want to give the Minister as to why he should not waste his efforts in this direction is that the world considers that it is only fanatics who think this way and hence the world’s thinkers and intellectuals who may fall for the Minister’s propaganda would be branded as crazy cranks. Sir, there is a second very good reason. The idea that it is impossible for men of goodwill of all races to live together died when D-Day came around after the last war. There is a third and even better reason why the Minister will not succeed in selling Government race policies to this class of person. The simple reason is that we live in the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, in the atomic age, when the entire civilized world has one thought only and that is peaceful coexistence between people of various races, between individuals and the nations of the world. It is the one dominating thought of all people in this second half of the 20th century. It is clear therefore that any attempt either to sell Government race policies in a limited sphere or to sell it on a mass basis with the moneys which we are being called upon to vote here will fail and in fact have failed in the past. I have attempted to show that the first alternative, therefore, namely, to attempt to sell Government race policies to a limited group of thinkers and intellectual and political leaders in other countries with a view to their influencing public opinion in their own country in favour of South Africa, will not meet with any success. In my opinion, therefore, the Minister must discard this idea, for the reason which was summed up by a visitor to our shores last year, a visitor with whom the Minister had somewhat of an altercation in the Press, Mr. Peter Rum, the chairman of the British Federated Chamber of Industries. This very important gentleman who came here with a great deal of goodwill, made the point very clearly when he left our shores, in his farewell message to South Africa, that “what was worrying the rest of the world was very often misunderstood in South Africa”.

Sir, what about the second alternative that I put before the Minister, namely to scrap altogether any idea of selling Government race policies and to substitute the idea of selling South Africa and her peoples. Sir, South Africa has been in the spotlight of world interest over the past decade, and in these circumstances it is incredible to find to what extent ignorance still prevails of conditions in South Africa in the various countries of the world in which the Department of Information is active. We know that that ignorance exists but it is astonishing to find to what extent there is still ignorance of the conditions which obtain in our country. Sir, one is entitled to ask why this ignorance still prevails. I think the answer is that where we as White South Africans draw a clear-cut distinction between our various racial groups, between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, the world outside does not draw these distinctions. This applies even to the Africa states. They do not draw the same distinction between the South African population groups as we ourselves do in South Africa. The world recognizes only two classes of people. First of all it recognizes the indigenous population of Blacks, of non-Whites, and secondly it recognizes the settler population who to the rest of the world are Whites and who are here as the result of the old colonial policy. It is on this general basic conception of the South African people which is held abroad that South African race policies have been assessed. I think that the active propagation of Government race policies only results in the Whites of our country being regarded as oppressors of the Blacks. The communists have not hesitated, in their anti-colonial campaign and in their efforts to win the hearts and minds of the people of Africa, to exploit this general impression which is held abroad of the South African people. Sir, what is the answer to this problem? I think the answer is not to propagate a new theory of apartheid against the whole tide of world opinion. I do not think that that is the answer if we want to get a more favourable image of our country abroad. I think we should attempt to show the world that there are men and women in our country who have not got a black skin but who have as much right as an African or any other Black African to stay in Southern Africa as White Africans; to show the outside world that these White Africans are just more fortunate in one sense than the Black Africans and that is because we as White Africans have enjoyed the fruits, the traditions, etc., of democratic Government longer than the Black Africans of Africa have enjoyed these fruits and traditions, and that the White Africans in fact threw off the yoke of colonialism much longer ago than the Black African, and that having thrown off the yoke of colonialism we have built a nation here in the southern part of the African Continent. Lastly I think we should make it clear in our propaganda that with all our knowledge of Western civilization we have never wished to deny the humanities and the right of progress to our nonWhite or Black African brothers in our country. We must show the outside world that we have always tried to maintain a well-ordered and well-governed society and, above all, to retain, as a sacred trust, a pride in our identity as a people. In other words, if the Minister hopes to break down any prejudice against South Africa in order to get more objective thinking on the part of those who sway world opinion, then it is absolutely necessary to show the outside world that in fact there are in South Africa not Whites who are settlers but Whites who are here by right of birth and who belong as much to the soil of Africa as any Black African.

Is that not exactly what we are doing?

You will not achieve it by selling race policies which the world has interpreted as nothing but racial oppression, which in turn has created the impression that we are merely a settler community here. If the Minister wants to succeed then he will have to have greater vision and he will have to have the ability to think big; he will have to have a complete re-orientation of approach in his Department and he will also have to have the ability to rise above petty thinking and he will have to stop making the sort of speech which he has made in this House on every single occasion on which we have discussed his vote, speeches in which he makes vitriolic attacks on the leadership of the other African states and points out what a threat they are to our existence. He will have to forget that kind of talk, because the hon. the Minister’s Department could never hope to be successful in its efforts to produce a better image of South Africa abroad unless we obtain the goodwill of those who control mass media thinking— those who control television, the radio, the newspapers and other sources of information to the peoples of the world. What I am trying to tell the Minister is to stop being a Nationalist Party propagandist by assessing all activities of his Department on the basis of Nationalist political philosophy. Sir, the taxpayer pays this R3,180,000, not Nationalist Party subscribers. I say to the Minister that he should start selling South Africa and her peoples as opposed to selling Government race policies. I believe that just as he finds that he cannot sell Nationalist race policies to the outside world, so he will find that he will meet with success if he attempts to sell South Africa and her people to the outside world. I say to the Minister therefore that he should get away from the materialistic approach in the propaganda pamphlets and brochures of his Department. Let him get away from the petty approach of trying to sell a picture or a building; let him try to sell the people of South Africa and our spiritual values. Let him emphasize our rights here as White South Africans Sir, you never see a leaflet or a pamphlet issued by the Department of Information about South Africa as a people. We see plenty of propaganda about our mountains and our railways and our aircraft, but do you see anything in these pamphlets depicting our spiritual values, our historical background, our history, not as settlers but as White Africans. Let the Minister emphasize the degree of goodwill that exists between the various races in our country.

Have you seen “The Anatomy of Apartheid”?

Of course I have seen it. Does the hon. member think that “The Anatomy of Apartheid” is acceptable anywhere in the world? It is a good film technically but a bad film from the propaganda point of view. Sir, let me give the Minister an example of what I mean, the Minister employs non-Whites in his Department at the present time. He uses them for internal work. We on this side are entirely opposed to that, because the bulk of the money that we vote here is being spent by the Minister’s Department for internal propaganda purposes and not to sell South Africa and her peoples.

What is wrong with that?

I am not objecting to it. If the Minister uses Coloureds and Indians and Bantu to talk to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu and to educate them, I have no objection to that. What I am saying to the Minister is this: Who gives the outside world the impression that there is some element of truth in the stories which are sent abroad about South Africa? It is those nonWhites who cross our borders, the extremists, the communists. They are the people who are listened to overseas because they have a black skin and because they come from South Africa. What is to prevent the Minister from sending educated Bantu to speak up for South Africa as information attaches in his Information Offices overseas? What prevents him from sending a university-trained Coloured man to sit in London in his Information Office, where he can say to the people in Britain, “I am as much a South African as any White man who lives in South Africa and I know the true facts there.” That Coloured attaché or Bantu attaché could give a far better answer to those who make adverse propaganda against South Africa than any White African on the Minister’s staff. People overseas would be more likely to believe him than they would be likely to believe a White South African.

They will not take any notice of him.

Sir that is a positive step that the hon. the Minister can take.

Sir, one could go on at length when one discusses the hon. the Minister’s Department; there are many facets to it. But we are concerned here with two things: It is clear on the one hand that the policy followed by the Minister of selling Government race policies has failed in the past; it has achieved no results abroad. If the Minister wants success then he must think up some alternative, and what we suggest to the Minister is that he should exercise his imagination and re-orientate himself. I plead with him to-day to rise above being a Nationalist Party politician and to use the influence of his Department and the monies voted by this House to sell South Africa and her people to the outside world. That is the only way in which he will be able to rescue South Africa from her present situation of isolation in the world.

I noted with appreciation the fact that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has tried to approach the matter objectively, but I am afraid he has not succeeded wholly. He simply could not resist the temptation of trying to make a little political propaganda with this matter which affects them as much as it affects us. I also appreciate the fact that he made a few positive suggestions, with one of which I fully agree, and which I shall deal with just now, but for the rest he must forgive me when I say that he really lapsed into a lot of platitudes which take us nowhere. For instance, he said, “We are living in the second half of the 20th century”, and that kind of thing. All of us know that, Mr. Chairman. We are faced with a problem here and he has not contributed much towards the solution of that problem. I agree with the hon. member that we have not yet had much success in our attempt to sell our policy of apartheid or the policy of separate development to the outside world. I agree fully with him on that point. We have in fact had some measure of success. I am quite sure that we will ultimately have more and greater success. But the Department of Information is at the present time not so much trying to sell the policy of apartheid or the policy of the National Party, or the policy of separate development. Before we shall succeed in that—we shall have to do so ultimately—we shall have to succeed in selling something else overseas, and we have already met with a good deal of success in that. That something else we have to sell to the outside world is the fact that we here at the southernmost tip of Africa are faced with an absolutely unique problem of race relations which exists nowhere else in the world. We shall have to sell the idea that the problem of race relations in South Africa, which is unique in the whole world, cannot be solved according to European methods or English or American methods. This problem of race relations can be solved only with South African methods, with the experience we have here. When all is said and done we are the only people who have had 300 years’ experience of this unique problem. Whatever party may be in power, we shall still have to sell this idea to the overseas countries. Will it avail us to try to sell the policy of the United Party to foreign countries, for if you wish to sell their policy, do you not come up against the same wall against which we have come up? Our policy is the policy of separate development: the people overseas will not accept that. But if the United Party comes into power and the hon. member for Turf-fontein (Mr. Durrant) becomes Minister of Information, he must sell to the outside world a policy based on racial discrimination. He knows as well as I do that their policy is based on racial discrimination, and he knows as well as I do that they will have to struggle in the same way to sell their policy overseas until they can succeed in selling the idea that we are here faced with a unique problem, a problem of which we have the most experience, a problem which can only be solved by us, and to the solution of which other countries cannot make any contribution. As soon as you have sold that to the world, then you will have the basis of selling to an increasing extent the policy of the Government then in power, and to indicate its fairness and reasonableness and its ultimate success, whether it is their policy of race federation or our policy of separate development. In this respect, namely to sell the idea that we are faced with a unique problem here, to foreign countries, I think the Department of Information has made tremendous progress, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on the progress they have made. One is finding to an increasing extent that the learned men, the responsible countries, the responsible economist in countries like England, America and France, and that the financiers in those countries are beginning to realize that South Africa has a unique problem which only South Africa can solve. I am not going to say for one moment that the Department has made much progress in trying to sell the policy of separate development, but it certainly has succeeded in getting some of the most important people in the world so far as to say now what they did not say a few years ago, namely: Leave South Africa well alone; its problem is unique and only those people can solve it. I do not believe, and here I agree with the hon. member for Turffontein—that it is an idea you can go and sell to the masses. I do not think you can sell it through mass circulation newspapers. I agree with him that it is very clearly evident that the Minister and his Department are concentrating less and less on the masses and to an increasing extent on picked groups overseas, economic groups, educational groups in America and elsewhere, to persuade them, not to accept our policy—it seems to me this will at the present time be an impossible task; they refuse to accept it, just as they will refuse to accept the policy of the United Party—but to accent that we are faced with a unique problem here. The hon. member for Turfontein has produced proof of that. He says one finds at the present time that the news agencies and the “stringers” are adopting a much more unprejudiced point of view, and they are doing so because it is down on them to an increasing extent that we are saddled with a unique problem here. The fact that those people are adopting a sensible attitude, the fact that eminent people are now talking in a more and more moderate tone about our problems, show the success the Department has achieved. That is what that money has been spent for, and I think it has been well-spent. Mr. Chairman, these things cannot be measured, but we know there are the Randalls to-day; we know that even Mr. Adlai Stevenson said that our problem is unique. There are financiers who visit this country and return overseas, after they have seen conditions here for themselves, and they say to their countries: “Leave these people alone; permit them to solve their own problems.” I think the Department has achieved much success. The Opposition must realize that this problem of the picture of South Africa is as much their problem as it is our problem. The hon. member for Turffontein is wrong when he says that the Minister is acting as a propagandist for the National Party. There is no point in him acting as propagandist for the National Party overseas. He is acting as propagandist to tell people overseas that we are faced with this unique problem, whether the National Party or the United Party is in power. In that connection we have had a great deal of success. I do not know whether the hon. member criticized the hon. the Minister that he is spending too much money internally among the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, but nothing has rendered a greater service to our picture outside than the fact that we have had peace and order in South Africa in recent years. Nothing has rendered us a greater service than the fact that our Bantu are more prosperous economically; that our educational services have been expanded more among all the Coloured races. There are a large number of people from various sides who are trying to stir up unrest among the Bantu; people who are trying to stir up dissatisfaction among the Bantu; people who are trying to make the Bantu rebellious against the Government. It we were to have another Sharpeville or if we again had to have disturbances such as we had a few years ago, we shall destroy completely the success we have achieved. Therefore it is absolutely essential that the Department of Information should spend as much money as it can set aside on information officers, on Bantu radio, oa Coloured radio, to enlighten these Bantu and Coloureds and to try to get them to accept this position and, as the hon. member has said, to live with the White man in harmony and peace. We must show the world that we are living together here in peace and harmony, and that we are in this unique position. If we achieve that, we can continue to try to sell our special policy to those people. As regards the interior, I think the Minister is acting very wisely and I should like to make an urgent appeal to him. I know the struggle he has to get the people. My appeal to him is to place more and more information officers among the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. I know the Minister in fact has more posts than he is able to fill, but in spite of that I should like to appeal to him to go further out of his way.

