Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a number of matters with the Minister in connection with electoral procedure. The first point is the question of the delimitation which is due to take place in terms of the Constitution before 1967. The situation which has now arisen is that both a delimitation and a general election are due next year and the following year. That is the latest date on which either or both can take place, but at the same time this House has appointed a Select Committee which is investigating proposals contained in a Bill before the House which would radically affect the whole question of delimitation. I should like, therefore, to ask the Minister to give the House and the country clarity as to the procedure he intends following in regard to this matter. It is quite clear that the Select Committee cannot report and a Bill be passed by the House during this Session in the normal course, or in any case it is unlikely that that will happen. That being so, the issue is whether the Minister will proceed with the delimitation based on the existing law, or whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Constitution. There is the practical problem that a delimitation takes time, and I think that all parties and the public are entitled to know what the situation is likely to be, particularly in view of the fact that at the moment there is a tremendous imbalance of voters in many constituencies, concentrations in some and depopulation in others. I leave the matter with the Minister and I will listen with interest to his reply.

The next point I wish to deal with flows from the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) yesterday, with most of which this side of the House agrees. There is no doubt that a clean voters’ roll, clean in the sense that people who have moved from one constituency to another, are correctly reflected on the voters’ roll, is of tremendous help to electoral workers and assists in the fair election of members of this House and members of the Provincial Council. Anything that can be done by other departments to make the notification of changes of address more effective is something which will be welcomed. But there is one problem which has arisen from the procedure laid down. In terms of the existing Act persons may lodge an objection against the retention of a name on the voters’ roll if that person has moved and has been gone for a period of at least two months, provided the objector gives the voter’s new address of his place of residence or of his business. The regulations provide that the form R.V.4 shall be used in lodging such objections, but the Minister’s office has given a ruling that because that form calls for both the residential and the business address, anybody notifying a change of address must provide both the residential and the business address of the voter. This is in conflict with the Act, but the ruling has nevertheless been given, although the Act was brought to the notice of the officials concerned. The Act provides that one may give information in regard to the residence, home, place of business, office or branch office with reference to which a voter has been registered. But in preparing the relevant statutory form R.V.4 the word “or” has been substituted by “and”. It is often not possible to obtain both addresses. Persons are known to have moved and their new address is known, but often there is no working address. I trust that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify the position now, and also to issue instructions to his Department, so that this method of cleaning up the voters’ roll may also be followed by both political parties. There is no point in having machinery designed to clean up the roll and to arrange for persons to be correctly registered if that machinery is to be hamstrung by regulation.

The next point I wish to raise is that of the new postal vote system which was approved by this House last year and which the Minister announced would be given a trial during the provincial elections. I think it is important that the issues should be raised at this early stage, in view of the tremendous amount of discussion and public interest which the new system has evoked. I want to say immediately that I hope the Minister is not going to accede to any pressure to abandon the fundamental principle of the system which both sides of this House approved last year. It is known that there have been complaints that it has created extra work for the parties and that a percentage of votes has not been returned. Some of those are legitimate complaints, but from the figures I have been able to study so far it appears that only an average of about 25 per cent of votes issued by returning officers were not returned and counted in the final count. It is high, but what is important is that it must be considered against two very imporant factors. One is the chaotic state in which the postal services found themselves at the time of the election. Postal votes and applications which were posted to go a distance of only a few miles often took days to travel that distance. Even votes that were cast in time and were posted in time by the presiding officer for absent voters in many cases did not get back in time for the count. That is perhaps the second most important factor which caused the high number of non-returned votes. The other factor was that this was a new system, a system untried either by the political parties, by the public or by the officials who had to handle it, and in all three spheres there were many lessons to be learnt. The parties had to readjust their approach. The officials had to handle a system which was new and unknown to them, and let us accept the fact that it is inevitable in such a new system that despite the clear instructions issued, the green handbook which was issued, many presiding officers for absent voters did not understand it and did not follow the correct procedure. But that is one of the inevitable dangers one has to face with a new system. In the same way the parties in the beginning were not accustomed to the methods required in dealing with it, but by the end of the issue of postal votes both parties had largely adjusted themselves and many of the benefits were becoming apparent. I will doubtless not have time to deal with everything at this stage; I will follow it up later, but now I just want to say that having dealt with the problems and the snags I will in my next speech put as against that the clear and undoubted benefits and the security which was given to the secrecy and the actual physical control of the vote by the new system. If we are to weigh what is more important, a little inconvenience to the parties or completely guaranteed secrecy of votes and the security of the votes, and the assurance that there will be no tampering with them, then I think there is no doubt that this House has to accept that the experiment adopted last year has proved successful in that regard. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Durban-Point (Mr. Raw) in discussing the election problems, but I should like to put forward a few ideas in connection with our flag and the question of making better use of it. In view of the fact that I alone, of course, cannot do much about this, nor indeed can this House, I ask for the co-operation not only of this House in considering these ideas, but I also ask for the cooperation of the Press and of members of the public who can all make their contributions.

Sir, I think there is one thing in regard to which we not differ; I think it is the ardent desire of every individual that we should have greater national unity in South Africa, or rather that we should obtain the greatest possible measure of national unity. Basically, unfortunately, we are divided in our own ranks because of the fact that in the first place our population has two languages. We also have different traditions, and until recently we still had different ideals. As a result of this it is naturally so much more difficult in South Africa, with our composition, to achieve what we would like to have and that is the greatest possible measure of national unity. There is one thing in regard to which we are all agreed and which represents a link that can bind us all together and that is our love for the country in which we live and our loyalty to the nation to which we belong. That country that we love is represented by our flag. That is why it is possible for us to use the flag as the one link that binds us all together. There is practically only one factor which unites the members of a nation composed of various sections and that is its flag; it is certainly the most powerful factor in creating unity. I should have liked to put forward these ideas under the Prime Minister’s Vote, but unfortunately the atmosphere which prevailed in that debate did not permit it. I should have liked to submit these ideas to the hon. the Prime Minister who has done so much to bring about greater national unity in South Africa. One does not like looking for points of difference in one’s own ranks, but we cannot close our eyes to the points of difference which do exist amongst the population of South Africa. We have our history, a history that we must take into account. We know that in the course of our history the English- and Afrikaans-speaking sections have often been at loggerheads, and it was not so very long ago that blood flowed as a result of that division. But there are many other factors which are responsible for this inherent division in our ranks in South Africa. Let us look at our heroes. When there is a ceremony to honour the memory of an Afrikaans hero like Paul Kruger or Piet Retief we find that only the Afrikaans-speaking take part in that ceremony. Similarly when a ceremony is held to honour the memory of an English-speaking hero of South Africa we find that the English-speaking take part in it but not the Afrikaans-speaking section. When we look at other countries we find that the position there is entirely different. When a ceremony is held in England to honour the memory of Sir Francis Drake or of Lord Nelson the entire nation takes part in it. The same thing can be said of America. When a ceremony is held to honour the memory of George Washington or of Abraham Lincoln, the entire nation takes part in it and there is no division. Unfortunately that is not the position in South Africa. Let us look at our holidays, for example. We find that when Republic Day is celebrated—I hope that the time will come when the position will be different—it is celebrated by the people who were anxious to have a Republic, and to a large extent it is the Afrikaans-speaking people who participate in the celebrations. I hope and trust that that position will change entirely in the course of time. Take the Day of the Covenant. When the Day of the Covenant is celebrated, the ceremony is not attended by the English-speaking section. Sir, I am not attacking them for not taking part in this ceremony. I mention it merely to show that we have very much greater problems here than other countries. Take Settlers’ Day. When Settlers’ Day is celebrated, it is celebrated by the English-speaking section. But, as I have said, there is one thing that we have in common and that is our love for South Africa, and that love can be represented by our flag. A flag is not just a piece of cloth; it is evidence of the existence of a nation; it is the title deeds of our nationhood. A flag can stir people to the greatest enthusiasm, and it can also move them to tears. A flag can inspire people to do the most noble deeds. A nation can live for a flag; we are prepared to fight and to die for our flag. That is the value that our flag ought to have, but we are not making use of it.

Let us look for a moment at the most important day in the history of our Republic, Republic Day. I should like to draw your attention. Sir. to an article which was written by Rykie van Reenen and published in Die Burger last year with reference to the celebrations on Republic Day last year to show to what extent our flag was used on that occasion. This appeared in Die Burger of 2 June of last year. This is what she wrote—

That is what happened last year when Republic Day was celebrated, and I think the time has come when we should ask ourselves to what extent we can use our flag in our national life to bind us closer together as South Africans, whatever language we may speak. I have a number of proposals to put forward in this connection, and I hope to be able to do so when I get another turn to speak. [Time limit.]

I will not follow the hon. member for Ceres other than to say that we on this side of the House will regard it as a happy day when all South Africans can unite over those things South African. We have never stood back in our love for the South African flag and when we were called upon to serve under it and for it we did so. I am glad to hear this appeal to-day because it is an appeal which we on this side have honoured and answered. (Hear, hear!)

I want to return to the subject with which I was dealing, the question of the new postal vote system. I had outlined the problems which had arisen, and I had started to outline some of the advantages. I think it is important that we should consider those advantages and that they should be put on record so that there will be no doubt about what would be at stake were the system to be abandoned in favour of the old system, as has been suggested. In the first place I mentioned the security and the secrecy of the vote. I certainly have no knowledge of any single case where the secrecy of the vote was abused or was in doubt. Strong action should be taken when any official withholds the right of the voter to cast his vote in secret. That, to my mind, is a most important matter. The second point is that the ballot paper, throughout its life, from the time it was issued until the time it was counted, remained under the control of and the property of the State and did not become the play-thing of a political party. Thirdly, a voter who went to vote, cast his vote as closely as possible in the same manner as that in which persons voting on election day cast their votes. In other words, the voter was taken to a place at which votes were cast, cast his vote and went home, except in the case of those who were incapacitated and had to be called on. The system was the same as on election day, and the big complaint was that one had difficulty in getting the voter to the point at which he or she had to vote. But, after all, on election day the parties go and collect their voters and take them to a polling booth. Under the present postal vote system you take your voter to a polling point at which he or she votes. You have your choice as to the time of the day at which you wish to vote, or you can make use of police stations where you can vote at any time of the day or night. Here let me pay a tribute particularly to the Department of Justice where, with very rare exceptions, we found the co-operation of the police stations in South Africa very good indeed. Sir, I can speak for Durban where instructions were given by the Commissioner to give the parties every co-operation and every co-operation was given to them. Arrangements were made to have sergeants on duty at convenient times. Rosters indicating when sergeants were on duty were made available to us and every assistance was given and that helped greatly to simplify the problem. In regard to the other Departments, the same co-operation was given, again with exceptions, the only difference being that the hours were more restricted; they were restricted to the normal office hours, and I believe that the rare exceptions were largely due to a misunderstanding of the situation rather than any intention to be difficult. There was co-operation therefore; returning officers were available and presiding officers before whom people could vote were available. I know of no single case in which a person was unable to exercise his or her vote because there was not a suitable presiding officer available. That is another aspect which one can put down on the credit side. The next very important point is that intimidation was eliminated. Intimidation used to take place in that the ballot was taken to a voter and he was forced to vote in front of the person for whom he worked or towards whom he had some obligation. That was eliminated from this system. People were able to pick their presiding officers and they were able to vote without the feeling that someone was watching them and that if they did not vote the right way they were likely to get a transfer to Timbuctoo. There were, of course, those who did not bother to go and vote, but that you will always get and that is something which the parties will have to take up. The other aspect which is of importance is that the system tended to result in the postal vote being used only where a postal vote was required and not, as in the past, as a political weapon for the voting of doubtfuls. It was not so easy, it was not as simple as it used to be, and therefore one did not take a postal vote unless that postal vote was genuinely required. You did not bother to take a postal vote for doubtfuls because the person in any case voted in secrecy and there was no opportunity to intimidate, whereas under the old system, if you could get a person who was a doubtful to take a postal vote, you were regarded as being one vote up. These positive factors, which I believe have done a great deal to clean up the whole system of voting, plus, of course, the fugitive ink on the ballot papers, which is an added security, add up to an indication of success of the basic principle of the scheme, with one unfortunate exception. We said during the debate that we were opposed to the use of justices of the peace, and I want to say here clearly that I believe that certain justices of the peace were abused and abused their rights. I have evidence of justices of the peace, despite a court finding, despite the Minister’s ruling, going out and taking the vote at the voter’s home. You cannot get the evidence in the form of sworn affidavits because obviously nobody is going to admit having done something illegal. The persons who were casting the votes were equally committing an offence. There is no doubt that that did take place. I hope that the question of justices of the peace will be reviewed and that that category of presiding officer will be eliminated from the Act. We have found that it is possible and quite easy to cast all the votes which are necessary without using justices of the peace. There are sufficient officials and if there are not then there is machinery for the appointment of more. Magistrates and Bantu commissioners have the right to appoint persons on their staff to handle postal votes; so there was adequate machinery. The fact that in very few cases was that power used, indicates that the officials did not regard it as necessary to appoint extra people. In other words, if there had been a shortage, then the power of the senior category of presiding officer to appoint people would have been exercised and people would have been appointed. [Time limit.]

I am sure that the matters raised here by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) will be properly dealt with by hon. members on this side. Sir, when I spoke a while ago about the necessity to make better use of our flag, as I see the position, I was not making an attack on the Opposition or on any member on the other side, and I do not know why the hon. member for Durban (Point) found it necessary to go on the defensive.

It was an attack.

Apparently the hon. member …

Has a guilty conscience

How can one be on the attack when one tries to excuse oneself? Surely one can never be on the attack then; one must be on the defensive. The hon. member apparently has a guilty conscience, because when I dealt here with a matter which I regard as very serious, the hon. member thought that I was making an attack upon the other side. On the contrary, I am asking for their co-operation in connection with this matter.

I said a moment ago that I thought it was essential that we should make better use of our flag, the only instrument we have to bind us together as a symbol of our love for and our loyalty towards our own country. Sir, I was impressed when I saw how other countries of the world were using their flags. Other countries also use their flags as ornaments. Just think of the role the Union Jack plays in the life of people in England. Look at the role which the flag of America plays in the life of the Americans. Think of the Washington monument surrounded by 50 flags, each representing one of the States of America. Just think how beautiful and impressive it is, not just because it looks pretty, but because one is conscious of the fact that it is the flag of America which is thus used. Take the case of the service organizations in America. Whenever a service organization like the Rotarians or the Lions give a luncheon, the flag of America occupies a place next to the chairman’s chair, and then when the luncheon is over they have a ceremony; all the guests turn round and stand to attention facing the flag. What happens in the schools in America? There is not a school in America in which they do not make use of the flag every week to swear their allegiance towards their country. What do we find in the churches in America? I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) has ever been in a church in America, but in the churches to which I went I found in every case that the flag of America occupied a place alongside the pulpit, and I have been told by a Jewish friend of mine that he found the same thing in the synagogues in America.

I want to put forward a few suggestions as to how we can make better use of our flag. In the first instance I should like to see our flag exhibited in this House, as well as in the Other Place. I should like to see at least each of the four provinces represented by a flag in this Chamber, and perhaps even South-West Africa—five flags in the different comers of this Chamber. I think that, far from disfiguring this Chamber, it would be an adornment. That is the first thing that I should like to see. In the second instance I should like to see that we make use of our flag to a much greater extent on festive days.

I read out to you a little while ago, Sir, what happened last year on Republic Day. One of these days we will again be celebrating Republic Day, and I sincerely hope that on that day the flag of the Republic will be hoisted and will fly over every building in Cape Town, over every building in the suburbs and over every building in the platteland towns, so that it can serve as a reminder to us of this link which binds us all together. But I go further; I feel that at least once a week there should be a flaghoisting or flaglowering ceremony at our schools to bring it home to the children that that is the flag which unites us in our allegiance to South Africa. I should also like to see some sort of ceremony at our school where the children swear their allegiance to South Africa. But I want to go further; I should like to see the flag of South Africa occupy a place in my church. Why should there not be a flag of our country in every church in South Africa? There is nothing sacrilegious about it; our flag is a sacred instrument, and if the national flag occupies a place in the churches of other countries, I see no reason why our flag should not occupy some place in our churches in South Africa.

