Before I reply to the debate, Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to correct an unfortunate slip in my reply to the debate on Community Development last night. I referred, namely, to the two professors who had acted as consultants to the Department in respect of certain works in Durban. In reading through my speech I now notice that I created the impression that those two gentlemen were responsible for all the projects with regard to which we experience problems. That is not the case. They are responsible only for certain projects. The entire Yellow Wood Park project was handled by another consultant. I just wanted to correct this in fairness to the two gentlemen.

As regards the various questions in connection with the Public Works Department, it appears to me as though hon. members who spoke on this vote did not have a clear grasp of the functions of the Public Works Department in relation to other Departments, and as a result the Public Works Department is charged with certain things which actually fall under other Departments. I therefore just want to make the position clear in order that hon. members may be properly informed. Firstly, the Public Works Department does not determine which services to the various client Departments are to be carried out first. The client Departments themselves determine the priority of the services. My Department carries out these services according to the priority lent to them by the other Departments. I may not interfere—nor do I do so—with the priority lent by other Departments to the services they require. Secondly, the Public Works Department receives a specific sum for the services to a specific Department. Therefore it cannot transfer funds provided for a certain Department’s services in order to provide for the services of another Department. With the money made available to Public Works it carries out the services according to the priority lists furnished to it by the Departments concerned.

My Department can only perform services for which it has money available, of course, and it is therefore unfair to accuse me or my Department of things for which the Department is in no way responsible, for example delays in connection with the erection of a post office or a telephone exchange. This is only one example; there are many other examples. I may just mention that all services required by other Departments have in fact been promoted and are promoted within the framework of the available funds. In the third place, my Department does not determine the accommodation needs of the client Departments. The client Departments inform my Department of their needs and my Department builds accordingly. It is not possible for my Department to say, for example, how large a telephone exchange in Pietermaritzburg should be built; it is not equipped to do so. I must merely carry out what other Departments ask me to carry out.

They give you a plan.

Yes, they give me a plan, and I have to carry it out. In the fourth place, the planning of a service takes time and the prescribed tender procedure takes time, with the result that the various Departments have to determine their needs in advance. As a rule a fairly large service takes anything from 18 to 24 months from its planning stage until it can be completed, if money is available for it immediately. If a Department requiring a service does not ask for it timeously, therefore, it will not get that service simply overnight. I just wanted to make this clear in order that hon. members may know in what relation my Department stands to other Departments.

Then, for general information, I also want to say that with the assistance of officials attached to the Department I have been carrying out an extensive reorganization in the Public Works Department in the course of the past few months. Amongst other things, a planning and control section has been established under a Deputy Secretary, who is responsible for programming every service to be carried out and for seeing to it that the service proceeds according to fixed times and dates. He exercises control and he sees to it that corrective measures are taken timeously if problems are experienced. The technique which is now used meets the standards of the latest developments in the field of production and control. I may just mention that we have achieved great success by these means and that the planning stage of services has been curtailed considerably as a result.

In the past long delays were caused by the fact that contractors did not complete their contracts within the stipulated periods. We are also overcoming this problem to a large extent by means of the more effective control we have brought about through improved reorganization of the Department. In addition a Planning Committee has been established in every Department. There is such a Planning Committee in every Government Department, in respect of accommodation requirements, and those committees are in close liaison with my Public Works Department, with the result that there is at present very good co-ordination between the various Departments and my Department. An agreement has also been made with Treasury to eliminate another obstacle which existed in the past. This is that as a result of rising costs the problem always arose that the approved amount might be exceeded in a current year, and as a result of the fear of possible over-spending, of which Parliament and the Select Committee on Public Accounts and Treasury take a very serious view, there was always the tendency to hold back at the end of the financial year in the fear that there might be overspending. Now it has been agreed with Treasury that we receive a fixed minimum amount over a period of five years. For additional services additional amounts are voted, but we receive a fixed minimum amount which enables us to plan over a period of five years; and we have Treasury consent to deviate to a margin of 10 per cent within those limits—in other words, to exceed or to reduce. This enables us to make proper progress with work. All these reorganizations en able my Department to perform its services more efficiently. We have now also acquired the services of a departmental inspector, who is engaged with the work study section in solving the various problems. At the moment that official is in fact investigating the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely the question of whether factotums can no longer be employed on the maintenance of buildings. There are many problems involved in this question.