I should like to conclude by saying this: The putting right of our picture overseas is not a problem that can be solved with a single formula. This is not a problem in regard to which one can say: “Publish these or those pictures” and then it will be solved. The hon. member for Turffontein, as a publicity man, knows that. When it comes to this type of problem, you have fashions, in the same way that you have fashions in men’s clothing or women’s clothing. One year this thing is the fashion and the next year that thing is the fashion. It is constantly a matter of trial and error, in order to put right your picture. One day the dress is shorter and the next day it is longer. One day they want to see the Black people and the next day they want to see the bikinis at Clifton. [Time limit.]

Had the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) drawn an accurate picture of the policy of the Department of Information overseas he would have been on sound ground but unfortunately that is not the picture. I had the privilege towards the end of last year to travel in the United States. The one argument I had in every information office I visited—I must say at once that the personnel were courtesy itself; they could not have been more helpful—was that I found they were trying to sell political policy as though they were selling it for an election in South Africa. That is what is happening. The attempt is not to sell South Africa but to sell a political party policy. When I left South Africa I asked for pamphlets to take with me to sell South Africa. Ninety per cent of them were absolutely useless. They consisted of political speeches by Eric Louw, Dr. Donges, etc., on political issues. You cannot sell South Africa with five or six page speeches taken out of Hansard on race policy. Ninety per cent of the propaganda seems to be an effort to sell apartheid and not South Africa. I threw the stuff away; it was useless to me. I found that the offices overseas were printing some of their own material and some of it was good, some of it was excellent. Some of the Satour material is excellent. But the material I was given when I left was an absolute waste of time. I did not even bother to try to use it to try to sell South Africa because it was aimed at selling a political policy as though the Government was fighting the United Party overseas. That is the impression one gets when you look at the propaganda material, the impression that you are trying to win votes for the Nationalist Party and not trying to win votes for South Africa.

What have you ever done to help to improve the image of South Africa?

Nothing!

I shall tell him. I am not talking about what the United Party has done for sheep in the bushveld; I am talking about helping South Africa. The first thing the United Party does to help South Africa is its very existence. I can tell those hon. members over there that had it not been for the United Party they would not only have failed—as they have failed—to sell South Africa overseas, but the situation would have been absolutely impossible. It is the knowledge that there is an alternative government and an Opposition in South Africa that wins for us what sympathy we still have. The most effective propaganda this Government and this Minister could make would be to tell the world that there is a strong Opposition instead of trying to create the impression that there is a one-party state in South Africa. The policy of the Government’s Information Office is to create the impression of a one-party state with all the Whites supporting the Government. [Interjections.] You show me propaganda indicating that South Africa is a true democracy where you have points of difference, where you have an Opposition in Parliament with an alternative policy? You do not get that, Sir. What is put out is Government statements, Government hand-outs, Government propaganda.

We must hand out a picture of you and say: “Look at our big Opposition.”

I have pictures of myself here —pictures which appeared in America. I want to give Government members some indication of what this side of the House tries to do when it goes overseas. I want to quote from a New Orleans paper—

And then I went on—

When the Opposition deals with the outside world we try to show the world that we are a country in which you have a Government and an Opposition and that we shall settle our affairs on a democratic basis. But the Government does not do that. The Government tries to imply that every White man in South Africa is behind its apartheid policy. It tries to sell a political picture of apartheid instead of selling the country, as the hon. member for Turffontein so correctly pleaded, South Africa and her people are bigger than the Nationalist Party; bigger than the United Party; it is bigger than any section or any group. The task of the Department of Information is to put the true picture to the world and not to be a party propaganda machine. You cannot blame it, Sir. All the people I have met seem to have been either exNationalist Party journalists or organizers. They must necessarily be accustomed to political party propaganda. We must get above it, Mr. Chairman. For all their sincerity— and I believe they are sincere—what they must put across is what we in the United Party try to put across and that is a picture of South Africa as a whole. Then you will get sympathy from the outside world, Sir. If the world outside realizes that we are not a dictatorship it will be more sympathetically inclined towards us. I say again that the existence of the United Party as an Opposition and its existence as an alternative Government is the greatest asset this country can ever have in the outside world when it comes to winning goodwill for ourselves. People will then look upon us as we are and not as we are so often held out to be, a country of a one-party Afrikaner domination with everything else trampled underfoot. This Government is responsible for that image. When you argue in defence of South Africa overseas you have to fight the laws this Government has passed; not Press reports but laws.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he did what America does and invite leaders from other countries to visit South Africa it would do more good than a thousand or a hundred thousand copies of political speeches put out as Government hand-outs. Why does the Minister not follow the same pattern which America follows? Why does he not organize tours similar to the one the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) and I were privileged to go on? That sort of tour does more good in international relations, and is more valuable from an information point of view, than any amount of propaganda that the office of this Minister could ever put out. In that way you meet people; you put your country’s problems and views across and you learn about the other country. If the Minister were to embark on a programme—obviously it could not be on the same scale as America does it—of inviting Members of Parliament and specialists from selected countries to come and see for themselves, I believe that what they would see would be a much healthier picture than what the Minister is trying to sell to them. He is only trying to sell a fraction of South Africa’s true picture. He is not trying to sell the whole picture. The whole picture, for all its faults and for all its defects, is a better image than the image of the Nationalist Party and its political programme. [Time limit.]

If the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) says South Africa’s greatest asset is the so-called strong Opposition he is wide of the mark. In the first instance, if he says we have a strong Opposition he is really stretching the truth very far because I think we have a fairly rotten Opposition, in the second instance, if the hon. member suggests that the Opposition in South Africa will supposedly satisfy the world he is completely wide of the mark. The fact of the matter is that the hostile world outside does not agree with the United Party Opposition in this country. That being the case why should they regard it as an asset to this country? How can the world outside regard the Opposition as an asset to this country if it does not agree with that Opposition. I shall tell you, Sir, how the world outside regards the United Party. I am not referring to the hostile world outside, the Afro-Asiatic countries and others. In the Nationalist Party they see a thorn in their flesh. In the United Party they see something with which they do not agree but which is in any case at least already an improvement, as far as they are concerned, on the Nationalist Party Government. They see a first instalment in the United Party. If the United Party should come into power they would look forward to the Progressive Party as the second instalment. And if the Progressive Party were to come into power they would look forward to a Black Government as the next instalment. It is only a question of instalments. In the eyes of the hostile world outside the United Party is only one of the instalments but it is not something which will ultimately satisfy them. I want hon. members opposite to realize that.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said we must not try to sell our policy in the world outside; we must sell South Africa and her people. On a previous occasion the hon. member said we must not sell the Transkei to the world outside by Clifton. To put it differently what he means is that we must not sell our policy but our bikinis. I want to say this to him: The world outside have enough bikinis, but what they do not have is our policy. Of what use would it be if we sold our bikinis there instead of our policy? Of what use would that be to us in the long run? They have nothing against our bikinis, but they do have something against our policy. That is why we must sell them our policy; we must explain our policy to them. That is why the task of the hon. the Minister of Information is pre-eminently one of saying to the world outside: Here is our policy and this is the reason why it is morally correct and the only policy for South Africa!

Sir, we must regard our Information Service in the world outside completely objectively and realistically. You ask yourself the question why is South Africa pre-eminently the country which during the last few years has suffered as a result of the hostile way in which the facts of this country have been represented? The hostile campaign against South Africa is a general campaign which is being waged against the Western world to-day. It is a general campaign by Communism against the Western world. Communism and Liberalism are blood relations and Communism is to-day using the Liberal Press just to promote its own cause. That is why we have the position to-day that every Western country has the problem of mis-representations by the Liberal Press. We have the position in the United States of America, for example, where the racial riots receive great publicity in the newspapers all over the world in order to bring America’s policy in disfavour. We have the same position in Britain. If anything happens in Nottingham Hill it causes headline news in all the newspapers throughout the world simply to bring the Western world in disfavour. We find the same position in France with the O.A.S. It is a general campaign against the Western ideology. Because of South Africa’s peculiar position she lends herself particularly to the sensation which the Liberal Press needs. South Africa in particular is the target and not America or Britain because South Africa occupies a particularly strategic position in the world; because South Africa is practically the gateway to Africa, Africa which will one day strike the balance between East and West. That is the reasons why the concentration is pre-eminently on bringing South Africa into disfavour.

What is particularly abused in South Africa is our race relations. As a result of our peculiar race composition Bantu nationalism is being exploited by Communism in this campaign of hate against the Whites in the Western world.

What I have against the Opposition is this: In any country in the world, as far as the world outside is concerned, it is the Opposition which sets the pace. You cannot get away from that. People do not ask what the Government says because they know. The policy of any Government is at least very clear to the rest of the world. The world always asks: What does the Opposition of that country say because the Opposition consists of people who live in the same country, people who claim to know what the facts are. I want to give one example: When they launched an attack on South West Africa at UNO they said it was not only the Hereros and the Damaras who were opposed to being linked with the Republic but also a section of the White people, namely, the Opposition. That is why I say the Opposition always sets the pace. The world outside always accept the word of the Opposition when they criticize the Government. What is of importance, Sir, is this: If the Opposition were to say those things outside nobody would take any notice of them but they say these shocking things in this House, the highest legislative body in the country. That is our problem and it is that fact which does us such a great deal of harm. That is why I say as far as the world outside is concerned the Opposition carries as great a responsibility as the Government, if not greater as far as the good name of South Africa is concerned. The Government can say wonderful things about South Africa from morning till night and the world outside will close its ears to that because it knows that the Government is in any case advocating its own policy. But one single good word on the part of the Opposition, however, makes a great impression on the world outside. That is why I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said good things about South Africa in this House yesterday. Those words of his, Mr. Chairman, will have a greater influence on the world outside than all the good things the Government says in this House. But just as they have greater influence in respect of the good things they say about South Africa they also have a greater influence in respect of the bad things they say about South Africa. We cannot get away from that. People outside say: We do not like South Africa at all, but we are not the only people who say those nasty things, the White people in that Parliament, the Opposition, also say them. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down must not expect me to reply to him, because in my opinion anybody who equates liberalism with Communism and in effect suggest that Abraham Lincoln was a communist, is so stupid that I do not want to argue with him.