I think it would help to achieve the great aim and ideal for which we are all striving in South Africa. I should like to see a flagpole at every club; I should like to see more use made of our flag at private homes. Sir, before the previous election I was taken to a farm in Natal by a certain gentleman. He took me there in an aircraft, and when I arrived there, I found that there was a flagpole in front of his house. He was an English-speaking person, a certain Mr. Talmage. When we arrival there I found that there was a flag-pole there, flying the flag of the Republic of South Africa. The immediate effect of this was to produce a warm bond between the two of us, between him as an English-speaking person and myself as an Afrikaans-speaking person. Our flag serves as a tie which immediately binds together the various groups in South Africa. But, Sir, we must also have respect for our flag; we must not allow our flags to become ugly and old and faded. We must not allow our flags on our public buildings, or wherever they may be, to become torn and tattered. We must see to it that, under all circumstances, our flags are beautiful, clean and neat. Sir, a flag in the life of a nation interprets the strongest common ties; we should make use of our flag to emphasize that strong feeling which is common to all of us. National unity is a force in every nation; in our case it is more than a force. Our very existence depends upon national unity in South Africa.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will give us a clear statement of policy on two issues. I want him to clarify for this House whether he agreed with the statment made in this morning’s Burger, by his colleague, the Minister of Planning, on the question of multi-racial entertainment, particularly in the Cape Town City Hall. I believe that things have gone a lot further than the position was as at 26 January, when the hon. the Minister gave us the benefits of his thoughts on the whole question of multi-racial entertainment and the Government’s policy in that regard. Since then we have found that two Ministers who are responsible for handling this very tricky question are now going very much further than even the transitional measures suggested by the hon. the Minister in his statement of policy on 26 January. At that stage one was under the impression that the so-called interim period at least would be allowed to continue; that the existing customs of allowing people of different racial groups to attend mixed gatherings where sufficient and adequate accommodation had not yet been provided in their own areas. …

Order! The question of mixed gatherings does not fall under this Minister.

With respect, may I just point out that it was the hon. the Minister of the Interior who first gave this House a statement of policy in this regard.

He is no longer responsible.

He is no longer responsible …

You should have made this speech last night.

Let me tell the hon. member that it would not do him any harm if occasionally he went along to hear what the public are thinking, instead of always trying to tell the public what he thinks they ought to be thinking. [Interjections.] I did happen, as a matter of fact, to go to that meeting last night, and it would have done hon. members in this House a great deal of good to have seen the sincere feelings that have been aroused in this country by the new policy of this Government.

Order! The hon. member must not pursue this matter under the Minister’s Vote.

Am I not allowed to raise this issue at all at this stage, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister of the Interior raised it originally in this House? However, if the hon. the Minister cannot use this opportunity to tell us his views or rather to enlarge on the views that he himself expressed in this House, I will raise the matter under the appropriate vote.

Sir, there is, of course, another issue which is very much within the hon. the Minister’s portfolio, and that is the whole question of policy as regards the issue of passports to non-White students intending to leave this country either for the purpose of study, to take up post-graduate or other scholarships, and also the issue of passports to non-Whites generally who either want to take up certain grants or who wish to attend oversea conferences or who simply wish to take up appointments which they have been offered outside South Africa. I think the citizens of this country are entitled at this stage to know whether there is a decided policy on this particular issue. In the past, when one has asked about passports and the reasons for rejecting applications for passports, one has always been given the same reply by the hon. the Minister. Either he has told us that the granting of a passport is a matter of a privilege, and not a right, or he has gone further, and he has said that it is not in the public interests to disclose the reason for refusing passports and, thirdly, of course, he has told us that each case is considered on its merits. It may very well be true that a passport is a privilege and not a right and so on, but that is certainly not so in other democratic countries, certainly not in America, and passports are very rarely refused, for instance, in the United Kingdom.

How do you know?

I have been watching the trend over the last year or two, and it is obvious to me that there is a decided underlying policy which seems to guide the hon. the Minister. Exactly what criteria he uses I am not sure, and therefore, although he will not give me the reasons for the refusal of passports in individual cases—perfectly good applications, as far as I can see—perhaps the hon. the Minister will at least give us the criteria which decide the issue in each of these particular cases. For instance, is the Government of the opinion that no African student should be allowed to go overseas, because in most cases the applications of Africans for passports seem to be refused. I know that one or two applications have been granted, but the general trend, of course, has been to refuse them. I might say that all students who have been given scholarships from Nusas, for instance, have been refused passports irrespective of the merits of the case. Apparently simply because application is made by Nusas, it seems to be the policy to reject these applications.

Do you blame the Minister?

Yes, I do blame the Minister. If he examines each case on its merits, there should not be a general rule laid down that no student applying through Nusas should be allowed to go overseas. Because a few students happen to have engaged in illegal political activities, former students who originally belonged to Nusas, surely does not bring the entire movement into disrepute, with the result that thousands and thousands of law-abiding students who have never in any way gone against the law of this country are adversely affected. It is utterly unfair that that should be so.

How do you know?

I am asking the hon. the Minister and the hon. members over there need not ask me questions at this stage; he can make his own speech if he wishes to do so. Has the hon. the Minister decided that students will be indoctrinated with foreign ideologies if they go overseas? I wish to point out in this regard that even where students are offered scholarships from Western countries they are still refused passports. Students who have been offered scholarships from the United States and Canada and Holland and Sweden have had their applications turned down. Is it because the hon. the Minister thinks that there are adequate facilities here? I can give him case after case where in fact there are not adequate facilities for non-Whites, for Africans in particular, to take up their particular field of study in this country.

How many White students are getting these scholarships?

There are lots of White students getting scholarships and I would like to know how many White students are refused permission to go overseas on the same grounds. For instance, does the hon. the Minister think that students who have qualified and who wish to take up posts elsewhere should be refused the right to do so because in his opinion they should serve their own people here, in which case no White student equally should be allowed to go overseas. It is an utterly incorrect assumption that students who go overseas will not in fact come back to benefit their own country after they have gained further additional knowledge.

I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some idea of the criteria which must surely be utilized by him when he considers these cases. I am going to give one or two examples and perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to use them as a basis for his reply. Incidentally, it is not only students who are refused passports; passports are also refused to journalists and churchmen who want to attend international conferences, and prominent Africans from other walks of life. Not only Africans are refused passports; Coloured people have also been refused permits to go overseas, and I might say that in many cases these people, unwilling, as one can well understand, to give up the wonderful opportunities offered, have had to take exit permits instead of passports. That means that they are lost to this country for good, and they themselves are unable to return to the country of their birth, which in fact is something which they dearly desire to do.

Let me give the hon. the Minister one or two examples of the sort of case that I want to raise with him. There is, of course, the well-known case of the science student, Boley, who was refused a passport, having applied nearly a year ago. This man was offered two scholarships, one in England and one at Upsala University in Sweden. He chose the latter. His application for a passport was refused after a year and he ultimately took an exit permit. I know that Dagbreek took it upon itself to investigate this case and they came to the conclusion that this was not a good student at all. He had failed a few subjects at the University of South Africa and he was not a brilliant student. Well, my contention is that it is none of the business of Dagbreek or anybody else. The main point is that this man had been offered two scholarships, and when an oversea university considers that he has the ability to go on and become a Master of Science, I do not think it is anybody else’s business to decide that he is not a good student. The point is that he was given the opportunity but because this Government refused to allow him a passport, this man has had to take an exit permit and may not return. There are many other cases I could mention; there is the case of a student called Mtimkulu, who was offered a scholarship at the University of Alberta for one year’s post-graduate study in chemistry. Mr. Mtimkulu’s application for a passport was turned down and he was unable to take up this scholarship because he had to be there at a certain time and the offer lapsed thereafter. [Time limit.]

I rise to talk about the question of book censorship which has been raised by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Muller) and Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). In dealing with this question of book censorship the hon. member for Orange Grove described the position as confusing. He said that there was confusion in the country as a result of our system of book censorship, as a result of the fact that we have books screened both under the Customs system as well as by the Publications Board. The hon. member for Florida went further and described the situation that we have in this country as chaotic as a result of this twofold system of ours. This criticism which has come from the other side through these two gentlemen is entirely in line, of course, with the sort of criticism that we have been having in recent months from certain booksellers in this country as well as from certain newspapers. The criticism really amounts to this that we have a twofold system of censorship in this country, that this twofold system works unfairly and that it really creates an impossible position. I must say that I am surprised to hear the allegation from the hon. member for Orange Grove that there is confusion, because if the present control system can be described as confusing, then there must have been a state of confusion over the past fifty years because we have had a twofold system of control for fifty years already. As a matter of fact, ever since 1913 we have had this system under which the Department of Customs holds back books and refers them to the relevant authority, whether it be the Minister or the Publications Board. This twofold system of control has therefore existed over the past fifty years in this country. The contribution made to the debate by the hon. member for Florida himself bears out the necessity to retain this twofold system; the necessity to make use also of the Customs machinery to hold back undesirable literature which enters this country. The hon. member himself referred to the mass of undesirable reading matter which is available in cafes and sold to our children. One is justified in asking whether that mass of undesirable literature which is available in cafes to-day would not have been even greater but for the fact that we have had this Customs machinery at our disposal. The fact of the matter is that over the past few years the yellow Press in the world has been resorting on a tremendously large scale to vulgar sex stories and sex literature, and for some inexplicable reason they regard South Africa as a very convenient dumping-place for that literature. It is understandable that it is an impossible task for the Publications Board with the machinery at its disposal to control the entry of this literature. The Publications Board alone cannot control this literature. Examples of this type of reading matter are submitted to me from time to time for my information and I just want to say that it is astounding to see what rubbish —I can describe it in no other way—is sent to this country. It is very often the sort of literature that one feels that one does not want to touch with a six-foot pole. That is really why it is an impossible task under a single system of control; it is impossible for the Publications Board alone to exercise control over this reading matter. As a matter of fact, the situation would have been chaotic if we had not also been able to use the machinery of the Customs Department in this connection, and I am surprised therefore to find that the United Party raises this matter here through these two hon. members. One would have expected the Opposition rather to express its appreciation of the control which is exercised in this country under this twofold system. But instead of getting an expression of appreciation of this control system, we get this criticism which is really designed to show that this Government is terribly narrow-minded, that it is unreasonable in the application of its system; that it is so unreasonable. according to the hon. member for Orange Grove, that it allegedly deprives the reading public of reading matter. I am extremely sorry that such an allegation has been made here because it casts a blot on our country and on our standards. I want to express my disappointment that the hon. member for Orange Grove saw fit to refer to the Iron Curtain. He said that South Africa had such a long list of prohibited works that it was the longest list in the world outside of the Iron Curtain. That type of insinuation that we are narrow-minded and unreasonable not only casts a blot on this Government, it also casts a blot—if that was what was meant although I cannot see that it could have meant anything else—on the United Party because our present list of prohibited works is not one which was compiled by this Government only. It may interest the hon. member to know—I wonder whether he does know it— that the number of books prohibited in South Africa during ten years of United Party rule exceeds the number of books prohibited during any corresponding ten-year period of National Party rule.

What does that prove?

It proves that the machinery which exists under this Government is being applied with great fairness. As a matter of fact during the past year fewer books have been banned than in any previous period of three years in South Africa. I say this to show that in this connection we are acting with the greatest measure of reasonableness and that we are by no means being narrow-minded.

It has also been alleged that this system of control causes delays. In that regard too I do not think we have any reason to feel any qualms of conscience because in going through these books the Customs Department, which refers them to the Publications Board, acts with the greatest possible expedition. The books are screened and disposed of expeditiously and fairly. As a matter of fact, in order to expedite the matter, the Minister has made a start in appointing inspectors at the points of entry to assist the Customs Officers. In Cape Town, which is the main point of entry, an inspector has already been appointed by the Department. This person is an authority on books, and he can advise the Department of Customs as to which books ought to be held back and which ought to be allowed to enter. These are all steps which have been taken to expedite the release of publications.

Does this only apply to Cape Town, or are you going to do this also at other places?

It is our intention also to appoint them at other places. We started in Cape Town because Cape Town is the main point of entry in the country. These inspectors will also have other functions. They will fulfill other functions which ought to be of great interest to this House. I am thinking now of the complaint of the hon. member for Florida with regard to the mass of undesirable reading matter which is still to be found in cafés. It is difficult to control all this reading matter. These publications do not all come through the points which have been mentioned here. Some of them come through the post. In many cases we have no control over these publications. We see them for the first time when they make their appearance in cafés or on the shelves of booksellers. The intention is that the inspectors who are going to be appointed should also visit the cafés and booksellers and other points of distribution from time to time to see whether there are any books which fall within this undesirable class. They will then, of course, take the necessary steps which, if necessary, may lead to prosecution. As far as the banning of books is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that we and the people who are charged with this duty have no reason for feeling any qualms of conscience. During the past year we have prohibited the entry of 688 books, a number which, in parenthesis, is 100 fewer than in the preceding year and also about 100 fewer than in the preceding two years. These 688 books which have been banned during the past year are books dealing mainly with vulgar sex aspects; books which are of a communistic nature; books which are dangerous to the State; books which are offensive from the point of view of the question of racial intermingling. One is entitled to ask whether the Opposition wants this type of reading matter to be allowed to enter South Africa. No responsible person would want it and that is why the machinery that exists in this connection should be appreciated. [Time limit.]

I want to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister. The one is the question of holidays. We have 13 public holidays in South Africa and with the exception of Easter week-end specific dates have been laid down for these holidays. With the labour shortage in South Africa I wonder whether the time has not come to do away with fixed holiday dates. The tendency overseas to-day is to have a holiday, where possible, at the end of the week or at the beginning of the week. Let me give one example. We find every year that certain holidays, with the exception of Easter week-end, fall on a Friday, a Thursday or a Tuesday. If the holiday falls on a Friday the workers are simply not inclined to work on the Saturday morning, in those cases where they do work on Saturdays. If the holiday falls on a Tuesday, it entirely disrupts the economy because people do not like working on the Monday. One of the holidays which I have in mind is Family Day, for example. There is no reason why Family Day should fall on a specific date. It could just as well be the first Monday in July as the 12th or the 2nd or any other date in July. Why should it be celebrated on a particular date when we could just as well celebrate it on the first Monday of the month or the last Friday of the month?

Another holiday is Dingaan’s Day. Why should it be 16 December? It could just as well be celebrated at the beginning or the end of the week so that there will be no disruption of the economy. Another day is Heroes’ Day, which came into being entirely as a result of a misunderstanding. When I was in the Provincial Council I had a great deal to do at the time with that day as a holiday. The reason why 10 October was chosen at the time was simply because it was assumed that it was the birthday of President Paul Kruger. There is great doubt to-day as to whether 10 October was his birthday or whether he was not in fact born on 1 October, as many historians are inclined to believe. There is no reason why those holidays should be celebrated on specific dates. When one bears in mind the fact that we are a young country with a manpower shortage, one is surprised to find that we are not following the trend which is being followed in overseas countries, and that is to have our holidays on the first Monday or the last Friday of the month.

The other matter that I want to raise with the Minister is the question of race classification. Let me say at once, as one who has a great deal to do with the question of race classification, that my experience with the staff of the Department has been a very happy experience with regard to the manner in which they implement this Act, which is an unpopular measure. I have not yet had a single case where I have not succeeded in getting the applicant classified in the racial group in which he applied to be classified. I think I have probably dealt with just as many cases as any other hon. member in this Committee. That does not, however, do away with the fact that this Act inspires fear. Perhaps I should mention to the hon. the Minister a few cases which I have come across personally. I had the case of a young woman who waited from her sixteenth birthday until she was almost 21. She fled like a rabbit being chased by a pack of hounds; she fled from flat to flat, from hotel to hotel, because she was afraid to get her race classification. She then became engaged; she wanted to marry and then she could no longer evade the issue. She then had to apply for a race classification. Let me say again that in this particular case too the Department was very accommodating and I am very grateful to be able to say that that problem has now been solved. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what the feelings must have been of this young woman who is able to pass in every respect as a White person but whose parents chose, for reasons of their own. to be classified as Coloureds? She was entirely White. I do not think it would ever have occurred to anybody that there was a possibility that she had Coloured blood in her veins. Can you imagine the torture that that poor girl had to suffer before she eventually decided to ask for her classification?