Firstly, there is the problem in connection with the various trade unions, who have set ideas on what a person who is not an artisan may or may not do. There is a problem in connection with financial control. If there is such a factotum on certain premises, or on a number of premises, one has to exercise proper control over his work and his supplies. There are various problems, but we are now going into all those problems and seeing whether an improvement cannot be effected. With reference to the fact that in the past the Public Works Department has frequently been accused of wasting and delays, I want to say at once that it has been my experience in the year I have been at the head of this Department that the Department has acted and has been able to act most efficiently and speedily, particularly now that we have carried out the reorganization. If cases of delay occur and if there are problems in some field or other. I shall be grateful if hon. members would not merely present me with generalizations but would mention specific instances in order that we may be able to investigate the matter and see whether we cannot eliminate the difficulty.

As regards the various individual services, such as the new post office in the Addington Hospital area—and this is what the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to when he said that he had asked various questions, to which a different reply was given every time. I have gone into the matter and I have found that all the replies were correct, because the situation changed from time to time. [Laughter.] No matter how unbelievable this may sound, it is nevertheless true. In the initial stage the Department of Posts asked my Department to erect a post office there, but as a result of the fact that only a sub-post office was necessary in an area which is fully built up and where land is expensive, a suitable place could not be found and the service was removed from the list, and it was decided to rent premises for a post office. The Department of Posts then reported that they could not find suitable rented premises, and it was then placed on the building programme again. An investigation was carried out once again, and it was found that the only suitable land which could be purchased would cost R30,000, which was completely uneconomic for the small post office required there. As a result the building programme was abandoned once again, and it was once again suggested that attempts should be made to rent premises. This is the position, and that is why the matter changed altogether from time to time.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that there was wastage as a result of long-term work which was not carried out and instead of which short-term repairs were carried out, or extensions made. He mentioned the case of the prison in Durban and that of the Indian College. For the sake of interest I may just say that the repairs to the prison in Durban are not being carried out by my Department. They are being carried out by the Department of Prisons itself, but the amount is included in the Estimates of Public Works merely because it is a Treasury ruling that all services in connection with buildings should be placed on one budget. The same applies to the provision of shelter for Defence Force vehicles. That service is also being undertaken by Defence themselves, but the amount is voted on the Public Works Vote, in consequence of the Treasury ruling that all the various amounts should be on the same Vote. But I find it strange that that hon. member should hold it against us that we are stopping large capital expenditures. I am talking of large capital expenditure, because the Indian College alone will eventually cost more than R8.5 million.

It is now R9.5 million.

Yes, but it was R8 million two years ago, when I was still in charge of it. In the meanwhile the number of students has increased and additional requirements have arisen. But it is in fact large undertakings such as these that the Government has deliberately deleted from its programme in consequence of the fact that we have to curb Government expenditure. Wherever we are able to make do with existing facilities this is done, and even the spending of the relatively small amount to be spent at the Indian college on extensions as a result of the increasing number of students, is still less than the rental of premises would have been for the same period. The amounts involved are relatively small, but we simply cannot undertake large schemes at this stage, while we are experiencing a housing shortage. At this stage one cannot undertake Government works which are not absolutely essential. It is for that reason that the Government decided that any large projects which can wait should stand over. I think hon. members on the opposite side should appreciate this, because it is something they advocated in the previous debates, that Government expenditure should be curbed. But if we do that now we are criticized for doing so. Thus I could mention the various instances.

. *Mr. W. V. RAW: What about the housing in Umtata?

The hon. member also mentioned the question of the houses in Umtata. The position there is that although the Transkeian Government has a Public Works Department, that Department handles only services in connection with the provision of accommodation for the Departments and for the officials who come directly under the Transkeian Government. There is also still a large number of officials who come under the Government of the Republic, and those officials will be there for some time yet. It is in respect of the housing of those officials—and the hon. member for Transkei will tell you that it is impossible to get a dwelling in Umtata—who have to stay there to meet the commitments of this Government, that that housing is being provided there.

[Inaudible.]

It has nothing to do with immigrants. What we are performing there is an essential service, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the political aspects to which the hon. member referred. As for the Pietermaritzburg telephone exchange, I may just say that the tender for the work was accepted on 23rd March, 1967. It is hoped that the work will be commenced with shortly, and the period within which it is to be completed is 21 months.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does this period of 21 months apply to completing the full contract or only for the amount of R90,000 mentioned here to be spent?

Mr. Chairman, it applies to the full contract. The amount that appears on these Estimates is only what we consider will be spent in the course of this year. The rest will be spent in the ensuing financial years.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to keep the House long because I understand that you want to close off the discussion. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister something which I think he should be able to answer. Earlier the hon. the Minister said that he could not give explanations in regard to various items because other departments decide on the principle and his Department merely carries out the work. I am ever mindful of the interests of the Coloured people and when I looked at the establishment of the Department which appears on page 86 of the Estimates, I noticed the heading “Gardens”. I mention this because on this establishment we have one professional and technical officer who is in the higher income group but he has no one working for him. One post is mentioned and no more. In the interests of Coloured people I want to ask what happened to the Coloured men who used to work in the garden of the Houses of Parliament and the public gardens under the control of the hon. the Minister.