Last year when I addressed the Minister on his Vote, I made two observations. The one was that the Minister had under him a group of dedicated, hard-working and extremely capable officials, officials who were doing everything humanly possible to perform their functions. This observation still holds good. I am pleased to see that a widely experienced expert, like Mr. Brand Fourie, is now at the head of our information services. My second observation was that these men had a double task. In the first place, they have to sell the good things South Africa has to offer. They are making a success of this. But their second task is to sell the policy of the Government. There, I am afraid, not the angels in Heaven can help them, simply because that policy belongs to an age which is past. The policy of the Government is unwanted in the time in which we are living.

I said at the time that to try to continue to sell apartheid was a waste of the country’s money. I believe this observation still holds good even to a greater extent than before, because Parliament had hardly closed last year when reports appeared in the Press that the Hamilton Wright Organization in the United States, who were publicity agents for our Information Service in the U.S.A., had considered it useless to contract again with the Government on the basis of trying to sell the Government’s politics. Mr. Hamilton Wright, the President of the Organization, had this to say—

I said at the time that to try to continue to sell apartheid was a waste of the country’s money. I believe this observation still holds good even to a greater extent than before, because Parliament had hardly closed last year when reports appeared in the Press that the Hamilton Wright Organization in the United States, who were publicity agents for our Information Service in the U.S.A., had considered it useless to contract again with the Government on the basis of trying to sell the Government’s politics. Mr. Hamilton Wright, the President of the Organization, had this to say—

Did the hon. member see what happened in connection with the second series of that film?

Unfortunately not. But I do believe that this approach will eventually have the most success. And this was underlined recently by a friend of the Government. The novelist, Stuart Cloete, made an extensive tour of the United States. He is a man who is doing a tremendous volume of work. He says he has written millions of words in praise of the Republic. What was Mr. Cloete’s assessment at the end of his trip? I quote from a Press report—

This fact is borne out by most South African observers going abroad. I don’t want to take up the time of the Committee by quoting from different statements. But reading what prominent men had to report after a visit abroad— men like Mr. Dirk Meter, chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries, Mr. F. K. Lighton, Mr. D. V. Benade, there is little doubt that in present circumstances, the policies being what they are, it is impossible to sell the Government’s politics, and certain aspects of them in particular. So we say again: Let the concentration be on other things than the political. I appreciate the fact that you cannot leave the political side entirely out of the picture. I do not think one can expect the Minister of Information not to deal with the policies of the Government at all. We are not asking that. But when the Minister became Minister of Information a year or two ago he made a promise. He said: “I will make it my task to give the world a true picture of South Africa.” This was reported in the Cape Times. He went to say that he wanted all South Africans to tell “the true story” of South Africa. But the Minister is not doing that. He is not carrying out his promise. I believe, as other hon. members have said before me, that he is making too much propaganda. What is South Africa? If you want to give a true picture of South Africa, politically speaking, what would you do, Sir? Like Britain and America we have a system in South Africa of government and alternative government. The one comes and things change; then the other one comes and things change again. I am now limiting myself to our parliamentary politics. If the Minister really wants to give a truthful picture of South Africa let him explain what the positive policies of the Government are. That is part of his job. But let him also explain that there is an Opposition and that that Opposition commands anything up to 48 to 50 per cent of the support of the White electorate of this country. That is South Africa. Not only the 50 per cent supporting the policies of the Government. Half the White electorate support different policies. Let us present the picture of South Africa as it is, of our system of government and alternative government. Present the policy of the Government and present the policy of the Opposition. The hon. Minister must make it clear that while apartheid is the policy of the Government of the day, it might not be the policy of the Government of to-morrow. In fact it certainly will not be.

Do other countries do that?

The hon. Minister is faced with a problem and we are trying to help the hon. Minister to overcome his problem. I think the Minister must really stop telling the world that apartheid is South Africa and that South Africa is apartheid. It is not. It is no more than the ruling policy of the political party in power to-day, and out of power to-morrow. On top of it, millions more people in South Africa are opposed to it than are in favour of it. This is the truthful picture and this is the picture I must say I present wherever I go. A year ago I visited the Far East. I spoke to many leaders there. But everybody that I met was under the impression that you had here a solid White body of apartheid people against the Blacks. [Time limit.]

I do not agree with the Opposition when they say that the Minister is mainly trying to sell our apartheid policy. I agree with it if it alleged that the Minister and his Department are selling the Republic of South Africa as a country where the policy of separate development is being applied to the world outside. I admit that and I want to say a few words in that regard.

I am sorry for the hon. the Minister because I think he is saddled with an enormous task. He has to fight on two fronts and I want to analyse these two big fronts for a moment. The first is an internal front, a front which finds fertile soil in the world outside. What is the position internally against which the Minister has to fight? The task of the Minister is to break down the false image which has been created of South Africa and which is still being held out and to place in its stead the true image of South Africa.

Overseas?

Internally as well as overseas. There are five big groups inside this country who are trying to create an overall picture of South Africa overseas. We have the idea of the Progressives of “one man, one vote”. That is the one group. If that were to happen it would give the true picture of South Africa as the world outside and the democrats on that side must understand it. The second group is the Liberal Party who say that freedom and equality and non-racialism constitute the true image of South Africa. The third group is the United Party which says: Make a few concessions, discriminate a little, give a few political rights, adopt a stage-by-stage policy and that will eventually give the correct over-all picture of South Africa. We must remember that the Minister is not fighting any economic antagonism against South Africa; he has to fight a false image in respect of South Africa’s colour relationship and her colour policy. The fourth group inside this country is the communists and the underground organizations which have passed away and which are now carrying on the fight outside with the assistance of the fugitives. They say, as the communists say throughout the world: “We are the true democrats; we shall make South Africa a Republic of the nation. The total image as envisaged by us for the future is the true complete image.” Then you have the fifth group and that group consists of the Nationalist Party which says: “There can be no question of a democracy, there can be no question of a democratic state unless there is order, peace, quiet, stability and progressive development.” Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the Department of Information is trying to build up an image of South Africa on precisely these lines, on this basis. In applying a policy of separate development characteristic of our own development, characteristic of the problems we have in our country, we are going ahead and the image we want to hold out to the world outside is, that in spite of our policy of separate development, we have order, peace, quiet, stability and unequalled development in South Africa. I think this approach on the part of the Minister and his Department is the correct approach. He dare not allow himself to be led astray and to follow the wrong road on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wishes to lead him. He wants the Minister to use his Department to bolster the Opposition as a strong alternative Government by saying to the world outside: We are a democratic state, just look at the strong Opposition we have to put up with. These are the fronts inside the country and every one of them has influence outside.

Let us analyse for a moment the fronts in the world outside. It will not take long. We know the story. We are living on a continent to which the entire struggle has been shifted. Whom are fighting here? The East and the West are fighting. China and Russia are fighting. They are all fighting here to conquer a front. They establish frontal organizations, they pour in money, they send agents, they bomb from the air. Each one of them employ as many methods as possible to conquer this front in Africa. With our order, peace, quiet, stability and development here in South Africa, we are in direct contrast to that which is at the moment happening on the rest of the Continent. What are these people bringing here? What is Communism bringing to Africa? They are coming here with a shocking record. I recently read the book “The Defeat of Communism” by Mr. D. G. Stuart Smith and I want to show you, Sir, with what record they are coming here so that you may know what we really have to contend with and in what way our total image is being interfered with and attacked. Russia is involved in Africa in a struggle with the West and in a struggle with China. It comes here with blood-stained hands, it comes here with a shocking record and South Africa, which is the direct opposite, is used to camouflage that record. What does Smith write in his book? He says: From 1917 to 1920 10,000,000 people were killed in the revolution in Russia, 2,000,000 were liquidated, the bourgeois; 4,000,000 died in the famine of 1921; slave camps 8,000,000; 1,000,000 died in the purge; when Finland and Manchuria were invaded in 1939 500,000 were killed; in 1940 to 1960 1,000,000 in slave camps; between 1940 and 1960 1,000.000 as a result of purges. That is the record with which Russia is coming here and which the Minister has to fight because in order to camouflage that record another scapegoat has to be found. What happened in the satellite countries which have a direct influence on politics to-day? They say that between 1944 and 1950 2,000,000 died; during the purge between 1946 and 1950 1,000,000 died; 100,000 in the Hungarian revolution. That gives you a total of 83,500,000 people who have died under Communism. That is the record with which Communism is coming to Africa at the moment. The front which Communism is trying to conquer here in Africa, this attempt of theirs to oust the West, this attempt on the part of Communism and among the communists themselves to get the final say and to conquer a foothold in Africa is being made and we have fallen prey to this big onslaught.

Sir, I want to say this to the Minister: Just think how this onslaught and how these attempts to distort the complete picture of South Africa, this onslaught against our good name, this onslaught on our laws, is seeping through and flowing in other directions. This onslaught on the maintenance of law and order in South Africa and on the judgments of our courts will become broader in scope, will be intensified, will become more vehement. I want to say to the hon. the Minister to-day that he must not for one moment make one single concession or take a single step backwards on the road. The Minister and his Department must stand in this corner from which they are trying to correct our image. This is the only corner that will remain steadfast—and that corner is South Africa, a country with apartheid, a country where there is law and order such as the rest of Africa has not got, such as the rest of the communist world has not got. We have a country which has stability in the economic field such as the rest of Africa and the rest of the communist Balkanized area has not got; we have peace in the industrial field such as the rest of the world has not got; we have development such as the rest of the world has not got. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister is the head of an important Department. Some of the work done by his Department is good; another part is not so good. In fact, it is like the curate’s egg—good in parts. I leave the hon. Minister to tell us about the good aspects of his Department, as he no doubt will. I would like to touch on a few of the less good aspects. Not that I do so without sympathy, because the hon. Minister must be an extremely frustrated Minister. I was looking through this lavishly published report of his, and I came across quite a few instances to prove that. First of all we are told in this report that one of the big tasks of the hon. Minister and his Department this year was to make the Odendaal Report known to the rest of the world and to South Africa itself. How frustrated indeed he must have felt when, after having done all that work to summarize the Odendaal Report, he discovered that his Government and his Prime Minister had put it in the refrigerator. The hon. Minister tells us in this report that he is carefully revising the publications programme of the Department of Information. It must be taking place very carefully. I put a question the other day to the hon. Minister asking him which publication had already been withdrawn, and he said that they were still considering the whole matter. In other words, six months after this report appeared, we still have not got a final reply. The report says “1963-4”, but it does not say up to what date it covers the work of the Department.

If he is going to revise the whole programme of his Department, I also hope that he will take a very good look at the glossy magazine Panorama. I have gone through many of the issues of Panorama. It has improved during the past year, and I do believe that it can serve a good purpose in many respects to make South Africa known abroad. But the losses on that particular publication are mounting year by year. In 1962 the losses were R89,000 and in 1963 they were R107,000. I do not believe that that money is being properly spent, particularly in view of the fact that, first of all, in South Africa itself more copes of Panorama are being distributed than overseas, while actually it is overseas where we need a paper such as Panorama to be distributed. I see that 144,000 copies are being sent out free. I think that needs a very, very careful review, too.

I said that I sympathize with the frustration of the hon. Minister. I can imagine that he must have his worst frustrations when he finds his Department making television films and sending them abroad, for as you know, Sir, dozens and dozens of these films are manufactured every year by his Department and distributed overseas for television purposes. How frustrated he must feel when he has to ask his Department to make a dozen television films and he knows that it is the policy of his government that those television films he will be sending to America or to Britain will be corrupting the family life of Britain and corrupting the family life of America. How frustrated he must feel to ask his Department to corrupt American family life, and again to corrupt and to poison the youth of Great Britain! You must remember that the policy of his Government is not against bad television films as such, but against all forms of television.