Then I had another case, the case of a person who, I am convinced, was White, but who was classified as “Coloured”, because of certain circumstances. She also came to me to be re-classified. In her case the outcome was not quite as happy as in the case which I have just mentioned. I just want to bring this case to the hon. the Minister’s notice. This particular person, after all the difficulties experienced by her and the disgrace that she had to endure, decided to commit suicide. In one of her last letters she asked us please to see to it that she was buried in a cemetery for Whites. It was unnecessary for her to do what she did, because I do not have the slightest doubt that she, too, as in the case of the other young woman, would have had the satisfaction of being re-classified. I mention this just to bring it home to you, Sir, how this Act causes a great deal of trouble and sorrow.

The point to which I really want to come is this: A peculiar position has developed in the Cape Peninsula. We have a large Coloured population, large numbers of whom are Malays. They are classified as Coloureds. But the Malays, without exception, are all Mohammedans. According to their religion, they can only marry women who profess the same faith. The result is that large numbers of them marry Indians who accept the Mohammedan faith. We have the position, therefore, that Malays are classified as Coloureds, whilst Indians who profess the Mohammedan faith are classified as Indians, although for all practical purposes they are also Malays. Where an Indian marries a Malay and the father of the Malay bequeaths certain land to his grandchild, that grandchild, under the Group Areas Act, cannot take occupation of the land because he has an Indian father. I wonder whether the time has not come for the Minister to take steps to see that this thing is not quite so involved. Cannot we regard Indians and Coloureds and Malays a Coloured group without having these sub-divisions? I have no idea why there is this sub-division, and I cannot help wondering whether it serves any useful purpose. Sir, I could mention many cases where the people concerned are very decent. I am thinking of one case of an Indian married to a Malay woman, but, according to the laws of this country, his father-in-law is practically a stranger in his own home. I do not think that that was the Minister’s intention at the time of the passing of the Act, and I wonder whether he will not be prepared to give his serious attention to the question of rectifying this matter.

I should like to reply to the debate so far. On behalf of the officials I firstly want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) and other hon. members, who, in the course of their speeches, referred to the way in which my officials administer this Act. That is, of course, also the way in which the Minister administers it, and therefore everybody is so satisfied with the administration of the Act! I really expected much more opposition. The opposition to the Population Registration Act has gradually decreased. It has been realized that there are no cruel ulterior motives, and that it is being administered in a Christian and humane manner.

I want to start with the hon. member for Wynberg. Unfortunately she is not here yet, but I shall reply to her. In her second speech the hon. member for Wynberg made the accusation that the Secretary for the Interior appointed Adv. J. A. F. Nel to appear in the case heard by the ad hoc board. That is not so. It is not the Secretary for the Interior who appointed Adv. Nel, with the result that he really acted against the Minister. She depicted it as being actually a nonsensical position. Adv. Nel was appointed by the State Attorney to handle the case, and as such the Minister and the Secretary for the Interior had nothing at all to do with his appointment.

Then the hon. member for Wynberg is also very concerned about the fact that the people who are classified as Coloured are not notified that they can lodge objection within a certain period. It is peculiar that they should know that they can lodge objection, but that they allegedly do not know how much time they have in which to do so. In the same provision it says that the person has the right to object within 30 days. Now I cannot understand how people can read so far as to know they have the right to object, but then forget that they must do so within 30 days. To me that is a very weak argument.

It is very complicated.

It is not complicated; it is quite simple. Even the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) will be able to understand it if he reads it correctly. That is how simple it is. How is it that they know that they have this right, but they do not know that they must do so within a certain period? Why do they not know that a certain period has been fixed for condonation? In the first place there is the 30 days, and the Minister may still condone their objections within a year. Why do they not know that?

I want to ask whether the many cases appearing in the Press of appeals which have been noted do not give the impression that such a person may appeal at any time? A time limit is not mentioned in those cases.

As I have said, if the person knows that he can object, then he must also know how much time is allowed for his objection. Who told him that he could object? Now the hon. member wants us to include a notice with every identity card issued in which we say that the person may object if he is not satisfied, and he must do so within a certain period. We must now invite them to lodge objections! I wonder who is going to explain to them that this is not a right but a privilege? I think this is a terribly foolish suggestion. Any person who is classified in a group, and who is unhappy about it, knows that he may object. If he wants to find out how much time he has and he cannot lay his hands on the Act, he can come to the office and make inquiries. If he does not want to do that either, then the hon. member for Wynberg should tell him what to do. That is the easiest way. Let them go to her and she can tell them what to do.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised one very good point with which I am already dealing, and that is the question of delay by the Appeal Board. There I quite agree with her. It will be remembered that we had one Appeal Board. We felt that the ad hoc boards would perhaps serve a more useful purpose, but when I asked to be given the number of cases which had to be referred to the Appeal Board, I discovered that there were no fewer than 41 cases which still had to be referred to the Appeal Board. If it takes place on the ad hoc basis there is one problem: The chairman is, at the very least, a regional magistrate. I have never yet appointed anybody of a lower rank. These persons are very busy, and they must do it in between their other work. I am sorry that the continuity is being departed from somewhat. You have one chairman who decides in this way, and another chairman who decides in that way. In this way there may be different decisions, and we do not like to have that. We would like to have a single norm according to which the decision is given. I am now investigating the matter so as to have at least a permanent chairman who can serve right throughout the year with, if possible, two assessors, as in the past. I want to say that the ad hoc boards all did very good work, but the magistrates have far too much hay on their forks to continue with this work. I think that will eliminate the delays. I will finalize this matter as soon as possible.

The hon. members for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and Kempton Park (Mr. Steyn) referred to the Republic celebration. The hon. member for Kempton Park made pertinent suggestions in respect of the Mother City and also in respect of Pretoria. I want to tell him that I wholeheartedly support him in principle. I think it is a brilliant idea and it is something permanent. As hon. members know, the National Programme Committee will sit in Pretoria next Friday. I am the chairman and I undertake to bring this matter to their notice pertinently in so far as the broad principle is concerned.

I must say that the parking area for the cars of members of Parliament, the Gardens established by the Dutch East India Company, the Good Hope Theatre, Government House and a portion of Parliament Street already belong to the State. In regard to enlarging this area by way of including Stal Plein and a portion of Plein Street, I must say that that land does not belong to us. It is really a matter which, as the hon. member himself knows, falls under the Township Board of the Province and the local municipality. The layout and planning of towns is a matter which falls under them. In so far as the acquisition of sites is concerned, I would advise the hon. member to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Public Works. That is the Department which can take it further.

In so far as Pretoria is concerned, I may just say that I am aware that something in that direction is being done in the right way. I want to give encouragement here to our large cities to make use of this opportunity to establish something which will really be of permanent use to the people. I agree with the hon. member that building a fountain here and erecting a monument there in order to commemorate our becoming a Republic is almost worthless. They are forgotten sooner than they can be erected. I want to give the same reply to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who spoke about Van Riebeeck Day. We should remember that whereas the State has undertaken to support the celebrations on 31 May 1966— that has already been approved of in principle —I think it is wrong that the State should initiate such celebrations. The State can only give a stimulus, but it should gradually be taken over by the community. I remember the days when Gen. Botha was Prime Minister …

Can you still remember that?

Yes, I am much older than the hon. member. The celebrations of the day of the Covenant fell into desuetude to a large extent. Then they decided to hold a State Festival at Paardekraal, near Krugersdorp, every five years, at the expense of the State. It is still the custom to have a big celebration there every five years. The community, however, gradually took it over; it became popular, and the State completely withdrew from it. I also foresee that this will happen in the case of the Republic Festival. I for see the time when the community will be so accustomed to it that they will accept it and that a certain tradition will be attached to it.

It was worth while listening to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) to-day. Our object should be to build up a tradition, and a tradition cannot be built up by legislation. provisions and by making offers. It must come from the heart of the people. If it comes gradually it will grow. That is the only way to build up tradition. The only responsibility of the State is to provide the necessary means and to let it develop, and I am convinced that it will develop.

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister does not apply that sentiment in other spheres such as mixed entertainment.

The hon. member should not be so angry. What have I done now that is wrong?

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) objects to the fact that there will again be two separate celebrations. I do not blame him. But we are not going to hold a joint festival. The people are far happier if they are apart. I can assure the hon. member that it will not cost only R75,000 in the case of the Whites, and I am sure that it will not cost only R2,000 in the case of the Coloureds. It will be much larger sums of money. We said so at the time the Budget was submitted. At the time of Union we also spent a larger amount. If we want to hold these celebrations in 1966 properly, we should not make it a cheap festival for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. member should simply accept that this is the national policy and that it will remain like that for as long as this Government is in power. We will not have an intermingled festival. He should simply accept that. Whether he likes it or not, that will be the position for as long as this Government is in power.

I hope the hon. members for Orange Grove and Florida are satisfied with the Deputy Minister’s reply in respect of publications. It is a matter which I delegated to him, and that is why he replied to it. If they are not satisfied with his reply, they will just make his task a little more difficult. He can stand up to them.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The hon. member referred to two matters in connection with the Delimitation Board. The law says that there should be a delimitation every ten years. The previous Delimitation Commission sat in 1957. Therefore, in terms of the existing Act, there must be a delimitation before July 1967.

The second point he mentioned (I want to deal with both simultaneously) is that this House has now referred draft legislation to a Select Committee and that this may affect the delimitation, the whole aspect of delimitation. He alleged that the Select Committee would probably not be able to complete its work before the end of the Session, and he asked what my plan was and what the Government was going to do. In regard to the work of the Select Committee, the hon. member evidently has more information if he says that legislation cannot ensure from it. I do not know. The Select Committee was appointed with the object of submitting a report and, if necessary, submitting a new Bill; that they could call for evidence, etc., and if they do not complete the work then they simply have not completed it, and then that legislation is simply not possible this year. But if they complete the work and there is time to introduce the legislation, it will be introduced.

In regard to the delimitation itself, I have already said here in reply to a question that the Government had not yet decided whether it would appoint a Delimitation Commission now for the beginning of next year, or whether it would appoint that Commission later, or whether it would not appoint a Delimitation Commission at all before an election. That is not essential. There is nothing which compels the Government to do so. The Government has not yet taken a decision on the matter. Surely it is not relevant; it is not necessary to decide on that yet. There is still plenty of time to decide. If the election takes place later, if it takes place at the usual time, it can be appointed later in the year and it can complete its work, and all the supplementary voters’ rolls can be completed in time and the election can still take place in time.

Under the present Act?

Under the present Act. I repeat that if the Select Committee is not finished then it just has not finished and then we cannot pass legislation now and we shall have to wait until next year. If the Delimitation Commission has to work without new legislation, it will just have to do without it.

Perhaps legislation will not be necessary.

I repeat that the Government has not taken a decision yet, and I cannot assist the hon. member further.

I now come to the question of voters who have gone away, to which the hon. member referred, and he pointed to what in my opinion was a very wrong position which arose there, namely that the Act says one thing and that the regulations or the interpretation of it by the Chief Electoral Officer was different. I can only tell the hon. member that this matter will be investigated without delay and that it will be remedied if it is wrong in terms of the provisions of the Act.

The important matter referred to by the hon. member was the postal vote. I think he gave a very sound exposition of the disadvantages of this new system. I can add even further demerits, because I have received reports from all over in regard to these demerits. I think the hon. member was also fair when he said that to a large extent this system was strange, that it was something new, that the officials did not know it and that delays took place here and here. But the fact which cannot be argued away is that during the referendum in 1961 the percentage of postal votes issued but which did not come back was 3.4 per cent, but during the recent provincial elections it was 25 per cent.

Perhaps there was more interest in the referendum.

No, the hon. member does not follow what I am saying. He is just talking politics. I said that the percentage of the postal votes issued in the referendum which did not come back was 3.4 per cent, but during the provincial elections it was 25 per cent. There are many reasons for that and I think one of the most important reasons is the following. In the amending Act we said that the postal vote should be posted. Do you know what happened? In some constituencies a very large number did not come back. I am thinking now of Springs. There 256 postal votes which had been issued did not come back. In some places they all came back, and in other places fewer, and in still other places more, did not come back. In any case, 25 per cent is a disconcerting figure and it should not be so. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) that we cannot leave the matter there. The hon. member for Durban (Point) together with the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and others were members of the Commission, and I have now decided to take steps. The legislation has been drafted. Setting out from the standpoint from which I set out when we introduced this legislation, that the principle should be that every registered voter in the country should be granted the opportunity to cast his vote, we went into the matter. But then the vote must also be worth something and it cannot be kept back. He cannot, on the day the count takes place, be placed in the position that his vote is still travelling around somewhere. Under normal circumstances that simply cannot happen, because then the voter has no vote; he is disfranchised. But this legislation will be drafted on the standpoint I adopted at the time and which the Commission of Inquiry also adopted.

May I ask a question? Will the legislation embody the principle of the blank vote which the Commission proposed?

I shall give it to the Opposition as soon as it is ready and then we can discuss it together, but I do not think the hon. member should ask me now what the legislation will embody. I just mention it in general here because otherwise the Chairman will probably call me to order for discussing contemplated legislation. I just want to mention that the hon. member said that he hoped that this would remain as it was. I want to give him the assurance that in the amendments I propose to make I want to come as close as possible, 100 per cent, to the recommendations of the Commission. I instructed my Department to frame the draft legislation which is now ready and has been submitted to me in that way.

Reverting to the point I have already dealt with, I now have the figures in regard to the postal votes which did not come back. It is frightening to see how many were not returned in time. In the Free State 609 postal votes were not received back in time; in the Transvaal it was 4,518, in the Cape Province 2,911, and in Natal 2,345. These votes did not come back in time to be counted. This matter must be rectified. We cannot leave it like that, and I am sure that as far as that is concerned I will have the support of all the members of this House.

We want to remedy it.

We cannot disfranchise people in this way. The hon. member mentioned certain defects in the system. I cannot agree with all of them, but I can also add to their number. I think this should be discussed when we have the legislation before us.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) referred to one relevant matter, namely passports for non-Whites. The hon. member mentioned a few examples. I can only tell the hon. member that I am following the traditional course of my predecessors of all parties, also the United Party, namely that in so far as passports are concerned it has always been the custom in the Republic of South Africa to regard the issue of a passport to a person as a privilege and not as a right, and when it has to be decided whether a person is considered suitable or not, it is the Minister who takes the final decision. I may just tell the hon. member in passing that many passports are refused because the person cannot be done without. There are e.g., arrangements that certain of our officials and certain members of the Government cannot simply say: “I am travelling, even though it is at my own cost”. It is refused for many reasons, but it rests with the Minister to decide on the merits of the case, and the Minister is guided by various bodies in deciding on the merits. Those bodies are, for example, the Departments of Coloured Affairs or of Indian Affairs or of Bantu Affairs or the Police or the Department of Foreign Affairs or similar bodies or departments. I, however, want to give the hon. member the assurance to-day that no injustice takes place when it is refused, and that I cannot give her any pattern; I cannot give her any rules and regulations. Every case is judged individually and the passport is granted or refused on the merits of the case. The hon. member should now accept that. The hon. member says that during the past two years she has made a study of it and has noticed certain tendencies in the refusal of passports. I think the hon. member is making a very big mistake. I can give her just as many examples of deviations from those tendencies which she alleged she noticed.

You gave many unwise decisions.

I do not know whether the hon. member will ever be in a more responsible position where she will also have to give decisions. I do not think she will. But those are the facts and I do not think it is right that the State should continually be questioned as to why one thing was done and not another. The State has that responsibility, and the executive authority of the State, whoever it may be, whichever party it may be, has the responsibility of ensuring that in regard to passports things are always done carefully.

In any case it is most unfair.

The first plea made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) was in regard to holidays. In fact there are only two holidays in regard to which the hon. member can justifiably plead that they should be coupled to week-ends, and those are Family Day and Settlers’ Day.

What about 10 October?

There I do not agree with the hon. member. Whether there are historical problems attaching to it or not, 10 October is accepted as Kruger Day—the hon. member makes a mistake if he talks about Heroes’ Day; it is only known as Kruger Day, and the whole idea of it was that all the heroes should be seen around Kruger, should be concentrated around Kruger, with Kruger as the central figure, and therefore it is Kruger Day. and his day of birth was 10 October 1825. We stand by that. In regard to Family Day and Settlers’ Day, I do not wish to give a reply now. I think the hon. member has a point there which can be considered, whether one cannot make them fall on the second Monday or the first Monday or some other day so that they can link up with the week-end, to the concern of course of the Road Safety people, but to the advantage of the economy of the country. The other days are all connected with historic or church events, and I do not think we can have those holidays on just any day. We shall have to adhere to fixed dates. In regard to the Malays and the Coloured and the problems the hon. member has experienced in that regard, I think it would be a much better idea, in view of the fact that the hon. member has also lauded the good co-operation of my officials, for such amendments to be made, if possible, after having mentioned individual cases to these people and allowed them to investigate, when they can try to ascertain the bonafides of the matter and say: Here we have a real difficulty. Then it is possible to go into the matter. I want to recommend that the hon. member handle it in this way. I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me so far.

