Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a matter which I think constitutes a breach of privilege, not only of this House but of the Other Place as well. I refer to an article in the Cape Times of 13th September, 1966, headed “Verwoerd: Blame put on English Press, Clergy, Opposition”. I shall not go into the details of the article in question, as you were good enough, Sir, to afford me an opportunity of discussing this matter with you very fully. I have a copy of the newspaper here which I propose to bring to the Table of the House before resuming my seat, but before I do so I ask you to decide whether an opportunity should not be allowed for an inquiry by a committee in order to determine whether a breach of privilege has not been committed in that the article reflects on members of the House.

The hon. member was good enough to show me the article in question beforehand. I have considered the matter carefully and have decided that a prima facie case for investigation has been made out. In the circumstances I am prepared to allow a motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged breach of privilege. In view of the fact that it is a matter which concerns members of both the Senate and the House of Assembly, I suggest that it may be advisable for a Joint Committee to be appointed.

I move—

This side of the House is of course just as concerned about any breach of the privileges of members of this House and any derogation of the prestige and status of Parliament. I think the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday in his first speech that this side of the House is jealous of all the privileges of Parliament, and this side of the House therefore has no objection to the appointment of such a committee. All I expect is that in future members of the Opposition will give timeous notice to me, as Leader of the House, of any such motions, and will send me a copy of the motion before the commencement of business. That would make it much easier to give proper consideration to the matter and to respond to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

In the first place I would like to associate myself with the plea made last night by the hon. member for North Rand when he asked the Minister to give serious consideration to the abolition of the means test in so far as the war veteran pensioners of the 1914-8 War are concerned. Sir, I too have received comments from the people concerned and I am satisfied that the present situation is engendering an atmosphere of bitterness and dissatisfaction far out of proportion to the monetary implications that might be involved in the abolition of the means test, and I urgently plead with the Minister to give consideration to this request from this side of the House.

When the House adjourned last night I was discussing the question of medical services and the supply of medicines in so far as old-age pensioners are concerned. I pointed out that in the Estimates provision was made both for medical services and medicines for war pensioners and that a considerable amount, exceeding R200,000, had been allocated for expenditure in this respect. I believe that here too serious consideration should be given to the very great need of the old-age pensioners for some form of assurance that in time of ill-health or sickness they will be free from unnecessary anxiety. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister has ever experienced, as I have, a situation where I have been in front of a pensioner who is weighing up whether she can afford to buy another bottle of the medicine which the doctor has ordered her to take; whether perhaps she should not wait until she gets her pension at the end of the month and whether she will be able to pay for this medicine if she goes without something else which might be a necessity.

Sir, it is not a pleasant experience; it is one which occurs more frequently than one would like to think, and I believe that although the suppliers in many instances are prepared to show some form of consideration and to give assistance to people in cases of this kind, these pensioners have their pride. They are proud people and they have every right to be proud, and I believe that the State should see that they are not placed in a position of indignity in a matter of this kind. Many of these people have a nagging fear as to what the expense of an illness or ill-health can mean to them in the twilight of their lives. I realize that this position does not apply to all 92,000 social pensioners. There are those who are more or less chronically ill and they can avail themselves of the services provided in various hospitals, at no expense to themselves but at the expense of the State. I also appreciate that there are institutions which have been established to care for pensioners, and the people in these institutions are obviously in a position to avail themselves of the medical services which are at their disposal there. There are other pensioners who are able to make use of the out-patients’ departments of the various hospitals. They obtain their medicine either at a nominal fee or at the total expense of the State but, Sir, a visit to an out-patients’ department is a process involving a long delay for a person who has to rely on that source for his or her medicine, and in many cases there are pensioners who live in areas where hospitals are not easily accessible; these people have no specific means of obtaining their requirements through State assistance. Sir, there are others who find that the facilities extended by T.A.F.T.A. (the Association for the Aged), are also of assistance to them. T.A.F.T.A. issues its members with a membership card, and on production of their membership card members are entitled to have a prescription dispensed at a pharmacy at a substantially reduced price. Actually the price is such that it involves a small and negligible profit for the supplier but there is a substantial reduction for the purchaser who is a pensioner. There are others, however, who find that that source of assistance is not available to them and then there are other pensioners for whom organizations exist which are indirectly assisted by the State. I refer to the Railway pensioners. I realize that Railway pensioners do not fall within the purview of this Minister but I wish to mention the procedure adopted in the treatment of old-age pensioners in so far as medicines are concerned to show what can be done. As soon as a man retires from the Railway service he becomes eligible for all the benefits which he enjoyed under the S.A.R. & H. Sick Fund. He and his dependants are entitled to this service at no charge and without any deduction from his Railway pension. The only cost for which he is responsible is the levy of 25 cents on a prescription tendered to a dispenser. These people—and there are some 26,000 of them, excluding their dependants—are entitled to health services and medicines at no great expense. Then, Sir, we have a new development which affects members of the Permanent Force. I understand that recently a special fund has been instituted which allows continued medical benefits for pensioners and their dependants. Briefly the manner in which this operates is that these people, on retirement, enjoy the same medical benefits that they enjoyed while they were employed in the Permanent Force. These benefits apply to their dependants as well. The system does not work in the same way as the S.A.R. & H. Sick Fund system. It works in a manner which I believe the Minister could adapt to assist the old-age pensioners.

The position is that members receive medical services and if they are issued with a prescription they are entitled to take that prescription to any point where prescriptions are dispensed. They present the membership card of their benefit fund, their identity card and the prescription, together with 50 cents, and they are supplied with their medicine. The maximum contribution they make is 50 cents. The balance of the prescription charge is debited to the fund concerned on the basis of the Government dispensing contract. The Minister, I am sure, will be well aware of the ramifications of the Government dispensing contract and the means whereby members of Government services are entitled to receive medicine at prices well below the prices normally charged to the public, paid for by the State. I believe that in so far as old-age pensioners are concerned, particularly those who during their active life had no facilities for contributing to a pension fund which might assist them after their retirement, these people are entitled to some assistance. I visualize that at a minimum of expense and a minimum of administrative difficulties there could be introduced a system whereby these people could attend the various pension medical officers—I ’ilize that such service would have to be extended in numbers—and then having had their ailments diagnosed, if they require medicine, they could go to any chemist shop and present their prescriptions plus their authority and have the medicine supplied to them at a minimum-levy charge, the balance being charged to the Department. I believe that this would be a wise thing. I do not think there will be any abuse because the very fact that a levy is charged on each prescription will reduce abuse to a minimum. I believe, too, that it would be a far-reaching step in so far as the Minister’s Department is concerned if we considered it from the point of view that many people, having this nagging fear of illness, delay going to the doctor because they cannot afford to go there. But under this system, if they feel unwell, they can go to their doctor and receive immediate attention. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, you were very lenient with the hon. member for Berea, of course, because he discussed a matter here for which no provision is made under this Vote. If it had been different, and if my Department also had to assume responsibility for health services for the aged, I would have been able to consider it. But our system happens to be such that the Government and the provinces provide medical aid to the indigent, and every pensioner is entitled to receive free medical service from the district surgeons; and in addition to the treatment he receives, every pensioner is also entitled to receive the prescribed medicine free of charge. Every pensioner is also entitled, if he has to go to hospital to be admitted at the expense of the Provincial Administration.

May I ask a question? In so far as supplying medicine is concerned, is it done on the basis of the Government’s pharmacy contract or is it done by the district surgeon or by the medical officer of the pension fund? What I mean is this: If a prescription is given, can the medicine be supplied anywhere?

That is a matter the hon. member should discuss with the Department of Health, because it falls under that Department. All I know is that under the existing schemes, through the services made available by the Provinces and the Department of Health, every old-age pensioner is able to obtain the necessary medical treatment and medicine free of charge. But I do not know exactly how it functions. That you will have to ask my colleague under his Vote.

The hon. member also asked me questions with regard to certain items. He asked why the number of staff in the Accounts Section has been decreased from 202 to 140, while the salaries have been increased by an amount of approximately R60,000. The position is that when the Estimates were drawn up, approximately 100 additional temporary units were assigned to the Accounts Section to assist with the additional work entailed by the installation of the computer. Most of those units were employed in other sections, however, and as from 1st April, 1966, those units are no longer on the establishment of the accounts section, but there is authorization for transferring them to other sections. In actual fact the amount of R55,065 shown against temporary assistants in the Accounts Section for the financial year 1966-7, should be distributed between the social, war and civil pensions sections. That reduces the amount to R290,335. The increase on the 1965-6 figure is attributable to salary increases.

The hon. member also asked me for more information about the new service under subhead M, namely rehabilitation and social care of physically and/or mentally handicapped persons. This service relates to a small community which is being established outside Johannesburg by the Transvaal Association for the Cerebral Palsied. No subsidy has yet been paid, and the basis for subsidization will be determined after the enquiry in this regard has been completed. An amount has merely been included in the Estimates to make the subsidy possible once the enquiry has been completed.

The hon. member also asked what the reasons were for the increase under sub-head N, namely the rehabilitation of alcoholics. The South African National Council for Alcoholism has started an extensive programme to combat alcoholism. A summer school on alcoholism, which I hope to open personally, will also be held in Pretoria shortly. In the meanwhile they have established information offices throughout the country in the major centres, the object of those information offices being to disseminate information on alcoholism and to bring the problem to the notice of the public. We have decided to render financial support to those information offices—and there are nine of them at the moment—as from 1st April, 1966. It has been approved that every office will be entitled to a maximum subsidy of R1,000 per year from the State. In addition we have obtained approval to expand a home for after-care which was subsidized in the previous year on the rand-for-rand basis. The organization has now been enabled to buy a larger and more satisfactory building which has cost them R2,000 more, but where alterations to the value of R14,000 have had to be made. This new building can accommodate 30 inmates as against the 20 who could be accommodated in the old building, and approval was therefore obtained for an additional subsidy of R16,000 on the rand-for-rand basis.

Thirdly, the synodal commission for the charitable services informed the Department that it was their intention to establish a hostel for after-care here in Cape Town during the current financial year, and asked Treasury to provide an amount of approximately R30,000 for this purpose. It appears, however, as though this project will not be proceeded with in the current financial year, and there may therefore be a saving in that respect. But we wanted to make the provision because we regard alcoholism as a very serious matter, and we wanted to do everything possible to combat this evil.

Various hon. members spoke about the care of and making better use of the services of our aged. It is true, as hon. members said, that because of the life expectancy of man a larger percentage of the population falls under the higher age-group, and that we have more aged people in our midst than previously. It is also true that man may be retaining his physical powers longer than previously. That is in fact the reason why the Government has taken that into account, and we are doing everything in our ability to make the utmost use of the services of the more elderly people in our community where they are still capable of rendering fruitful service. In the past year we introduced the extended pension scheme to enable the aged, after they have reached the age at which they are entitled to a pension, to continue working in order that by doing so they may later receive a more favourable pension. We have also taken further steps. Civil pensioners who re-enter the service of the State and of the Railways after having retired on pension, may now do so with the retention of their temporary allowance, all of which is done in an attempt to encourage those people to continue rendering fruitful service to the State as long as possible, and to help render the necessary services in these times of manpower shortages. We are therefore doing various things to make it easier for the aged to continue rendering fruitful service as long as possible. The possibility of exempting civil pensioners’ allowances from a means test as far as their personal earnings are concerned, has also been investigated. That is a matter which the Government will consider in due course, and when the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance consider that they can afford that, we hope to be able to do something along those lines also in future. But the solution to all these problems is usually limited by the available means, by the funds at the State’s disposal. The hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members spoke about the means test. In recent times we have relaxed the means test relating to old age pensions considerably, to the extent that we were able to do so. We should very much like to relax it even further. I am personally just as concerned as he is about the position, that aged people possess a house which they built or bought and paid for with great difficulties and sacrifices through the years, and because the house may now be slightly larger than is necessary for their direct needs, their pensions are affected. Or even if that house is quite small, even if it is worth only R5,600 under present-day circumstances and they have a small additional income, even if it is only enough to pay the annual municipal rates and other essential expenses, it already affects their pensions. We are concerned about that because we realize that those people are hard hit, but we have made considerable concessions as regards the means test in the past number of years, and as it becomes possible to make the funds available, we shall make further concessions.

You must bear in mind that every concession in respect of the means test brings in a large number of new pensioners, and consequently entails a considerably higher expenditure on the part of the State. An increase in the pension of only R1 a month, which is surely very little, means an immediate extra expenditure of R2,000,000 a year. You will therefore appreciate that an insignificant improvement for the individual means a very large sum of money to the State in the total Estimates. That has to be taken into account when these matters are considered. Hon. members may rest assured that I, just like my predecessor, and just as this Government has been doing for the past number of years, will from time to time bring relief where relief is needed most, as far as State finance allows that.

Finally, the hon. member for Paarl referred to the anomaly that there may be a pensioner who is better off than someone else who does not receive a pension. That is true, and that also has to do with the fact that we are following the system of a pension plus a bonus. Because if we increase the pension every time a concession is made, then it is not only the present pensioners who receive more as a result, but the door is opened immediately to a large number of new people who must become additional pensioners, and in consequence the financial effect of that becomes much greater immediately. The pattern followed in the past was therefore that a basic pension was paid, and as it became possible to increase it, bonuses were added from year to year, but that the bonuses were consolidated with the pensions after every few years. That brings in the additional people immediately. Because if one has to adjust it every time, if one has to add to the basic pension every time, it not only means that one brings in additional people, but it entails a vast amount of additional work for the Department, and the Department cannot cope with a large number of new applications every time relief is given. Hon. members may be surprised if I tell them that an average of 3,000 files relating to applications are handled in the head office of the Department of Pensions every day. Every time there is an increase in the basic pension or an alteration to the means test, it means a revision of the total number of pensioners in addition to the number which is added. Therefore it cannot be done every year. When the means test is adjusted, one has to allow the Department a number of years to stabilize the position properly. We shall therefore simply have to continue with this system of bonuses as an interim measure until the time is ripe and the country can bear the costs and the Department can cope with the work. Meanwhile one simply has to continue with bonuses, and consolidate them later.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked some questions with regard to the means test for war veterans of the First World War. There again it is a matter of the availability of the means. But that is not the only argument. The hon. member referred to the war veterans of the Second Anglo-Boer War, and referring to the fact that they can obtain pensions at present without those pensions being subject to the means test, he pleaded that we should consider granting pensions to war veterans of the First and Second World Wars, too, without applying a means test. Apart from the purely financial considerations, the hon. member should bear in mind that one cannot actually compare the war veterans, because the war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War, particularly those who fought on the side of the Boers, fought without any remuneration. There were also no proper medical services for them, and they had to fight under much greater hardships, whereas the war veterans of the First and the Second World War were in fact remunerated and received very good medical treatment. It was therefore actually a debt of honour to the war veterans of the Second Anglo-Boer War, and we feel that such a step cannot be justified at this stage as regards war veterans of the two world wars, apart from the purely financial implications that will have. I have to point out that a war veteran of over 70 years is already benefiting to a very large extent because only his assets and other pensions are taken into account in respect of the means test. His personal earnings, whatever he may be earning personally, are not taken into account. He is therefore better off already. The position is that a war veteran with assets of R16,400, for example, is still entitled to the minimum pension of R11 a month. I think that is as far as we can go at present. He is in a much more favourable position than the ordinary old-age pensioner. I do not think we can go any further than that under the present circumstances, no matter how much we should like to do so.

The hon. member for North Rand …

May I ask the hon. the Minister, if he wants to reply in the negative to my representations, not to do so now. I should not like to have it on record that he said “no” already at this stage.

Silence is also a reply, not so? I want to tell the hon. member that I am most sympathetic as regard the ten-year provision in respect of war pensioners, the ten-year provision as regards marriages and children born from marriages, and I do not want to say “no” to the hon. member now. I want to tell him that as soon as we are able to do so, I shall try to make an amendment in that respect. I want to point out, however, that it is not quite fair to compare our system with overseas systems in that one respect only, because our system is much better than the overseas systems in other respects.

I did not know that you were already aware of that.

As regards the widows, I fear—we may as well put that on record—that I cannot accede at this stage. I think we have to accept that if a widow marries again she must lose her benefits. If we did not do that, we would find ourselves in very difficult situations. If she becomes indigent after the death of her second husband, then she and her children become entitled to an old-age pension, if she is old enough, or if she is not old enough, then to maintenance allowances and children allowances. There is therefore machinery in existence to make the necessary provision for those among them who are indigent.