I said that I would touch on some of the less good aspects of the work of his Department. I would like to have from the hon. Minister an explanation of what I regard as shocking a case of waste of money and incompetence as I have ever come across. It is a case which I shall reveal how through the Minister’s actions, South Africa was dragged before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States’ Senate, the most prestigious committee of what has been called the most powerful legislative chamber in the whole of the world. This whole matter started with an acceptable idea. The hon. Minister realizing the futility of much of his propaganda in the United States decided to appoint a publicity organization, the Hamilton Wright Organization, to do a part of his job. As far as I can establish, the Department paid this organization a sum in the vicinity of $200,000. It might have been more, because I remember once they asked for a renewal of their contract at $350,000. Apparently this Hamilton Wright Organization did publicity work for various governments, for instance Mexico and the Republic of China, but it seems that his Government failed to advise this organization properly, and it soon discovered that it had broken a United States’ law by not filing the material that it has published with the United States’ Department of Justice. As a result this organization was hauled before the Senate of the United States of America’s Committee for Foreign Relations, a committee under the chairmanship of Senator J. W. Fulbright of Arkansas. The Committee contains a person who is one step away from the Presidency of the United States, Senator Mike Mansfield, and it also contains a probable next vice-President of the United States, Senator Hubert Humphreys. Now some strange admissions were made before this Foreign Relations Committee, and I want to read to you from the evidence which I received from Washington. Apparently this Hamilton Wright Organization had had something to do with a film called “The Transkei Project”, and this organization was questioned by the United States Senate Committee on that particular film. The evidence went as follows:

What is the Transkei project?

This is an area of land that was set aside by the Government as a commonwealth for the Bantu. When I arrived in South Africa they were just about ready to inaugurate this. I wanted to go up there to direct the picture, but I was not given the authority to do so.

We pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but when they wanted to go to the Transkei to direct this picture, they were refused. Mr. Wright’s evidence then continued:

These were the words of the Hamilton Wright Organization before the United States Senate, after they had been paid $200,000 or more of our taxpayers’ money. The evidence continues:

This organization having been paid hundred thousands of dollars by the Government said this to the Senate Committee of the United States. And Mr. Hamilton Wright continued and said—

Then the chairman asked—

replied:

This is one part of the evidence before the Senate Committee of the United States of America. Let us turn to some other part of this evidence. [Time limit.]

I should like to react to a few ideas expressed here this afternoon, but before doing so I should like to make a positive contribution to this debate, and firstly I want to confine myself to that in case I perhaps do not get to it before my time runs out. The Vote we are now discussing is that of a very young Department. If we look at this concise but very good report submitted to us, we see that the first sentence reads—

It has only been in operation for two years, and as the result of the youth of this Department it is much easier at this stage still to be able to make a positive contribution to this debate, unlike in the case of many of the other Departments, because we feel that there are still so many directions in which this Department may develop. As the result of the fact that complications in the world are much speedier, we are to-day living much closer to the rest of the world than before, and largely as the result of that it has become essential for us to have a Department of information. Of course, in a democratic country like this we should like to discuss all our departments and all the aspects of the activities in this House. It is our experience that in these times in which we live we cannot always discuss these things in as much detail as we would like because we know that it may to a certain extent be detrimental to much of the work of the various Departments if the details of the work of those Departments are disclosed. I think that applies also to the activities of this Department. I think that if the Minister were to tell us everything in this House it would not be in the best interests of South Africa, but if he could tell us everything we would all be more satisfied, including the Opposition, in regard to what has been happening in this Department in recent years. What strikes me particularly in the discussion of this Vote is the amount made available for such a tremendous task. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said in the beginning of his speech that provision was being made under this Vote for R3,180,000 and therefore he felt justified in discussing the Vote. Sir, if one looks at this small amount, then R3,180,000 may sound like a big amount, but if one considers the tremendous task awaiting the Department of Information all over the world then this is a very small amount indeed. Apart from the political considerations, apart from how good or how bad our case is, this is a small amount. Let us assume for the moment that we have a good case, and let us rather discuss the merits and the task of the Department in the light of our own financial circumstances and to what extent we can best expand it, within our financial means, to the greatest benefit of South Africa. Therefore I say that if one thinks of the big world outside, where one does not necessarily have to propagate the policy of the Government but where one has to paint the correct picture of South Africa, which does not exist at the moment, then I say that with this amount of R3.180,000 we will be able to achieve nothing or very little. For that reason I should like to express three thoughts to tell the Minister how I feel that we could more effectively disseminate information in the world. I want to say beforehand that the Minister need not react to it if he does not think it desirable to do so. He can decide about it himself. But I have come to the conclusion that with the financial means available to us we cannot achieve anything in the world. Or, rather, the little we can do is negligible, even if we considerably increased this amount. The fact of the matter is that in relation to the size of South Africa and its budget, the greatest amount we can make available for information is so small that we cannot really achieve much. I am now thinking of America, to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred, the mighty America which is so large and where everything is so expensive that one can achieve hardly anything with the money we make available to the Department of Information. Therefore I want to express this thought for what it is worth, and I should like hon. members to consider it and then we can argue about it. It is that we should as far as possible use voluntary assistance in the world to spread the right story about South Africa. I think we can do that to a large extent. The first thought I want to express in regard to spending our money on information more effectively is that through this Department we can subsidize South Africans to help them to go overseas and to assist the Department of Information in the work they are doing. In other words, those people who go overseas in that way and who are subsidized will not be paid officials of the Government. This Department should give a subsidy to those people, perhaps by paying part of their travelling expenses, or in the form of a bursary, so that those persons can travel in certain countries of the world. Now hon. members opposite will perhaps tell me that I will just collect a lot of Nationalists to go overseas, but I have no such idea. As I see the task of the State Information Service—and I am now very serious about this matter—it is that we should disseminate the true facts about South Africa in the world. I do not want to say more than that. Nor do I like the words which are so often used, namely that we should “sell" South Africa. I find that an ugly expression. In fact, I am sick of it. South Africa is not in the market and we do not want to sell it. I really do not know what those words mean. In any case, I do not think we should use that term Any more. What we should do is to put South Africa in the right perspective overseas, and when I say that South Africans may perhaps be assisted by this Department to go overseas, I do not mean that they should necessarily be supporters of the Government. They may also be supporters of the Opposition, because we are all South Africans.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) a moment ago read out paragraphs from the newspapers as to what he did while he was in America. I was there a week after him and I read quite a number of Press reports as to what he had said at various places. Unfortunately he has not had the privilege of reading in the Press what good work I did there, because he was there before me. But as far as he is concerned. I can testify to the fact that he did very good work for South Africa.

That is a wonder.

But it is a fact, although from the nature of the matter he approaches the spreading of information about South Africa overseas in a light different from mine. This is to-day the official Government of South Africa, and the policy of this Government is the official policy of South Africa. I agree that the world should also be told clearly that there is also an Opposition in South Africa. It was also my experience that people asked in surprise whether we had an Opposition in South Africa. After having stated the official policy of the country, one is asked what the policy of the Opposition is. I did my best to state the policy of the Opposition also. [Time limit.]

When the time of my previous speech expired, I was busy quoting from the hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, of which I have one copy out of several volumes sent to me from Washington. That committee deals with the activities of non-diplomatic representatives of foreign principals in the United States. This committee actually sat from about May until July, 1963. Mr. Chairman, you would have noticed from some of the evidence I have already quoted that the representative of South Africa, Mr. Hamilton Wright, was hailed before this committee. In his evidence he referred to a certain picture, “The Transkei Project" which was produced by the Department of Information. He referred to it as “hard-core propaganda”, “too obvious”, etc. In fact, he called it “just corn" and said that it had no professional know-how in it. He said it just “died”.

But there was a great deal of other evidence, too, which was given by this Mr. Hamilton Wright and what I do wish to say now does not, I believe, redound to the credit of that particular organization in this instance. I want to tell the House how some of the “rave" letters, letters praising the work of the Department of Information, originated and how the hon. the Minister and his Department have been led by the nose in regard to these matters. So, let me take the House back to the United States Senate Building to a sitting of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The chairman of that committee addressed the South African representative as follows—

To that Mr. Hamilton Wright replied that he did. Then the chairman of the committee said—

Then the chairman continued his question as follows—

To this Mr. Hamilton Wright replied in the affirmative, and said: “It is a sales promotion letter”. This letter is then printed in the evidence in part as follows—

A “rave" letter, therefore, a letter specially requested, to put it quite bluntly a phoney letter. Then the chairman said he wanted to show Mr. Wright another letter, a letter from Mr. Wright to Mr. Baily as follows—

I wonder whether they got it? Did the hon. the Minister get it? In any event, the letter continues—

Now, how long this “honeymoon" lasted I do not know, but apparently, according to the evidence Mr. Wright said the following—

Why?

I turned it down … simply because they wanted me to get into hard-core political propaganda and I said “no”.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go any further into details because I do not want to abuse the privilege of a second 10 minutes. I do think however that we should have the full story behind this Hamilton Wright organization because, after all, it costs the country hundreds of thousands of rand. I am not blaming the present head of the Department because the contract was entered into by the gentleman who is now Administrator of South West Africa.

No.

The full contract is printed in the evidence and according to that it is signed by W. C. du Plessis on behalf of the Government of South Africa.

It looks as if the Minister is misinformed.

I think we should get the facts on why this money was spent, whether it was well spent and what the Minister thinks of this organization speaking of the work they had to do for his Department as “corn" and “hard-core propaganda”.

I think the suggestions made by the hon. member for Ceres will be generally welcome, but I wish to remind the House that the complaint that South Africa is not doing enough to create the right image in the world outside already dates from a period 20 years ago. When the late Mr. Heaton Nicholls returned from London he said in this House that the world outside had a distorted image of South Africa. We can quite understand that where a man like him already complained in those days that South Africa was not being correctly represented to the world outside, how bad it must be to-day because the powers which concentrate on falsifying our image are so much greater to-day. I hope, therefore, that there will not be any opposition if the hon. the Minister were to come to this House next year and ask for a more extensive Budget.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres, although I do believe his good intentions to hold out the correct image of South Africa to the world outside, will to a great extent be thwarted if they are followed by distorted and malicious propaganda to the effect that what we are trying to do is simply to make propaganda and not to give a true reflection of the real position. The hon. member for Orange Grove has proved that time and again this afternoon. In such circumstances one’s good intentions would come to nought.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to accused the hon. member of Orange Grove of distorting.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

But I did not say it, Mr. Chairman, I said the good intentions of the hon. member for Ceres would be thwarted if the world were to be told that when an effort was made to correct the image of our country it was only propaganda; that that was not the real state of affairs.

Order! The hon. member used the words ‘distorted’ and ‘malicious’ in relation to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He must withdraw those words.

If that is how you interpret it, Sir, I withdraw those words. The Minister has an enormously big task to carry out with a little money, but I want to say this to him that no matter how difficult he finds it that is no reason why he should give in. As long as we have confidence in our case and know that it is based on fairness and justice, we need not be afraid and if evil forces should succeed temporarily in presenting a distorted image of our country to the world outside, it is not our fault. If, however, an appeal is made to us to spend more money and to tackle the problem more seriously we must do so.

We usually have many quotations in this House and although I do not often quote I want to do so now. Here I have a letter from Mr. Allan Grey, the editor of Southern Africa. As such he is probably known to many hon. members in this House. He has never in the past been a supporter of the National Party. I wrote to him in connection with our policy of separate development and sent him a brochure. This is his reply—

I agree with you 100 per cent on all those issues.