What is the position of this professional man?

I do not know who or what he is, but my contention is that he has

no one to advise because no one works for him. I do not want to be facetious about this matter because the Minister will be able to tell us what this man does. That is not the point I am raising. I rose to my feet to point out that Coloured men who used to work in the hon. the Minister’s Department have been removed from the service. I know one Coloured man who was for 32 years employed in the Public Works Department and worked in the grounds of this House. All these Coloured men have been removed. I do not know where they are but as far as I know they have been replaced by Europeans. I want to know whether it is the policy of the Department only to engage Europeans in such places where Coloureds have been employed before. I was asked to raise this matter some time ago but the opportunity never presented itself to do so. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the policy of his Department to get rid of all the Coloureds employed in the maintenance of the gardens under his control.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to point out that as far as the various gardens are concerned, the post mentioned on the establishment is only the Control Superintendent of Gardens. All gardeners fall under him, and the schedule which is printed here merely refers to the higher posts and not to the temporary workers. A large number of temporary workers are employed by the Department. In the past many of them were Coloureds, and many of them are and were Whites. It is the policy of my Department and the policy of the Government, where partially disabled Whites are available who may be placed in sheltered employment in white areas, to give preference to the employment of such persons, while preference is given to partially disabled Coloureds in respect of that kind of work in Coloured areas where services are carried out by the Department. This is at the same time a social service performed by the Department. There are a large number of these partially disabled people who are not capable of competing on the open labour market but who can still do quite a fair day’s work in a garden, or something of that nature. Although they do not accomplish as much as the next man. it is worthwhile, for the sake of their rehabilitation, to keep them in employment in those occupations. It is the policy to give preference to white partially disabled persons in white areas, if they are available.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—“Social Welfare and Pensions, R110,430,000”.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most important Vote and I am sure that the hon. the Minister is fully conscious of the fact that he is responsible for the welfare of a large number of people who are provided for by the money that is to be voted under this Vote. We have had the opportunity of having a five-hour discussion on the Aged Persons Protection Bill when we discussed various aspects affecting the aged in our community. The position is that, under existing financial circumstances, one group which I think is suffering more than any other group, is the lowest income group and into that category falls the social pensioner. When we discussed the Aged Persons Protection Bill we did not refer to the financial plight of these people. We on this side of the House believe that these pioneers of South Africa deserve greater alleviation from their present financial plight. We realize that during the course of the Budget speech the Minister of Finance announced certain concessions and we obviously welcomed those concessions. However, the increase that has been granted to the social pensioner of R1 per month from the 1st October, 1967, is, I believe, poor compensation for these people. It is imperative that the hon. the Minister use greater influence with his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure a better deal for these people. It is obvious that, with the spiralling costs that we have in South Africa to-day, that extra R1 per month payable from the 1st October, 1967, is hopelessly inadequate. By the time it is received, it will be swallowed up by a further increase in the cost of living. The hon. the Minister should indicate the reasons why this increase was not effective from 1st April, 1967. I realize that a Bill is to come before the House which will contain various amendments in regard to the concessions which were announced in the Budget speech, and which will contain an amendment to the means test. There is a great deal of administrative detail to be attended to. But surely there is no administrative detail to be attended to when merely increasing the bonus from R2 per month to R3 per month. I fail to see how any administrative difficulties could be involved in increasing that bonus, as it is paid as a separate amount. It would appear, on this basis, that these people will now be able to receive a maximum pension in some instances of up to R31 per month. Others who are fortunate enough to receive allowances, if they have delayed their application, could receive larger amounts.