The hon. the Minister said in his speech that opposition to population registration was diminishing. I want to concede to him that one can advance many arguments in favour of a system of nnoi’Ntinn registration, but I hope the hon. the Minister is not laboring under a miscocneotion: Compulsory racial classification is totally unacceptable. The Opposition will not compromise on that point at all. and sooner or later it will have to disappear from our legislation.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the question of passports, the publications Control Board, and the question of citizenship. As far as passports are concerned, it is very difficult for members of this Committee to exercise substantiated criticism, and to judge whether the administration of passports is being carried out in a fair manner by the hon. the Minister, for the simple reason that the Minister refuses (and he may have certain good reasons for doing so, because this is a matter in regard to which secrecy is maintained) to furnish any reasons for the refusal of any particular passport.

That has been the position all these years.

As a result it is extremely difficult to judge the Minister’s actions; the hon. the Minister will realize, however, that the Opposition has a duty as far as the administration of the country is concerned. I am saying that it is extremely difficult to judge whether the Minister and his Department are fair in their handling of passports. What we do know is that from time to time one comes across cases which make one feel that there has been some unfairness. The first example of unfair treatment that I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice is the terribly long time which his Department keeps people waiting—usually in the case of non-Whites—for a reply to their applications. I have had to deal with cases where no reply whatsoever had been received after the lapse of six months. The newspapers recently mentioned the case of a man who had to wait for nearly a year to receive a reply from the Department. In one case a man came to see me and said that he had to leave in ten days’ time and that he had applied for a passport months before but had received no reply as yet. I think the hon. the Minister will admit that something is wrong. It is not fair to act in that way. And bitter dissatisfaction and resentment are created amongst the non-Whites by the fact that they receive this kind of treatment from a White administration. I know the excuse advanced by the Minister is that in the case of a Bantu or a Coloured or an Indian he refers the application to the Department of Bantu Administration or of Coloured Affairs or of Indian Affairs, as the case may be, and sometimes to the police as well, while the Receiver of Revenue also comes into the picture, but in the last instance it is the Minister’s responsibility in any case, and to my mind a month is the longest that a citizen of any race should have to wait after he has applied for a passport. I really think that if the machinery of the State is so inefficient that the State is unable to give a man a reply within the space of a month, so that he can make his arrangements, the Minister should say in all fairness: “It is my mistake, it is the mistake of my machinery of State, and I think that the applicant must get the benefit of the doubt and that we must give him his passport.” That is the first point I want to mention where I think there is some unfairness in the present position and where matters must be put right. The second point that worries one is the lack of machinery for rectifying any mistake made by the Minister. I am sure the Minister would not claim to be infallible and would not pretend that he never makes mistakes. I am sure he will admit that he also makes mistakes. It may also be that the responsibility for the mistake is not entirely his.

He may sometimes be given incorrect information. We have repeatedly had court cases in which even information obtained by the police subsequently appeared to be totally wrong. Similarly much of the information, on the basis of which the hon. the Minister has to decide whether or not to grant a man a passport, will also be wrong. Now the difficulty is that this man who is refused a passport is not advised of the reason for the refusal. What action must he take if he is convinced that the Minister gave a wrong decision and committed an error of judgment? What must he do then? I know of one case in which an ex-teacher was refused a passport. For two years he went from pillar to post and turned to one person after another, and eventually, after two years of trouble and inconvenience, the Minister granted him his passport after all. The impression I would get from something like that would be that the Minister’s decision was incorrect in the first instance. The Minister may say that the granting of a passport is a privilege, but it is much more than a privilege. I think that every person has a basic right to travel, and surely that is not a right of which a politician should deprive a man lightly. Refusing a man a passport falls in the same category as house arrest. In that case it is territorial arrest. In the modern times in which we are living, in which people want to increase their knowledge, in which we are prosperous as a country and people travel a great deal, it is a terrible thing to refuse a man a passport. It is territorial arrest. That is a terrible punishment to impose upon any person.

Do you know of any specific cases where passports were wrongfully refused?

My difficulty is precisely that we are forced to base our judgment on general impressions because we cannot get the information, but I am sure the Minister will not claim that he never makes a mistake. It seems wrong to me that this power should be solely in the hands of a party politician, who can place a man under territorial arrest, as it were. I think we must seek some sort of solution. I cannot say that I can provide the complete solution immediately, but I want to suggest that the Minister might consider appointing a committee of judges, for example, so that if he refuses a man a passport and the applicant feels that a mistake has been made an injustice has been done, the Minister can submit his information to the committee privately and the applicant can lodge an appeal and the committee can decide whether or not the Minister’s decision was a fair one. If a well-known person is refused a passport to-day, it frequently does the country a great deal of harm in the outside world. Whenever such cases occur a tremendous amount of propaganda is made against South Africa. Allow me to mention one case, Sir, although I must repeat to the Minister that I have no specific information which I can submit to him. But take the case of the Editor of The World, a man who publishes a very responsible newspaper, the only Native daily in Johannesburg. No less a person than the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Kaiser Matanzima, said this—

This man has already been overseas on numerous occasions and now that he wants to go overseas on a bursary to study journalism in America he is refused a passport. The Minister may have his reasons. How are we to know? But in this case, the case of a man who has frequently been overseas and who occupies a responsible position, it seems to me, on the face of it, that there should be some body above the Minister as a party politician which should decide whether or not that decision is a fair one. Every now and again we hear of non-White students—the hon. member for Houghton also mentioned this— who are refused passports to go and study overseas. The ugliest aspect of that is that the Minister is in effect saying to them, “You can go overseas, but then you cannot come back again, and you lose your citizenship.” Surely it is a terrible choice to put to a man if a politician says to him, “You can go, but then you will not be allowed to return to your own country again, and you will lose your citizenship”. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, it would have been more convenient, I think, for the hon. the Minister to deal with the point that I wished to raise when he replied to certain representations in regard to passport control and also to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson)—because I want to ask him whether he has a policy relating to the granting or refusal of visas. Clearly, there are similarities between the two documents and therefore there may be a similarity between the two policies, if there is a policy in each case—but there are certain cardinal differences. Obviously, in the first place, a passport is sought by and granted or refused, as the case may be, to a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. A visa is applied for by and granted or refused, as the case may be, to a foreigner, to a person who wishes to visit this country, and who therefore may well be regarded by the hon. Minister in a light very different from that in which he regards a person, who, being a South African, applies to him for a passport. Now. what has puzzled me for some years is the criterion which the Minister applies in deciding whether to say “yes” or “no” to an application for a visa. I have the example in two questions which I put to the hon. the Minister to-day. In the one case I asked him—

It would appear that in the case of Mr. Skorzeny there are several “unknown” factors, and this puzzles me, to begin with because, as a rule, the information is complete when the department considers such an application. For example, in the case of Skorzeny, the Minister replied that he does not know where the application was submitted, and he does not know the date when the application was made, and he does not know what the purpose of the visit was, and he does not know whether there was any sponsor for the visit. This is a remarkable answer coming from this hon. Minister, who always knows! He has told me that I do not know how to ask a question. In fact, last year he offered to guide me and to show me how to ask questions. My big question is: How does one ask a question of an hon. Minister who does not intend to answer the question, anyway? Here you have a case where there is a great deal that is unknown, but the application for a visa to Skorzeny was granted very promptly. Having been granted on 3 March, he gets his visa and enters the Republic on 29 March.

Then I come to the other case which, one may say, is concurrent with that of Skorzeny, and that is the application of Mr. Floyd Anderson. All the details, apparently, were known to the Minister and his Department, in terms of the reply he gave me. For example, the purpose of the visit was stated as being “tourism”, and then the answer says that the application was refused and the applicant was notified on 2 April. Why is there this difference in the treatment of these two persons?

Comparisons are odious.

Undoubtedly they are. But unless the Minister stands up in this Committee and gives a reply to …

There you have the reply: Comparisons are odious.

But that is no reply. I can come up with an equally resounding cliché. What does this tell us? I know the Minister can refuse to make a statement, but to say “comparisons are odious” does not constitute an answer.

That is the final answer.

Well, then I will use up the rest of my time in making statements; as I cannot ask a question that will be answered, I am compelled to draw a certain conclusion: that the granting of visas is dealt with on the system or criterion of “kissing goes by favour”. When Mr. Otto Skorzeny, who is known as a top S.S. Nazi leader in Germany …

Tell us about your friend Floyd?

The Minister says he will not make a statement. Therefore I must make a statement. It appears that if Mr. A., whoever he may be, applies for a visa, and fortuitously he turns out to be a top-ranking S.S. Nazi, Schutzstaffel, a Hitler bodyguard, the elite of the Nazis … [Interjections.] We heard a great deal this afternoon about the flag and fighting for the flag. If he applies his application is granted, and I cannot even find out what the reason is for granting it. [Interjections.] But when Mr. B. applies for a visa …

On a point of order, I hope the hon. member will be allowed to make his speech. Hon. members opposite may not like what he is saying, but that is no reason why they should stop him from saying it.

Order!

Go and march.

If it turns out that Mr. B. is Floyd Anderson, described (as far as I know, correctly) in the Press as the director of the National Catholic Welfare conference News Service, a world agency sponsored by the Catholic Bishops of the United States, which further states that he is on a roving commission intended to cover all the states in Africa, and that he inquired at the South African Legation in Leopoldville, apparently on his tour of Africa, about his application for a visa for South Africa—it then turns out that the Legation telephoned to Pretoria and was told that no visa would be granted! Is the inference, then, that because this man represents a Catholic organization, or because he is an American citizen, his visa is refused?

Nonsense!

If the hon. member says it is nonsense, perhaps he will get up and give the reasons, as the Minister will not. And this is not the whole story. There were similar cases last year which were completely inexplicable. There was the case I raised with the Minister, and in regard to which I am still waiting for a reply, of a journalist from the U.S.A. who, remarkably enough, had a letter of recommendation from the gentleman who is now the President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, who was then Vice-President—a letter in which he said to the Minister that he would be very pleased if the Minister would consider this application for permission to enter South Africa.

How many dozens of such letters are received?

I do not know, nor do I know how many “dozens” of people get personal recommendations from the President of the U.S.A. I wonder whether that hon. member would give me a recommendation? [Interjections.] I hope you will agree, Sir, that recommendations and testimonials from the President of the United States are just as difficult to come by as a recommendation in my favour from the Minister of the Interior. Therefore, the inference I must draw is that since that man was cleared by the State Department and by the President of his country, there can be no suspicion that he is a man who comes here with criminal intent, or to commit sabotage, or to engage in communist activities.

There was another case, the Claremore Quartet, a perfectly innocent ensemble of musicians. The Minister may have heard them once, if he was overseas, and he may not have liked their interpretation of Mozart— but is that a reason for refusing them a visa, as he did last year, when they applied to come here under a State Department sponsorship from their country, the U.S.A., with which we are on friendly terms, and that at the expense of the U.S. Government, in order to give concerts which we lack very badly in so far as foreign ensembles are concerned, and will continue to lack more painfully in the future? The visas were refused, and the Minister will not say why. Does he suggest, or must I draw the inference, that these visas were refused because these people were Americans, or because they were musicians, or because they played Mozart? If they had played Boccherini, would that have made any difference? We say that we want people to come and take a look at us in South Africa. We have a Minister of Tourism who does what he can, I take it, to bring people to this country—people who are prepared to come here at their own expense, to stimulate some interest in South Africa in the outside world—to entertain us, or, as the case may be, to come here to observe what we are pleased to call our traditional way of life. Unless the Minister has a very valid reason, he surely does not put himself in the very best position as an advocate of the interests of South Africa, about which a great deal was said on that side of the House to-day, when he arbitrarily refuses permission for people like that to enter this country, while, on the other hand, he allows a top Nazi to come in here with the greatest of ease, to visit this House under senatorial escort. [Time limit.]

Did I understand the hon. the Minister, when he referred to Government Departments and the refusal of passports, to say that passports have also been refused to public servants.

No.

Then I must have misunderstood him. I again want to raise the matter of the censorship of books with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Minister denied that there was great delay in censorship but there have indeed been cases where an embargo was placed on books for three to four months and only then released for sale. I think of one book by John Masters “Trial at Monomoy”. I think an embargo was placed on that book for four months. The Minister said there was not much confusion to-day or that if there were confusion and delay it was not worse than it had been over the past 50 years. But did we not pass a law last year with the specific object of improving the position? We should like to see that improvement and we want to know why there is no improvement.

The Minister raised another matter, namely, the appointment of an inspector of the Publications Board or of his Department here in Cape Town. The fact that somebody with a literary knowledge has to be specially appointed to perform that task is in itself an admission that everything is not right. I trust that inspectors will likewise soon be appointed in Johannesburg and the other ports in order to expedite this matter. He admitted that it was impossible for the Publications Board to control this censorship on its own. We appreciate the difficulties and we realize that Customs should also play a role but there are serious delays to-day because of the obligation which rests on Customs to withhold all paperbacks which cost less than 60 cents and only to allow those through for which a special permit has to be issued. The Minister may say that a great number of paper-backs are undesirable and I admit that but I am astounded at the suggestion made by the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) that the Penguin books should practically be boycotted. If there is one person whom I shall not allow to judge which books should be allowed to enter the country it is the hon. member for Innesdal, the person who even found liberalism and radicalism in the head office of the Nationalist Party in Keerom Street.

I agree with what the hon. member has said in general about our flag. I admit that we should honour our flag but I think he went too far when he said we should display our flag in our churches, everywhere in our schools and in a number of buildings. The flag as such is a symbol and we must not confuse the symbol with reality. We must first get unity in South Africa. That is the important thing. The flag itself cannot bring about unity but unity in South Africa will in itself result in greater respect for the flag. [Interjections.] When I talk about the flag of South Africa I do not want to do what a friend of the hon. member for Brits did who appeared on the same platform as Mr. Blyth Thomson during the recent elections and said he wanted to tear the Union Jack and the flag of South Africa. That was an insulting remark to make about the flag of South Africa by a supporter of that hon. member’s party on a Nationalist Party platform.

To return to the flag itself. I do believe that we must honour the flag and I also think it should be made more generally known that a certain etiquette has to be observed when it comes to flags. For example, if a number of flags are flown the flag of the country must always fly in the highest position. It is also etiquette that the flag must never be dragged along the ground when it is used in a procession. We are often inclined to ignore those rules of etiquette. I trust that will not be done in future. I have already seen a flag flying on the left-hand side when it should have flown on the right-hand side. I have once seen a flag flying upside down.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister concerning the Press Commission. I know it is an old Nationalist story that I am raking up and that they would rather not have it raked up. I have already asked the Minister and I want to ask him again whether the report of that Press Commission has now fortunately been shelved for good; is that report of 4,000 pages and which cost nearly R500,000 without producing anything now going to collect dust on the shelves as it deserves? Is that going to happen or is the Minister going to continue to embody certain of the recommendations of the Press Commission in legislation? I asked him once what he intended doing and he told me that he had referred the portion of the report which dealt with monopolistic tendencies in the newspaper world to the Board of Trade and Industries for attention. Has the Minister already received the report from the Board of Trade and Industries and has he already decided to act as far as that report itself is concerned? To which monopolistic tendencies does he object and in connection with which something should be done? There was a recommendation in the report of the Press Commission in connection with Sapa.

Order! The report of the Press Commission now falls under the Department of Information and it should be discussed under that Vote.

In that case I fully sympathize with the hon. the Minister of Information for being saddled with that report. We shall certainly again raise the matter when his Vote comes up for discussion.