There has also been a plea for higher subsidies in respect of welfare organizations, and particularly in respect of the equipment of homes for the aged. May I just say that the same arguments that apply to homes for the aged as regards equipment, etc., also apply to other kinds of institutions, for example homes for children. The subsidy we pay at the moment is barely adequate for the minimum, if it is in fact adequate, for the minimum requirements. I still think, however, that in this instance welfare organizations will be justified in appealing to the public in the vicinity in which the institutions are situated. As the State is already subsidizing the building costs by means of a Ioan carrying only one-twentieth per cent interest, as it is already subsidizing the purchasing of land and is rendering assistance in that respect, as it is already subsidizing the purchasing of furnishings, and so forth, by means of a subsidy of R90 per unit, I think one can justly rely on the public to contribute its share, because I believe that the care of our less privileged, our aged persons, our unfortunate children, is not only the responsibility of the State, and that the welfare organizations and the public should do their share. If we were to deprive our people of the privilege of rendering charitable services, we deprive our people of a part of its life, a part of its soul and its existence, a part of its Christian duty. I therefore cannot be in favour of the State carrying the full responsibility. I am in favour of the State doing its share. We are in actual fact already going beyond the prescribed requirements. In cases where organizations find it difficult to make ends meet and experience hardships, we use this grant of R750,000 temporarily to expedite the establishment of old-age homes. By means of it we help them to get more for purchasing furnishings. We are therefore rendering assistance even in excess of the R90 per inmate, where it is absolutely essential. But I should not like to increase the basis at this stage, because I do not wish to deprive the public of the opportunity of contributing its share. I should like our public in the vicinity of such homes to contribute its share.

I now come to the hon. member for Umbilo’s request that we should appoint a commission of inquiry in respect of the possibility or desirability of introducing a contributory pension scheme in South Africa. He based his plea on the fact that more and more countries are using contributory pension schemes. His entire argument was such a generalization that I could not find anything in it to show how a contributory pension scheme would improve our welfare services in South Africa. I think if we compare the effects of our welfare schemes with the effects in those countries where there are contributory schemes, it will show that as regards their effects on the public our schemes are in no way inferior to most in other countries. The scheme we adhere to is the scheme of an old-age pension, disability pension, civil pension, and so forth, which is revised continually. We have already built up a system here which offers our people a high degree of social security, social security to those whose circumstances are such that they cannot care for themselves in their old age. We have to study the schemes in other countries continually, and we are in fact doing that. We have to see whether those schemes do not employ methods which can be used fruitfully and advantageously here. But let us consider the history of this matter for a moment, and see how long we have been inquiring into the question of a contributory pension scheme.

The first inquiry was carried out as long ago as 1926. As a result of that the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1928, in which provision was made for the payment of old-age pensions. There the principle of a contributory pension scheme was not accepted, but the principle of a means test. During 1928 two persons attended the International Labour Conference in Geneva with a view to further inquiry into a contributory scheme. It was found that the existing provision for old-age pensions should be continued with, and benefits on a contributory basis were rejected on account of the wide differences obtaining among the various sections in South Africa as regards wage groups and standards of living, and because the burden of such a scheme would come directly on the industries as additional production costs. Even in 1928 that was what those people found.

I want to say at once that those arguments which were valid in 1928 are still valid to-day. The standards of living of our various population groups and of our various groups of people are so divergent that we simply cannot devise a contributory scheme for everybody. Surely we cannot introduce it in respect of one race and not in respect of the other races. We cannot devise a contributory scheme which can be of the slightest advantage to us here in South Africa.

In 1944 a committee for social security produced a report in which expansion of the existing social schemes was recommended. They submitted a draft of a semi-contributory scheme. The Government of that time rejected it, however, because it would have entailed an immediate additional burden of R30,000,000 a year on Treasury. The Government of the time also appointed a select committee of this House to go into the matter. Eventually, although the committee had recommended an amended semi-contributory scheme, the Government of that time rejected that too because, as they put it, the country could not afford it, and the Government was of the opinion that it would be better not to initiate a social contributory scheme, but rather to improve and expand the existing services. That happened as long ago as 1944.

The present Government has also had the position investigated. During 1958 an official was sent overseas to inquire into the desirability of contributory systems in Europe. He brought out a detailed report in which he set out the position in all the various European countries where there were contributory schemes, and in which he pointed out the various advantages and disadvantages.

During 1963 my predecessor paid a personal visit to Europe and visited various countries. Their findings were that no model contributory scheme existed, and that the schemes differed from one country to another and were widely divergent. It was found that there was no fixed pattern. Every country’s scheme was adapted to his own character, its own customs, its own philosophy, its own economic organizations. One cannot without more ado transfer a contributory scheme existing in one country to another country. In addition, it was found that no country can at present show a contributory scheme that is really successful, that gives general satisfaction, and that in general offers benefits superior to those offered by our present non-contributory scheme.

I also want to point out, over and above what I have just said, that non-contributory schemes similar to our own scheme are found parallel and complementary to the contributory schemes everywhere. Of what use will it be to have a contributory scheme if it still has to be supplemented by a non-contributory scheme to provide for the lower income groups? It is found everywhere that although some countries may introduce non-contributory schemes the means test or as they call it, “need test”, is resorted to in the various countries.

Now one of the most important drawbacks of a contributory scheme is the financial problems involved. Devaluation or inflation is one of the greatest enemies of such a scheme. Because a person who, for example, contributed R1 16 years ago, wants to get back the value of R1 to-day, but the rand of 16 years ago may be worth only 50c to-day.

Civil pensioners.

As regards civil pensioners, one already has to do with a higher income group. But there it is in fact necessary for us to supplement it at present by means of the allowance paid in order to provide for that. If one has to do it in this way—and one has to do it in respect of all the races in the country—one will have a vast, comprehensive scheme which it will never be possible to calculate properly actuarially. One will simply have to call it a contributory scheme without its being worth anything actuarilly, if one knows in advance that one will have to supplement it afterwards in any event, to provide a reasonable livelihood for those people. In addition it will be so tremendously expensive to administer. Hon. members should remember that if a contributory scheme is introduced, one will have to follow up every individual in the country as he goes from one employer to another. One will have to trace him and retain contact continually. One will continually have to make the collections. It will mean such a vast administrative machine that one may rather pay the money one would spend on that administrative machine directly to indigent people as pensions.

The inquiry revealed that pensions paid exclusively from Treasury in the Republic compare favourably with pensions overseas to which the recipients contributed. I want to give hon. members a few examples. In Holland an unmarried elderly person—that is in terms of a contributory scheme—receives an amount equal to R19 per month, and a husband and wife jointly R32. In the Republic an unmarried White person may receive up to R30 per month, and a married couple R60. That is in terms of our non-contributory scheme.

Nor does the British “flat rate” scheme give a married couple more than R60 a month. And surely we all know the cost of living in Britain is much higher than the cost of living in South Africa. In Britain R60 is actually worth much less than R60 here. That is the contributory scheme; those are the benefits it offers.

Sir, I am convinced that a contributory pension scheme is foreign to our South African welfare structure, and that the substitution of our existing social aid schemes by a contributory scheme can offer no real advantages to our country and our people—only disadvantages. The disadvantages of such a large and expensive contributory scheme, considering the vast administrative machine it would involve and the great deal of money it would cost, would offer no additional benefits to indigent persons. In the past the Government consistently followed the policy of expanding and improving existing social aid schemes in order to keep them in line with the cost of living. The plight of old-age pensioners, of those who receive war and war veteran pensions, the physically and mentally disabled persons and the widows and orphans, has been improved systematically through the years by means of various concessions, and special attention has also been given to the most indigent among the indigent persons. We have improved our schemes, which are true to the character of our people. Our present non-contributory scheme can really be regarded as a model scheme at present, and a streamlined scheme to boot.

I must emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that it has never been the intention that the amounts paid in social pensions and allowances should be high enough to enable the recipients to carry over the same standard of living they enjoyed in their employment period to the period following upon retirement. No treasury could ever bear such expenditure, and the contributory schemes in overseas countries also fall very far short of that ideal. There is no country with a contributory scheme that maintains the standard of living of its people, after retirement, on the same level as before.

Other factors should also be taken into consideration. In the first place I want to make it very clear that in my opinion it is contrary to the traditions of our people that the Government should take over the responsibility of the private initiative when the latter is combating the problem more and more successfully. The hon. member said here that our system was discouraging saving. But it is in fact our system that encourages saving. I think it is in fact our system which still preserves some pride in our people, which still induces our people to try and provide for their old age themselves. And we encourage them. In this Budget concessions have again been made for the self-employed, to enable them to make better provision for their old age. Tax concessions have been made to those people. There are the various private pension funds that have been established and that are expanding rapidly. We pointed out on various occasions in the past that we were seeking the solution for the problem along the lines of those private pension funds. Those schemes create the opportunity and act as the inducement to every citizen of the country who can earn, to accept responsibility towards himself and his dependents instead of merely keeping an eye on the State and holding out his hands as in a welfare state. I do not want South Africa to become a welfare state. I want our people to retain their pride, their own initiative.

This system of private pension funds, a system which is not very old yet, has become very popular in recent years. It already offers a very large number of people an opportunity of building up pension benefits in the course of their productive years. The latest available figures I could obtain were those up to 31st December, 1964, which became available at the end of last year. At that stage there were already no fewer than 4,270 such private pension funds, with a total membership of almost 1,000,000—Whites as well as non-Whites. At that stage pensions were already being paid to 32,237 persons. During 1964 the various private pension funds jointly paid out more than R14,000,000 in annuities alone, in addition to lump-sum awards of various kinds which amounted to more than R53,000,000. the Government controls these funds and schemes in terms of the Pension Funds Act, which provides amongst other things that all these pension funds shall be registered, that their constitutions shall comply with certain requirements, that their financial statements shall be submitted from time to time, and that they should be adequate to meet claims on them.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accede to the request of the hon. member to appoint a commission of inquiry in respect of something in which I do not believe at all.

Mr. Chairman, we are sailing in calm waters to-day. That is very clearly proved by the manner in which hon. members opposite have been bringing the interests of those who need care in their old age to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and the calm manner in which the hon. the Minister has seen his way open to reply to the well-intended requests from this side of the House.

Before coming to the subject of the care of our old people, however, I want to say something in respect of our orphanages. As far as we know, according to statistics, 97 per cent of the children in orphanages are not orphans. Three to 4 per cent may be orphans in the real sense of the word. I recall that a year or more ago we had legislation before this House in terms of which such parents were not to be allowed to evade their obligations altogether and in terms of which, where at all possible, something was going to be done to trace such parents so that they might fulfill their obligations towards their children—children in orphanages as so-called orphans whereas in many cases the father as well as the mother had a reasonable income but simply dumped the children on the State. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what is being done to trace such parents?

In our old-age homes we have proper care for our old people. We know that there they receive pleasant accommodation, a nice warm bed, good food, spiritual care, and various facilities. There is also medical treatment for them. As we have heard from the hon. the Minister they do not receive medical assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions but from the Department of Health. They have all these things, but, Sir, you know that that is not all for which an old person asks. They also want to live and warmth should be brought into their lives. In this connection we have to get the general public to redeem this debt, something to which several references have been made here. A great deal is in fact being done in this connection but certainly not enough. One would so much like to see more functions being arranged for the old people. We should go and visit them in the old-age homes, just as we visit family and friends. We should take them to our homes in the city or in the rural areas to visit us for a day or more. If we take them to church with us on a Sunday morning they will not be sitting with the group of old people with whom they sit every Sunday in some secluded corner. Then they come into the church with a family and sit at the family’s side on the family bench. We should like to see when these old people visit our farms for instance, that the farmer’s wife should conduct the women who are still reasonably fit over the farm, showing them the pigs, the chickens, the vegetable garden, etc. The farmer may take some of the old men who are not too weak in his car and show them his irrigation schemes, his crops, his herds, etc., on the farm. This would make these people feel alive again and would make them feel that they still have value as persons and that we do not simply accept them and place them in neat care where they receive everything required by the body while forgetting that they too are people looking for warmth.

To come back to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. There are, as we all know, six different pension schemes. We have the old-age pension, the war veterans’ pension, the disability grant when a person is physically or mentally unable to work, the care of the blind, allowances paid in respect of children when the parent or the guardian is unable to support them, and finally family allowances to supplement the income of the head of the family so as to enable him to take better care of his family. These are all non-contributory schemes. Consequently the State has to pay for everything in this connection. The basis of this system is that every individual himself has to try and make provision for his old age while he is still able to do so.

Before it slips my mind I must refer to what the hon. member for Berea said in reaction to a statement made by the hon. member for Paarl. The hon. member for Paarl said that the State was doing virtually everything in connection with the care of our old people, and the hon. member for Berea said that that was in fact so but that we would like to see the State doing the lion’s share. If we now come back to loans for erecting buildings at a rate of interest of 1 /20th per cent, and it is calculated at 6 per cent, then the share of the State in this instance is 119 as against 1 on the part of the public. Well, 119 shares as against 1 share surely is not only a lion’s share but I think it is the lion’s share of all lion’s shares.

The hon. the Minister referred to private undertakings which are encouraged by the State; I am not going to dwell on that; it serves no purpose to repeat it. I just want to point out that State grants are controlled by law, as we all know, in respect of all the schemes I have mentioned. Old-age pensions have been increased by 186 per cent since 1948 whereas the cost-of-living index figure has only increased by 74 per cent, which is very clear proof of the generous care taken of our old people.

I just want to refer to a few things, however, in order to illustrate how wide the Act and the regulations have been framed so as to provide care for our old people by including as many of them as possible in the old-age pension scheme for instance; the Act has not been framed so as to exclude as many of them as possible. The Minister has mentioned a few of the benefits. There are, inter alia, certain free income and free assets which are allowed; interest on investments and revenue from assets are not taken into account. Only the unmortgaged value of all property is taken into account. Support from children and charitable donations are not taken into account either. The income of all old people who are in receipt of a pension, even up to the maximum amount, is not taken into account if they are over the age of 70 years. I just want to point out once again how wide the circle is drawn so as to include as many old people as possible and not to see how many we can exclude. If a person farms on his own land his income is calculated at only R144 per annum in all cases. Furthermore I want to point out that if a person for instance holds a usufructuary right the first R800 of the value of the property in respect of which he holds such usufructuary right is calculated, as regards revenue from that source, at the minimal figure of 1½ per cent and at 2½ per cent if such value exceeds R800.

Then I should like to quote to you the example of an individual with an income of R16 per month or of a married couple with an income of R32 per month. Such a person still receives a pension of R28 plus a bonus of R2. I mention another example: A married person with an income of R624 per annum, without calculable assets, receives R528 minus R312, in other words minus half of R624 as the income can be divided because he is married. In other words, he receives R216 plus a bonus of R24. This comes to R20 per month which he receives in pension alone or a total income of R864 over 12 months. I think that is reasonably good care. I am going to quote you another example: A married couple or an unmarried person, with assets amounting to R5,600, without income, qualifies for the maximum, i.e. R30 per month, and as from the 1st October of this year a new measure will come into operation in terms of which persons who, with a view to continue working, postpone their applications for a pension for a period of 12 months after they have become entitled to a pension will receive an additional R48 per annum over and above the full pension. [Time limit.]

I should like to say that the ideal situation that the hon. member for Waterberg sketched at the beginning of his speech, is not just an idle dream because overseas where they have a national welfare state, there are clubs of young people who devote themselves to entertaining the aged. The result is, of course, that aged people are thus brought into the community. The young people know that in the course of time they will be pensioners themselves and that they will then be drawing old-age pension. But they do not call it an old-age pension; they do not like the term; they call it a “retirement pension”, because it is in fact a retirement pension for which they have paid by their own contributions. Sir, I associate myself wholeheartedly with the plea of the hon. member for Umbilo. I think we should have a contributory pension scheme for the whole nation. The hon. the Minister seems anxious to turn things down. This is a constructive suggestion. We have at our universities to-day departments of sociology. There has been a modern development in the study of sociology. What would be better than for the hon. the Minister to be advised by sociologists and financiers, especially men who have had experience of insurance? They could give him useful advice.