What is important, however, is the following—

We know that we are undergoing a strict test at the moment because we have to fight against a distortion of facts. What is the position today? It is also suggested that the Department of the hon. the Minister should tell the world, what the policy of the Opposition is. I am of the opinion that if there is anything in the world outside that they know too well it is the policy of the Opposition. I have nothing against the world outside knowing what the policy of the Opposition is, but surely the Department of Information cannot be saddled with the responsibility of informing the world outside as to the policy of every member of the Opposition.

Why not?.

I shall tell you why not in a moment. Exception is taken when it is said that liberalism, more especially in South Africa, is to-day more dangerous than Communism because liberalism conditions people. The Progressive Party and the Liberal Party are already completely conditioned to the ideas and tastes of the world outside. A large number of the United Party members too have already become conditioned to liberalism and the United Party in turn conditions the views at UNO. So it starts in a small way but it gets progressively bigger and bigger. In addition we are now asked that we should also saddle the State Information Service with the task of representing the policy of those extremely Left kindred spirits of Communism to the world. I do not think it is the task of the Department of Information to introduce a political party to the world outside but to create a correct image of South Africa.

With a view to the insistence on one man one vote, surely it is important that the world outside should know, in spite of the fact that they hate us intensely, that the principle of one man one vote is indeed being carried out in practice under the policy of separate development. If there is one thing the world outside should know it is this fact. And if there is another thing the world outside should know, it is this that the application of the principle of one man one vote in a race federation will lead to the disappearance of civilization from South Africa. Surely it is the task of the Department of Information to submit these basic facts to the world outside. [Time limit.]

I think we realize, especially when we discuss this Vote, that we all are anxious to do the best for our country but let me state quite frankly that our case is not strengthened or promoted by condemning liberalism. After all, all the nations of the Western world are liberal thinkers. The word may have a different meaning in South Africa, but to tell those nations that liberalism is allied to Communism, will not make any impression on them. The hon. the Minister cannot take this story to the United States of America or to the United Kingdom because there he will never make any progress with it. And when they ask us why we do not give every man a vote, we should not counter this by saying that we are going to give every man a vote in the never-never land, the Bantustans. That I do not think should be the answer. When dealing with people from Britain, the answer should be to indicate to them that Britain did not always apply the principle of one man, one vote. Historically it is a recent development. For hundreds, of years under a parliamentary system Britain did not have a system’ of one man, one vote. On the contrary. Only a small minority of the population could vote. The first Reform Bill was introduced only in 1832 while the second Reform Bill was introduced less than 100 years ago. And yet Britain is probably one of the most highly developed countries in the world.

Our reaction to them should be that they should not expect a country at that stage of development where South Africa is to-day to tell every one of its citizens that he can become a voter when he is 18 years of age. If you take this line of reasoning, you are doing better than by using the word “liberal”, because while the word seems to have become an ugly word in South Africa, it is not so regarded in the rest of the world. When you use the word in the English language, it means the select and, probably, the best people. They will all tell you that they are liberal thinkers.

It becomes distorted the moment the devil gets hold of it.

Yes, but that is probably true too of us human beings and not only of words.

I think the Minister has a dual task. Firstly, it is his task to sell South Africa, although I should not have used the word because the hon. member for Ceres does not like it. But to sell South Africa in the way it is meant here, is an American expression of which all of us know the meaning, i.e. to make South Africa known to the world and to tell people about South Africa. This is especially true in so far as tourism is concerned. We have to tell the people of the world what an attractive country this is. This is then the first task of the Minister and his Department. But this is not the most important of his tasks nor what he regards as the most important to-day. What he is trying to do to-day is to sell South Africa’s politics, i.e. the policy of the reigning Government. This policy I do not think is saleable and I do not think this policy as adumbrated in this House by leading members on the Government side is acceptable to the world.

They do not understand it.

Yes, it is quite true that they they might not understand it and I do not say that they understand South Africa well. The impression I have gained from people I have met overseas is that they are comparatively ignorant of South Africa.

Do you not think that the biggest task should be to put the true story across instead of a false one?

Yes. In my view every South African leaving this country becomes a member of the Department of Information. When we go overseas, and I go over quite frequently, we meet people there who wifi ask us about South Africa. We then try to explain what our Government stands for, what the official Opposition stands for and what the smaller groups in the country stand for. These things we try to explain to them. I have always found that generally speaking people are anxious to learn and to get more information about South Africa.

Let me at this point speak of South Africa House, our headquarters in the United Kingdom. It is a part I know very well. Now, South Africa House is built on one of the finest sites in London. It is on an ideal site and yet the place is most unattractive. There is not a warm atmosphere there. Let us contrast the atmosphere at South Africa House with the atmosphere of Australia House and New Zealand House and we find that the atmosphere in South Africa House is cold and unattractive. One does not feel welcome there. I do not blame the hon. the Minister for that. It is probably owing to the notoriety which South Africa House has gained in recent years. That we must however try to live down. Now, I should like to suggest that we concentrate things South African in South Africa House. The office of Satour in Piccadilly should come to South Africa House and so should the South African Airways office in New Bond Street. Then we should, if possible, have a branch or two of South African banks there. People could then come and meet there, knowing that it is the rendezvous where you meet your friends. In that way it will be looked upon as our home when we are away from home. Having done that, we can consider this programme of propaganda or of information, whatever you like to call it. Now, the question here is who the people are whom we should use for that. In this connection, I want to suggest in all modesty that the Minister, and the Government generally, have not yet made the best use of those people who have the background of the people they have to talk to. For instance: If you want people to go and talk to people of Aberdeen you should, if possible, send South African Aberdonians. You should send men who understand Aberdeen. Similarly, if you send people to speak to the English, you should send people with an English background and who perhaps grew up there as children. These people would know how the English think and what their outlook is. These South Africans should be used on television. But even these are not the most valuable. The most valuable are the men who served in the South African forces. I found the most effective argument overseas to be this: I would ask them what we did to-day that was wrong and why it was that we were being condemned by the people of the United Kingdom, seeing that we have descended from them. I would tell them that during the first World War they found themselves involved in a war under a liberal government and we came and helped. I would also point out to them that during the Second World War they got involved in great danger, this time under a Conservative government, and again we came along and helped. To this they usually reply by saying that that does not apply to members of this Government. Then I would tell them that many Nationalists came too because these young men said that their country was at war and that they should help.

Now I want to suggest to the Minister that he is not making the best use of this line of approach. I have met people overseas who have told me that they would like to get more information about South Africa and about things South African. But all they get is propaganda for Nationalist Party policies: the advertisements in Punch, the London Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, etc. The story that tickled my fancy most was the one about the “new foreigners”. We should never talk about South Africans as being “new foreigners”. I thought this was a very poor piece of propaganda which does not help us at all. What we must try and put across is that we are one people, that we are developing although we have varying ideas about our development, but that we are one nation and not several. When it comes to speaking of the Whites, one can easily point out to Wales and ask them what the difference is in the light of the fact that there are bilingual people in Wales. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to some of the points raised. I should like to inform hon members that I realize that they are pressed for time and therefore if I scrape through this Vote very quickly they must appreciate why I am doing it, because I am not so immodest that I feel that I should carry on the debate until to-morrow. I therefore hope that if I do not reply to all the points raised, hon. members will understand the position.

I first want to reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in regard to his reference to the Hamilton Wright Organization. First of all, he said that due to the incompetence of this Department of Information, South Africa was dragged before the Senate Committee. Of course that is not true. There is not a word of truth in it. It had nothing whatever to do with the Department of Information; it only had to do with the Hamilton Wright Organization which was pulled before the Fulbright Committee. They had every right to do so because it was an American firm, but it had nothing whatever to do with my Department. He indicated that we had failed to notify that they were registered. But they were registered and they were still brought before the Fulbright Committee. So that is quite incorrect.

Now I want to reply to the other point he made. We had two contracts with this firm, under which it made two widescreen films for South Africa, “South Africa To-day" and “Touch of Gold”. Those were seen widely in various countries. “Touch of Gold" was taken off the R.K.O. circuit the other day as the result of agitation by the American Committee on Africa. Mr. Wright made a statement to the Press. He said it was a travelogue. It was not the hard-core film the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to: it was a travelogue. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said we should put over the positive picture of South Africa. This film, a positive one, “Touch of Gold”, was made by the Hamilton Wright Organization under contract for us, and they showed it in many theatres last year all over the whole of America. Last week they showed it again in New York on its second run and this time it was picketed by the American Committee on Africa. There were no politics whatsoever in the film, yet that was done, which only shows the extent to which these committees overseas will go against any thing South African. It had nothing to do with the type of film; it was a travelogue.

It showed the image you have set up.

No, it was a political stunt and the hon. member knows from his own experience how difficult it is to prevent that sort of action. I also accept the fact that hon. members of the Opposition are anxious to help in this work, and I am glad of it. But it is not an image that this Government had set up. The film had nothing to do with the politics of this country. Hon. members have been over to America. I have read what the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) has said in the papers, and I know that that is not acceptable overseas. He cannot tell me that the United Party policy is acceptable overseas. The hon. member for Green Point knows that the Southern Rhodesian policy is not acceptable overseas, although they have integration to the extent of having 14 or 15 Black members of Parliament. It is just a situation which exists in the world and which we all have to face. Let me get back to this Hamilton Wright Organization. He produced a T.V. film, “The South African Frontier”, and it is still being successfully shown in the U.S.A. He also distributed thousands of pictures of South Africa. We did not renew the contract with that organization. I told the hon. member it was not Mr. Du Plessis who was responsible for that contract.

It was Piet Meiring, but Mr. Du Plessis signed it.

That is right. Mr. Du Plessis inherited the contract, and so did I, and we signed the contract. But the next year when the contract had to be renewed we did not renew it. Mr. Wright came over here, but we refused to renew the contract. After all, it is the person in charge who has to decide whether to renew a contract or not. I do not care what Mr. Wright told the Fulbright Committee. That is his business.

Why was it not renewed?

Because, firstly, Mr. Wright did not make a good impression on me. I knew nothing about these letters at that stage and what attempts had been made by him to create an atmosphere, but I did not like the manner in which we were being pushed and pushed and the cost of the contracts were increased, as we were then approached with a contract of 350,000 dollars, and I did not like it. I did not even know that these letters were produced artificially. I accepted that this was what Warner Bros, had sent in good faith. Nevertheless Mr. Du Plessis and I decided we would not renew the contract.

Does the Minister know how much was actually paid to the Hamilton Wright Organization before the contract was ended?

I think the contract we signed, the one we inherited, was for 150,000 dollars, and then he came along with two other new contracts for 250,000 dollars and 350,000 dollars, and we would not enter into those contracts. I have read the whole report that the hon. member quoted and I know the contents of those letters. They shocked me. But he did not fool us.

Why did you appoint him in the first instance?

I did not appoint him. He was appointed by the Department of Information to do certain work originally and he did the work and produced the films according to the contract. When later he came for a renewal of the contracts we did not renew them, and those rave notices which he asked for and which he got were artificial rave notices. We had no knowledge of them, but we still did not renew the contracts. Up to then Hamilton Wright had distributed certain films and had made certain films in South Africa like “Touch of Gold”. That was the last one he made.

Who was the Minister responsible for the first contract?

I would say that the Department as such entered into the contract with him. There was a Minister in charge, but the organization carried out the contracts we made with them. The rave notices were produced on “Touch of Gold”, which was the last film he made for us, and it was after that that we did not renew the contract. The rave notices read out by the hon. member referred to “Touch of Gold”, but we made no further contract with him, so the rave notices had no effect on the Department. The Department itself considers it got fair value for the film he originally made. The contract signed by Mr. Du Plessis, I think, was for 150,000 dollars and the previous one was for 125,000 dollars, and he made a number of T.V. films and two documentaries.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The hon. member read extracts from this report, and he referred to Switzerland and other countries. Do you know, Sir, we in this Department are modest people.

Really?