I want to refer to the question of delays in the censorship of books by the Publications Board. The hon. member has said that an embargo was placed on some books by Customs for a period of four months before they were released. He said that was an unreasonably long period. It is unfortunately true that a few books are placed under embargo for four months. I myself ascertained that the other day. I visited the offices of the Publications Board, discussed their working methods with the chairman and other officials in the light of the criticism which we get from time to time in connection with delays. It was clearly put to me that in the case of certain books delays were practically unavoidable. When there is real doubt about a book, a book which may perhaps deal with certain ideologies which can be regarded as dangerous to the State, the chairman feels that thorough consideration should be given to it. What happens in such a case is that he sends the copy from one member of the Publications Board to the other. As the hon. member knows the members live all over the country. The book has to be sent to one member and then to another one and that causes considerable delays. I discussed with the chairman the possibility of following a different method so that the reading of books could be expedited. That can only be done—this is also the reason why I am replying and making an appeal to the public—if the book shops concerned were to make more copies available so that the Publications Board can send a copy of the book to every individual member of the Board who has to read it. In that way they can all convey their opinion on which he has to base his decision to the chairman of the Publications Board. I make this appeal hoping that the book shops will react. It would be of great assistance if a number of copies of such a book were made available.

It is true that the paper-backs are really the biggest culprits. Most of the books placed under embargo and most of those which are eventually banned are paper-backs. That has been the experience in the past and the position is actually deteriorating. Judging from what the members of the Publications Board have told me the position has deteriorated in the past year. An increasing amount of material from the yellow Press in the form of paper-backs is entering the country and that fact should really strengthen us in our efforts to withhold paper-backs until such time as it is decided that they can be released. If the position is as experience teaches us, namely, that more pornographic material appears in paper-backs than previously, then it is essential that we put this machinery of placing an embargo on such books into motion in order to protect society against the danger of becoming contaminated to which it would otherwise be exposed, I simply cannot imagine our not invoking this machinery because if we did not hon. members, like the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who blamed us yesterday of allowing the amount of undesirable reading matter obtainable in cafés to increase, would have even greater reason to level that accusation at us.

We only want them to do the work faster.

I want to discuss with the Deputy Minister this question of the censorship and the present procedures followed by his Department in the checking of paper-backs. The Minister has stated that in order to speed up the present check, an inspector has been appointed. The Minister has stated that we have this double system. The Minister will recall that at the time when the Publications Board was under consideration by the Select Committee, the proposition came forward that there should be only one centre of control or checking of undesirable literature entering the country, and both sides of the House agreed that the present system of a double check, namely first by the customs, and if they had any doubt they would refer copies to the Publications Board for an opinion, was a system which we found desirable to follow, because it offered an adequate check. Now the Minister has of course, as we pointed out at the time of the debate, come across the difficulty, as have also the importers of books, that because of the number and the wide variety of titles which enter the country every week, the system of administration has meant that the Publications Board has become loaded with doubtful publications for which Customs will not accept responsibility without a clearance from the Censor Board. We have the position now, as the Minister has pointed out, that to overcome this difficulty, the Minister has resorted to the appointment of inspectors in the Department of Customs, I take it. Sir, I want more information about these inspectors. The Minister has only told us that a person with a knowledge of literature has been appointed at Cape Town, but he is also considering such appointments at the other ports. Are these appointments the appointments of the Department of Customs, or of the Department of the Interior?

Of Interior.

Under whose jurisdiction will these inspectors operate? It is important to know this, because this House has agreed to the principle of a Censor Board, a separate statutory body which gives an opinion. Is this inspector now going to be clothed with all the powers and responsibilities of the Censor Board, and because he has a knowledge of literature, will he now be permitted to decide what literature should be allowed to enter the country? The one protection we have with the Censor Board is that in terms of the legislation there are separate committees and individuals appointed by the Board to read a doubtful book, and they express an opinion. All the Customs do is to say that they have a doubt, and his doubt is either confirmed or negatived by the Censor Board. But now we have an inspector who will be clothed with the full responsibility, apparently, of the Censor Board.

No, he is there merely as an adviser.

On whose advice is he going to act? When we dealt with this legislation in the House, the Minister was at pains to emphasize that the norm would be established by court cases. What norm will this inspector exercise? The norm of his own personal judgment? Will he say, if he has a doubt, that he will refer the publication to the Censor Board for a decision?

That is one of his functions.

The Minister says it is one of his functions, but the Minister has gone further. This inspector will now be a snooper in regard to South Africa’s reading matter and go through the book stores of South Africa. There is no provision in the Act for this. This inspector will not act with the authority of the Censor Board; he is going to be a departmental snooper, not only in the course of entry, but he will go around to any bookstall and bookshop and to any café selling literature, and he will decide whether a prosecution should be instituted or not. But the only prosecution in terms of the Act which can be instituted is if the Board has declared a piece of literature as being undesirable.

He will bring it to the notice of the Board.

We were told quite a different story when that Act was passed in this House. We were told that if any private person felt that undesirable literature was being distributed, he could lodge a case with the Board.

He can still do so.

Of course, that is the law, but what has now apparently happened is that official snoopers have been appointed in the Department of the Interior to examine South Africa’s reading matter. With what authority was that done? Apparently it is not done under the authority of the Central Board, but only with ministerial or departmental authority. [Interjection.] If he is there to assist the Censor Board, then the Minister must say that the Board cannot do the job adequately. I know the system which is in operation. I know that a large number of complaints have been made by people who import literature and have not been able to get the right quantity. The Minister very well knows that there are very few reputable importers of literature who have complaints against the present system.

But you know it is physically impossible for the Board to check all the undesirable publications coming in.

That is what we told the Minister in the first place when he introduced this legislation. Now we have to hear an admission that our arguments were right. But that does not justify the appointment of a snooper into the reading matter of South Africa on a departmental basis. That is not envisaged in any legislation. Let us face it, that if we never had a Publications Board or legislation standing on the Statute Book establishing such a board, it would have been possible for the Minister of the Interior to appoint inspectors who could have performed this job. Why was it not done at that time? It was not done, because the principle was found offensive in the light of public opinion, and I believe it still is offensive. We must have clarity on this matter. We must know what norm are these official snoopers of the Department of the Interior now going to apply, because no norm of what is undesirable has yet been laid down in a court case instituted by the Publications Board. There are a couple of cases pending before the courts, as we know. The Minister said in this House that eventually by practice the norm would be laid down as to what constitutes undesirable literature, but what norm will this inspector apply? Will he have the right to ban at the port of entry any literature which he considers to be undesirable? Under whose authority will he operate?

Under the Publications Board, and they know what the norm is.

But as far as I know, the Publications Board has no authority to appoint any official to act at any port of entry. The Minister has just said that this will be an official operating through the Department of the Interior.

That is correct, and he will refer the results of his investigations to the board.

This is the question we must get clear now. Will this inspector, with his superior knowledge of reading matter, this man who has all the knowledge of all the literature published in the world, be the only criterion to decide at the port of entry what will be admitted without censorship and what will be admitted with censorship? That is the issue. This is an important matter of principle, and the Minister must tell us with what powers this official will be clothed and how will he act in deciding what will and what will not be admitted. I believe that in the interests of a democratic country the Minister should give a clear and unequivocal answer on that issue. [Time limit.]

I rise to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). Yesterday I spoke in reference to what he had said, and it struck me that he was so different from his normal self yesterday; I thought it would only be a matter of time before he lost his bearings again, as he has done to-day. He says that I pleaded for a boycott of Penguin books yesterday and that he does not trust my judgment in the matter of what should be allowed into South Africa. I issued a challenge to the hon. member for Orange Grove yesterday, and I also put a question to him, and I want to repeat that question now, because, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that we have had from him, I still have some hope that he does have some moral courage. I asked him whether, in the light of Penguin Books’ appointment of Ronald Segal as the head of their Africa series, he thought that South Africa should simply allow Penguin soft-cover books to enter the country without their being subject to any scrutiny at all. Does he want to give me a reply to that?

No.

Very well. From South Africa’s point of view, therefore, Penguin books are not simply to be trusted. If the hon. member says that Penguin books should not simply be allowed into the country without being subject to some form of control, then I take it as meaning that those books are not to be trusted as reading-matter in South Africa. For what other reason must we then exercise control over them? But then he attacks the Government because of that control and tries to laud Penguin. In that way he wants to remove the stigma which Penguin has placed upon itself by appointing a listed, recognized communist to help to slander South Africa in the world. That is why he got up, and instead of replying to my question he brought personalities into the matter and was too cowardly to reply to the facts before him.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is too cowardly to reply to his questions?

Political cowardice.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member interrupted me yesterday to put a question to me. I shall be glad if I can have the attention of the hon. member for Orange Grove. He got up yesterday to interrupt my speech, and I was kind enough to resume my seat and then he put a question to me. He asked me to mention some books which I thought were being kept out of South Africa. I then mentioned the names of a few authors on the spur of the moment. I want to mention a few more to him, and then I want to come back to the matter later. I want to ask him to go to a bookseller and to bring me any book by Professor Richard Weaver.

Are they not obtainable at Nasionale Boekhandel?

I want to mention a few more names. I want to mention the name of Professor Merrill Root; I want to mention the name of Frank Meyer; I want to go so far as to mention the name of a person with whom the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) should be well acquainted, Whittaker Chambers, who gave evidence in America against Alger Hiss, the first secretary of UNO. Whittaker Chambers stated in evidence that Alger Hiss was a member of the Communist Party in America. Chambers’s books are unobtainable in South Africa, but Alger Hiss’s book in which he tried to prove his innocence after having served his sentence is in fact obtainable. I would not say that it is obtainable at the moment, but I saw stacks of this book in several bookshops a few years ago. The latest book by Whittaker Chambers, entitled “Cold Friday”, is also unobtainable in South Africa. His previous book, entitled “Witness”, was only available in very limited quantities in South Africa if at all. I told the hon. member for Orange Grove yesterday that I challenge him to go and buy me one of those books off the shelf.

Are they not obtainable at Nasionale Boekhandel?

I shall come to the reason for Nasionale Boekhandel not having them in stock in a moment. The hon. member is still too cowardly to-day to reply to that.

Order! The hon, member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. He has not had the courage to accept that challenge. He had all morning to make inquiries. He did not have the courage to do so. He thinks he can get away with this kind of talk in this House. Although those books are not coming into this country, what do we find? Here I have a copy of a book by Dennis Brutus, a listed communist in South Africa. It was possible to buy copies of this book from him here in Cape Town a year ago, and it was offered to the world in a list of book prices—Dennis Brutus’s “Sirens, Knuckles and Boots”. I ask you, Sir, a book which was published in Nigeria finds its way to South Africa, but books which are printed in the major publishing countries of the world cannot come into this country. Why is that? Let the hon. member for Orange Grove explain that to me. There is only one reason …

Why cannot they be imported?

… and that is that books which do not fit in with this leftist-liberalistic pattern of thought are not mentioned by the mass media. They are not mentioned by the reviewers of the major newspapers and magazines, with the result that the South African public cannot get to know about them and there is therefore no need for bookshops to keep them in stock. Take the example of a book that is published in Britain. It is reviewed in the Time Literary Supplement, the Political Quarterly, The Spectator and The New Statesman if it finds favour in those circles. Those publications are sent to South Africa. One can buy those publications at the C.N.A. any day week after week. In that way South Africans become aware of that book. And when it is brought to South Africa the entire English Press in its turn is ready to review it and to bring it to the notice of the public. But books which do not fall into that pattern of thought are simply ignored in the newspaper columns, and consequently those people who would buy or sell these books cannot become aware of them. The same applies in the case of magazines. Here I have an example of a periodical, U.S. News and World Report, which is the best news magazine to be found in America. Sir, the Central News has not even obtained the right to distribute this publication in this country; it did not even apply for that right. If one gets this publication by air mail, as is done in the case of Time and News-week and that type of rubbish which arrive here weekly, one has to pay R50 per annum, three to four times as much as for Time or News-week. That is the position prevailing in South Africa, and then the people responsible for it want to cry to high heaven that the Government is restricting freedom of speech and freedom of thought, while they themselves apply a much worse form of censorship in South Africa than any the Government ever had in mind …

Tell us about the Nationalist Press now.

… and then the hon. member for Orange Grove, in his rashness and his lack of courage, comes along here on their behalf and tries to pose as the great defender of free speech!

This method of casting suspicion upon control of publications in South Africa is part of the standard technique of that side of the House; it is the method which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) also employed here a moment ago. All these minor matters are seized upon and blown up into a big affair in an attempt to show how no other opinion is supposed to be tolerated in South Africa, how there is supposed to be a certain attitude here which is not acceptable to the rest of the world. All these means are used to stir up suspicion against South Africa in the outside world and to link up with people who are agitating against South Africa, whether it be in the sphere of entertainment or in any other sphere. That has formed part of the standard technique of the Opposition for years, and that is the technique again being employed now.

I find myself in some difficulty regarding the judgment of the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais). The judgment of a person who succeeded, as he did, in unearthing a liberal in Keerom Street cannot be too sound as far as publications are concerned. Nor do I think it behoves the hon. member—I put it euphemistically to talk about moral courage and to use such heated words across the floor of this House. I listened this afternoon to one of the hon. members opposite who pleaded eloquently that the Republican flag should be popularized. I think, however, that it is not so long ago that the hon. member for Innesdal pleaded in the Transvaal for that flag to be changed! He should get up and tell us how he wants the flag, that must be popularized, changed. He apparently lacks the political courage—I shall not say the moral courage—to do that.

However, I did not get up to discuss this matter. I rise once again on behalf of this side of the House to make a plea to the hon. the Minister in connection with population registration. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to classify a Coloured who is obviously Coloured as White or to classify a White person as Coloured. When I handle these matters—I deal with a number of these cases—I make a point of checking each case very thoroughly. It is only when I am satisfied that the person concerned should have been classified White that I make the necessary representations to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has told us this afternoon that he simply cannot understand how people can lodge an objection without knowing that they must lodge their objection within 30 days. The Minister has a point there; but it is only a small aspect of the whole matter, because with due respect I want to tell the hon. the Minister that 95 per cent of the people who lodge an objection against their classification do not even know the number of Act under which they are objecting or in what year it was passed. They do not even know what it is all about.

When I, as a White person, receive my identification certificate on which it is stated that I have suddenly become Coloured whereas I and my family accept that I am White, my immediate reaction is to go to the office of the hon. the Minister to lodge an objection. I do not even ask whether there is any law nor do I pay any attention to the law. With due respect to the Minister the majority of the objections he receives from private people came from people who have never even seen the Act, people whose way of life in most cases is such that they have never seen the Act. It is on their behalf that we are pleading to-day in an attempt to have the position rectified.

But there is another important matter. I do believe the hon. the Minister is very sympathetically inclined towards these people. I also know from my own experience of his Department that he is sympathetically inclined but the hands of the hon. the Minister are tied in this matter; I actually feel sorry for him when I think how sympathetically inclined he is without being able to do anything. Once the statutory period of 12 months has expired, even if he finds that the person has been incorrectly classified, even if he finds that justice is on the side of that person, his hands are tied and in spite of all the goodwill in the world he cannot do anything. What are the implications of such a case? I have numbers of cases in my files of persons who, because they are afraid of the implications, did not object or who did not object because of ignorance until the implications caught up with them, until they were caught in the State net. I personally have investigated numbers of such cases and I am convinced that those people should have been classified as White. But those people have now been caught; they now comes and plead with the hon. the Minister. I think, for example, of the case of a person whose classification has not worried him for five years. He was very happy but a son was born to him in the meantime and now for the first time, now that that little boy has to go to school—it is the only son in the family—that person realizes what the implications are and he asks himself this question: What did I let myself in for the day I received the certificate and did not object? He now goes to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister is sympathetic; he wants to help that person but he cannot; as the law stands at the moment he dare not. I plead with the Minister to-day to change the position in such a way that, where he finds there are sound reasons to change the classification, there will be a way out for himself or his Department to assist that person. Sir, we are not only punishing one person. If I transgress a law, if I commit a crime I may be sentenced to imprisonment or to paying a fine; my family may perhaps only be slightly jeopardized, but if a person makes a mistake under this particular Act and does not object timeously, it is not only he who is punished; if he is White and is classified as Coloured his descendants to the furthest generation are being punished. With respect, what right have we to do that to people; what right has the Minister to do that? I know he does not want to do it. The hon. the Minister can, if he wants to, rectify the position. A great responsibility rests on his shoulders in this respect. I believe he can do it; he wants to do it and that is my plea to the hon. the Minister.