The hon. the Minister will know probably that from time to time I have spoken of non-contributory pension schemes. People who have never made a study of it are confused in their own minds as to what I mean when I talk about the State having a non-contributory pension scheme. What I mean is this: We must distinguish between the State as an employer in its relation to its own employees and the State in relation to its own citizens; they are two completely different things. When I spoke some time ago of a non-contributory scheme I was thinking of what some of the banks had done. It has nothing whatever to do with this subject of social welfare that we are discussing to-day. Sir, I think the ground has been prepared and I would suggest to the Minister that it would be better perhaps if he adopted a more sympathetic attitude to any suggestion such as that which has come from the hon. member for Umbilo. We expect the Minister of Social Welfare to be a man who is open to suggestion, not a man who says “I prefer our system; we will not have another”. He should say, “I will investigate any suggestion that is made”. That is what we need in a Minister of Social Welfare, and I hope that when the Minister has had more experience he will adopt that attitude.

I come now to the subject of the war veterans pension which I raised during the Budget debate. We have the oudstryders pension, without the means test, both for members of the Boer forces and of the British forces who fought in the Anglo Boer War. This system was introduced by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Eric Louw, who will be remembered by it. He said when he announced the introduction of the system that there would be no means test for any person who participated in that war. When I look at the Estimates I see that as far as pensions are concerned provision is made for annual increases which we all welcome very much, but there is one exception and that is in the case of the war veteran. I see that there is a decrease this year of R775,000. Why is that? The old soldiers’ song says that “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away”. Well, they are fading away very rapidly. I should like to say to the Minister that when I made my appeal for the men who marched into South West Africa in 1914 I realized that the youngest of them, the boy of 18 in the Defence Force, is to-day in his seventies. Many of these men to-day are already receiving old age pensions, even with the means test, so that the abolition of the means test would not mean a great increase in expenditure. This amount is gradually being reduced and I think the hon. the Minister should give his attention to it. We have so many of these men who are just on the border line of getting a pension; they are not poor enough to get a pension. Sir, let me give you an example of a friend of mine whom I meet regularly in my own constituency. He says, “I do not drink; I do not smoke; I do not own a motor-car; I have never owned a motor-car. I worked as an artisan all my life. I have my house in this constituency. At one time it was worth very much less than it is to-day but I had to live somewhere; my wife and I live there, but I am just above the means test and being above that margin I cannot get any assistance of any kind.” That is the sort of man I am thinking of. He is an ex-soldier of World War I; he is in his seventies to-day. It is for him and men like him that I am pleading. We need not worry about the rich man of the Anglo-Boer War; he pays in any case in income tax. I want to make this special plea to the Minister, that he should give this matter his serious reconsideration. I know it is not really a matter for him but I am asking him to use his good offices with the Minister of Finance. It is the Minister of Finance who will have to make provision and I am asking this Minister for sympathetic consideration. He has not given very sympathetic consideration to the plea put up by the hon. member for Umbilo. We expect something better than that from him. If the Minister feels that the means test should continue as it is to-day for everybody, then I would say to him that there should be an exception. Sir, we shall need the ex-servicemen again. We need their influence, we need their advice; we shall need their service again; they are always loyal members of the community. When South Africa is in difficulties ex-servicemen come to the fore. Once a soldier, always a soldier. He does not think about the Government of the day; he thinks of his country; he is made that way. I therefore make this special plea to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

If there is one department which we can discuss here without getting hot under the collar then it certainly is the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. At this stage, where we now have a new young Minister, it would certainly not be amiss of us to extend our best wishes for the future to him, but we also want to pay tribute to his Department for what it is doing. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his partial reply to the hon. member for North Rand, namely that he was going to see whether the ten year time limit regarding children could not be removed. But I want to go further and I want to plead for the woman who married subsequent to those ten years and who had assisted her husband faithfully for perhaps 12 or 15 years. Now her pension is taken away. It is indeed true that she may apply to the Department of Social Welfare for an old age pension or for a disability grant, but the fact remains that she has assisted that man under very difficult circumstances. There are probably such cases in the constituencies of every member in this House and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that he should give his personal attention to such cases to see whether assistance cannot be rendered to such women. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing which disturbs me when I look at page 117 of the Estimates, at the item “Care of the Aged and Infirm”. I notice that this amount has been decreased by R216,000 in these Estimates. If there is one group of people for whom we all have a very soft spot then it is the aged and infirm of the Republic of South Africa. The tragedy is that the aged and the infirm are being crushed between various departments and bodies. On the one hand we find that the Provincial Administration has something to do with him; on the other hand we find that the Department of Health also has a little bit to do with him. We find that social welfare has a great deal to do with him and then we go further and we find that the Minister tells us: “You should not allow that mercifulness play no role whatsoever; the love of the child should also play a major role as regards care of the aged and infirm”. The aged and infirm are the very people who were prepared to sacrifice everything for this beautiful country in which we are living. They did not have the opportunity during their working days to join pension schemes. We want to take our hats off to-day to the country and rural areas for what they have done for their aged. But the picture is completely different when we come to our urban complexes. I am afraid that our aged and infirm in the cities are neglected by us in the times of economic prosperity which are prevailing in our country; I am afraid that we do not realize under what straitened circumstances those people are living at present. The only persons who are aware under what circumstances they are living are either the clergymen or the church council and especially the member of the House of Assembly, the Chief Magistrate and the Department of Social Welfare. I want to say here to-day that the man in the street, however, is not concerned about the welfare of the aged and infirm. We are living in a totally different epoch; our lives do not make contact. One would think that the local authorities would come to the front to take care of the aged and infirm. There are many welfare organizations but we know that they are making a precarious existence; we know how they are struggling to keep the homes for the aged and infirm going. Perhaps you will rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that the time has arrived that a tax should be levied on petrol, just as we levy a tax on petrol to have better roads in the Republic, to enable us to take care of the aged and to see to it that better care is taken of them. I do not want to plead for a welfare state; the Minister has already given his reply to that. I do feel, however, that the time has arrived for us to look after our old people and for theii care to be entrusted to one department. At present there are various forms of control. No one knows who really is responsible for the aged at all stages. We should not shove our responsibility from one department to the other. The time has arrived for the care of our aged to fall under one department as regards their health, their housing and their welfare, and only then will we make any progress in this country of ours and only then will our old people feel that they are not outcasts who have to live in back-rooms. Then they too will feel that they form part of the Republic of South Africa. I want to plead with the new Minister that a thorough investigation should be instituted into the conditions under which our old people are living. I am convinced that we will be astounded to know under what conditions many of them have to live at present. However, I am also convinced that in the near future we shall be able to do something to alleviate their distress.

I just want to say in brief that the decrease to which the hon. member for Brakpan referred is not actually a decrease. It is attributable to the fact that an additional amount was made available a few years ago to encourage the erection of homes of this nature; for that reason a large amount was placed on the Estimates so as to have money available in the event of such homes being erected, but the actual expenditure for 1965-6 was only R483,000. The provision for this year is consequently a more realistic estimate which is based on the actual number of homes expected to be erected. Therefore there is in point of fact not a decrease, but a considerable increase. I just want to add that as regards the general position of the aged I trust that the report drawn up by the action committee of the Department and which is being circulated at present and from which legislation will result, will be studied by all interested parties in the near future, and that we shall be able to introduce legislation possibly next year which will afford greater protection and more assistance to our aged.

The hon. member for Brakpan once again referred to the question of guarding against the creation of a welfare state. The hon. the Minister also dealt with this particular aspect. I do not know whether the hon. member for Brakpan was in the House last evening when I spoke on two occasions. I think on both occasions I said that we on this side of the House do not believe that a welfare state is in the interests of South Africa. We have also stated that on other occasions when this subject has been debated. Almost every year, in the past four or five years we have come forward with various suggestions and on each occasion we have said that we are not in favour of a welfare state. Last year when the National Welfare Bill was before the House, we once again clearly stressed the important role that the welfare organizations must play in the welfare work that is undertaken in South Africa. We have also said that we believe that our welfare services should be on the basis of the State, the individual, and the welfare organizations and churches; in other words, that it is the combined responsibility of those organizations to create the right atmosphere in which social welfare work can be done in South Africa. As far as we are concerned, we feel that that system should be maintained. I think there is a complete misunderstanding when we put forward the contention that a contributory pension scheme would be in the best interests of this country. Some people seem to think that in advocating such a scheme we are in fact trying to create a welfare state. I mentioned last evening that in the United States of America a system of social security has been developed since 1935, and I believe that the U.S.A, cannot be classified as a welfare state merely because they have a comprehensive system of social security. My plea to the hon. the Minister was that further investigations should be carried out; that a commission or a committee should be appointed further to investigate the feasibility of introducing a national contributory pension scheme. The hon. the Minister rejected that suggestion but I notice that in his remarks he only referred to investigations which had been instituted in Europe by his predecessor in office and by departmental officials. He said that they found that there were various shortcomings in that system and they felt that it was not possible for such a system to be introduced in South Africa. The Minister made no mention whatsoever of the system in the U.S.A. I believe that that system is one which could be utilized to a certain extent to meet the conditions in South Africa. If the Minister is not prepared to appoint a committee or a commission to investigate the matter, I ask him whether he is prepared to send a senior official of his Department to investigate the system in the U.S.A.

Yes.

I appreciate that assurance. I do not intend to repeat all the details as to why such a system should be introduced in South Africa, but one is the question of the cost of administration. The Minister said this afternoon that the present system entails sometimes as many as 3,000 letters a day which are received by his Department. When we look at the total number of social pensioners of all races, we find there are over 500,000. Files have to be kept for them. There are continuous changes taking place in the financial position of those pensioners, and that continually has to be checked. The cost of administering our present system must be very high indeed. I believe it is not beyond our wit and ability to formulate a scheme which will be practicable. I do not believe that these difficulties are insurmountable. I remember that some years ago when the P.A.Y.E. Scheme was suggested by this side of the House, similar objections were raised about the enormous cost of administering such a system, but to-day it is found that it is of enormous benefit to the country.

Another important factor is in regard to the reasons why we believe that such a system will be to the advantage of South Africa. I just want to quote from a document which I think puts the matter very clearly. It was a document issued last year by the U.S. Department of Health and Welfare—

That is a point of view which has been arrived at from a programme of social security introduced in 1935. It is a basic principle and therefore I do not understand the Minister’s contention that it would tend to destroy private initiative. The experience of these people after a period of more than 30 years does not prove that to be the case at all. I believe it is a misconception for the Minister to believe that the introduction of such a scheme would destroy the initiative of the individual. Far from it. It would supplement the individual’s own efforts to make provision for his old age. We have often found that where a means test is applied, it is detrimental to the person making provision for his old age. I believe that the important factor is that our present system does not offer security in old age. I believe that in a young, modern country such as South Africa we should be able to embark upon a system which would grant that security. I am sure there is not a single member of this House who would look forward to his old age if he thought he would be dependent on R30 a month in order to live. It has been said on previous occasions that the amount of pension paid is not meant to be a pension on which a person can be fully dependent, but the facts show that a large number of pensioners do have to rely entirely on their pensions as a means of livelihood. I believe that does not offer security in the true sense of social security. Therefore I believe that the Minister would be doing a great service to the country if he was able to embark upon a policy whereby social security would be obtainable, and that social security would in fact become a reality in South Africa, rather than our present modified system of social security.

There is one other point I wish to raise. I should like further information from the Minister in regard to two items under Head H, Civil Pensions. The first is in regard to the temporary allowance and bonus to civil pensioners. The Minister mentioned earlier this afternoon something about the matter, but I would like to know whether he has given consideration to those civil pensioners who seek employment in the private sector and not with the Government or the Provincial Administration, so that they might be encouraged also to take gainful employment.

I said that we were considering it.

Thank you. I am glad the Minister is considering it, and I hope these people will be given some relief as the figures given by the Minister in reply to a question on 20th August show that of the 22,239 civil pensioners, 81,323 are at present receiving that temporary allowance. So it would appear that it is not a large number of people who are not receiving that temporary allowance at present. [Time limit.]

I want to refer with appreciation to everything which has been said to-day in connection with care of the aged and everything related thereto. But yet I feel that on that score a major part of the work of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has not come to the attention of this House. The danger is that if one over-emphasizes one branch of our welfare work sufficient attention is not given to another.

In the Estimates of this year approximately R13,000,000 more is provided for welfare services than in the previous financial year, and a large portion of that is in the form of subsidies for welfare work. I should like to draw attention to an amount of R1,100,000 which represents the figure by which the provision for child welfare services exceeds that of the previous year. If one makes a careful analysis of the matter under the various subheads, it becomes clear to one that one old principle which characterizes our welfare policy in this country is being followed very closely, namely the principle of co-ordination and partnership to which full recognition is given and which was repeatedly confirmed by the Government in the past number of years. An amount of R6,000,000 is paid out directly in the form of maintenance grants and a further amount of R5,300,000 is made available as direct subsidies to welfare organizations rendering these particular services. This idea of subsidizing welfare organizations flowed from a piece of history when voluntary welfare organizations were mainly responsible for rendering welfare services in this country. But these family organizations—the voluntary welfare services and the charitable services of churches—which actually established this service and were responsible for the idea of professional welfare work in the private sector, are experiencing a considerable number of problems at the present time. In the first place these people are experiencing the problem of obtaining adequate financial support from the public, and for that there is only one major reason, namely that public opinion at present does not fully realize the meaning of professional welfare work. It struck me this afternoon that the aged formed the main topic of discussion here. In order to be able to do professional welfare work, professional people are needed, and because voluntary welfare organizations have to spend a great deal of money in employing these professional people we now find that a distorted image exists in the mind of the public on account of the fact that a great deal of money is spent on the employment of that staff as against the idea that very little is done in regard to providing the actual necessities of life to people; in other words, food and clothes are not distributed.

Earlier on this afternoon the hon. the Minister pointed out that a great deal more should be done by private initiative, and that is how we should like it to be. But to-day I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to assist voluntary organizations to expand the essential professional services. We are grateful that an amount of approximately R100,000 more than the amount for the previous year appears on the Estimates for these particular services.

But associated with this problem is the role which specialization plays at present in the sense that it is much more obvious to public opinion that people are for instance rendering services for the aged and for the alcoholic and for the unmarried mother but that it overlooks the tremendous services which private initiative together with the State’s professional services render in connection with the really needy family. At present there are more than 8,000 children in our children’s homes and in schools of industries—children coming from the so-called disrupted homes. I should like to give the hon. the Minister the assurance, as we know the work of family organizations, that were it not for the professional services rendered by his own Department and by voluntary organizations this number of children could easily have been doubled or trebled and the costs involved to the State and the voluntary organizations would have amounted to millions more than at present calculated on the basis of what it costs at present to care for a child in such a home or school.

Where I want to express on behalf of the voluntary welfare services special thanks to the hon. the Minister for the improvements he effected in the past year in regard to subsidizing trained institution and welfare staff employed by these organizations, I want to ask two more things of him. In the first place that a thorough investigation be instituted as soon as possible by means of the facilities he now has at his disposal through the National Welfare Council and its Committees into the need existing in connection with subsidies; and not primarily needs in respect of an amount of money, but the need for a clear policy on which subsidizing should be based. A few years ago we had the Du Plessis Commission but the time has arrived to review once again the basic principles applied in respect of subsidies.

A second and final matter is the idea that the Department should assist voluntary organizations to produce a publication similar to the publication Rehabilitation which the Department of Labour issues to bring a particular facet of its work to the public’s notice—in which all welfare organizations may co-operate to bring to the notice of the public the professional work undertaken by such organizations as well as by the Department. In this way it will be possible to rectify the distorted picture which public opinion at present has about professional welfare services.