Yes, and that will surprise the hon. member, because he does not know what the word means. But we are modest. We do not make great play about our achievements. We say that there has been a certain amount of change here and there. In regard to Switzerland and Italy, the hon. member for Turffontein read out extracts but he does not go onto give the whole picture. I have not the time to read the whole extract, but if he reads the whole report properly he will find that we are making headway in many other countries. But those countries he left out entirely. He will find, e.g., that in Germany and Austria progress has been made.

But you have no office in Austria.

No, but we operate from Germany. That presents no difficulty. We do not have an office in New Zealand, but we operate from Australia. The hon. member says we should not sell the politics of South Africa, but we should sell South Africa itself and her people. I want to support the hon. member for Ceres. I do not like the word “sell”. It is an Americanism, but I do not like the word. I say we are prepared to put over the case of South Africa and the true image of South Africa, and we are not afraid to run away from it. The hon. member says we cannot sell apartheid. We are prepared to state our case for apartheid. He objects to the fact that we had the film “Anatomy of Apartheid”. Of course had we to run away from apartheid because it is unpopular in the world. We decided to show the true anatomy of apartheid, and amazingly, the Press considered that it was a very dynamic and thought-provoking film. It was thought-provoking, and it was a good film. It did not try to put over the Nationalist Party line; it showed what apartheid meant, and even the remarks of the Opposition were conveyed in that film. But it was a true approach to apartheid.

The hon. member for Point said we spend 90 per cent of our efforts on trying to sell apartheid and we should sell the positive things. Surely the hon. member does not know what we are doing. He only has to read the report. The hon. member for Turffontein says we should talk about our economy and our industrial development. I have a whole list of the books produced by this Department. “South African Prospects and Progress”, “Sportsmen’s Country"—all aspects of the life of the country and nothing to do with politics whatever. We have a book, “South African Music”, “South Africa ventures into Space”. He says we never say anything about the Opposition. I have “Quiz" here. How is South Africa governed? It says what political parties there are. There is the “South African Digest”, which is the one with the biggest circulation. It tells what is happening all over South Africa and gives the standpoint of the political parties.

How can you say that seriously?

Yes, we quote the actual statements by the leaders of the various parties. I cannot help it if the policy of the United Party is so vague that even what its leader says cannot be absorbed, but we quote from the leaders of the parties. We quoted what the Leader of the Opposition said, the Leader of the Progressive Party and the leaders of the Coloured people. The hon. member talks about publicity about South Africa and its people which we do not do. Let me remind him that we have been following this policy for years, even before I became Minister. Take the last two years and the films produced. I have mentioned “The Anatomy of Apartheid”. “The Workshop of a Continent”. Was that a political film? “On the Move"; “Southern Symphony"; “Music of South Africa"; “A Young Country"; “The Portrait of a People"; “Citizens of To-morrow”, dealing with the youth of South Africa; “My Own, My Native Land”. All these films were produced by this Department and they have nothing to do with political policies. To say that 90 per cent was devoted to Nationalist propaganda is so much poppycock. It is not true. We put the picture of South Africa and convey a true image. There was a model of the Orange River scheme. It won the Gold Medal at Bulawayo. We showed our flowers in a show in Paris. “Bastion of the South" was shown in France, and I think it took a gold medal. It was the first film shown in a national series there. All we received were compliments because it showed a picture of South Africa. How can hon. members then say that we convey politics? We convey the policy of the Government because that is a responsibility we gladly accept, but to say that we put over Nationalist Party politics is completely untrue.

Do you not sell apartheid?

The Government’s policy is apartheid. If the Labour Party gets in in Britain, they will put over a policy of nationalization, and would that be wrong of the British Information Department? Apartheid is the policy of this Government and we are not afraid to face up to it. We showed them the basis of separate development in the film described by the hon. member for Orange Grove. We showed them the Transkei, the homelands of the Xhosa people, and we are not ashamed to do so. The hon. member for Point also referred to the fact that we should bring out visitors to South Africa, but we bring visitors out. In 1962-3 there were 28 visitors at a cost of R20.000. In 1963-4 provision was made for R61,000, and in 1964-5 for R72,000. We are bringing visitors out, but he said we should go in for leadership exchange. We cannot propagate South Africa externally in the world like America does by means of leadership exchange. That has never been the Department’s aim and we do not intend doing it, but we will bring visitors from overseas to this country so that they can see exactly what is being done here.

The hon. member for Hospital had something to say to me a minute ago. When I spoke about modesty he regarded it as a joke. But one thing about that hon. member is that he is not modest. He went on a trip overseas, to America, and he came back and made some scathing attacks on the Department of Information. I want to read some of them. He said the Department could not dispel the ignorance in the world and we cannot get our information over. He said we were wasting millions. He spoke about the terrifying image of South Africa, and that we stink from one end of America to the other.

That is after he went there.

He said we had gone to the dogs; that is what they thought of us. He uses this kind of extravagant language of the worst type. I cannot understand the hon. member. I do not know why he should come back and feel so vicious about South Africa. They also sent me some of the reports of the interviews the hon. member had on television. I referred to his modesty. The hon. member has no doubt about his usefulness, but he says the Department is a failure and wastes millions. This is what he said about himself—

He also spoke about his two interviews with Mr. Soapy Williams. Is that such a modest attitude?

But was he at the White House?

What amazed me was that over there he said he was on a leadership exchange. That is the impression he tried to convey. This is what he said—

So he paid his own way. It goes on—

Then the hon. member comes back to South Africa and does the same thing. In all the interviews he mentions the leadership exchange, but somebody rang me up from Johannesburg and said: You know, I want to tell you that Gorshel never went on a leadership exchange. Yet for months and months this was the impression he gave, that he was there on a leadership exchange. Even in the South African Press I can read out extracts where the hon. member said he was on a leadership exchange. But then somebody apparently started making inquiries and found that he was never on a leadership exchange.

What has this got to do with your Department?

I will tell you what it has to do with it. People go out of this country, like the hon. member for Hospital and say things about the country that are inexcusable. He said this—

[Interjections.]

Order!

Talking about the Transkei he says—

When the hon. member for Point tells me he goes over there and tries to create the correct imagine, I want to ask him whether he thinks that is a fair image to create. I am prepared to help anybody who has goodwill towards South Africa to go overseas and to give him all the information, irrespective of politics, but what shakes me is when I read this sort of stuff about what a man said on television. And if he says that here, what does he say to Mr. Soapy Williams?

I understand that I must sit down now, otherwise the debate will not finish in time, and I want to give other people the opportunity to reply.

I must say I am very surprised that in view of the fact that I have not taken part in this debate, the Minister was so well prepared to launch the attack he has just levelled at me. I have no objection to his launching an attack on me, because had I spoken in this debate, I would undoubtedly have launched an attack on him. I want to tell him that whatever I said by way of an interview when I came back here from the U.S.A, towards the end of last year—to the effect that the South African taxpayer was being mulcted to the tune of millions of rand because the money was going down the drain as far as our image in the U.S.A, is concerned—is perfectly true, the Minister should know it. He should know, for example, that one of his officials cannot get an interview which gives any favourable information about the Government into either of the two big Washington newspapers. When he talks about the image I created, he quotes out of context. He does not tell the Committee, for example, that I made it perfectly clear that I was an opponent of this Government, both in this country and out of it, and that whereas I made every effort to correct all the misconceptions and libels about South Africa, I was never prepared, nor did I purport to act as the spokesman of the Government. For that he has his Department, which, with the best will in the world and the worst material in the world, does a reasonably good job. I want to tell him further when he speaks in such scathing terms about my television appearances, I have both in this House and out of it repeatedly offered to make available to the S.A.B.C., with which that Minister has very close contact, at least eight of the radio and television tapes, the “audios" I have; then let him hear the questions that are asked of a South African visitor, and let him then form his own impression of what is thought of this country, and let him judge for himself as to the answers I gave to try to put right any false impressions. He referred to the fact that I appeared on a television programme which was seen by millions. This is not my rating, but the rating of the N.B.C., the C.B.S. and the A.B.C. of their programmes, and I will give him one example. I appeared in a programme called “The Open Mind”, which is a very famous “forum" programme of the N.B.C. radiated from Radio City—this programme is beamed from twenty stations throughout America, and they claim that 25 million people see it on a Sunday and then two Sundays later it was broadcast after I left the country, and people who come from this country and were visiting the U.S.A, have told me that they saw this particular television programme in which there were five ambassadors of various countries to the United Nations, and in which there were two “surprise" guests, one being Mr. Alex Quaison-Sackey, the Ambassador of Ghana, and the other myself. This was done in order to provoke an argument, obviously, for the interest of the television audience, and if the hon. the Minister was genuinely distressed by the kind of things he says I have done, then he would take the trouble to ask his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, to allow that one particular audio-tape to be played over the transmissions of the S.A.B.C.; then he will hear, first of all, what the Ambassador for Ghana told the television audience, and what I, as a South African, told the television audience.

I want to say in regard to the Foreign Leadership Exchange Scheme, that I made it perfectly clear—the Minister read out one of those statements—that whereas I was a guest of the State Department (and this can easily be established from the credentials which I hold from the Department), I was in fact travelling under the “Voluntary Leader’s Program”, and that I was paying my own expenses. This is perfectly true; I am not ashamed of it. I found a very great virtue in being able to speak as an independent South African whose visit, unlike the visits to South Africa of Mr. Anthony Harrigan, who has been here three times as the guest of the Minister’s Department, was being made at his own expense, and in his own time—and who was not visiting the country as the paid spokesman of any Government or other organization. This is the only thing that will command the slightest respect, in the United States at any rate—the fact that an independent person who is not a Government spokesman, stands up and publicly makes a case for South Africa, although he criticizes the Government. All this is designed to prove that we are a democratic country. I was asked time and time again, “Will you be all right when you get back there?" also on television; I said, “Why not?" Their reply to that was, “Well, with that Government of yours, won’t they put you in for 90 days because you have criticized them?" But here I am, Sir. Sir, is the Minister so foolish that he does not realize the virtue of an Opposition spokesman stating the case for South Africa, even if he claims that he opposes this Government? Does he think that these television and other public communications media want the hand-outs of his Department? I can prove that they do not.

The Minister, Sir, has tried to damn me to-day for having done something which I did in good faith, for South Africa, and a very good reason—and, as I have said before, at my own expense.

[Inaudible.]

After that hon. member’s demonstration last night, I do not want to provoke him to the stage where he will be asked to leave the Chamber again.

I said nothing.

I want to say this in conclusion: What will this hon. Minister say when I show him letters of commendation from officials of his Government, the one that I oppose politically, when I show him a letter, for example, among others, from the Consul in San Francisco, Mr. John Mills, whom I met there for the first time; he subsequently saw me, and his staff, according to the letter, saw me on certain television programmes in which I appeared in San Francisco; what will he say when I show him the letter which says in effect that I have done a first-class job for South Africa and its image?

He should thank you.

Sir, I do not want to labour this point. The fact that this gentleman is in the Cabinet, is the Minister of Information in the Republic of South Africa, convinces me once and for all that we are now in a condition known as kakistocracy, a Greek word similar to “aristocracy”, and in case the hon. the Minister does not know what it means, it means “the Government of a State by the worst citizens”.

I was really shocked to-day to hear the statements which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) made in America, according to the extracts the hon. the Minister read out here. If I remember correctly, the hon. member said that the White man here in South Africa wanted to remain in power and that there was oppression of the Black man.

I did not say that.

If that is not true, then I leave it there. But the hon. member himself said that his approach over there was to emphasize that he was an opponent of the Government of this country.

Precisely.

But that is just what is wrong. If that is one’s approach in a country susceptible to enmity towards South Africa, how can one expect to do any good for South Africa? It is just impossible; one cannot do it. When I spoke earlier to-day I said that I wanted to suggest that South Africans should go abroad more often and that they should be subsidised and have part of their travelling expenses paid by the Department, and I said that this idea need not necessarily be limited to members or supporters of this side of the House, but that it could also include members and supporters of the party opposite. Now I have my doubts. I also said that I had seen reports of interviews which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) had given when he was overseas. What he said in those interviews was favourable to South Africa, although to anyone with a knowledge of South Africa it was apparent that he was a supporter of the Opposition and not of the Government. Basically, however, it was the approach of a South African.