I had not quite concluded what I wanted to say to the hon. the Minister about passports when he replied, but I am not at all happy about his reply. He took the main line that it has always been the tradition in South Africa to issue passports in the way in which he is doing so. I want to say at once that this word “tradition” has a very flexible meaning indeed these days. Tradition appears to be the custom that fits in with the ideology of the Nationalist Party and the Minister. If that tradition happens to fit in with his customs and his practices, then that is fine and nobody must make any changes and the position must be maintained for all time, irrespective of changes in world thinking and the need for adaptation to new ideas and so on. But if the tradition or so-called custom does not conform with Nationalist ideology, the Minister has no hesitation in introducing new traditions and new customs. So it is rather flexible. What is not flexible, however, is the hon. the Minister’s method of using his powers under the existing passport regulations. I know it is a privilege to be given a passport, and I believe that it is a privilege which should be given far more generously than the hon. the Minister gives it. I believe that for many reasons. I believe it particularly as far as non-Whites are concerned. I do not think the hon. the Minister has realized what changes have come about in overseas countries as regards attitudes and interests in the African Continent, for instance, since this Government took over—not because of it but just because of the general trend towards the so-called liberation of Africa, the removal of colonial powers and so on. In fact, practically every major university in America to-day has an African Studies Department. Students throughout the world are interested in Africa, and it is because of this, not in order to defy Nationalist apartheid policy, that the creation of scholarships, particularly for African students, has in fact come about at oversea universities.

Young students in America, in Sweden, in Holland, in Germany, in Britain and elsewhere find that one way in which they can demonstrate their sympathy with the emerging African states is, of course, to create scholarships, and South Africa is included not so much as an emergent African State per se, but because South Africa has African students living in this country, South African African students. Students overseas are anxious to provide opportunities for these students to go overseas, and it creates the very worst impression indeed when obviously meritorius cases, people who have been granted scholarships, are now unable to take advantage of these wonderful opportunities simply because the Government has apparently adopted the attitude that by and large—not in every case, but in practically every case that has been brought to my notice at any rate—the tendency is to refuse passports for such students. I ask the hon. the Minister when he does examine passport applications to bear in mind the facts which I have presented to him now; that it creates a very bad impression of South Africa; it is always used as yet another example of the Government’s narrow-mindedness, of the Government’s oppression of non-Whites, that students who have been granted these scholarships are not allowed to avail themselves of these fine opportunities. After all, many of us in this House have either ourselves had the opportunity of studying overseas or we see to it that our children go overseas for postgraduate studies, and we do this for various reasons. There are opportunities there which this country does not always offer here, and if our children are offered scholarships by well-known universities overseas, I think we would feel extremely frustrated and bitter if those children were not allowed to take up those scholarships. How much more so does this apply in the case of African and other students who have gone through considerable hardships in even acquiring high-school education and passing matriculation, let along getting the opportunity of going overseas to study.

I want to ask the Minister to adopt a much more flexible attitude in the future than he has displayed over the last year or two, because, as I said originally it seems to me that the attitude in this regard is hardening; it is not becoming more enlightened; it is becoming harder and more inflexible, and I think it is a bad thing for this country that this should happen. At this stage I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister again to the case of a student who had matriculated and was offered an Ockenden scholarship. This is a particularly fine scholarship set up in England. This scholarship is run by very well-known people such as Professor Birley, the ex-headmaster of Eton, who now holds the Chair of Education at the Witwatersrand University, and there are other well-known people on this Board. This scholarship was set up to provide post-matriculation studies for students, the payment of travelling expenses and so on, to enable students to continue with higher education. An African student was offered that scholarship but he was not allowed to go; his passport application was refused. Again it creates a very bad impression if a student like this is not allowed to take up the scholarship.

Sir, it may well be that at some time or other some student may have engaged in school political activities. They may have expressed their opposition to Government policy but surely this in itself should not be sufficient to debar such a person from taking up the opportunity to study further. I want to take the case now of a well-known journalist in this country. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) mentioned the case of Mr. Moerane of the World newspaper. I want to draw attention to the case of Mr. Nathaniel Nakasa, who was a journalist in South Africa, first on Drum and later on the Rand Daily Mail, a well-known journalist whose application for a passport was refused. I know Mr. Nakasa personally. He happens to be a personal friend of mine; he is an intelligent and able journalist. He was offered the Nieman Fellowship at Harvard in America. He was also offered an American Field Exchange Scholarship which would have paid the costs incurred by him in travelling to America to take up the Harvard grant. Efforts were made both through official American channels and by myself to try to get the hon. the Minister to change his mind in this case. Mr. Nakasa had to take an exit permit in order to enjoy the benefits of this Harvard scholarship. To the best of my knowledge— and I have known Mr. Nakasa for several years—he is not a political person at all. It is true that he wrote satirical articles in the Rand Daily Mail and no doubt in Drum criticizing Government policy. Well, I would say that that is another privilege which surely people should enjoy in this country. To the best of my knowledge he was never engaged in any subversive activities whatsoever. The Government has always said that people are free to criticize provided they do so legitimately. Why should this man have been denied this opportunity? He is now writing for newspapers of the high reputation of the New York Times, but that man my not return to the country of his birth. He had to go to the most extraordinary efforts to try to get himself admitted as a citizen of another African country before he was allowed to take up the Nieman Fellowship because one of the terms of this grant is that the person must obviously be the citizen of a country to which he can return after finishing his year in the United States. He had to take up the citizenship of, I believe, Zambia. For no reason at all he had to give up his South African citizenship. He did not wish to do so; he was forced to do so by what I call the unreasonable and unfair, inflexible policy of the hon. the Minister and his Department. I know of well-known churchmen such as the Rev. Zulu, one of the executive members of the World Council of Churches, whose passport was refused. Then there is Mr. Mbata, a research worker of well-known academic standing; his application for a passport was refused. I could mention case after case of non-political people being refused passports, and I might say that being “political” should not be a crime in this country provided that being political is not linked in any way with subversive activities.

Opposition members are now availing themselves of the opportunity of pleading that South Africa be undermined in an indirect way. Speaker after speaker, with sham piety, tells us that we are doing an injustice by not allowing the person to make use of the facilities from overseas or by making it difficult for those publications from overseas to enter South Africa. Sir, what is the motive—to deal with the last speaker first—of 90 per cent of those people who offer bursaries to non-Whites? Are they organizations and institutions which come to the Government of South Africa and say: We should like to co-operate with the country; we should like to associate ourselves with your educational system; how can we co-operate? No, they associate themselves with the kindred spirits of the former member for Namib who is now interested in Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and with the kindred spirits of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), with all the foreign organizations which, in an indirect way, want to mobilize forces in South Africa in order to change our way and our pattern of life. Their object is to take those non-White overseas in order to reinforce and equip them there to do that work in South Africa.

Our attitude towards this matter would have been totally different had that educational assistance been offered along the normal pedagogic channels of co-operation with the Government, our universities, provincial educational departments, the educational department of the Department of Coloured Affairs and with the educational department of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Some overseas countries do that.

Yes, certain overseas countries do do it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) can take it from me that I can march and shoot and talk without his or anybody else’s assistance. Let us return to this international attempt at subversion. All of us, including hon. members of the Opposition, know that there is an unreasonable and unfair international hostility towards us but, Sir, you must not believe that they want to try to combat that unreasonable and unfair international hostility in all its manifestations. Given the least opportunity they will support and assist those overseas clerical, educational and Left institutions which try to infiltrate into South Africa and who try to find here the tools to do their work for them in South Africa. They criticize us for not being co-operative in providing our enemies from abroad with the means inside this country to achieve their objectives here instead of, if they want to be logical and consistent in the light of what they want the electorate to believe at election times, agreeing with the Government that it is quite right to refuse passports to doubtful persons. In conclusion, as far as educational facilities are concerned, the position is not that there is a lack of higher educational facilities for non-Whites in South Africa. In fact, I challenge the other side of the House to show me in which country in the world more liberal bursary facilities are available, in the case of higher education, than those available to the non-Whites of South Africa.

But you yourself are liberalistic.

Hon. members have complained about the delays which are taking place under the Publications Act. As far as paper-backs are concerned Section 6 affords the opportunity, in the first place, of seeking permission beforehand to import certain categories of paper-back publications. By availing himself of the opportunity of obtaining permission beforehand the sensible bookseller will eliminate a great deal of delay. Many of the things hon. members complain about are due to the neglect on the part of the trade to avail itself of the facilities provided for in the Act to obtain permission beforehand. But the crux of the matter in connection with the Publications Act is this: The Opposition and the South African English-language Press in particular use the Publications Act in persistently suggesting that the State is adopting a non-liberal and obstructive attitude towards the entry of spiritual goods the South African nation needs. In the olden days the crux of the whole question of freedom of thought and publication was an internal question. Let us emphasize the fact that people are allowed to write and publish what they want in South Africa without any prior approval; if you publish anything which is contrary to the law you must eventually bear the consequences but there is no pre-publication censorship in South Africa. The very essence of the freedom of the Press is that the citizens of a country should have the right to say what they want to say and to publish what they want to publish. That is the crux of the construction placed by West Europe on the idea of the freedom of the Press and handed down to us.

We now come to the second phase of the present physical situation, namely, that the production of books overseas has increased considerably. It is an enormous industry. Economic factors are beginning to step in and the masses of books which are published for the overseas market can be dumped in South Africa when that overseas market has been satisfied. We must consider the fact that there is a terrific preponderance of Left-liberal thinking in the world. That is a fact. Should we in any way be critical when the South African Government acts carefully in regard to the stream which flows to this country from outside? No, Mr. Chairman, we should be exceedingly grateful for the fact that the Publications Board is critical. What is wrong with it if an overseas publication is perhaps placed under an embargo for four or six months? It is far more wrong to allow those publications to enter the country freely. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) has so rightly and justifiably said, namely, that Leftist thinking, socialist thinking and anti-conservative thinking is greatly favoured in the non-imaginative literature of the world to-day. It is not a question of our own booksellers deliberately engaging in a process of undermining. When such a book is reviewed overseas greater emphasis is placed on it with the result that greater emphasis is placed on it when it is reviewed locally. The Leftist titles become known in South Africa, a demand is created and those books are imported. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Kempton Park misses the point in regard to our objections in connection with passports. Nobody alleges that there is a shortage of educational facilities here and that therefore people must be allowed to go overseas. We have members of the Cabinet here who studied overseas because they wanted to. Or was there a shortage of facilities in this country? That has nothing to do with our objections. It impressed me that a man like Dr. W. M. Eiselen some time ago issued the following warning—

Our task on this side of the House is to ensure that the State administration is fair and that a feeling of frustration and grievance is not created in the minds of people. Therefore we are the people who have to see, through our criticism, that things go right and that South Africa is not undermined by the wrong actions and the wrong spirit of members opposite.

When my time elapsed I had given three reasons why we have certain objections in regard to passports. My time ran out while I was dealing with the last point. What I find peculiar is that a person is refused leave to go overseas to study. His application for a passport is refused, but then he gets a permit to leave the country permanently. The impression that creates in my mind is that the Minister in effect—I do not say he uses these words—-tells that person: “I have no objection to your going overseas because I give you an exit permit to leave the country permanently, but I object to your going there to acquire knowledge and then returning.” That is what happens in effect. If a person is a subversive person, then he should be controlled here. But I think it is quire wrong to tell an ordinary person he may go abroad, but he may not come back if he comes back with increased knowledge. I think it is immoral that the Minister may in effect cause a person to lose his citizenship by presenting him with that choice. If the person wants to go abroad against the will of the Minister, he must forfeit his citizenship! I think that is a very wrong principle.

I want to raise another point. Recently I made an interesting discovery, and that is that the hon. the Minister has now given us “a Bill of Rights”. After a new citizen has become naturalized and has received his certificate of naturalization, he gets a nice little blue book. I saw it for the first time in the possession of one of our new citizens and the Department later kindly gave me a copy. This publication—one issued by the Department of the Interior—opens on a very high note. It says—

It is a splendid idea. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not recommend this spirit to his colleagues? Will he not recommend to them that they should rather be prepared to give than to take away rights? After that we get the words of “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”; a message from the State President; then a message from the hon. the Minister himself, and then there is a section about “my duties as a citizen”. The following point struck me in that—

That is a splendid statement. Then we come to the “Bill of Rights”. Eight points are set out. The first is—

If this point is applied strictly, the Government will have to refuse to allow a few of its own hon. members ever to speak. Secondly—

The Coloureds ought to bear that in mind—

The third is—

Then follows—

That is important—

And, lastly—

This is a good bit of work, Mr. Chairman. My question to the hon. the Minister is this: Is this interesting piece of work applicable only to new citizens? Are these rights given only to new citizens? Is this the official standpoint of the Government? May I take it that this is the official policy in regard to every citizen of the country? Does it apply only to new citizens, or is it also applicable to old citizens? I also want to ask, if this is the official policy of the Government, whether the Minister does not think it is time for him to recommend to the Cabinet that this “Bill of Rights” should be embodied in legislation? Because if it is embodied in legislation it can be enforced by the court.

Surely it appears in our legislation.

I hope the hon. the Minister will recommend to the Cabinet that this will be embodied in legislation in South Africa as a Bill of Rights. There are a few cases of non-Whites who have also become naturalized. I should like to hear from the Minister whether they also received this Bill of Rights.

Then I want to raise a matter in connection with the Publications Board. I am very glad that the very first point in this Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech, because freedom of speech means freedom of publication. This Parliament is par excellence the body which should protect freedom of speech. The Publications Board has to perform a tremendous task. It must take very difficult decisions affecting the freedom of publication. The one point which, however, worries me is that Parliament has not enough control over the activities of the Publications Board. Without imputing any weak motives to the board, I feel that the Minister should consider providing machinery which will better enable us to see whether the Publications Board does its work properly. We are faced with the problem that we have no means of judging whether the Publications Board has taken a reasonable step when it bans a particular book. The Minister may say that the publishers can go to court, and that is correct. But the overwhelming majority of books dealing with politics has only a limited market in South Africa and that process can therefore not be followed. [Time limit.]

Before dealing with the flag of South Africa in reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) I want to settle accounts with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He made an abortive attempt at exposing something to ridicule. He adopted a genuine senile, surly attitude in respect of the undertakings and solemn promises and information given to the new citizens of South Africa in connection with naturalization. I must say that so small-minded and childish an attitude is really not worthy of an hon. member of this House. It is not worthy of him to make such an incompetent attempt at drawing conclusions in respect of what this or that really means, in regard to the way in which this or that applies, and in regard to whether it cannot be embodied in legislation. The hon. member is petty, but I did not know that he was so small-minded that he could really go so far as to attempt to create the impression that those things are not meant sincerely. I just want to say that I hope he will have better days in future than the one he is having to-day.

To clear the field a little I want to begin with the hon. member for Ceres. I did not reply to him just now because I wanted to do so at the end. I want to congratulate him very sincerely on the very capable manner in which he dealt with the value and significance of our Republican flag. I know that he had a great deal more on his mind and that he could have said a great deal more. Although matters such as the use of the flag really fall under the Prime Minister, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall suggest to the National Programme Committee, which is meeting next Friday, that as far as the arrangements for next year are concerned they must give prominence to the flag of the Republic of South Africa. We must really make use of our flag as the symbol which, more than any other, is already uniting our various language groups, but will unite us even more strongly in the future. I think the hon. member has made a commendable contribution, and I hope that the whole of the country, both municipalities and individuals, wherever they may be, will make generous use of our national flag, not only at Republican festivals, but always. I hope that we shall get the same support from all sections of our population, and that we shall imbue them with a love for our flag as the real symbol which unites us to defend and preserve and develop this dear land of ours.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about passports, and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) about passports and visas. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a good point when he said that people sometimes have to wait a very long time for passports. I am glad that he mentioned that. It is a matter about which I am also upset. It sometimes upsets me tremendously that people have to wait a long time before passports are issued. As I said at the outset, my Department is dependent upon other Departments for certain information. I shall bring it to the notice of my colleagues specially that their Departments must be quick so as to let us have the necessary information as soon as possible. Sometimes it is a difficult matter, and I cannot tie myself to a month; I cannot tie myself to any period. I cannot say that a passport has to be issued within a certain period, but I concede that the matter must be expedited. And we shall do everything in our power to bring that about.

The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Hospital mentioned a few examples. The hon. member for Hospital must listen now, because he asked for a reply. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned the example of the editor of The World. The hon. member for Hospital mentioned the example of the two persons in regard to whom he had a question on the Order Paper. He received a reply to that question to-day. When the hon. member for Hospital drew a comparison between the two cases I told him that comparisons were odious. The one was a Nazi leader and he is granted admission; the other is a Roman Catholic and he is refused admission! How very small-minded!