When my time expired I was dealing with certain items under Sub-Head H. The second item I wish to deal with is the supplementary allowance to certain Railway pensioners. In 1965-6 this was R237,000, and this year it will be R1,955,000. I wish to raise this whole question of the payment of the supplementary allowance and the system that is being followed by the Department and the Minister in this regard, which is not to the best advantage of those persons who are Railway pensioners and who also qualify for a war veteran’s pension. Prior to the increase in the Railway pension, such pensioners received two pensions, one from the Railways and a war veteran’s pension from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Most of these are the older war veterans, due to the relaxed means test that is applicable to married veterans over 70 years of age. However, I want to quote an example which is typical of many other cases that have been brought to my notice. In this particular case the Railway pensioner on 31st October, 1964, was receiving a pension of R79.48 a month and a war veteran’s pension of R28 a month, making a total of R107.48 a month, and he paid no tax whatever on that amount. But as from 1st November, 1964, the Railway pension was increased to R84.48. He then no longer received the veteran’s pension, but in lieu thereof received the supplementary allowance of R25 a month, making a total of R109.48. But then due to the fact that a war veteran’s pension is non-taxable, and due to the fact that that veteran’s pension was then substituted by the special allowance, this pensioner became liable to a monthly P.A.Y.E. deduction of R4.01. He then received a net amount of R105.47. In other words, he was worse off after the P.A.Y.E. deduction was made, in spite of the fact that he was receiving an additional amount to his Railway pension. So merely by the substitution of the classification of a war veteran’s pension by a supplementary allowance, it meant that instead of receiving an increase this pensioner received a decrease, because he now has to pay income tax on the full amount, including this amount called the supplementary allowance. Then he received a further increase. On 1st October, 1965, when the new means test came into operation it was found that the supplementary allowance had to be increased to what really amounted to the same amount as the war veteran’s pension, R36 a month, and subsequently, on 1st April 1966, it was increased to R38 a month. It now means that this person receives a Railway pension of R84.48 plus R38, which is R122.48, and he is now required to meet a P.A.Y.E. deduction of R5.32 a month, giving a total of R117.16 a month. So this particular person is now at a disadvantage, because if the previous system had been followed whereby he received the normal war veteran’s pension of R38 a month, it would have meant that that R38 would have been non-taxable. It would mean that over the year R456 received in lieu of his war veteran’s pension should not really be taxable. However, merely by the change of name this particular category of pensioner is adversely affected by the fact that it is no longer called a war veteran’s pension.

Are you quite sure that that applies in the majority of cases? Is it not only in isolated cases that they are adversely affected, but that the majority are benefiting by this system?

I think the reply to that is that all these persons are adversely affected, because in normal circumstances, where this amount was called the war veteran’s pension, all of them would enjoy the benefit of that amount of R38 a month not being taxable. In every instance where they qualified for a veteran’s pension, they are now paid a supplementary allowance in lieu of that veteran’s pension. So I do not think this is an isolated case. I think in every case where a person is a Railway pensioner and he is entitled to a war veteran’s pension, he is being unfairly treated because he does not receive that veteran’s pension, as such. It is not called a war veteran’s pension.

But under the new scheme he can get more if he receives the allowance instead of the veteran’s pension.

Yes, but if he receives the war veteran’s pension it is not taxable, but immediately that amount becomes taxable he is at a disadvantage. That is my point, that these persons are adversely affected merely by the name attached to this amount. When it was classified as a war veteran’s pension it was not taxable, but now that it is a supplementary allowance in lieu of the veteran’s pension it is taxable. It would appear that all new applicants who are Railway pensioners but in terms of the means test would qualify for a war veteran’s pension, have now to submit their applications to the Railway Administration and evidently the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions then reimburses the Railways for this amount paid on their behalf.

But the matter becomes even more complicated. A letter received by this person in May, 1966, says that with the exception of war veteran’s pension paid to Anglo-Boer War veterans, no social pensions are being paid to Railway pensioners by this Department. A further letter goes on to say that it is only the Anglo-Boer War veteran who will now receive a war veteran’s pension through the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Therefore there is now differentiation between these classes of war veterans. The Anglo-Boer War veteran who qualifies for a veteran’s pension and is a Railway pensioner receives his veteran’s pension from the Department of Pensions and it is not taxable, nor is it subject to the means test. But the person who is not an Anglo-Boer War veteran has to apply to the Railway Administration, and instead of a veteran’s pension he receives a supplementary allowance in lieu of it. [Time limit.]

When my time expired in this debate last night, I was dealing with a subject to which the hon. the Minister has unfortunately given a reply at this stage, and now I do not want to cover the entire field again because I am grateful for the detailed explanation the hon. the Minister has given. I do feel, however, that there is one aspect of the entire matter which I most respectfully want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I made the statement that the entire system of paying bonuses in addition to old-age pensions gave rise to many serious anomalies. For that reason I suggested that every increase in a pension should not be effected by means of a bonus but by means of an increase in the pension itself and at the same time in the means test. I naturally understand the problem of the Department very well. I understand that no one can foresee what number of people would be brought in under the umbrella if the means test were extended. Yet I feel that with the experience gained by the Department in 1965, it may be possible to make the necessary projections in order to solve this problem. The point I want to stress is the following. Pensions are adjusted when we feel that the aged cannot make ends meet on the existing pension; as a result of higher cost of living they cannot make ends meet on that pension and for that reason they have to receive more. To me it is untenable that in such a case only the pensioner should receive more and the non-pensioner still has to make do with his income. In this case the pensioner will receive an additional amount of R24 within the foreseeable future and within the next year there may be a further increase to R48. If the increase of R24 is awarded he will receive R552, but the non-pensioner still has to make do with R528. To me it seems quite untenable economically as well as morally. If the pensioner cannot make ends meet on that money nor can the non-pensioner. Therefore I want to suggest politely that before an increase is granted in the form of a bonus one should rather wait until such time that all citizens of the country can be treated alike. I am making a very kind request.

There have been appeals this afternoon to give more attention to the position of ex-servicemen. I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to another type of soldier, not one who necessarily fought in the front line overseas but one who is in the front line out here and who is sacrificed in furtherance of the present Government’s policy. I refer to the people who have reached the age limit and are entitled to old-age pensions but who because of the means test are unable to draw such a pension. I refer to the aged persons living in the Transkei, those who own property in the villages especially—not so much in the bigger towns, but in the smaller villages. Sir, they find themselves in the position that they are too old to work but they own property which they are unable to sell because of conditions there and which they are unable to let. But these properties have a village management board valuation and because of that valuation the owners are denied any relief as old-age pensioners. Sir, they cannot even live on their capital because they cannot raise a bond on those properties either. Nobody will advance money on those properties. The building societies stopped granting bonds some time ago. The position is that they sit with these properties, unable to let them, unable to sell them, and unable to get an old-age pension. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with these people sympathetically to see if he cannot give some form of relief. I have taken up the matter with the Department. They have pointed out, quite rightly, that under the existing circumstances they cannot meet these people; as the law stands they cannot give pensions to these people because of the means test. So I appeal to this Minister to see whether he cannot give them some other form of assistance.

Then I want to come back to the soldiers and I want to appeal to the Minister to do something for the wives of the oudstryders. The hon. the Minister knows that the oudstryder gets his pension without a means test, but when he dies the pension dies with him. Now his widow has been living on a certain standard, but when her husband dies she may not be able to draw the old-age pension again because of the means test, and so, Sir, she will lose financially as a result of the death of her husband. There cannot be many of these oudstryders’ widows still alive, and at any rate they are old people, there cannot be many young ones.

If you do that, most of them will marry young ones just before they die …

Well, if they want to marry again we ought to encourage them. After all, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration wants to encourage them. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, not to make it so attractive that the young girls will go and seek them out, but to give them some assistance, to give the widows of the oudstryders some assistance.

The requests of the hon. member for Transkei, just as other requests of this nature, receive consideration from time to time, and where possible concessions are made. I am afraid that I cannot hold out much hope to him. There are various problems in connection with this matter.

As a matter of fact, I have risen to reply to the problem brought up here by the hon. member for Umbilo, namely the consolidation of the pensions of war veterans who also receive civil pensions and who are now paid in such a manner that they receive a civil pension plus an allowance, which disqualifies them for a war veterans’ pension. As he said, it is quite true that if such a person had received a war veterans’ pension such pension would have been tax-free, but that the pension and allowance which he does receive are in fact taxable. The hon. member stated that this affected’ everyone adversely. But in making adjustments due regard was had to ensuring that, after all these considerations had been taken into account, such people would be better off than they had been before. I have had random tests made and in all of them it was found that, as a result of this, everyone benefited by at least R14, but even by as much as R50 per month, after deduction of the tax payable by them. There may be exceptions, because in making random tests one does not come across all the various cases. I am quite prepared to try and find a solution to this problem if such exceptions should be submitted to me. We do not want these people to be worse off. We have taken those steps for the very reason of giving them a better income. I have examples here which I can read out, but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee with that. After this matter had been raised here about a week ago by way of a question I had a few random tests made and in all the cases the beneficiaries were better off after the deduction of the tax now payable by them than they would have been previously whilst in receipt of a war veterans’ pension plus a civil pension without an allowance. With the information now at my disposal, therefore, I am afraid I can only say that the people are better off, but any case which hon. members may come across where this is not so I am prepared to investigate personally so as to see what can be done to eliminate any problems which may possibly arise in connection with a few cases.

I just want to express a sincere word of thanks to the hon. member for Westdene. I am very glad that he emphasized the important part which family care should play in South Africa. The reply to the requests he addressed to me is “Yes” in all cases.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 17.—“Interior, R2,265,000”:

There are two matters which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. One I shall pursue, the other I shall not. What I shall not pursue concerns the entry into South Africa of a certain Demetri Tsafendas, under what conditions he came in, how it happened that he was granted permanent residence in South Africa. I appreciate, Sir, that that matter will now be one of those to be investigated by a commission presided over by a Judge and it seems that perhaps we should wait until we have the report before this matter is taken any further.

The second matter which I want to raise, I raise because of the completely unsatisfactory manner in which it was dealt with by the hon. the Minister in the course of the Budget debate. I then raised with him the position of the Coloured representatives in this House and the. proposed legislation ¿ which he told us was under the control of his Department and which he assured us was coming forward, preventing, the interference of European political parties in non-European politics. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in the position to-day that there are four members in this House representing the Coloured people whose parliamentary life expires very shortly and who do not even know whether they will be qualified to be candidates in the coming election. Sir, that is this Minister’s responsibility and I raised it with him before when he told us that there was a new election to be held in due course, but he did not tell us what the content of that legislation was going to be. We find ourselves in the position that these people do not know whether they are going to be eligible to stand as candidates and that they do not know what sort of organization they can build up in vast constituencies which have problems all their own. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes how vast are those problems.

The Minister told us that elections will be held in the normal manner. I do not know what that means, Mr. Chairman. If they are to be held in the normal manner, it means that the term of office of these members expires on 3rd October. It means that under the law that is administered by the Minister, a proclamation will have to be issued within seven days, that is approximately the 10th October; it means that thereafter nominations must be called for within 14 to 21 days and the elections must be held between 28 and 35 days after nomination day. And here we are on Lie 15th September, less than three weeks before the expiry of the political life of these members, and they do not know whether they are going to be eligible as candidates to represent the Coloureds in the coming election. The Minister told us that he was going to take steps to prevent interference by White political parties in Coloured affairs and that candidates are going to be Whites. Sir, who is going to be eligible? What is the position going to be in respect of sitting members? Is not every nomination of a White person who has had any affiliation with a political party to some extent interference in the political affairs of the non-Europeans by a White political party? I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we shall have time to discuss the Bill when it appears. I believe that we on this side of the House will find ourselves unalterably opposed to the Bill when it appears. That is not my object to-day. My object is to criticize this Minister for a situation which has been allowed to arise whereby the political lives of these people terminating in less than three weeks’ time, do not know what plans they must make for a re-election or a nomination. They do not know what they must build up by way of organization; they do not know whom they can use to help them in their election, they do not know whether they can use any existing organization which has been connected with them. It is the most ridiculous situation. It is ensuring in fact that the process of democracy will not be able to work in respect of these people. We heard from the hon. the Prime Minister in his first speech in this House as Prime Minister that he was jealous of Parliament. So are we, Sir. Is this the way to treat Members of Parliament? Is this the way to treat members, representatives of these people at this time? And we are faced with the fact that this is a section of the population whom we are extremely anxious to keep close to the Western group in South Africa, a section of the population whose goodwill we desire to retain, and here is the treatment meted out to their representatives and indirectly to them by this Minister who is in control of the elections, in control of the time-table and even now has not given notice that he is introducing a Bill, or giving us any idea of what the contents of the Bill are going to be. I want to ask the hon. the Minister personally: Are any of these sitting members going to be disqualified? Who is going to be allowed to stand as a candidate? When is his legislation coming forward? Will it come forward before the termination of the term of office of these members now sitting in the House? Mr. Chairman, this is no way to treat a democratic parliament, or democratic voters in South Africa to whatever race they belong. I want to say, Sir, that we on this side of the House make the strongest protest at the laxity by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in all fairness the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted the attitude in connection with the tragic event which recently occurred in our country that the case was sub judice and that it would only be fair and right not to have a discussion about it, something which I accept in the same spirit. The necessary steps have been taken to the satisfaction of all of us, and I think also to the satisfaction of the entire country.

As regards the Coloured population and their representation in this House, we are all aware that the hon. the Minister intends to pilot a measure through this House and suffice it to say that as regards this measure the best interests of the Coloured population will not only be sought but will also be served in actual practice.

I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister in connection with an entirely different matter, and I am doing so with a measure of jealous excitement, namely the question of citizenship of the Republic with special reference to our immigrants. On a closer inspection of a number of figures we find, inter alia, the following. Over the past five years it has been our pleasant experience to welcome more than 125,000 new guests to our fatherland in numbers increasing every year. Particularly interesting is the fact that whereas we had only 9,789 new immigrants in 1960 the number amounted to 40,685 in 1964.

Order! The matter now being discussed by the hon. member falls under the Vote “Immigration” and not under the Vote “Interior”.

I just want to explain that I am going to discuss citizenship, with special reference to the naturalization of immigrants.

The hon. member may not elaborate on the number of immigrants that have entered the country. That is not relevant here.

With your leave, Mr. Chairman, I will not elaborate unnecessarily on that. Where we find that so many newcomers were welcomed to our father-land during the years 1960 to 1964 we find that during those years only 18,011 accepted citizenship in our country. In addition we find that in the past ten years only 31.026 of our newcomers became naturalized and it is significant to take cognizance of the fact that whereas only 31,026 decided in the past ten years to become citizens of our country more than 40,000 immigrants entered our country within a single year, namely 1964. We know that the Department is taking the necessary steps by means of subsidies to the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie and also by means of personal concessions to the immigrants themselves so as to promote this important factor for increasing our White population. I think this is the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his Department and to express appreciation for the positive action taken in this connection. One may, however, ask the question whether we as host—and now I mean the citizens of the Republic—are doing enough to make our guests happy and to make them feel at home and to convince them through friendly persuasion to join our ranks. Personally I think that a great deal more can be done by social societies, such as women’s societies, art societies, schools and churches to make of our guests permanent citizens of our beautiful fatherland. This may be done much more fruitfully and with much more permanence if done less sporadically but on a well-considered rational basis. As part of the general public and also as individuals in the different organizations to which I have referred our people can do a great deal more to come to be accepted as a good host by our visiting prospective citizens. So much can be done in connection with guidance as regards housing, savings and economy, inclusion in our own cultural circles, education of the children, learning both official languages, knowledge in connection with practices and traditions of the country, religious denominations, etc.

Order! The hon. member keeps on discussing matters which do not fall under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, in the second instance I do not regard it as being improper and unethical when we as hosts give our immigrants to understand that it is proper and ethical where one is receiving so much in a new fatherland to show gratitude …

All these matters fall under “Immigration”. The hon. member must change his subject.

… by indicating that one wants to accept citizenship in one’s new fatherland. With the greatest respect, I am referring especially to immigrants who have been living in our country for 20 and 30 years and who have made small fortunes but who have never gone so far as to apply for citizenship.

The hon. member is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing citizenship.

This Department is only concerned with a person from the time he has applied for citizenship until he has become naturalized. The rest is the function of other departments.

But Mr. Chairman, I am now dealing with applications for citizenship.

No, the Department under discussion at the moment comes into the picture only after a person has applied and until he has become naturalized. The rest is the function of other departments.

But Mr. Chairman, I am now dealing with applications.

No, this Department only comes into the picture after applications have been made. The hon. member now comes forward with arguments that these people should be influenced to apply. That is the function of another department, namely the Department of Immigration.

Then I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department that special attempts will be made where they are dealing with citizenship to encourage immigrants in our country to apply for citizenship at an earlier stage. [Time limit.]