Did you see the reports in the Press of my interviews?

No, but I heard what the Minister read out from those cuttings, and the hon. member did not deny it. The great question is what our approach is when we go abroad. This Government is the official Government of the day, and in the first place it is our duty as citizens of this country when we go abroad to say what the conditions in South Africa are and to expose the lies and untruths published about South Africa overseas and to correct the wrong impressions in the minds of the people there.

Precisely.

That should be our primary approach. I want to say very clearly that my experience was different from that of the hon. member for Hospital, who says that nothing is being done to improve the image of South Africa and that he experienced only enmity and opposition there. I am not talking about the Government Departments now, but I can assure you, Sir, that I did not come across a single private person there who did not readily realize, after the circumstances had been explained to him, the difficulties with which we are faced in South Africa. I did not come across a single person who did not have sympathy for our attempts when one had explained to him what we were trying to do. We should realize, although we are supporters of apartheid on this side of the House, and although hon. members opposite say they are against apartheid, that both sides of the House are agreed—and if the hon. member for Hospital does not believe in it then I will not talk to him—that we as Whites in this country want to continue living here, and in order to continue to exist as a White race in South Africa we must keep the political control in our hands. Why is that not the story the hon. member tries to sell when he goes overseas?

But that is what I said.

His approach when he is there is to emphasize that as a White man in South Africa he is an opponent of the Government. He cannot expect to foster sympathy for South Africa if that is his approach. I do not believe that that would be the approach of the majority of hon. members opposite. I think that is the wrong approach.

In the few minutes I have left I want to deal with the other two points I have not dealt with yet. I suggested, firstly, that we should make attempts to promote the activities of this new Department as far as possible; I said that we had too little money and that with money alone we could not state our case to the outside world. I said that we should ensure that more South Africans make personal contacts abroad. In the second place, I think that we should concentrate on establishing friendship circles and clubs for South Africa in various cities and towns throughout the world, which may be called “Friends of South Africa" or something like that. I suggested that we should establish such societies in cities or towns overseas and that we should then try to keep such societies going by making them interested in South Africa. Perhaps it sounds like a farfetched idea, but I am convinced—and I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) will agree with me, that in America there is a real interest on the part of many people in regard to what happens in South Africa. They are also interested in what happens in Africa, but they are particularly interested in what happens in South Africa. Those people will be ready to devote their time to such a society where they can obtain information about South Africa, not to make propaganda for South Africa but to give the correct picture of South Africa in the town or city in which they live. When one has established those societies, one can later, when one sees that there are people who are really interested in South Africa and in the continued existence of the Whites here, invite them and subsidize them to visit South Africa, partly at the expense of the State, because then we would know that those people had a real interest in South Africa and in what goes on here. I know that under this Department there are already societies, friends of South Africa, in various countries, particularly in Europe, but I think that this should be expanded so that by that means, without spending large sums of money which are not available to us, we can propagate the correct image of South Africa with the limited means at our disposal.

When we embarked on this debate we decided to adopt a constructive approach and to put forward some new ideas and to plead for some new thinking in regard to the work of the hon. the Minister’s Department, because just like hon. members on the other side we on this side are very concerned about the disastrous isolation in which South Africa finds herself and the criticism of South Africa overseas. We purposely adopted that approach and that fact was appreciated by the very first speaker on the Government benches, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee); it was appreciated also by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller), who has just sat down, as well as other members. But what does the hon. the Minister do? We find that he is absolutely unable to rise to the occasion and to respond to the constructive thoughts and suggestions put before him not only by this side of the House but also by hon. members on the Government benches, in particular by the hon. members for Vereeniging and Ceres. In spite of all this the hon. the Minister gets up here and talks like a party political hack. Because he is unable to rise to the occasion and to deal with the case put forward by us point by point, he comes along with a side-attack and tries to cause a diversion by making a personal attack upon my colleague, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). How did the hon. the Minister make that attack? Sir, in the Other Place he was exposed for what he is in his capacity as Minister, as completely incapable of rising to the occasion. I know that the hon. member for Vereeniging does not hold the opinion that the Minister is fit to hold the job that he holds.

Of course he is fit to hold his position; he is more than fit.

Well, that is quite different from what the hon. member says outside.

That is a lie.

Because the hon. member for Vereeniging considers that the Prime Minister made a great mistake in appointing him …

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging must withdraw the words. “That is a lie.”

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member accuses me of saying in this House that I consider this Minister fit to occupy this post …

I did not say “in this House”.

Yes, he did; and then he says that I said outside the House that the Minister is not fit, which I say is absolutely untrue. Sir. I do not think that hon. members should be allowed to say that type of thing in this House.

Sir, I do not know why the hon. member puts words into my mouth.

Order! I asked the hon. member for Vereeniging to withdraw the words, “That is a lie”. He must withdraw those words.

Sir, I withdraw those words but then I call upon you to instruct that member to accept my word.

The hon. member must in any case accept another hon. member’s word.

On a point of order the hon. member for Vereeniging did not use the words which the hon member for Turffontein attributed to him …

I did not say he said it.

… and I cannot understand why you now call upon the hon. member for Vereeniging to withdraw what he said because what the hon. member for Turffontein said was a lie.

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging withdrew the words he used and the hon. member for Turffontein accepted his word.

Sir. I say that the hon. member for Vereeniging held the opinion that the Minister was not fit to hold this portfolio, and I am entitled to make that statement. That is his opinion.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) said that what the hon. member for Turffontein had said was a lie. Should he not withdraw those words as well?

Mr. Chairman, may I just say to the hon. member for Turffontein…

Order! The hon. member for Brits said that the statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein was not true.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says he never said anything of the sort and the hon. member for Turffontein says he did say it. Surely the hon. member for Turffontein must accept the word of the hon. member for Vereeniging. In that case the hon. member for Turffontein lied.

Order! The hon. member cannot say the hon. member for Turffontein told a lie. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Turffontein must accept the word of the hon. member for Vereeniging that he did not say it.

Then I still say that at one time he held the opinion.

Order! The hon. member must accept his word.

I accept his word that he never said it. He has changed his mind since; that is not my business. He held that opinion.

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to the fact that what the hon. member for Turffontein is doing is that he is accusing the hon. member for Vereeniging of dishonourable conduct. I think. Sir, we have every right to expect the hon. member for Vereeniging to be protected.

The hon. member for Turffontein must accept the word of the hon. member for Vereeniging without any reservations.

Sir. I accept what the hon. member said …

Order! I am still addressing the hon. member. I say the hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Vereeniging without any reservation, and make no further comment.

On a point of order …

Order! Will hon. members resume their seats. If the hon. member for Turffontein wishes to do anything more about it he has to move a substantive motion and then the matter can be investigated, otherwise the hon. member must accept my ruling.

I have said that I accept your ruling.

I am quite willing to ask for an investigation. I am quite willing to ask that a Select Committee to be appointed to go into the allegations made by that member. I I am quite willing to move …

Order! The hon. member must give notice. He cannot move it now.

I hope he has the courage then to move a substantive motion.

Sir, I fail to see the point; you have given your ruling. [Interjections.] I can say what my opinion is of you …

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat.

I was not talking about that point at all …

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat or withdraw from the Chamber.

The hon. member for Turffontein created the impression in the first place that I say in the House that the Minister of Information does his work well, but that outside the House I express the opinion…

Order! The hon. member cannot raise that matter again; it has been disposed of.

That is lucky for him.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 50.—"Tourism”, R1,028,000,

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make an announcement regarding the taxation allowances in regard to tourist hotels and accommodation establishments. In consultation with the Minister of Finance, I wish to announce that the Government is fully aware of the depreciation factor which is undoubtedly inherent in hotel buildings, as well as the necessity for an incentive to hoteliers to improve the grading of their establishments and to keep their facilities up to date. A special taxation allowance has been recommended by the Hotel Commission to apply to certain hotels and accommodation establishments, and the Government has in principle accepted these percentages as a guide and a basis for further consideration. After the final report and recommendations have been received, and have been considered and accepted or amended by the Government, legislation will be drafted under the Income Tax Act. An analysis of the text of these recommendations which were submitted at the special request of the Minister is as follows: (a) The Building Investment allowance, in terms of Section 13 of Act No. 58 of 1962 of 10 per cent for the first year at present in existence in respect of the cost of hotel buildings erected or improvements effected thereto subsequent to 2 March 1960, to remain; (b) in addition to the existing annual wear and tear allowance of 2 per cent, in terms of Section 13 of Act No. 58 of 1962, on the cost of hotel buildings erected or improvements carried out thereto subsequent to 2 March 1960, the following special hotel depreciation allowance, according to the gradings hereunder, in respect of the cost of all hotels or establishments erected or improved, of which the erection or improvement commenced on or after 1 January 1964 and complying with the definitions of a tourist hotel and of accommodation establishments. These are the recommendations made by the Hotel Commission:

The above allowances depend on the assumption that there will be an organization or a board who will undertake the grading of all tourist hotels and accommodation establishments which claim to comply with such definitions. Tax relief will only be made applicable to those hotels and accommodation establishments which will ultimately qualify. The Department of Justice recently gazetted certain grading definitions of hotels. These definitions will undoubtedly be used as a guide, but not necessarily as the final basis of grading.

The three hotel groups concerned with the building of International Prestige Hotels in Johannesburg were advised that the Government agreed in principle, that in the case of their hotels which would have to meet the highest qualifications, the write-off would cover a period of 15 years or a slightly longer period.

I regret that the hon. the Minister did not let us have a copy of the very important statement, in regard to hotels, which he has just made. I am not trying to be funny, but it was extremely difficult to follow the statement at the speed at which the Minister read it.

You realize I had to do it in a hurry.

Yes, I realize that, but I regret that the Minister could not have given us a copy even five minutes ago, so that we could have followed the details, because it is immediately apparent that this is a statement of tremendous importance to a big industry in South Africa. It is a statement which we, on this side of the House, from what we could understand of it, would welcome very much indeed. From what we could understand, it is clear that there are to be tax concessions, but it was quite impossible to absorb the import of them. At this stage of the debate, with the Additional Estimates still to be dealt with, it is impossible to take advantage of this opportunity for a full-scale debate. I would like to say that we will seek a later opportunity, if possible, to deal with this matter. I am sure this is a move which will be welcomed by all South Africans who are interested in the future of tourism, tourism with regard to overseas visitors, and to those of us who travel inside South Africa.

I think the Minister has perhaps been a little hard in placing a starting date, 1 January 1964. That means that those who have sat back and waited for an incentive will get the benefit, whereas those who, without incentive, have been prepared to make investments in improvements, are not going to get any benefits. That is a matter to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give very serious thought. I do not think it is right that the person who, without an incentive, of his own free will and in the interests of his own hotel, invested capital should be penalized against the person who waited until he could get benefits and this assistance. I think that is an unfair basis, an unreasonable basis. It is not in the interests of justice towards those who have not waited the many years it has taken to bring this matter to finality.

That is the recommendation of the Hotel Commission.

Yes, but the Minister said the Government had accepted that recommendation. And I feel it is unjust towards those who have made improvements or built recently. I think, for instance, of an hotel which has been built at Umhlanga Rocks. That is going to be a de luxe class hotel. That was started before 1 January 1964. That is going to be one of the top-class hotels. I think this is a matter to which the hon. the Minister should give further consideration in the interests of justice.