Who? Me?

Yes, of course. The hon. member walks into a trap every time. He has lost some of his skill. He can no longer deal with these matters neatly. As far as visas are concerned, it is internationally recognized that they are among the most secret of all documents and that the information furnished by any applicant is confidential, is furnished only to the government concerned and is not to be divulged under any circumstances. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) agrees; he is nodding his head.

He only has a headache.

I can understand that the hon. member for Hospital has a headache; he will be in hospital by the time I have finished with him. The hon. member tried to imply that favouritism is practised. In the case of the so-called Nazi leader who was admitted, the position is that he applied to our foreign mission for a visa. He got it from our mission. That is the only reason why our reply to the three points mentioned in the hon. member’s question was ’’Unknown”. There are three points; the hon. member must count them again. There are three and not four. There are only three ’’Unknowns”. A moment ago the hon. member also mentioned four, but there are not four. If he looks at the three points raised by him he will realize that the information was unobtainable because the application fell into a category in which the person was able to obtain a visa abroad. Our foreign missions have certain rights to issue visas to persons, provided they satisfy certain requirements. If any person does not satisfy those requirements the application has to be referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. That is why we know everything about the second person. As far as the refusal of the one applicant and the grantine of the other are concerned, these are two cases which have absolutely no connection with one another. I think it was very wrong of the hon. member to have attempted to send out a message to the world — fortunately he does not have much influence — that the one person was admitted because he had been a Nazi leader and that the other was refused because he was a Roman Catholic. Hon. members complain that the refusal of passports only contributes to making the country very unpopular, but the hon. member for Hospital has done much more harm by what he said this afternoon than the refusal of a hundred passports has done. Then it is stated very piously that the object is to protect the democratic rights of people. They are the guardians of the sacred walls! These things are said with a pious face, but that face conceals diabolic designs to do harm to South Africa and the Government. They think they are doing harm to the Government, but they are doing harm to their fatherland, and it will not be easy to repair the harm they do. I want to state explicitly that no passport is refused on religious or racial grounds. No one is refused entry into or exit from the country on those grounds. Hon. members must understand that very clearly, because that is really no argument.

I shall heed the motherly advice of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I shall see to it that I am always on my guard never to refuse a passport to any person who is entitled thereto. I promise her that. That is what I have always done in the past, but I shall always keep it in mind because she has asked me to do so.

I just want to finish dealing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He spoke about exit permits. He was very cynical about the whole matter. He said that a person asks for a passport to study abroad and that if he went he would come back a better person. Then the hon. member said that we say to such a person, “You cannot get a passport, but you can get an exit permit.” Then he can go and study overseas, but is not allowed ever to return, and also loses his citizenship. I just want to say this to the hon. member: If the person concerned is a very good man, the Citizenship Act provides that if he returns and there is nothing against him, he may apply immediately to become a citizen of South Africa again. But the type of person who asks for an exit permit does not return.

They cannot return. They do have some conscience after all. They are not like some people who only have a political conscience which they can discard whenever they like. They know what they have done. They accepted those exit permits in the knowledge that they are persons who have not minded their p’s and q’s. It is not only their p’s and q’s that they have not minded, but most of the other letters in the alphabet as well. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall not offer a person an exit permit if he is a good citizen of South Africa and is of value to us. The hon. member may rest assured that as far as that is concerned nobody is being done any injustice. Hon. members try to gain something by stirring up these suspicions. They are not exercising any watchdog function by doing that. I want to give hon. members the assurance that in every case where a passport is refused everything down to the finest detail has been investigated. I wish hon. members could catch us out or could come to us with a case in which we acted in an unfair way. They can do so in their private capacity. I shall not bring a court action against them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can do that. The hon. member for Hospital can do that. Come to my office and say to me, “You have refused this man a passport for political reasons.” The hon. member for Houghton came to see me one day. She submitted a complaint, and because I can trust her I showed her the record of the person concerned. Does the hon. member still remember that? She agreed with me that I had acted correctly. I shall invite the hon. member to my office and show her the same case. The good things we do are forgotten. Hon. members must bear in mind that refusing a person’s application for a passport and not granting him his rights is a matter of conscience. I want to say to hon. members that this matter of conscience is dealt with by someone who does have a conscience; it is dealt with in a just manner. The hon. member for Hospital, of course, does not know what a conscience is.

In conclusion I come to the moving plea made by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) in regard to race classification. The hon. member waxed enthusiastic about those unfortunate people who have been classified as Coloureds and then come to their senses after five or six years when their child has to go to school. Only then do they ask themselves how they could have been so foolish as to accept their classification and why they had not objected to it. The hon. member now makes a moving appeal to the Minister to devise some plan, even though the Minister is tied to the period of one year. The Act is not so unjust. Surely the hon. member knows that provision has already been made? Section 5 (3) of the Act provides that an objection may be submitted at any time. A request may be submitted to the Secretary for the Interior at any time. The Secretary then investigates the matter and if he finds upon investigation that the person concerned has been classified correctly he advises him accordingly. If he finds that the person has been wrongly classified for some or other reason, then he has the power in terms of Section 5 (3) of the Population Registration Act to reclassify that person. Why this moving plea? The hon. member says he has files and files of such cases. He does not even know the Act yet.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that the applications of many people who apply within 12 months are rejected and that the Department does not refer them to that section of the Act?

The hon. member was not here yesterday when I replied to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). My difficulty is now that I cannot repeat everything I said; I cannot waste the time of the House in that way. I have even a full reply in that regard and I am afraid the hon. member will just have to read my reply in Hansard. The same question was asked by the hon. member for Wynberg and I gave her a full reply. I just want to point out, therefore, that there is in fact an opportunity to obtain a different classification if such unfortunate cases have occurred. It must please be done under Section 5 (3) of the Act.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“Public Service Commission”, R 1,226,000.

Mr. Chairman, under paragraph F “Public Service Bursary Scheme” there is a reduction of R 18,000 in the Vote this year. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is. We are so short of manpower, of staff in the Civil Service, I think in all branches, that I am extremely sorry to see that there is in fact the intention to reduce the amount of money made available for bursary schemes. I would have preferred to see an increase, something which would have tended to encourage the entry of young people into the Civil Service by means of bursaries. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us something about it.

I want to come to the point I raised yesterday, when the Chairman ruled that I should bring it up under this Vote, and that is the question of the Civil servants who come to Cape Town for the duration of the Parliamentary Session. It has come to my notice, and I suppose it has to most members, that from time to time our Parliamentary Session may end—I think last year it was the 19th of the month, the year before that it was the 21st and so on—somewhere in the middle of the month. Now the position is, as I understand it, that our civil servants who have got their homes and accommodation in Pretoria— that is not always the case, they do come from some of our other towns and cities as well—come here and they make then arrangements to sub-let or lease their homes, their flats, or whatever it may be, for the duration of the Parliamentary Session. But they now fall between two stools, because they have got perhaps a week or a fortnight, or whatever it may be, after our Parliamentary Session has ended and they then have to wait until such time as the end of the month comes which is the end of the lease of the domiciles which they normally have in Pretoria, or elsewhere, away from Cape Town. That gap arises year after year. They cannot lease their homes for a period up to 20 of June or whatever they may guess to be the end of the Session so that they can leave Cape Town and then go back again to their normal habitation. They cannot lease their homes under such conditions. People who lease their homes or flats, naturally want the accommodation until the end of the month. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether consideration can be given to this particular matter. I do not know how it can be done. I do not think it falls on my shoulders to make suggestions as to how it can be done, but I would plead with the Minister, because I believe that this is a growing burden which is being placed upon the shoulders of the civil servants who do come to Cape Town, whatever particular branch of the service they may happen to be associated with. Some of them, it is true, at a certain stage of the Session can perhaps get away a little bit earlier than others, or they may be able to hang on a bit longer, but this is the general rule as I understand it, and I would make a plea for these civil servants who are caught in this manner year after year and to see if some consideration can be given, or some method can be found to deal with that problem.

The final point raised by the hon. member is a very important one for all the Pretorians who come down here for the Parliamentary session, not only the officials, but also the Members of Parliament. The difficulty is that if an official or a Member of Parliament or anybody, for that matter, locks his house and comes to the Cape the chances are ten to one that he will find his house burgled when he returns and that goods to the value or R 1,000 or more have been stolen from him. That has happened already. Consequently he has to let the place, and both the lessor and the lessee are faced with the position that there is no permanency in the arrangement. That makes matters extremely difficult for these people, and in my opinion the Government should give consideration to the question of making arrangements for officials to get their Sessional allowances from the first day of the month in which any session of Parliament commences, even though they may still be in Pretoria, up to the last day of the month in which Parliament is prorogued. Then these people would be covered as far as those difficult transition periods are concerned. I also want to point out that expenditure could be reduced if the session commenced nearer to the beginning of the month and ended nearer to the end of the month. I do not think it serves any real purpose to prorogue Parliament on say, the 12th or the 15th of the month, because in doing so one creates a great deal of inconvenience for a large number of people for the remaining half of the month, and the same applies retrospectively to the commencement of the session. It would be much better if the session commenced in the first week of February and ended in the last week of June.

I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present, because it so happens that at Bredasdorp last week-end it was in regard to the Public Service that he made the most irresponsible statement that has ever been made. I have given him the advice before that he should rather talk about his Frisian cattle and leave matters of that nature to other people who know something about them. I just want to quote what he said at Bredasdorp. It stands between quotation marks here. In speaking about the Service he said—

Why did you not tell the Whips to advise the Leader of the Opposition that you were going to deal with this?

The hon. member wants to know why I did not tell his Whips. I noticed outside that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s car was not here. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) recently mentioned the figures in regard to the Railways, figures which indicate that whereas the cost-of-living has increased by 65 per cent since we came into power, Railway rates of pay have increased by 123 per cent. I have mentioned the figures for the Public Service, which indicate that whereas the cost-of-living had increased by 65 per cent by November of last year, salaries had increased by 115 per cent. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not seen or had not heard that, he should at least have acquainted himself with the facts before making such an irresponsible statement. He referred more particularly to workers in the Postal Services. Sir, I just want to tell you very briefly what the position is in the postal services. In April of 1948, the year in which we took over, the position under the United Party was that the commencing salary for a postman was R396 per annum—£198 at that time. That included his temporary cost-of-living allowance. To-day it is R720 plus a bonus of 5 per cent, so that he gets approximately R750 to start with. But now I come to the United Party’s formula which is commended so highly by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What would the figure have been in terms of that formula? In terms of that formula the person mentioned would have received R673 to-day. But only slightly more than R300 of that would have been pensionable, would have qualified for pension purposes one day. In addition to the cash increase these people have received, which is much higher than the increase in cost-of-living allowance would have been in terms of the United Party formula, we have granted them a hundred per cent increase in their pension benefits. I hope the hon. member understands what I am saying here now and that he will convey it to his Leader and will ask him please not to make such silly statements in future. Sir, let me now take the case of another typical group of Post Office employees, the post office clerks. In April, 1948, the commencing salary for a post office clerk was R396 per annum; to-day it is R900 per annum, and if he is matriculated it is R 1,002 per annum, plus a temporary bonus of 5 per cent in each case, which gives him R 1,052 in the latter case. In comparison with what his position would have been in terms of the United Party’s cost-of-living allowance formula, he is R370 to the good. A beginner receives R370 more to-day than what he would have received in terms of that formula.

But the value of money has decreased.

That is precisely the point. The Leader of the Opposition says that these people have got more because the value of money has decreased. I agree with him. He says they should have got more according to the old Smuts cost-of-living pattern. The hon. member for Wynberg knows nothing about that, of course; it is something new to her.

There is no need to be insulting.

But she was not concerned with the matter. I do not blame her for not knowing. The position in terms of the Smuts formula was that every time the cost-of-living increased by a full 5 per cent, the person concerned received an additional allowance of 5 per cent on his old basic salary, and now the hon. member can go along and work out the cost-of-living allowances on that basis for the period from 1948 up to the present, and she will find that an official who receives a commencing salary of R 1,002 in the Public Service to-day, would have received R673 in terms of their formula, and that is the formula which the Leader of the Opposition is advocating now. The official concerned now gets R 1,002 if he is matriculated, plus a temporary allowance of 5 per cent, and if he only has Std. VIII he gets R900 plus an allowance of 5 per cent. That proves what I said earlier, which is that if a person, to take round figures (“ronde syfers”).

“Globale syfers.”

Yes, the hon. member’s language is reasonably pure, but his politics are so impure. To continue, if a person received a salary of R 1,000 per annum plus allowances in April or May of 1948, and he had only been compensated for the increase in the cost-of-living, he would have received R 1,650 to-day, and with the latest increase in the cost of living he would have had a chance of getting perhaps R 1,700 per annum as from the end of this month, but he is now getting R2,150. [Time limit.]

I cannot find language strong enough to express my disapproval of the unjust attack made a moment ago on my leader by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). He objected to the fact that my leader is not here. He ought to know that the ordinary courteous procedure is to inform the Whip when the presence of a member is required. When that was pointed out to him, he said that my leader was not in the House, that he was not in the building. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is in the building, and if he had made any attempt at all the hon. member would have discovered that the Leader of the Opposition was in fact available. With his customary courtesy my leader would have come and sat here to listen even to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). I am not going to attack the hon. the Prime Minister because he is not here, but I hope that if the Chief Whip opposite finds it necessary, in view of what I am going to say, to have the Prime Minister called, he will do so. That is the ordinary courteous procedure.

There is another matter about which I would like to have a little dispute with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). He attacked my hon. leader in regard to what he said at Bredasdorp in connection with the income and salaries of public servants. My leader said that we ought to go back to the old system of cost-of-living allowances which are adapted to the consumers’ price index.

Precisely.

Now he is being attacked on that point. What is the truth in regard to this matter? Does the hon. member not know that this is a request which was made also by the Public Servants’ Association? The statement made by my leader, which was attacked by the hon. member, is also contained as a recommendation in the leading article in The Public Servant for December 1964. Let me read it to the hon. member. The Public Servants’ Association says this—

Just what my leader said. They say further—

Except of course the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) who has thousands of public servants in his constituency, but the hon. member is not prepared to act on their behalf in this House. This leading article in The Public Servant continues—

Now I leave the hon. member there for a moment and I come back to the hon. the Minister. Last year in October the Minister made a speech to the Departmental Heads in Pretoria. I have read this speech and I want to congratulate him on the major part of it. It was a good speech in which he laid down the general duties of the Heads of State Departments. But there are two important points I should like to bring to the notice of this Committee. The first is in fact a compliment. The Minister explained their duties to the Departmental Heads and said that one of those tasks was that they should act in such a way and that they should arrange their departments in such a way that when there is a change of Government from one party to another everything will take place easily. I want to congratulate the Minister on his farsightedness in that regard, that he sees the possibility, as I do, of a change of Government. As the Minister correctly stated (translation)—

Far-sighted words in which a change of Government is visualized! But the second matter I want to quote from the Minister’s speech is one with which I do not agree. The Minister spoke about the political insight Departmental Heads should have, and here I am concerned about the words he used. He said (translation)—

And then the Minister says this—

In other words, the officials who show signs that they are politically adapted in so far as their functions are concerned have the best chance of receiving promotion in the Public Service. I think this needs a very, very clear explanation by the Minister.

I am of the opinion that at the moment not enough is being done for the public servants to ensure their future, to give them good incomes, and I am further of the opinion that not enough is being done to facilitate the administration of the country in regard to the recruitment and the improvement of general conditions in the Public Service. Not enough is being done in regard to the employment of women in the Public Service. Furthermore, as I have said, consideration should again be given, in spite of what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has said, to introducing the system suggested by my leader, to adapt the cost-of-living allowances to the consumers’ index. That would be one measure which would certainly satisfy a very large section of the public servants.

The hon. the Minister and the Public Service Commission have enormous powers in regard to the re-grading of posts in the Public Service. It seems unreasonable to me that there are certain Departments where the opportunity of receiving a salary of £1,300 per annum exists for only one out of 50 of the officials in that Department, as in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, while in other Departments a much larger percentage can reach those higher posts. I do not expect there to be equality in all the Departments, but the unfavourable relationship between some Departments is too great and something should be done in regard to the re-grading of posts.