I will not follow the off-beam line of the hon. member for Randburg. The first point I want to take up is the point which has been raised by my hon. Leader. I want to stress this question of the unreadiness of this hon. Minister for the election of Coloured representatives which is about to take place for this House. I want to endorse everything my hon. Leader has said. This hon. Minister and his Department have had all the time in the world. They are the Government, they call the tune, and they decide the time, they decide the tempo and they decide who shall be eligible. But this Government has failed to do it, and even if they do it now it is too late. But I think that the earliest opportunity, which is during the course of this debate, should be taken by the hon. the Minister to let this House know, to let the Coloured representatives know, and to let the Coloured people know where they stand in regard to this election that has to take place in the very near future. Sir, he cannot put it off. The law is quite distinct. We have just amended the Electoral Law here, and that amendment makes it obligatory for this hon. Minister to hold the election. He cannot stall it. It has got to happen, and we want to know the circumstances under which it is going to happen. That is the least this House and the people who are going to be affected can demand.

I want to come to another point. I think the hon. the Minister should take us into his confidence and to make a statement on his attitude—I think he must have determined it by now—in regard to travel documents, passports where they are necessary, and any type of travel document that is necessary in relation to travel to and from the new neighbours on our borders. I refer to Lesotho, Botswana and I think Swaziland is still the name of the third one. I raise this question at this particular time because I deem it of the greatest importance. I believe this hon. Minister in his treatment and his approach to these three new close neighbours of ours might well be setting a pattern for the whole future relationship of the various nations on the whole of the African Continent with South Africa. This is the time, I think, when statesmanship is really required. I believe this is the time when this hon. Minister, who has just inherited this portfolio, can really rise to an occasion.

The adoption of better and more tolerant approaches can improve our relationships no end. I believe that it is in his hands entirely. It depends upon the policy which he adopts now as Minister of the Interior, whether we are in fact going to have the privilege and the right to visit our neighbours, to have free contact with them, to trade with them and to further our business and other interests. This is a very vital question. I do not want to drag into it a whole sheaf of publicity I have here concerning the refusal of travel documents, the refusal of permission to go to certain places and the refusal of permission for people to come here. I sincerely hope that those times have passed. I hope that the taking over of the portfolio by this Minister may well indicate some change in thinking, in the approach of this Government as regards allowing people to move more freely, to come into contact with other people in this world and to learn their problems and to let them learn ours. I for one am sick and tired of picking up a newspaper every day and finding some case where a Minister has banned some person, or refused permits for people to go to certain places or refused permits for people to come and see us, on the most petty excuses. South African sport has just about been wrecked. I do not want to drag in all the episodes between Dr. Danie Craven and the previous Minister of the Interior. I think these things are best forgotten. Here is an opportunity for this Minister to take South Africa and this House into his confidence and to start a new era in our relationships with the countries on our borders.

Mr. Chairman, a few days ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put pertinent questions to the Minister of the Interior in connection with the election of Coloured Representatives. I think he received a pertinent reply. The hon. the Minister told him emphatically that the election would be held when it was time. I find it strange that he is again trying to fish on dry land. Perhaps he was just meeting his troubles half-way. The hon. member for Umlazi said that the Government had had sufficient time. As usual and according to the procedure of this House the Opposition will be given sufficient time for discussing that legislation when it comes.

When will it come?

Mr. Chairman, there you have it again. It really amounts to virtually indecent interference in the politics of Coloureds. Representatives of the Coloureds are sitting in this House. Why is it not left to them when questions regarding this matter have to be asked? Why this gross interference in the political life of the Coloureds on the part of the United Party? Under the standing orders of this House they will in due course have an opportunity of discussing that legislation when it comes. On that score they may rest assured. I do not think that it is necessary to try stirring up feelings even now. That is precisely what the Opposition is trying to do, namely to stir up feelings amongst the Coloured population even now.

That is not necessary. I now want to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister. It concerns general registration. In terms of the new Act we now have a general registration every five years. We had that a few years ago. Now I just want to say to my regret, but such are the facts, that a general registration is not effective. It produces one of the worst Voters’ Rolls one can possibly find. We experienced that once again in the past election. We found that the names of hundreds of people who had been living at the same address for many years and who were born there and who had never been anywhere else, did not appear on the Voters’ Roll. During the short period between a general registration and an election party organizations do not have sufficient time at their disposal because they do not receive Voters’ Rolls. For every constituency they receive a single copy. Those organizations do not have sufficient time to cover the entire constituency so as to check whether the names of all voters appear on the Roll. They see to it that the names of voters who come from other constituencies and who qualify as a result of their age do appear on the Voters’ Roll. However, they do not have the time to check on all voters so as to ensure that their names do appear on the Voters’ Roll. In my own constituency there is a very good organization. But I want to tell you today, Sir, that between 600 and 800 names were omitted from the Roll and these were not the names of new voters, but those of old residents. I think we should do something else. Under the new system which we have at present in terms of which deletions may be made when a voter changes of address and in terms of which he has to furnish his new address, I think that we no longer really need a general registration of voters. I do think, however, that there is another method and to-day I want to suggest that. The electoral laws provide that every person who qualifies is obliged to register as a voter. His name must be on the Voters’ Roll and if it does not appear on the Voters’ Roll he may be punished. However, this has never been applied by any party or government because governments and parties are afraid that if they should institute legal proceedings against such a person he would become angry and would never vote again. Sir, I do not have that fear. Under the present system one finds that at every election a group of people become angry with the party to which they belong. The Nationalists are angry with the Government and United Party supporters are also angry with the Government if their names do not appear on the Voters’ Rolls. [Interjections.] They blame their party and they blame the Government. One finds that dissatisfaction in spite of the fact that those persons have not made any attempt to have their names included on the Voters’ Roll. Then on election day they blame their party and they blame the Government. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should give notice by proclamation that people who do not register as voters are committing an offence and will be prosecuted. We have a striking example in this country. In terms of the Defence Act every citizen reaching the age of 16 years is obliged to register himself as a citizen. If he fails to do so legal proceedings are instituted against him and such offence is punishable. Do you know, Sir, that very few prosecutions are instituted? Parents simply see to it that their sons register upon reaching the age of 16 years. There is another example. By law a child upon reaching the age of 16 years is obliged to see to it that he obtains an identity card. Do you know, Sir, that all people throughout the country remember that? Parents remember and the children remember. It is done. Now my question is the following. For what reason can a voter—here we are not dealing with a 16 year old but with an 18 year old who qualifies to be registered—not see to it that he is registered? Every few years—initially it was every two years, later every three years and now I think every five years—we spend a tremendous amount of money. Such a general registration costs the State a great deal of money and it is very ineffective. I think we should take our courage in both hands and apply that Act in practice. I want to give the assurance to-day that if one has made one or two or three examples our people would toe the line. Everyone would see to it that his name is included on the Voters’ Roll. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to an item on page 76 of the Estimates, namely Publications Control Board. The amount mentioned in respect of this item is R55,000. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us how the Publications Control Board operates. To fix our ideas, I will mention an example. The example I should like to mention is the banning of a book which is called “When the Lion Feeds”. I have not read the book, but that does not matter. The book has been banned.

I did and I wish I never did.

Mr. Chairman, this illustrates my point very clearly. Here we have a most interesting opinion from the Minister.

That will help me in my inquiry. My inquiry is how the Publications Control Board operates. I shall quote from a classic judgment. This judgment was in the Appellate Division and was given by Rumpff, A.J. He gave a dissenting judgment. I shall come to the cases in the courts afterwards, but I should like to mention these extracts from his judgment. It is a classic. After I read it, I understood what the Publications Control Board should have been doing, how it should have operated, and what we have been debating in the House. The cool, decisive, clear logic of this judgment impressed me. Mr. Justice Rumpff, giving an introduction to his judgment, says—

Subsequently, he said this—

Finally, I should like to read this short extract—

In this case there was an appeal by the publisher to the Supreme Court of the Cape. The Supreme Court of the Cape found in favour of the publisher. In other words, they said that the book could be published. Their opinion was substituted for the opinion of the Publications Control Board. They did so by a majority of two to one. Then the Publications Control Board appealed to the Appellate Division. In the judgment of the Appellate Division, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Cape was reversed by a majority of three to two. By simple calculation, we find that four Judges of South Africa say that the book should be published, and four Judges say that it should not be published. As far as I am concerned, Sir, if one Judge in South Africa—any Judge, I have such great respect for the judiciary—can be found who will say that the book should be published, that it does not offend him, is not obscene, indecent, objectionable, undesirable, and that there is no tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds of persons, I am prepared to accept the book, even though a hundred disagree.

You will believe one and not a hundred?

That is the point I want to come to. Because the Minister does not like the book does not mean that the book should not be published. In this remarkable judgment, the whole question of control and censorship is analysed. Therefore I say that we should have an explanation why we spend R55,000. All the administrative work of the Publications Control Board comes from the hon. the Minister’s Department. I should like to know how much time was spent during the year by his Department in doing the work of the Publications Control Board. I think that is very necessary. I do not know if there is a section there operating on behalf of the Publications Control Board, but it is a very serious matter, if we have to pay for this case in two courts. Who paid for that? Which Department paid? Surely, Sir, it is unreasonable to expect us as members of this House to vote money for a Publications Control Board that operates in this unsatisfactory manner.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I shall say something about the Publications Board at a later stage but I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Department of the Interior and in particular the previous Minister and to express my appreciation to them for the recent majestic and successful celebration of the Republic Festival. Any nation, but particularly a young nation such as ours where different groups have to be merged into one great nation, where one loyalty and one love for fatherland has to be created, has to pause from time to time at some noble occurrence so as to rise above differences within its ranks. Such an occurrence was our recent Republic Festival.

All over the country it was celebrated with much success under the guidance and inspiration of this Department and the previous Minister. Especially those people who were able to attend the main festival in Pretoria and who could form part of the huge crowds at Monument Hill on 31st May felt that a nation was standing there, united in its pride in its common past and determined to face the future without fear. These signs of maturity which were revealed all over the country at the time of the Republic Festival were not merely incidental. They were once again revealed and even more strongly after the tragic occurrence we experienced last week. I want to thank not only the Minister and his Department for these celebrations but also want to pay tribute to all persons who were responsible for the magnificent and spectacular show on the evening when the celebrations were concluded. It is very clear that some people worked very hard. The thanks and appreciation of this House may surely be conveyed to them. I am grateful that the idea of celebrating such a festival every five years has arisen. I want to express the sincere hope that this idea will be lasting and that we shall be able to celebrate another such festival in 1971. Then it will probably be the Cape’s turn to present the festival and if Cape Town should be reluctant to present such a festival I want to say in anticipation that the second largest city in the Cape Province will gladly avail itself of the opportunity to show what it can do.

I was particularly pleased to see what a place of prominence was given to the national flag during the celebrations. I hope that we shall persist in restoring our national flag, the symbol of our love for and loyalty towards our fatherland, to its rightful place of glory and honour in our national life. If one sees with how much respect, admiration and dedication other nations regard their national flags and one sees what insignificant place our national flag sometimes occupies in our country amongst our own people, then one wonders at times whether the fault lies with us or with our flag. I want to make an appeal that every one of us should whole-heartedly and enthusiastically accept and honour our flag and that nothing should be said or done to create any hesitation in the minds of our youth about honouring and respecting that flag. After all, it was born from our history and it is the symbol of our unity. For that reason we continually and enthusiastically have to set an example so that others may follow. Perhaps I may ask politely at this stage that care will be taken so as to ensure that the flags hoisted by Government Departments on Government buildings and which we see streaming out day after day are in good condition and do not show any signs of being worn or frayed, which does not create a good impression.

Mr. Chairman, from the elevated heights of the flag-pole I now unfortunately have to descend to the less pleasant and perhaps even to the vulgar. I am aware of the existence of the Publications Board, I am aware of the good work it is doing. I want to express my warmest appreciation of the fine work the Publications Board is doing, in spite of what the hon. member for Kensington said. One should realize, however, that they have a tremendous task which to some extent has not received the necessary attention in the course of many years. It is a task which has to be tackled on the basis of human judgment. Consequently things may occasionally happen with which one may find fault.

Moral decay within the national life of a people is so dangerous to the continued existence of that people that I cannot refrain from mentioning a few instances where in my opinion we may act with even greater care. A few nights ago I went with a few colleagues to see the film, Dr. Zhivago, which on the whole has earned itself much praise in our newspapers. I was impressed with the excellent photography. But I would have been utterly ashamed if my 17-year-old son or my 19-year-old daughter would have been sitting next to me. A number of scenes, in particular one which openly showed a young girl virtually being raped by an older man, could quite easily have been cut from that film, it would not have lowered the value of the film.

Are you advertising the film?

In the advertisements of the film I notice that there are no age restrictions, I think that greater care should be exercised in such a case. I am just mentioning this one example. There are numerous such cases.

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention an even more serious matter as regards the moral decay of our youth. I want to discuss the many thousands of highly suspect paperbacks with half-naked women on their covers found in every obscure little café, books which are most eagerly read by our youth. This morning I took the trouble of visiting some of the cafés to have a look at some of these publications. It really was most alarming. Some publications are South African publications containing stories and picture-stories. There are for instance the Republikeinse Publikasies. Then there are the Cowboy Adventure Library, the Romantic Adventure Library and the Western Adventure Library. Some perhaps are of better quality. Others are of very weak quality. Some are imported from England, the U.S.A, and Australia. Mr. Chairman, I risked buying—I am saying “risked” because I acted very cunningly so as not to let people see me—some of those editions. I also smuggled them into the building so as not to let my friends see me. If it would not detract from the dignity of this House I want to show them to hon. members. The publications I have here are the most passable I could find so as not to embarrass myself. This one is “Another Man’s Hell”. It is a publication which comes from America. Its price here is 30c. On the front page we find—

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me from the speech of the hon. member for Algoa that he has obviously had quite an enjoyable time reading all these books he protested about, or he would not know as much about them as he does. I would like to raise an entirely different issue under this Vote.

I would like to raise the question of race classification the details of which appear under the heading “Population Register” on pages 75 and 77 of the Estimates. I would like very briefly to give an analysis of some figures which were supplied to the House by the hon. the Minister last month. They refer to cases pending on appeal before race classification boards. It appears, from the hon. the Minister’s reply, that there are 245 cases waiting to be heard, 166 of them in the Cape, all of which have been set down in the past 18 months, that is to say from January, 1965, to the 30th June this year. During the same period of 18 months, only 54 cases have been heard in the Republic. 244 of the 245 cases due for hearing affect individuals in possession of Coloured identity cards who wish to be reclassified as White.

Of the 54 cases already heard by the board during the past 18 months, it is very significant, I think, that 50 per cent of the appellants succeeded in the Cape and the Transvaal and two out of three succeeded in Natal. If one goes back very briefly to the position in 1959, that is to say, nine years after the passing of the Act, one finds that only 111 cases were heard during those nine years although 704 cases were taken on appeal. In other words, that amounted to approximately 90 in any one year during the nine-year period, as opposed to 245 awaiting hearing at the present moment and put down for hearing during the last 18 months. Sir, I make this point because the Minister also told me, in reply to a question, that during the quarter 1st May to 1st August of this year 148,504 new applications were made in the last rush before the possession of an identity card became compulsory on 1st August in terms of the regulations recently gazetted.

Sir, the Minister is a new Minister in this portfolio but he must be aware of the fact that these 148,000 people have not applied or have been reluctant in the past to apply for their identity cards for very obvious reasons. The obvious reasons are that the majority of them were undoubtedly afraid that they might be placed in a racial category which was likely to be prejudicial to them, either in terms of their employment or in terms of their place of residence or in terms of their social status within the community. I might say that the hon. the Minister and his Department can quite clearly expect, as a result of these 148,000 last-minute applications, a very sharp increase in the number of appeals which are likely to be set down for hearing before the Classifications board during the next 12 months or so. My question to the hon. the Minister is this: Is there only one board sitting here in Cape Town, which was the case under the previous Minister, and is this one board to hear all these cases; if so, can nothing be done for the sake of these people to speed up the hearing of these appeals? I do make a genuine plea to the Minister in this regard. Many of these people who have just made application may go on appeal for one reason or another. Many of them are concerned about their retention in their present employment; many of them fear the threat of dismissal if they are classified in an unsatisfactory way. The decisions of this board, as the Minister knows, are very intimately linked with the whole future of the applicants and their families. I have a typical case to prove the delays in bringing cases before these boards, the case of an ordinary family who objected in 1964 but, of course, knew nothing about the 30 day limit and who knew nothing about the one year in the Minister’s discretion.