Another aspect which the Minister did not deal with was the aspect of finance to other than the prestige hotel, which we shall be able to discuss when we deal with the Finance Bill at a later stage. There provision is made for the prestige hotel, and one had hoped that the Minister would have made some reference to similar assistance to existing hotels which have carried the burden of lowering profits over the years, and which must now see new projects, new projects which have not had to carry those disabilities, getting benefits which are denied to those who have given the service throughout the years to the public of South Africa and to the touring public. This is a matter which has given the hoteliers themselves a great deal of concern, and it is one which everybody would be very glad to see brought to a final conclusion.

From what we could follow of the concessions, they appear to be generous ones. They are concessions which, I am sure, will be used to the best advantage of the travelling public.

It is for the Minister of Tourism to deal with the other leg of his portfolio in the years ahead. He is now taking a forward step in regard to accommodation. What is now of vital importance is that the people to fill that accommodation should also be available. Whilst we realize that it cannot take place in this debate to-day, we hope the Minister will avail himself of the earliest opportunity to tell the country of his plans to find the people to fill the hotels. It is a vicious circle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We are now dealing with the egg and we want to find the people to fill it. We hope the Minister has some positive plans which he will announce; plans a little more positive and tangible than those which he dealt with in the Other Place. I read his speech in the Other Place and there was little encouragement to the tourist industry or to the hotel industry in it. Something very much better must be done by the Minister. He must indicate that he has a policy and that he is not merely replacing the existing Satour organization. The tourist industry as such is one which is going to strike considerable difficulty if the flow from Africa and the African States should dry up or should reduce, as it is very likely to do. We have to find people from overseas to replace those if we are merely to retain the status quo. If we are going to increase the tourist industry, if we are going to justify these prestige hotels with their many hundreds of bedrooms, and if we are going to fill them on an economic basis, we have to have many more visitors from European, England, the U.S.A, and other countries. Those people can, I am sure, be attracted to this country. But that will mean that the hon. the Minister will have to give much more attention to that task than he has given up to now. It is possible that he will have to seek much more finance to tackle that task. We hope that he will be able to improve on the very sorry record of foreign as opposed to African visitors over the last 15 years. Whilst the total number of tourists has increased, the number coming from overseas is not yet what we wish it to be. We need them. On the whole they are people who have a greater amount of money to spend because, having come the distance which they have to come, they are likely to stay here for longer periods and consequently are likely to spend more here. The emphasis should therefore be on developing this aspect of our tourist trade. [Time limit.]

The Opposition is accustomed to arguing in a circle, and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has also done so. During a previous debate about tourism those hon. members said that tourists could not be obtained because there was insufficient or no accommodation for them. Now the Minister has made a statement in regard to accommodation and has made certain concessions to hotels. Now the hon. member for Durban (Point) says that while arrangements are being made in regard to accommodation, arrangements should also be made to attract tourists to fill that accommodation.

We know that tourism has become an important industry in our country, which earns foreign currency for us. In 1948 about 65,000 tourists visited South Africa. By 1963 this number had already increased to 160,000. This fact ought to be an indication to the hon. member that the numbers are already there. It is up to us to provide sufficient accommodation and thereby to increase their numbers. In 1948 about R 100,000 was made available for tourism. This year more than R 1,000,000 is made available to the Department and the Tourist Corporation in order to promote tourism. It is pleasant to see that this Department, which has been in existence for only nine months, has made such great progress. For that we ought to congratulate the Minister, and also the Secretary, for their enthusiasm and energy. It is a young Department but it already reveals dynamic power.

Money invested in publicity for attracting tourists is money which pays tremendous dividends, and not only financial dividends. But while I am talking about the financial aspect, it is perhaps as well to point out that it is estimated that every tourist who visits our country spends about R250 here. Where the ordinary tourists in Europe stay only six or seven days, they stay in our country for from 20 to 30 days. That is because we, at the southern point of Africa, are more segregated from the ordinary tourist routes. But I said that tourism does not bring us financial advantages alone. There are also other advantages. So, e.g., tourists who have visited the country can go back as ambassadors of our country. They are people who were received here with hospitality and saw things for themselves and can form a judgment, and are not blinded by the picture painted of our country in the overseas Press. One is surprised that we still attract so many tourists, in view of the picture which the Opposition newspapers paint overseas of conditions here. Therefore I say it is still a wonder that we get such large numbers of tourists.

We know that everybody who comes from abroad is not a millionaire. All tourists from overseas cannot afford luxury hotel accommodation. Under the circumstances I was particularly glad of the announcement made by the Minister. Many tourists belong to the middle income group, or even the lower income group, and therefore they want hotel accommodation which they can afford and where at the same time they will be well treated. It is these people who, if they receive good and hospitable treatment, will go back and advertise South Africa in their various countries. Therefore we are glad of the announcement made by the Minister in regard to the concessions to hotels which will be able to cater for the ordinary tourist at rates he can afford.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the Minister’s statement because it was difficult to follow him. We of course understand the Minister’s difficulty because he had to get through the statement as soon as he could. I only hope that provision is being made in the proposed system for hotels that do not fall within the system of grading, i.e. the five star gradings. I hope there is going to be some other classification to cover those smaller hotels and to allow them to remain hotels and to make it possible for them to have liquor licences. I hope that they are not going to lose their licences if they do not comply with the classification of one star hotels. There are numerous small hotels like these right throughout the country, hotels who are unable to comply with these requirements. Therefore I hope provision is being made for them.

I want to ask the Minister to give his full support to encouraging tourism in the Transkei. We know that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, to name only one department, usually take all official visitors to South Africa, also to the Transkei. That is the show place. But I submit we can get much more propaganda value out of it if we also take the ordinary tourist there. They can then see what is being done in the Transkei. The Minister knows that there are numerous holiday resorts on the coast of the Transkei. He will also know that these hotels have been having a lean time because of the fear on the part of the public of conditions in the Transkei following upon self-government for the Transkei.

Poqo!

Yes, it started with Poqo. But the Minister must realize that there is uncertainty. I do not for one moment subscribe to this uncertainty. As a matter of fact, I take every opportunity of stating how safe it is to travel in the Transkei. It is perfectly safe. But we need the help of the Department to get this across to the people. The Department has the funds and the facilities for doing this. We must assist and encourage people to re-establish their businesses along that line of coast. In this connection I want to mention Port St. Johns. Because of the Government’s policy, Port St. Johns is now an isolated White area, surrounded by a different government. The Minister will appreciate that there is definitely a feeling of uncertainty there. Trade there has definitely suffered on account of lack of knowledge on the part of the general public about conditions down there. My appeal to the Minister therefore is to get his Department to publicize Port St. Johns as much as possible and to encourage people to go to that area. I hope the Minister will undertake this. I think the Minister has correspondence about the matter and in fact has, I think, at one time stated to the Press that these parts should be visited and that they are quite safe. But we need more than that. The Minister and his Department should take more active steps to bring to the notice of the general public the attractive spots on that part of the coast and the holidays that can be enjoyed down there.

Vote put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts.

On Revenue Vote No. 12.—"Provincial Administrations”, R 1,070,000,

I should like to ask the Minister to tell us what the reason is for this increase.

Provision is made under this sub-head for special payments which have under certain circumstances to be made to the provincial administrations, payments which do not fall within the scope of the approved subsidies as defined in the Act. An amount of R800,000 was included in the 1959-60 Estimates to compensate the provincial administration of the Transvaal for losses on company tax. When a division was made, it was found that the Transvaal was not quite fairly treated. The amount of R 1,070,000 is arrived at by compounding 6 per cent per annum on the amount of R800,000.

So this amount is for a specific purpose?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 23.—"Education, Arts and Science”, R410,000,

I should like to get information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the amount of R250,000 under sub-head F. I am aware that mention of this amount was made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech. The amount, according to a footnote in the Estimates, is to be placed in trust and I should like the Minister to inform us under whose care the money will be left in trust and who will be responsible for disposing of it. Simply to say that it will be placed in trust without indicating who are going to be the trustees and where the money is to be located, is not satisfactory.

This money does not fall in the same class as those where a special trust is created. This is an amount which is placed at the disposal of the Department and they must account for it for this purpose and this purpose alone. It is not outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We appropriate it now and then it is paid to the Department who has to keep it for this particular purpose. If there is an unexpended balance at the end of the year, it will fall back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and will have to be revoted.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 25.—"Bantu Administration and Development”, R1,128,000,

Under item Q an amount of R500,000 is provided for in comparison with R300.000 which was provided for this item originally. So we find that in a matter of two months the original provision has more than doubled. The total provision in this respect is now R800.000. Can the Minister or the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development give us the reason for this substantial increase.

This amount is in respect of the development in South West Africa, with a view to the essential internal development in the Bantu areas there, expenditure which has already been provided for in the Main Estimates, such as, e.g. for the development of roads, research in regard to certain projects, the building of dams and similar internal services in the Bantu areas which are essential for ordinary development. It is a recalculation of the requirements for which this supplementary amount is required.

This seems to be an extraordinary explanation by the Deputy Minister when he refers to this money being devoted to roads and dams and such services. Is it for maintenance, or is it to provide new services? Is it to provide new roads and new dams? Surely then it is providing for permanent assets out of revenue funds and not out of capital funds. We have already voted R 20.000,000 for capital funds and the money appearing under this Vote is revenue funds, and generally revenue funds are spent on salaries and maintenance and repairs, etc. As I understood the Deputy Minister, this is going to be spent on roads and dams and such-like services in the Bantu areas. Is it the attitude of the Minister that these are to be regarded as revenue items, because eventually they will be lost and will not become permanent capital assets of South Africa? I think we are entitled to a further explanation as to whether these are all revenue items or capital items, and if they are capital items whether they are items which are written off to revenue, and if they are so written off, what is the reason for the increase?

Is that Item “Q"?

Yes.

Then I can give further particulars. The provision of R650,000 in the financial year in respect of the welfare services by Bantu authorities in Bantu areas is reduced by R105,000 for 1964-5, being the amount to be made available for the care of aged and needy Bantu and the erection of suitable institutions for such persons in the Transkei.

That is not “Q”.

The pro rata allotment for the Transkei is in proportion to the number of pensioners resident in the Transkei. An amount of R800,000 on the other hand is provided for 1964-5, R500,000 for 1963-4 in respect of services in the Bantu areas of South West Africa. Details in this connection are as follows: (1) An amount of R300,000 is required to finance the existing work of the Trust in South West Africa. Details furnished to this office reveal that the anticipated expenditure for 1964-5 amounts to R530,000 and the estimated funds available total R230,000; (2) the estimated amount of R500,000 is provided for the establishment of a Bantu township, special buildings, the planning of community centres, as was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into South West Africa in the interim recommendations. It should be borne in mind also that the financial implications arising from the report of the aforementioned commission and from decisions relating to the policy regarding the development of the area will have to be considered in due course. The provision of appreciable sums of money in the implementation of the recommendations regarding the development of the area gives rise to the question as to whether this provision of funds from the Loan Account should not be considered as well.

I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation, but he has not answered the important question of principle. In fact, he has endorsed what the Deputy Minister has said. The Deputy Minister referred to roads and dams. The Minister has referred to something entirely different, like the development of townships in South West and the building of community centres, but the Minister does not solve the difficulty I have. Both the explanation given by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and that given by the Minister of Finance is that this money is required for capital purposes, and we are asked to vote funds for revenue purposes. Here you are incurring capital expenditure on revenue items. What is the reason for the departure by the Treasury from an important principle, namely, the expenditure on capital items of revenue funds? I want to know the reason, and I hope the Minister will be able to give it to us.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this item has always been voted on the Revenue Account, for the very simple reason that the object for which it is spent does not represent a permanent asset of the Republic and therefore it could not go on the Loan Account.

Vote put and agreed to.

On the conclusion of the period of 100 hours alloted for Committee of Supply in terms of Standing Order No. 91, business interrupted by the Chairman in terms of Standing Order No. 96.

Remaining Revenue Votes and Loan Votes put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, Bantu Education Account and Loan Account, and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts, reported without amendment.

Estimates considered and adopted.

The Minister of Finance brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates adopted by the House.