Another matter in regard to which there is dissatisfaction, and justifiable dissatisfaction, among the public servants is that instead of looking into the conditions of work, the wages and salaries of the public servants, the Government now also tries to enter into agreements with private businesses not to recruit workers from the Public Service. It has come to an agreement with the S.A.B.C. not to recruit staff from the Public Service. It has entered into a similar agreement with Volkskas and with Barclay’s Bank. The public servants are dissatisfied with that. They say it is an unfair restriction of their freedom, the freedom of any citizen in South Africa to choose the work he likes. The Public Service Commission and the hon. the Minister, through the Public Service Commission, has the right to make recommendations in regard to salary scales, wages and allowances of all the various classes and grades of officers and employees in the Public Service. I should like to refer particularly to one group in the Public Service, where the Minister has that power and that duty and where, in my opinion, he has not properly carried out his duty in regard to salaries, wages and conditions of work, namely in regard to the Post Office staff. I do not want to deal with anything which falls under the Post Office Staff Association, but the Public Service Act clearly provides that the Public Service Commission may make recommendations in regard to the salaries, wages and allowances of employees of the Post Office. I learned today, in reply to a question, of certain so-called increases granted to members of the Post Office staff. Sir, if I look at those few ridiculous, insignificant concessions which were made to the Post Office staff, I can quite realize that there is growing dissatisfaction among the 40,000 hard-working, faithful workers; and then I can understand why among the Post Office staff there are resignations amounting to between 800 and 900 in one month. [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words in connection with the Public Service Commission. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to subdivide the functions of the Public Service Commission. At the moment the Public Service Commission has to do with the administrative, the professional and the whole of the technical personnel in the various Departments of the Public Service. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Apart from the natural division there is between the administrative man and the professional or technical man, I am of the opinion that the fact that a single commission controls all these officials is not a healthy state of affairs. We see the phenomenon to-day that people in the administrative section go over to the technical section, and that members of the technical-professional section leave the Public Service, and that the Public Service as such loses its hold on its officers. I want to mention one example. A Department was established for the production of munitions.

Recently the Atlas Aircraft Corporation was established. We see the advertisements in the Press, and we see what salary scales are being offered. And the difference between the salary scales, the commencing salaries as well as the maximum salaries, and the salaries in the Public Service is so great that it affects the Public Service in so far as its hold on its officers is concerned. We find the phenomenon to-day that the Navy and the Army experience great difficulty in retaining their people because they go from the one place to the other where they can get better salaries and facilities and conditions of service. I think the time has arrived for us to devote serious attention to the possibility of separating the functions of the Public Service, even though it requires the establishment of two Public Service Commissions, so that the one commission will deal with the purely administrative section of the Public Service and the other with the professional and technical sections. By so doing we may possibly remove points of friction. Thereby we will prevent people going over from the one to the other. We will prevent levels of status connected to salaries, and the time taken for training, from becoming intermingled. If there is dissatisfaction among the public servants, I want to say that this may possibly be one of the points of dissatisfaction. But I want to say that this difference, or rather this lumping together of the technical-professional officers together with the administrative officers, is in fact a cause of people going over from the one section to the other and the losing of the hold the Public Service has on its officials.

I of course want to raise the position of the Coloured people in the Civil Service, in the various State Departments. We have Coloureds in the Railways, the Post Office, the Police and other Departments, and they are public servants, of the same status as their White counterpart. We know also that in the Post office at least, if it was not for the Coloured people, this whole service may have been disrupted. They play a very important part in the postal services. But the Coloured people have to depend for representation in regard to any matter affecting them in the service on the White representatives. They have no Coloured man who is able to sit on this Commission, as I believe he should; and he should be the man to whom the Coloured people can go to put their viewpoint in regard to any matter affecting them. The Minister shakes his head. I know I have a hopeless case as far as the Minister is concerned, because he will say this is for the White officials and the Coloured people must go to the Coloured Affairs Department. I hope I am not misinterpreting the Minister, but let us take the case, for instance, of the bursaries, for which provision is made to an amount of R277,000. No Coloured man in the employ of the Public Service, although the heading is “Public Service Bursaries Scheme”, can benefit from that as far as I know. It is only for the White people. The Coloured man in the Public Service has to go through the Coloured Affairs Department, a completely different Department. Although he is under the blanket, if I may use that phrase, of the Public Service Commission because he is a public servant, he cannot participate in the benefits of this scheme. I have tried once or twice, but they say they are sorry, if he is a Coloured man he cannot be assisted. But the main point I wanted to raise is the fact that if they have to make representations in regard to their salaries and wages, it is the present Commission which has to deal with it. There has been a very fine spirit of co-operation between this Commission and the Coloured people, and they have been of great assistance, but that is not the point. You have thousands of Coloured people in the Public Service, and I submit that they should be entitled to be represented as the White employees are, or else they must be separated once and for all. Or else you must say, in terms of Government policy; We will create for you a Coloured Public Service Commission where you may be represented. But you cannot expect these people to be for ever dependent on the Whites. The Minister must understand that. A few years ago representations were made in regard to increased wages and salaries. They have their own organization, but they have no status with the Government in regard to this. It has to go through this White Commission and they have to wait for that Commission to decide. But there is no direct liaison between the Coloureds who work in the Public Service and this Commission, except through their various bodies. I think that is wrong, if we want to encourage the Coloured people in the Public Service. I think we should at least give them the same rights as the Whites in regard to the channels through which they can probably present their case. I think it is wrong that whereas this country is completely dependent in so many instances on the co-operation and the goodwill of the Coloured man, he has not the same status. Why should a man in the Post Office who has had 30 years’ service have a lesser status in that service than a White clerk who earns only R40 a month? That man, through his organization, can go to the Public Service Commission, but the Coloured people cannot. I think the Minister should give close attention to something along these lines, or else streamline the position for the Coloured people. I can do no more than to make that appeal and I hope my appeal will bear fruit.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) should not leave the Chamber now. He tried to lead us astray this afternoon. He wants to mix up two things which have nothing to do with one another. He should look at what the Post Office journal asks for; it asks for the application of cost-of-living allowances as the cost of living rises, but they ask that it should be done on their present salaries, and not on the old salaries they received during the days of the United Party, which makes a very big difference. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants something quite different. He says that the old basis which applied in General Smuts’s time should never have been changed, and then these people would have been much better off than they are today. He says—

And I just want to emphasize “their own cost-of-living allowance”—

If that hon. member knows English, he ought to understand what is written here. What is actually the position? A Post Office worker who received R396 in 1948 would under this formula, under General Smuts’s system, under the old cost-of-living allowances, have received R673 per annum to-day, but in fact he gets R720 per annum plus 5 per cent. That brings his salary up to over R750, which is almost R100 more than he would have got under the formula which. the Leader of the Opposition advocates. That is the position in regard to postmen. But now I come to the Post Office clerk. I have already explained it but it seems to me that the hon. member is like a child; one must explain a thing to him 20 times before he understands it. A Post Office clerk in 1948, from April to June, was on the salary scale of R396 per annum, including his cost-of-living allowance. I am talking about a beginner now. I am not going to compare all the stages, and in fact one would be unable to do so within ten minutes. His salary was R396 p.a., including his cost-of-living allowance, and to-day a Post Office clerk who has Std. VIII gets R900 p.a. plus a 5 per cent bonus. A Post Office clerk who has Std. X—and many of those clerks have Std. X—gets R 1,002 p.a.; that is an improvement of about R370 p.a. on what the Leader of the Opposition proposes.

That is not what he proposed.

Instead of the R376 p.a. which the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition would give these people, they now get R900 and R 1,002, respectively, plus a bonus.

He suggested the old system based on their present salaries.

He says here very clearly that the old system should never have been repealed; that we should have carried on on the old basis. We would never have got to the present salaries unless we had repealed that old system, but the Leader of the Opposition says that that old system should never have been repealed; that we should never have had consolidation. If words have any meaning, it means that these people would have had hundreds of rand per annum less under the formula of the Leader of the Opposition than they have to-day. That old basis comprises a pension scheme based on a low salary and a high C.O.L.A., and what does that mean? It means that the person would have got half the pension under the old system advocated by the Leader of the Opposition than he gets to-day. Under the present system of this Government he will be 100 per cent better off in regard to his pension than he would have been under the system advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Orange Grove should not now take the present salary and say that we should pay the C.O.L.A. on that. That is not what his Leader asked for.

Are you satisfied with the salaries on the Post Office staff?

I am not satisfied with anybody’s income; I wish they could all get more.

Then fight for them.

I do fight for them, but I do it in a responsible manner and with a knowledge of the background. I at least know how these things work, which is more than that hon. member can say. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to all members opposite please to leave the public servants alone, instead of making a political football of them. If there is anybody in this House who represents public servants on a large scale, it is I and other members from Pretoria. We realize our responsibilities towards those people and we also know how to handle these matters without making a political football of these people. Sir, there are officials in Pretoria who come and complain to us and tell us that they are being incited by irresponsible United Party supporters—and sometimes they mention the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove—to make the most irresponsible demands and then to say that unless those demands are granted they will no longer support the Government. If a person comes to me and tells me he will become a member of the United Party because his salary is not high enough, my reaction would be that he may do so. Our politics in South Africa are not based on 5 per cent more or less, but on sound principles, and at the same time I want to say that we look after our people. The formula which the United Party wants for the salaries in the Public Service and the Post Office works out, just in the commencing stages already, at a few hundred rand per month less than we are already paying those officials. Relatively speaking, we look after them much better than the United Party ever intends doing.

I do not think it is fitting for the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) to come here with some kind of pious plea that we should not make a political football of the interests of the public servants. If there is one member of this House who is guilty of having attempted to exploit the political feelings of the public servants of this country it is certainly that hon. member …

Where?

… if my recollection of his various speeches dealing with the public servants is correct.

I want to deal with another matter and I want to do so objectively. I think the speeches made by the hon. members for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and Boland (Mr. Barnett) substantiate the plea I am again going to make with the hon. the Minister. I made a similar plea last year when this Vote was under discussion. I also repeat the plea in the knowledge that if you are persistent enough with Ministers of this Government they inevitably begin to believe that what you are pleading for is their own policy and eventually it sees the light of day as their own original action. The plea that I am again going to make to the hon. the Minister is whether the time has not arrived for a commission of inquiry to be appointed to inquire into the Public Service as a whole. We have had commissions in the past, but I do not want to cover this ground again in general. I have presented my case very fully on former occasions. I am encouraged by the fact that many responsible officials in the various Departments of State are themselves convinced, in the interests of public administration in South Africa, that the time has arrived for a full commission of inquiry into our Public Service, a commission of inquiry that will embrace three main facets. Firstly, the conditions of service, secondly, the staff establishment. A staff establishment which in ten years, from 1955-65, has increased by 25 per cent; a staff establishment which, on the figures of 1955, has increased by over one-third. In other words, we have made 44,000 more appointments to the Public Service in the past ten years with the result that we have a service of 167,000 in a small country such as ours. When you relate the number of civil servants in our administration to the number in any other modern state, on a percentage basis, we have a percentage of public servants far in excess of any other modern State in the world. I do not want to waste time by quoting the figures referred to in the Public Service Commission report of 1963 but the fact is that they do not show a decrease, they show over the years that there is an ever-increasing public service in this country. I may ask whether, in the light of modern management techniques applied in the case of many businesses to-day, those modem techniques are being applied in the Public Service of our own country.

Then there is a third fact which such a commission of inquiry should consider and that is whether the Public Service Commission as such meets the needs of the people of South Africa in the light of present trends in our development as an industrial state. We must bear in mind that our Public Service is based on a concept originally laid down in 1910. That concept was amended by the findings of a commission in the 1920’s. In the immediate postwar years we had a further revision of that concept to meet the needs of those days. We continually hear of the vast changes that have taken place, changes that have converted South Africa into a vast modern industrial state. If that is so then you cannot have a Public Service based on a pastoral and agricultural economy of the past. You must not think that the same principles will of necessity apply in your Public Service when that Service has to serve an industrial economy.

I do not want to make a political issue of this but it is the policy of this party that there should be a review of the Public Service. This has been recognized in business; it has been recognized by all private sectors of the economy. The Public Servants themselves recognize the need for a change. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has drawn a distinction in his speech between the status of the public servant who is a professional man and the public servant who is an administrative man. He has indicated the difference in the approach to these two classes of servants. The mere fact that the hon. member for Ventersdorp has made such a speech shows that his knowledge must be based on some personal associations and contacts. He does not want to say outright that there is discontent; that would be tantamount to being unfaithful to his Minister’s cause but he is hinting at it. The hon. member for Boland has pointed out the differences which exist between Coloured staff establishment in the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Coloured Education and the White Public Servant. That in itself is a matter of staff of relationship where we need an entirely new approach. These are factors which I put to the hon. the Minister in the interests of the Public Servants and Public Service in South Africa. One cannot ignore the facts revealed in this report, Sir. The report on which this debate is based is an out-dated report. It is the report of the Public Service Commission of 1963. We should at least have had the 1964 report before us. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked the reasons for the decrease in the amount of money to be voted for bursaries. The report on which we are conducting this debate indicates that bursaries are one of the means the Public Service is using to meet the current personnel shortage. In the light of the current shortage one would have expected an increased amount to be voted for bursaries and not a decreased amount. The fact reveals that about 50 per cent of the new appointments are actually in respect of resignations in the same year and that in no single year have new appointments been a hundred per cent as opposed to resignations in the Public Service, and of the new appointments in every single year for the past ten years, over 50 per cent have been resignations from the Public Service. Factors of this nature, I do not think can be ignored by this House or by the Government, because with a public service you have to look a little bit ahead, and if you are not getting the right class of personnel and if there is in fact a shortage, if urgent measures, immediate measures are taken to fill necessary positions in the service, what about the future? What about the men who have to hold the responsible positions of public administration in the future if you have such a high percentage of resignations and a low percentage of trainees and a low quality personnel? Because as the hon. Minister said in his speech to public servants, it does not matter what government is in power, they have to carry the country, they still have the responsibility. Mr. Chairman, where will that responsibility rest if the right calibre of men is not available for the training for higher positions in our public service? These are all issues which I believe should be fully and openly investigated, and the only way, that this can be adequately done is by an adequate commission of inquiry into the whole of the Public Service of our country.

I want to say a word in connection with the principle which has already been agreed to by the hon. the Minister on “equal pay for equal work”. The hon. Minister will remember that I raised this issue under his Vote last year and he was kind enough to give us certain assurances in this regard. He made the point in the course of his reply to me last year that in the first few years of their service under the Public Service Commission, between 50 and 75 per cent of the young women who were taken on resigned within the first few years in order to get married. The hon. the Minister did make the point that that was a complication, and I entirely agree with him. But he then went on to say also in that debate that the rate of advancement for women public servants was not nearly as rapid as he would like it to be, and that he was prepared to do something about it. In other words he made it quite clear that he thought that opportunities for promotion should be more easily available to them. I would like to tell the hon. Minister how very grateful we were and are to him for those assurances and his sympathetic approach in this matter. At the end of his speech last year, the hon. the Minister said this—

Arising out of that assurance, I wonder whether we could learn from the hon. Minister first of all whether further investigations have been made into this matter, and secondly, whether he has anything to report about it, as he hoped would be the case when we discussed this Vote in 1964. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister, for what it is worth, that his assurances last year have had widespread repercussions throughout the length and breadth of the Republic as far as women and women’s organizations are concerned, that they were most encouraged, and there is no question about it that they are looking to the Government to give a lead in this regard. Now the hon. Minister may know that I happen to be national convener, as they call it, for Legislation and Public Affairs for the South African Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs in South Africa, and after the debate in this House I duly reported to our executive on this matter, and the president of our S.A. Federation then wrote to the Minister himself and received an extremely interesting reply from him in September last year, in which the hon. Minister had this to say—

Then the hon. Minister went on to say—

I do not want to delay the House this evening, but I only want to tell the hon. the Minister that as a result of this letter which was received by the South African Federation, our president wrote to all four provincial Administrators, quoting the hon. the Minister—I am quite sure he will approve of that. We have some very interesting replies from the four provincial Administrators on the subject. The Orange Free State, the Transvaal and Natal, were cautious enough to say that they could do nothing until a lead was given by the Central Government, although they were fundamentally in sympathy with the principle. The letter we received from the Administrator of Natal was particularly interesting because he confirmed that an investigation was being made in Pretoria on this subject.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.