Their appeal against their classification was rejected. Finally they used the third party machinery and their case was referred to the board in March of this year. That was very nearly six months ago and they have absolutely no indication as to when their case is going to be heard. This is typical of many other cases. The former Minister once said that I had caused him more trouble than anybody else in this House on this issue. Well, I do not want to cause trouble. I only want to express the hope that the new Minister will be sympathetic. You see, Sir, in the interim all these people who are waiting for their classification appeals to be heard remain in a state of anxiety and tension, and it is no good pretending that they do not. They do, and everybody else in South Africa would feel the same way about it if they were in the same position.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister something about which he is perhaps not aware. These people come to me and tell me their troubles. In many cases inspectors in terms of the Group Areas Act visit these people and make their lives almost impossible. They talk to the neighbours and make it clear that these people are doubtful cases and then one knows what happens to them socially. In the particular case which I have in mind the mother and father, who have five children, have taken them out of school. They have not attended school for nearly twelve months. They have had no tuition and no discipline; the mother cannot go out to work either, and she has written me a letter to say that when the neighbours come she hides her children in a back room because she is terrified of what the neighbours will say knowing that this case is pending. This is the sort of thing that makes life for these people extremely difficult. I want to ask the Minister if he would give special attention either to the creation of one or two more boards or to the question of doing something to speed up the hearing of these cases. As far as the children are concerned, I know of one school in the Cape Peninsula, for instance, a Coloured school, from which over 30 children have already been removed because their parents have been reclassified as White in terms of the population register. Sir, this is not an astonishing matter. Hon. members are aware that some of these children have in fact been at Coloured schools previously. Quite a number of them have already been taken out.

The question of legal costs is another matter that I would like to raise. Many of these people who are balanced on the racial border line are in no position financially to challenge their classification at this late stage. The hon. the Minister knows that it is a very expensive business. It has to be done by means of a third party objection. The case is heard by three ex-magistrates; there is an advocate who argues the case for the Government and they are obliged to have at least an attorney to argue their case for them before the board. It costs them an awful lot of money because legal costs are high. The majority of them find it very difficult to afford these fees and it is even worse if the case is protracted and they lose their case and then give notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. I want to say that in the majority of cases with which I have dealt, where they have been able to take the matter to the Supreme Court, they have found that it has cost them anything up to R500 to see this thing through. This is a fantastic sum of money for people who live on very small wages and who are trying to establish their position in the community.

Another matter that I want to raise with the Minister is the question of the cost of the typescript of the proceedings before the appeal board. I had a question on the Order Paper and the Minister replied to me quite frankly and fully. Previously these people or their attorneys were provided with one copy of the proceedings before the classification board. The Minister now tells me in reply to my question that as from a certain date, in terms of a departmental decision, they are going to be charged 40 cents per sheet. Sir, the record of the average proceedings runs into 150 to 200 pages, and at 40 cents per sheet, it can cost these people another R60 to R80 or even R100. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, this is a very thorny matter. It is a problem which has taken 300 years to develop in South Africa. We are trying to-day to place people in the enthnic groups to which they belong. It is a difficult task. It is a task which the Department has been undertaking for many years now. In many respects it is not possible to proceed more rapidly as is at present being done, but all of us would be pleased if these appeals could be dealt with sooner because the people are living under a strain. The sooner they know in what groups they have been classified the better. To that extent I can support the hon. member for Wynberg in her appeal which she made to the Minister for the introduction of more councils, particularly here in Cape Town, so as to deal more rapidly with the cases which are still pending. I have said that it is a problem which took 300 years to develop in South Africa, and if we ask ourselves the question to-day why South Africa is saddled with this problem then we can of course supply many answers. This Government has taken stock of the matter and has come to realize that one of the major causes of this problem is the mixed residential areas which we have had in the past in many of our major cities and towns, where race groups have lived together and where the colour consciousness has been dulled through personal contact and where interbreeding has taken place. That is why this Government has come forward with legislation to eliminate that cause. We did not receive much assistance from the Opposition, but fortunately this Government, as far as this matter is concerned, saw to it that this chief cause of these difficult cases which we have to-day did not continue to exist. Another reason why we have been saddled with this problem is the mixed marriages, which were allowed in the past and the immorality which was freely indulged in. The Government has taken all possible steps, as far as legislation is concerned in order to see to it that this problem is not aggravated. But it is a thorny and delicate matter. It is a matter which affects the weal and woe of individuals and entire families. We have the assurance to-day that since this Act was placed on the Statute Book all the: Ministers-who were concerned with the administration, of the Act and the Department have handled this matter with the greatest circumspection and with the greatest sympathy and understanding. This is not a matter which we can exploit for political purposes. That is why I want to make an appeal that when we discuss this matter we shall refrain from rejoicing in the sufferings of other people by dragging this matter into politics. I sometimes have the impression that this is the case; that there are people who would like to do that. If I think for example of what the hon. member for Salt River said in the recent election as far as this matter is concerned, then I cannot but say that it is disgraceful and reprehensible ’to try and make political capital out of this matter. These unfortunate people are encouraged and dragged along to the newspapers to make statements and have their photos taken; What they tell the newspapers is then published under large banner headlines. Who does that help; whose cause does that further? Ultimately the grief and the damage’ done to these poor families is intensified as a result of the fact that they allowed themselves to be dragged into these matters. These appeals for reclassification one can divide/ into, three groups. The first class is that of the Coloureds who are obviously trying to pass for Whites. Usually a White person is never dissatisfied with his classification, but one always has cases where non-Whites ask to be reclassified. Of course they have the right to appeal. I have said that one can divide them into three groups. The one group comprises that section which is obviously Coloured, particularly in the higher income group and amongst the intellectuals who try for White, who try to flee from the circumstances in which their own people find themselves and where they can fulfil their own vocation amongst their own people. It is not in the interests of South Africa, neither is it in the interests of our Coloured population for us to help these people to cross the colour line. Their own people need them. The Coloureds have already protested very vociferously and said that the Department should not let itself be used as the means whereby these potential leaders of theirs are being removed from their community. The Coloured Advisory Council expressed itself very strongly in regard to this matter. These are the clear and obvious cases of people who are Coloured and who, as they express it, try for White.

Then one has the other group, the cases where doubt exists but where there is obviously sufficient evidence on which one can make a reclassification, and the Department is usually very sympathetic in this case. I have had experience in this regard. In those cases the Department has also to a large extent succeeded in dealing with them. But there is the third group, that small nucleus of very difficult borderline cases. It is a very small group of the large population with which the Department is now dealing, and one must have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon to be able to draw a distinction here. I have said that these are problems and conditions which have taken 300 years to develop. They are knots which have to be unravelled, and one often cannot see the end of it. I do not think that improper interference by politicians in these matters can in any way help these people. There are channels, created by the Department and by the Act, through which these people can obtain their full rights. I want to say here to-day that I think the periods allowed for raising objections to classification are in my opinion far too unrestricted. People can to-day come forward at any time with an appeal through a third party after they have been classified. I think it is time that the hon. the Minister does something in this regard. A restriction should be applied. New cases are continually being brought forward. As long as the opening is there the people will try for it. One finds cases where people have been in possession of an identity card for many years and have been quite satisfied, but who have now found themselves in a different neighbourhood and have heard of people who succeeded, and then they too have gone to the Press and let themselves be talked into launching an appeal. Often one is only arousing false hopes in these people and one is ultimately making frustrated people of them. If a period was to be laid down and the people went through the proper channels, there would be opportunity enough for each individual to obtain his rights. But I want to issue a warning here to-day and I want to make an appeal to the people who meddle with this matter. The hon. member for Wynberg is one of those who go out of their way to meddle in this matter. In the past it has been said that as far as this matter is concerned she puts the hon. member for Houghton in the shade. She has unearthed more cases than this entire House has brought before the Department. The hon. member for Houghton is no less concerned about these people and yet she has, in the past, only mentioned one or two cases. Why is it that some people are so concerned about these things? I want to say that we should not exploit the suffering of other people for political gain. There are channels, and I am convinced that the Department and the Ministers who have dealt with this matter in the past have handled these cases with the greatest circumspection, understanding and affection.

At the outset of this debate on my Vote, the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition, and he was supported in this by the hon. member for Umlazi, put a few questions to me in respect of the election of Coloured Representatives for the House of Assembly. He said that I had laid myself open to serious criticism because we are delaying so long and because the position of the present sitting members, whom one can possibly assume will be returned again, has been made untenable as a result of our saying that we will come forward with legislation to prevent political interference by one population group in the politics of another population group, and that they do not know now what they should do in regard to organization. But surely it is not only the Coloured Representatives who are sitting here who are organizing already. I know of other people who have been organizing for a long time. But what I find most strange is that the least number of complaints have come from these four Coloured Representatives in this House. However, I do not want to debate this point, because I am convinced that a very fiery debate will very shortly be conducted on this matter. I am in a position to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if these exceptional circumstances had not arisen, I would probably have given notice of the introduction of this Bill quite a number of days ago and I would have stipulated the date. But I want to give him the assurance that I shall give notice to-morrow that I shall introduce this Bill on Monday. I hope that he will then be available on Monday and that it will be laid upon the Table together with an explanatory memorandum so that it can be available for perusal by hon. members. I think I can say in anticipation that hon. members will be afforded an ample opportunity of studying the Bill before we discuss it at the Second Reading. I think there is time enough. It is being said that the hon. members’ time is up on the 3rd October. Within seven days after the time has elapsed, a proclamation must be promulgated, and that will be done. Those members, however, just as in the case of other members of the House of Assembly, remain members until the day of the election and it therefore does not entail any financial or other loss for them.

But can they stand for election?

Surely it does not make much difference whether they know on Monday or on Tuesday?

But tell us now.

Why are hon. members so impatient? To-morrow is not nomination day, is it?

Are you afraid to say?

No, I am not afraid. I do not want to stimulate the curiosity of hon. members, but I do not want to satisfy it either. I think the hon. member will be so pleased with the Bill when he sees it that, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he will be very sorry that he has in anticipation let himself be bound to oppose the Bill by one of his front benchers who announced that intention on behalf of him. That is all I want to say at the moment.

But you have said nothing.

Order! In any case nothing may be said about the matter now.

The hon. member for Umlazi has said that he hoped I, as new Minister, will display more judgment, balance and humanity in regard to the issuing of the refusal of passports and visas as well. He said that we refuse travel documents for petty reasons. But I am not aware that we have ever furnished the reasons for refusing travel documents. Surely it is not necessary for us to furnish reasons; neither do we do so. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that no Minister, invested with this responsibility of protecting the safety and the interests of the country, can merely issue travel documents to all and sundry without taking into consideration their past and their integrity and without taking into consideration the reports we may have received about them, even from their own countries.

Not even for a football team?

I may add further that as for that question which he raised in respect of our neighbouring states and travel documents—‘he position remains unchanged. Two of our neighbouring states are shortly going to obtain their independence and those countries a’e at liberty to decide whether they want to have passport control or other travel documents for their people coming here or for our people going there, and when we are confronted by a new situation, negotiations. will certainly take place in respect of the reciprocal movement of citizens between that country and this, in respect of any amendments or chances which have to be effected. For example, we have already been notified by Zambia that they are now going to require visas. I think our position has been that we always went to Rhodesia as South African citizens with passports, but now they want to introduce visas. We shall act according to the way those countries act. but not as a reaction to their actions. I want to give the assurance that it is in all respects the intention of this Government to take only those measures which will contribute towards strengthening the rood relationships between us and our neighbouring states. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. member in regard to our view of the matter.

The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about voters’ rolls and the disfranchisement of voters, and about voters who had found that they were not on the voters’ roll, and he made a certain suggestion which we shall give attention to. But I want to repeat what I have said previously, i.e. that we are awaiting objections as well as suggestions and criticism from the political parties and all other interested parties so that we can study them in conjunction with the surveys made by the electoral offices and the presiding officers as well as the findings which they submitted to us, in order to see what amendments, if any, we have to make to the Electoral Act in order to stabilize the position. I know that the hon. member was quite right when he said that no Government has up to now been prepared to apply this compulsory registration to such an extent that people will be summoned before the court because they are not registered. At this stage it is not possible for me to tell the hon. member that I shall exert myself in that direction. I think he realizes that there are some levels at which one should rather not barge in, where one should rather study the position well, and I think that is one of those levels.

The hon. member for Kensington spoke about the Publications Board. I may have misunderstood the hon. member, but the impression he gave me was that this Publications Board would have to be a lot of terribly incompetent people, incompetent to judge what was good and what was bad. I want to assure the hon. member that the opposite is true. I would not like to be a member of the Publications Board, because they have to act in terms of the provisions of the Act. They are an autonomous board. Provision is made in the vote of the Department of the Interior for their expenditure, but otherwise that Board, because it is autonomous, is outside the control of the Minister of the Interior. In respect of banned films, the Act provides that an appeal may be made to the hon. the Minister. Here the Minister is the highest authority. In respect of other publications however, publications such as newspapers, periodicals, books and so on. the Appeal Court is the highest authority. The Minister has no say there. Any person is at liberty to raise objections to the Publications Board against the banning or acceptance of any periodical or book. They can make an appeal. The hon. member for Kensington referred here to the book Where the Lion Feeds, a book which has been banned. The writer of that book appealed against the decision of the Publications Board and his anneal was upheld by the Supreme Court in Cape Town. The Publications Board there upon appealed to the Appeal Court which then upheld the appeal of the Publications Board.

I have an idea Justice Rumpff was the Appeal Judge in question. That is the kind of proof the hon. member adduced for his allegations that this Board is incompetent and that its findings are erroneous and stupid. Then, the hon. member said, the Board went so far as to appeal and we must pay for that! I have a very great respect for our judges, but despite that I am the last person to want to maintain that judges cannot make mistakes just like any Other normal person. I am probably in good company here; just call to mind what is being said in the United Nations about the judges of the World Court after the recent judgment in regard to South West Africa. The fact of the matter is that there is as much proof of appeals which have not been upheld as there is of appeals which have gone before the courts and where the judges have said that the Publications Board had been correct in its decision. What is the function of the Publications Board now? Surely it must satisfy itself that a decision is the correct and a fair one. In fact, that is surely also the reason why an ordinary citizen also has the right to appeal to a higher court against the findings of a lower court. If he is of the opinion that his case is a good one, he has the right to appeal. The same applies here, and the Act in question makes provision for that. That in itself is no proof that the Publications Board is doing its work badly. I have said that the Publications Board has a very difficult task. The members of that Board are only human, but there is no doubt about it that they are people of consequence, of integrity and of considerable ability.

I want to thank the hon. member for Algoa for his acknowledgement of the work done by the Republican Festival Committee. It is a Committee which functioned within the Department of the Interior. He expressed his gratitude towards the Committee for the major contribution it made towards making a success of that festival. I myself cannot share in this honour because my predecessor accepted all responsibility for that matter, carried it out and remained responsible for it even after the festival had ended. In fact, he was referred to throughout as the Festival Minister. People, whether they work in the Public Service or elsewhere, always appreciate words of acknowledgement and find them an inspiration towards rendering better services. In fact, there are few people on whom acknowledgement of their services have a detrimental effect. They are the exceptions in life.

The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Parow brought up the complicated problem of race classification. I do not regard myself as a person who is necessarily humanitarian to a fault but I can nevertheless give the hon. members the assurance that I am not inhumanly disposed or that I have no feeling for human and humanitarian factors, factors relating to the well-being of people of all race groups. But we must remember that this legislation in question was proclaimed as far back as 1951. To-day, 16 years later, we are still being confronted by so many problems dealing with people who are making application for reclassification and whose cases have not yet been dealt with. In fact, one is still busy dealing with the one case when another one crops up. When one considers the matter one is inclined to inquire after a reason for it. Is it not time serious attention was given to the basic causes of this state of affairs? I want to agree with the hon. member for Parow that we have opened the gates too wide. By doing so we have made it possible for people to steal a ride on the back of deserving cases, cases of people where the circumstances are totally different to their own, but which could possibly be kindred cases. For example: If A and his family have always been classified as, say, Coloureds and his brother as a White then A is going to try to obtain classification as a White, and that in spite of the fact that he has been regarded as a Coloured throughout. Another consideration is that there are people in our country who do not want us to classify our population groups. These are people who are against population registration in principal. Is that not the real reason why we have not got any further than we are? Is it not due to those people, people who although they are not themselves affected, do not want us to make a success of this matter? They do not want us to carry out race segregation in South Africa and they try and prevent us from regarding race classification and the finalization of hard cases in a sober and objective manner. In fact, they make use of these hard cases for totally different purposes, i.e. not for the purpose of helping, but for the purpose of undermining. I am convinced that we shall have to consider this matter very seriously. We shall have to rectify it. There are loopholes and there is room for improvement. But we cannot afford to make the reclassification of people indefinitely possible, particularly not if those people practically create circumstances for themselves with which they can then be satisfied and under which they suffer hardships, and which ultimately compel them to come and seek your sympathy for reclassification.

Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to allow people whose cases are regarded as borderline to have their cases heard indefinitely in terms of the Act?

Indefinitely means for all time. Now I cannot accept that there will be borderline cases for all time. If that is so, then the position is in reality so complicated that this legislation is not workable. I am prepared to approach those borderline cases which exist with great sympathy and to allow opportunity for those cases being investigated properly so that a decision can be given, once and for all, in regard to them. We are in agreement as far as that is concerned. What I want to do is to close the gate so that we canned continue indefinitely creating new borderline cases as rapidly as we deal with the already existing cases.

The hon. member for Wynberg also said that there are too many delays and that people find it too much of a struggle to be heard. She said that it is not possible to finalize cases. At the moment there are two boards, one in Cape Town under the chairmanship of Adv. Burger, and one in the Northern Provinces under the chairmanship of Mr. Davis.

But I have taken cognizance of what the hon. member has said, and I undertake to go into the matter. If it then appears necessary to expedite the finalization of cases, I shall give consideration to the matter of establishing more boards. I do not think it is fair for there to be a delay with the finalization of these cases while it is possible for them to be finalized more rapidly.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that I have really derived very much hope from the hon. the Minister’s statement this afternoon. I was hoping to see signs of a new attitude but in so far as there has been any change in attitude it has been in the direction of a hardening thereof. I do not want to deal now with the question of race classification because I want to return to one or two other subjects raised in the course of the debate this afternoon.

There is the question of the Publications Control Board. As far as I could gather the hon. the Minister is disclaiming all responsibility for the actions of this board. He told us that it was an autonomous body and that it did not fall under him at all really, except in so far as there is an item in respect of this matter on the Estimates now being discussed. Well, if that is so we shall have to reconsider the manner in which this board is operating, that is, if we are not going to be allowed to raise this matter and thrash it out across the floor of the House. I say this because the experience we had over the years this board has been operating has been a dismal one. There are something like 11,000 publications now on the banned list of books in South Africa. I have here a very interesting little booklet which is in actual fact a reprint of an article which appeared in a law journal. This article dealt with the activities of the Publications Control Board and I would like to commend it to the hon. the Minister. The article originally appeared in August, 1966, and was written by Professor Alison Kahn, professor of law at the University of the Witwatersrand. In this article he has a lot to say about the operations of the Publications Control Board and he has some suggestions to make for improving the functioning of this board.

The hon. member for Kensington raised the question of the banning of When the Lion Feeds. I want to refer to other books which have been banned by the Publications Control Board. Before doing that, however, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the right of an appeal to the courts of law certainly exists but the Minister does not take any cognizance of the delay implied in such appeals nor of the expense involved to the publishers of those books, nor of the many other difficulties involved before the matter can be settled either at a lower court or by the Appeal Court. A book recently banned by the Publications Control Board is a book written by Mr. Douglas Brown, a well-known journalist on the London Daily Telegraph and a person who has spent many years in this country. He wrote a reasoned book about the politics of South Africa and a very sympathetic one I might say.

I have read it.

So have I Fortunately one sometimes manages to get hold of a copy of a book before it is banned. Well, this is a most reasonable and objective book. I think the hon. member for Kensington will agree with me. It does, of course, not approve of apartheid but it does examine our political situation in a most objective way and most sympathetically. It even has some harsh things to say about liberals in South Africa. Therefore I am amazed that the hon. the Minister’s board should have banned it. Apparently the position is that if any criticism whatsoever is levelled against South Africa it is considered sufficient reason not to allow that book to come before the delicate eyes of the reading public of South Africa.

On the other hand there is a book such as Selma, a book which has achieved a certain measure of notoriety in South Africa. This book is, however, apparently allowed in by the board freely. This book deals with the riots which took place in the Southern States of America and is billed by its own distributors as depicting a “shocking, immoral sex act”. Apparently it alleges drunkenness and immoral behaviour on the part of priests and other people protesting for civil rights. It is an attempted justification of the murder of the woman supporter of civil rights who was shot during those riots. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that a book like this which preaches sex, violence and racial hatred in the Southern States of America should be allowed freely to circulate in South Africa despite the blurb on its cover which is obviously designed to attract all the sensation loving people in this country. It is extraordinary that this book should be allowed to circulate freely in this country while a book such as that of Mr. Douglas Brown containing an objective examination of the political situation in South Africa and which has received favourable reviews for its literary value all over England, should be banned. There are other works of other important authors which have been banned as well. I need only mention the works of one of our most noted women novelists namely Miss Nadine Gordimer. She has been acclaimed as a writer throughout the Western World and her books have been translated into many languages. She is well-known as one of the most eminent authors which this country has ever produced. I could mention the book I, Claudius by Robert Graves, a book which is virtually a classic, but yet it is on the banned list.

Nobody seems to know how this extraordinary board reasons and on what basis it bans these books. Like so many other things in this country it is unfortunately not compulsory on the board to give its reasons therefor. It does not have to say why it has banned a book or in terms of what particular provision of the Act it has done so. Even when the author or publisher inquires why a book has been banned the Publications Control Board can simply say that it does not have to give any reason. There is, of course, recourse to the courts of law but this procedure is very expensive and time consuming. Professor Kahn suggests that in view of all these circumstances it would be a good idea if some remedial steps could be considered by the Minister, measures relating to the method whereby books are censored in this country. He suggests two possible improvements. Firstly, he suggests that the board, when it wants to ban a book should do so provisionally in the first instance—in other words, the ban should be operative from the date of gazetting but subject to a final declaration within the period of, say, three weeks during which the board will entertain representations from any person or body to the effect that the board should not make its order final. This should be done without prejudicing the rights of the author subsequently to go to the Appeal Court if necessary for a reversal of the board’s decision should, it be made final. Secondly, he suggests that in view of the tremendous costs involved in a two-tier appeal, i.e. from the lower court to the Supreme Court, that there should be one appeal to a specially composed court consisting of three judges. This court should then be convened immediately and could give judgment as soon as possible.

I make these suggestions to the hon. the Minister because I feel we are beginning to make ourselves quite ridiculous in the eyes of literate people throughout the world. [Time limit.]

I do not want to discuss in detail what the hon. member for Houghton said. In general, however, I want to ask a few questions which the hon. member should have asked herself. Taste differs, and for that reason there will certainly also be differing norms with regard to what is good and moral and what is not. There may be differences of opinion among people belonging to the same church or to the same political party. There may even be differences of opinion on which publications affect the morals of a people and which do not. But the question the hon. member for Houghton as well as the hon. member for Kensington should ask themselves, is whether they want to have no censors whatsoever.

Nobody has said that.

If that is the attitude of the hon. member, I should like her to come up with positive suggestions, and not merely with criticism on the functioning of legislation in which a principle is contained.

I did that.

I am afraid that is what she did not do. Amongst other things, she referred to the delays that occur before a writer can have his case heard. But is it only under this legilation that that kind of delay occurs? Surely a case has to be examined thoroughly before it can go to the Appeal Court, but does not the hon. member realize that delays occur with regard to other cases also? But here those delays are presented as something terrible. She also objected to the fact that the Minister was supposed to have said that he could not accept responsibility for this body because it was an autonomous body. Well, if that is what the Minister said, then I understand no Afrikaans. As I understood the Minister, he said that he regarded the members of the Publications Board as people with a sense of responsibility. The hon. member is losing sight of the fact that those members are appointed by the Minister himself. Surely that implies at least that if those persons appointed by him abrogate the principles they have to implement, he has the right to discharge them. What other form of control does the hon. member want the Minister to exercise over the Board, as long as it performs its functions in accordance with the principles of the legislation?

As regards the hon. member for Kensington, I want to say that he should really distinguish between the wood and the trees. I say that with all due respect towards him, as a person who has been in this House much longer than I have been. I may also mention instances where the judgements of various courts differed on one and the same matter. There is nothing unusual about that either. Conflicting judgements have been given by judges in cases where settlements had been reached, etc., but what is so terribly wrong about that? What is wrong about judges differing among themselves? But now the hon. member comes along with a lengthy argument about the conflicting judgements given in one case, and that quite an important case which involved the morals of the people. The fact that provision has been made for appeals to the Appeal Court, means that there is protection for the writer or for the publisher, i.e. those persons whom the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Kensington also seek to protect. In such cases judgement is given by the highest judicial authority in our country. But this right of protection is not afforded to our public, which is exposed to things that are wrong. On the other hand this right of protection is afforded to people who are presented here as unjustly treated. Are hon. members on the opposite side dissatisfied that the Appeal Court should be able to judge a case on its merits? I would be the very last person to claim that an act could be drafted perfectly. If that were so, there would have been no need for Parliament to assemble year after year with the object of making essential amendments to legislation. Let us therefore consider positive suggestions for the improvement of the legislation relating to the control of publications. The hon. member for Houghton tried to do so by referring to an article written by Prof. Kahn. I shall try to read that book. But the most important aspect of legislation is its principle. The principle of the legislation in question is that the reading public should be protected against exploitation by publishers and writers who cannot make a living through anything but pornography and smut. We should therefore distinguish between these two things: the principle on the one hand, which is intended to protect our people, and on the other hand the method of applying it. Here, as I have said, we should distinguish between the trees and the wood.

I will admit that there are sometimes decisions that appear somewhat strange. I therefore believe that it is possible to improve the legislation in question in certain respects, particularly as regards facilitating the work of the Publications Board. That Board should also be protected against the unfair and unreasonable attacks levelled against it. Here I am not referring to any of the hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken; I am referring in particular to those attacks that are levelled against people of integrity: Number one, the publishers and writers who seek publicity by those means for a book which may otherwise have received no publicity; and number two, by people who want to favour and publicize writers who write that kind of thing. I trust that this Board will be enabled, by means of further legislation, to perform its functions even more efficiently for the protection of those people whom the Government of South Africa—both the governing party and the Opposition—has a duty to protect.

I agree with the hon. member for Witbank insofar as it is necessary to protect the public against pornographic literature. We are all agreed on that in this House, but what we are not agreed on and what we deplore are the methods which are being used at the moment for censorship in South Africa. However, I shall deal with that a bit later. Incidentally, the hon. member for Kensington in his speech only made this point that, if four judges saw nothing wrong in a particular book, surely that book must have had some merit and that there was therefore no substantial reason for members of this House and members of the public to be precluded from reading it. Just briefly, Sir, I think it is also necessary to express the dissatisfaction of us on this side of the House with the very inadequate reply given by the hon. the Minister to the question put by my hon. Leader in regard to the pending Coloured election. I wonder what hon. members in this House would say if we had to fight an election within, say, two months, and we did not know whether or not we had the right to stand as candidates. We would have called it a fantastic and outrageous situation, as I certainly believe it to be.

I am also very sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister is now apparently trying to take a strongman attitude, stronger even than his predecessor, in regard to racial classifications. Sir, the great fallacy in the thinking of the Government is that they are trying to classify what is unclassifiable. Border-line cases cannot be classified. In logic the example is often given of distinguishing between Black on the one side and White on the other with in between the gradations from Black through Grey to White. At what point exactly, somewhere in the light grey, are you going to say “this side is Black” or “that side is White”? If you have a person with dark hair and his hair becomes grey, at what stage is he a dark-haired man and at what stage does he suddenly become a grey-haired man? However, I leave these classic examples in logic at that.

I wish to come back to the Publications Board and what I regard as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to censorship in this country. In spite of our having the Publications and Entertainments Board to-day, there are at least 12 other Acts also dealing with censorship in this country. There is the Customs Act; there is the Post Office Act; the Defence Act; the Criminal Procedure Act; the Public Safety Act; the Native Administration Act; the Children’s Act; the Riotous Assemblies Act; the Suppression of Communism Act and several others. I am not saying that all these Acts are unnecessary; some of them are necessary but I do believe that in regard to censorship the Minister could take the lead and see that we got rid of some of the confusing provisions which exist at the moment.

There is in particular, a vast amount of confusion between the right which the Customs Department has to place an embargo on a book and the right which the Publications Board has to vet that book and to approve or to disapprove of it. I had a case, Sir, in which a bookseller approached me and said that a book of his which he had imported had been kept back for three months by Customs. He asked me whether I could not find out whether that book would be released, and when. I approached the Publications Board and I was told by them that they knew nothing whatsoever about the book; that they had never placed an embargo on it; that they had never banned it; that it was a case for the Customs Department itself. That was what had happened in that and in many other cases. The Customs Department places an embargo on a book; it keeps the book back for weeks, and it may do so for months. There is nothing as far as I can see to compel it to place that book before the Publications Board. The Customs Department becomes the censoring body instead of the Publications Board. That is one of the anomalies which I trust the hon. the Minister will try to remove.

I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that the titles of some of the books which have been banned really show an incredible process of thinking on the part of the Publications Board. I appeal to-day on behalf of ordinary law-abiding citizens in this country who may have books on their shelves without knowing that these have been banned. Sir I read the other day in the newspapers about a certain book called “I, Claudius” by Robert Graves, being banned. To my horror when I looked at my bookshelf, I discovered the book there. It was bought 30 years ago on the advice of my professor in Latin, who told all of us in class that we should buy it; that it was a good historical novel on the history of the early Roman Empire. Well, I bought the book. Am I committing any crime now by possessing this book? What is the position? There is a vast amount of confusion in regard to the censorship provisions in this country. I have not read this book for 30 years. If the hon. the Minister says that I must bum this book, I shall have to do so. I do not know whether I am committing an offence or not by possessing this book, though I believe it has been banned.

Another book has been mentioned here—this book called “Selma”, which I have here. It has been passed. When I look at the contents of this book I cannot help feeling that the norms of censorship are sometimes beyond the comprehension of any sensible person. I am not trying to defend this book. My own view is that 50 per cent of the contents may be factual, 30 per cent might be speculation and 20 per cent might be nonsense. This book, however, contains three particular things on which other books of literary merit have been banned, and I think that it is necessary that we should know why this book can be allowed on certain grounds, while others are banned. This book contains descriptions of sexual acts between White women and Negro men. Normally books of this nature are banned by the Publications Board. It appears that, since this is the type of propaganda that the Government approves of, this book is permitted here. It, secondly, contains a famous four-letter-word used by Gamekeeper Mellors in Lady Chatterley’s Lover which, I presume, was the reason why that book by D. H. Lawrence was banned. Thirdly, this book contains some interesting communist propaganda, or at least a copy of communist propaganda, showing the plans of the Communist Party to create a Negro State in the United States of America and to remove all the Whites from the Southern United States, not very unlike certain proposals that we have heard for the Transkei. Sir, these are three points on the strength of which other books have been banned, yet this one has not been banned. I am not pleading necessarily for stricter rules in this country. I agree with Prof. Ellison Kahn where he says—

However, what are the norms on which the Publications Board is working, if this book which has no literary merit whatsoever is passed, while, on the same grounds, other books which really have genuine literary merit are banned?

This would interest the hon. member for Innesdal.

Yes, I trust that the hon. member for Innesdal will explain to us why he regards this as an excellent book. I am quite sure that the John Birch Society approves of this book.

Sir, sometimes the acts of this board are extremely contradictory. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister this question: Is he afraid of Virginia Woolf on the stage or of Virginia Woolf as portrayed by Mrs. Burton on the celluloid screen? Surely the basic idea of the play and of the film is the same. Why was the play banned when it could well have been passed if a certain few lines had been deleted? Why was the play banned on the one hand while, on the other hand, the film was allowed? I am not pleading for the banning of the film. I think the play should be allowed as well as the film, but I am pointing this out to show what anomalies there are in the methods used by the board.

It is a film imported by Ster Films.

That could very well be. Sometimes these bannings are farcical. There was the case of a person in Durban who ordered a book from Johannesburg. He found that an embargo had been placed by the Post Office on that particular book. He was told, “You are not allowed to open that package under any circumstances unless you bring it to us.” He knew what was in the package, but he thought he would show it to these people. Do you know, Sir, what was in that particular parcel? It was the Johannesburg telephone directory—and it had been kept back because it was a paperback.

It is quite clear that we are to-day actually having a continuation of the foretaste we enjoyed in the censure debate; that the world is told about the impossible censorship here in South Africa and the total ineptitude of those who apply it, and that all the measures taken by the Government (which it has the right and a duty to take) to protect South Africa’s spiritual values, are ridiculous and must be ridiculed in the eyes of the world, because the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members of the Opposition derive great pleasure from presenting South Africa in a ridiculous light before the world. [Laughter.] I can understand the hon. members’ nervous laughter. I can understand why they are so nervous; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that again to-day. They know what awaits them in the legislation which, as they themselves said here, is pending. They know that they are on the brink of another crisis and they want to run away from their own problems, and now they want South Africa to pay for their problems; they want to present South Africa in a ridiculous and unfavourable light in the eyes of the world abroad, because they want to conceal their own lack of principles in South African politics.

What is the Opposition’s attitude; what is the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude as regards the duty of the Government—not only this Government, any government—to protect its population, to protect its morals against the demoralizing things which are foisted off on them by means of literature? To-day each one of them came up with one or two isolated and minor examples. The hon. member for Orange Grove came here with an isolated example which he blew up into a great bubble, and pretended that it was the entire principle that was at issue. What is their fundamental attitude as regards this entire matter? Do they want this Act, and do they want to improve it? Will they admit that these things are necessary? What is their attitude? No, that they will not tell us. Just as the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned an isolated example here, the hon. member for Houghton also came here and said that Miss Nadine Gordimer was such a great author and that a book by her had also been banned. I will not say that she is not a great author, but her name was merely mentioned and it was said that a book by her had also been banned. I have not read it, but I want to read to the hon. member what that very Miss Gordimer said in The Star of 19th October, 1961, when the B.B.C. granted her an interview and asked her what the position in South Africa was as regards censorship—

Now listen to this—

[Laughter.] The hon. member for Houghton’s laughter is very nervous. I can understand that; she is also trying “to get away with more” in a great deal of the fiction she presents. Take one of the fictions she presented here to-day. She referred to the book Selma. I have not seen it.

You should read it.

The hon. member for Houghton has had her turn to speak.

I shall give you a copy of it.

I shall be very grateful. but I just want to point out to her what fiction she presents. The words she used, as I noted them here, are that the book “oreaches sex and violence”. I think that is the exact opposite of what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, and I want to assure her that if that is what “preach” means, then I wonder whether she has ever heard preaching, because that is not what is usually understood by “preaching”. When it is said, according to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, that the book gives an account which may be partly factual and partly fictitious, and I do not know what the other was, then the very last inference one could draw is that one has to do here with a sermon, with a book which, as the hon. member for Houghton said, “preaches sex and violence”.

I appreciate that the Publications Board has a very difficult task, but as far as I am concerned, the main problem of the Publications Board is that the mass of literature it has to examine is simply so overwhelming that it can-no give it the attention it should receive. I am convinced that a great deal is still entering South Africa that should not enter, and I am convinced that the Publications Board would enjoy the support of the entire country if it could judge even much more strictly than it is able to do at present, because of its deficient machinery. And if hon. members on the opposite side do not agree with me, I would have them present their viewpoint to the public of South Africa, to say that they are suggesting to-day that they do not want to ban this mass of literature that is still entering and that is demoralizing; that they consider it wrong to ban it, and that they are pleading by implication that more of this rubbish should enter.

The Progressive Party cannot speak with any responsibility in this House. They do not have a member here. The hon. member knows that she is not representing any party. She knows that she came here under her own steam, with the assistance of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, and that she represents nothing in this House. That is why she can speak with such utter irresponsibility when the interests of South Africa are at issue. That is how we know her. She knows that the attitude adopted by the Progressive Party towards these matters is regarded with the greatest contempt by South Africa, so that the leader of the Progressive Party even lost his deposit in the latest election. If that is the attitude she advocates here, and if that is the attitude of the Progressive Party as regards control over publications, then I am not surprised that South Africa rejected them with as much contempt as they have in fact been rejected. I shall be grateful if the hon. member for Orange Grove, if he takes part again in this discussion on a later occasion, will set out the United Party’s views on these matters somewhat more clearly, instead of merely quoting isolated examples from a long list. As he himself said, there are only about a dozen or perhaps 20 or perhaps 100 books out of 8,000 that can readily be mentioned, so that one can say on those grounds that something ridiculous is going on here. But let him adopt a fundamental attitude.

In conclusion I want to say this about the Publications Board. There is the problem that specific issues of periodicals, monthlies or weeklies, appear and are banned by the Publications Board. But then it frequently happens that the notice in terms of which such a publication is banned, appears two months after the issue appeared and all the copies have been sold in South Africa. I think a method should be devised to do something about that. It is obviously ridiculous to ban something if all the copies have already been sold and there is no possibility of bringing more of them into the country. I think the Publications Board can put its time to better use than to ban such issues at such a late stage. There must be some other way of implementing a strict measure, and of doing it more timeously. [Time limit.]

I hasten to reply to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to tell him that if one reads comments on the hon. member for Innesdal himself, which one does not infrequently find in the newspapers of other countries, one comes to the conclusion that there are few people who make South Africa as ridiculous as he himself does. [Interjections.]

The hon. member wants to know what the United Party’s attitude is in regard to censorship. We have stated it over and over again. Let me repeat it for his benefit. We believe that there must be censorship mainly in regard to two matters. The first is keeping pornography out of our country, and the second is keeping out of our country things which are dangerous to the State, namely things relating to matters such as sabotage and communistic propaganda. In addition to that we believe that there should be less overlapping between the various departments and sections dealing with censorship. Thirdly, we say that when censorship exists the administrative application thereof should be rapid and that persons who appeal against a ruling of the censors should not be burdened with tremendous costs. On that basis we do believe that censorship is necessary in the country, but we are opposed to the manner in which it is applied. I think it is scandalous of the hon. member for Innesdal to say that if there are amongst those 11,000 banned books perhaps 100 cases which are not justified, it nevertheless remains a good law. No, if 100 great literary works are banned in error—and he admits that they are being banned in error—then I say that this law is being applied in a scandalous manner, and that methods and norms can be provided by which those books need not be banned. Are we not allowed, then, to attack the Publications Board in this House? It is a Board appointed by the Minister and. as far as I know, he also has the right to dismiss those members. He has the right to see to it that censorship is co-ordinated.

The hon. member for Innesdal asked me what my attitude was, but now I am also asking him what his attitude is in regard to this book Selma, and in regard to those three points I mentioned and to which he did not reply. The first is the description here of sexual intercourse between Whites and Negroes in America, between White women and Negro men, and conversely; the second is the use of certain well-known four-letter words which were condemned in other books but are allowed in this book; and the third is that this book contains a map, taken from communistic propaganda, to describe how the communists are envisaging a Bantustan for the southern states in America. Let us hear what his attitude is in regard to these things. Does he or does he not approve of books which contain these things? After all, he is a man of principle. We heard a great deal about principles this afternoon. I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply. I want the hon. member for Innesdal to give us a reply in regard to this particular book.

I want to conclude by saying that it is clear that great confusion exists in the minds of the general public in South Africa as to the real meaning of censorship and the rights of the ordinary citizen. Now I want to read something to the Minister, an article written in English by an advocate in which the latter states his views on censorship, and I want to send it to the hon. the Minister and ask him, after he has had time to go through it with his legal advisers, whether that is the position and to what extent it is correct as a guide for the ordinary public in South Africa. I shall read it briefly—

That is the day on which the Publications and Entertainments Act came into operation—

I want to give this to the Minister and ask him whether it can serve as a guide to the public of South Africa in regard to what they may buy and what they may have on their shelves. Will he please tell us what the position is? As I have outlined it now, the matter is already so complicated that I doubt whether the ordinary citizen understands it.

I just want to reply briefly to the questions asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove in connection with the book Selma.

Must you reply?

He said, and the hon. member for Houghton also said, that the book preached those particular matters such as sex and other things. It is very clear that that book does not advocate those actions, but apparently the Opposition are too—I do not know whether it is unparliamentary to say “stupid”—but apparently they are too “dense” to realize that there is a difference between a book which preaches those things and a book which tries to create a loathing of those things. I shall put it honestly. I have not yet read the book, but from what the hon. members for Houghton and Orange Grove said I can deduce that the idea of that book is to cause the public to loathe the actions which are mentioned in it. And that is the difference.

Then there is another matter which I should like to mention. The hon. member for Orange Grove explained the United Party’s attitude towards censorship. He said it was their policy that there should be censorship and the two things which had to be kept out were pornography and things which are a danger to the country and which advocate Communism and sedition. Sir, if they accept that, I still have to ask the question whether they have any idea whatsoever of what Communism is. Was it not the members on that side of the House who said here in this House that Sam Kahn was not a communist? How can we now accept that their norms are the norms which are required for our country? We cannot accept their making sweeping statements here without their knowing the norms involved.

Mr. Chairman, if I have infuriated the hon. member for Innesdal by what I said previously, believe me I am going to infuriate him even more now. I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the whole question of passports refused to South African citizens wanting to go abroad and visas refused to visitors wishing to come to South Africa from abroad. I do not know what the pattern is for the granting or not granting of passports, and hon. Ministers, present and past, have always said that it is not in the public interest to disclose why they do not grant passports, and that they are not put under any obligation in fact to disclose even to the persons concerned why they refuse passports. I was hoping that we would get a more generous attitude from the new incumbent of this post. But, as I say, my hopes were rather blasted this afternoon when I heard what attitude he was taking towards other matters concerning his portfolio.

Now, Sir, during the past 12 months or so passports have been refused to reputable non-Whites wishing to leave this country, either to attend conferences or, in some cases, to further their studies abroad. I want to mention one or two cases to the hon. the Minster and to ask him whether this is going to be the general pattern which is to be followed in future, or whether we can hope that a more reasonable attitude is going to be adopted.

Two very well-known Africans were refused passports last year to go abroad. One is Chief Buthelezi from Zululand who only two or three years before had gone overseas to attend a conference of churches. He is a well-known member of the church, and has comported himself, I believe, with the utmost decorum and indeed has earned nothing but praise for his behaviour overseas. Last year he was awarded a U.S. Leader grant which, of course, is going to put the hon. member for Innesdal in a fury. This grant would have enabled him to spend two months in the United States as the guest of the United States Government. He was kept waiting for six months when he applied for a passport, and eventually the passport application was turned down. I happen to know Chief Buthelezi, and I know that he is, as I say, a highly-educated and most well-behaved person who would have brought nothing but credit to South Africa had he been allowed to take up his U.S. Leader grant. But apart from that, Sir, I want to know why it took the Department six whole months before they could decide whether or not they were going to grant this man permission to go. It is a most disruptive procedure, and I can see no reason whatsoever why the Department could not make up its mind sooner—and as I say, I would have naturally wanted it to make up its mind in a positive way.

Then there was Mr. Knowledge Guzana, who was awarded a similar grant and was also kept dangling until finally his application was turned down. Now, Mr. Knowledge Guzana happens to be the Chairman of the Opposition party in the Transkei Assembly the Opposition leader in the Transkei Assembly. We spend hundreds of thousands of rands buying advertizing space in newspapers and magazines overseas, displaying the Transkei as the area of separate freedom for the Africans. This is how it is depicted—(I might say in Punch, possibly very suitably)—as “separate freedom for Black South Africans.” Now here we have an example of a well-known politician, a parliamentarian, for that is what he is, being refused a passport to leave this area of separate freedoms and to accept a Leader grant from the United States Government.

Now, Sir, I should like to know what possible justification there can be for the refusal of passports to these two highly intelligent and, I would say, eminent African citizens.

There is also, Sir, Bishop Zulu, one of the leading churchmen, who was also refused a passport to go overseas and attend a church conference. I do not know what motivates the Department or the hon. the Minister or whoever makes the final decision—I presume the hon. the Minister—to refuse passports to these people. But if it is ridiculous we want to look in the eyes of the world—if this is what really upsets the hon. member for Innesdal—I can tell him that these are the incidents that really make South Africa ridiculous in the eyes of the world. There can be no justification for the refusal of passports to these eminent African gentlemen.

There is also the question of the refusal of passports to African students who want to go overseas for post-graduate study. I can mention name after name after name. Because, Sir, for every application that is granted I would say ten are turned down. I am talking about non-White students, not only Africans, but also Indians and Coloureds, who want to go overseas and pursue their studies.

Now, I understand from evidence given to the World Court during the case hearing, and I think it was Dr. Rautenbach who mentioned it, that it was not the policy of the Government to encourage non-White students to leave South Africa to continue studies overseas, and I understand that one of the reasons advanced is that these people may be lost to the service of their own people. Now, that might be a reasonable argument, if it did not in fact result in practically all these people taking exit permits and leaving South Africa. I do not think it is a reasonable standpoint, of course, but I am arguing that from the Government’s point of view. Because in fact you cannot force people to give service if they do not willingly want to give that service. It is not service worth having. People are resentful if they are unable to take up the greater opportunities given to them to study abroad. These people then take exit permits and they are lost to the country for ever. There are brilliant young students, eminent physicists, there are medical men, there are other professional non-White people who have left this country, teachers and people of higher educational qualifications, simply because they have been denied the opportunity of studying abroad and then returning here, as most of them want to do, in order to continue in their particular professions.

What is the point of this, Mr. Chairman? Why deny these opportunities to people? Why should they not, like White students, be allowed to go abroad, further their studies, take up the scholarships that are offered to them at overseas universities, and then return to this country? I have a list which I can supply to the hon. the Minister if he wants it. I do not see any point in keeping the House up by quoting example after example. I have such examples. I think last year I gave some of those examples. I do hope the hon. the Minister will review this whole situation. We are losing some of our best non-White talent this way. They are leaving our shores because they feel frustrated at not being allowed freely to go abroad and get some higher post-graduate education.

Now, Sir, equally as I can see no reason for what motivates the hon. the Minister and his Department in refusing passports to people who want to leave this country, so equally I very often have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the hon. the Minister and his Department have refused visas to people to enter South Africa. All sorts of extraordinary examples come to light, Sir, of well-known people who wish to come to this country and who are denied visas. I will give a few examples. Last year a conference on human relations was to be held by the Institute of Race Relations, and a number of the most eminent people from America and elsewhere were coming to deliver papers to this conference. I mention just one, namely Dean Griswold, the Dean of the Harvard law school. Various other people were also coming. I think among them was one non-White person. Whether this was the reason or not, nobody will ever find out. But the whole conference had to be cancelled because the Government did not see fit to allow these eminent people from abroad to visit us and to deliver papers to a conference on human relations. On the other hand, Sir, no difficulty seems to be obtained by people who wish to come to the anti-Communist conference in this country.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says, “Hear, hear! ” Well, some of those people are most discredited in their own countries, and belong to societies that are not viewed with any high regard whatever by the authorities in that country. I need only refer to Mr. Bundy as one person concerned. They have no difficulty, apparently. They get their visas. People who have, in fact, earned the odium of most respectable people in their own countries.

According to your standards.

No, they are not my standards, but the standards of Western civilization, of civilized people, because of the slur that they have attempted to cast on well-known and respectable statesmen in their own countries. Everybody, Sir, is a communist according to those people, just as everybody, of course, becomes a communist in this country if they happen to disagree with the point of view of the hon. member for Innesdal. Well, Sir, I should like some explanation why it is that such people, well-known Nazis and neo-Nazis I might add, are granted visas to enter South Africa. [Time limit.]

Progress Reported.