However, the whole system in South Africa is based on a non-contributory pension scheme. It is a system which has been amended from time to time. In fact, if one looks at the historical background to the payments of pensions, and for instance at the Old Age Pensions Act of 1928, one realizes that, over a period of many years, various investigations have taken place in regard to the present system employed in the payment of social pensions. However, the last comprehensive study that was made by members of this House as a Select Committee, was as far back as 1944, some 23 years ago. Since then there has been a vast change in the social pattern, not only in South Africa, but throughout the western world. We realize that South Africa is going through a process of evolution and industrial revolution, which has brought about various problems in the social field. Various steps which were considered 20 or 30 years ago as being socialistic are no longer considered socialistic. Not that we on this side of the House advocate socialism in any way. We do believe that it is in the interests of the country to ensure that there is an adequate system of social security. The framework of social security has been laid down in this country over a number of years, but it is only in a very modified form. Consequently to-day South Africa has a system which, in many other countries, has long been relinquished and replaced by a different approach. It is not necessary for South Africa to become a welfare state to adopt such an approach. I referred last year, in the course of discussion on the Minister’s Vote, to a system of social security that has been developed in the United States of America since 1935. If one studies their system, it would appear that it might be possible for South Africa to adopt a similar system. I believe that there is a basic difference of policy between this side of the House and the Government side. We believe that ultimately all persons should be covered by a measure of social security and that all persons should be covered by some sort of pension. On the Government side they believe that there should be a development of the private pension funds and private pension schemes. However, it would appear that under the system of the Nationalist Government it would take many years or many decades before it could be said that all persons in South Africa are covered by a programme of social security or are covered by pensions schemes. Therefore I believe that the policy of this side of the House is the wise policy to adopt. I believe that it is the policy which will bring about a greater degree of security for the people of South Africa. After all, security in old age is the very cornerstone of any social security programme. To-day it is unfortunate that many of these people approach the twilight of their lives with a degree of trepidation, fear and anxiety that they will not be adequately cared for in their old age, and that they will have to rely on charity.

I mentioned the fact that the United States of America has a system which is based on six basic principles. I should like to read those six basic principles, as outlined in a document issued by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Social Security Administration. In introducing these principles, it states:

The first principle reads as follows:

Consequently, Sir, that dispels the argument that it would stifle private initiative and the initiative of the individual. The second principle reads as follows:

Then it makes the observation:

Here again the point is raised that it does not stifle the private initiative of the individual. A third point is that it is contributory. This means that those workers who have made contributions, helped to finance these benefits. Knowing that they are contributors to the fund, they then adopt a more responsible attitude towards the programme. The fourth basic principle is that it is compulsory. It is obvious that those who should make provision for their old age very often do not do so, and in some instances are not in a financial position to do so. If it is made compulsory, it will strengthen the fund considerably. The fifth principle is that the rights are clearly defined in the law. The position is clearly defined and all the information that is available to a contributor is made readily available so that he will know exactly what he is entitled to. The sixth basic principle is that the programme is self-supporting. It therefore appears that the basic principles which are outlined in this social security programme of the U.S.A. are very important principles which could be adapted to the South African way of life.

During the course of the discussion last year the hon. the Minister said that various investigations had been made by his Department and by his predecessor who had toured Europe. He indicated, by interjection across the floor of the House, that he would consider sending a senior official of his Department to investigate the system which exists in the U.S.A. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give an indication as to whether he has had an opportunity of sending a senior official to investigate the system which is in existence in the U.S.A. or, if not, whether perhaps he himself, as the responsible Minister, will see fit to travel to the U.S.A. to study their system and to see whether we cannot devise a system in South Africa which will be to the benefit of the community as a whole. I believe that it is not beyond the ability of the South African Parliament or of legislators in South Africa to devise a system whereby we will be able to adapt principles that have been tried over a long period [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo will pardon me if I do not follow up his speech. I just want to point out that there are three important basic requirements which any nation as well as the State must bear in mind in order to ensure its future welfare and self-respect. The first requirement is its responsibility to invest in the child, namely to invest in his training, education and care. In the second place, there is a debt of honour which that nation has towards its aged, people who have been citizens all along and who, as citizens of that country, have already done as much as they could. Thirdly, there is the rehabilitation of those who have gone astray. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Government, the hon. the Minister and his staff this afternoon because they are doing everything possible to comply with these three requirements in the present circumstances. We want to fake cognizance of this good work which is being done, and I had to make the observation the other day that if ever there was a Minister who was well suited to his portfolio it certainly was the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

For this purpose an amount of R110,430,000 is provided on the Estimates in respect of the financial year ending 31st March, 1968, which represents an increase of 45.2 per cent on the amount voted for the financial year 1962-’63, that is, five years ago. In view of this there is no doubt that the National Party Government is doing everything possible to meet the requirements as regards the education or the care of the child and the nation, and where necessary, to rehabilitate those who have gone astray, and to care for the aged. Since 1958 the number of subsidized homes for the aged has more than doubled, and this fact is noted with appreciation. However, I have to break a lance for those institutions which care for the aged through private initiative and on the basis of charity. As a result of the fact that people are living to an increasingly greater age the number of people who are bedridden and of people who need special care has increased continually. That not only means higher medical costs, but also leads to an increased demand for nurses and other trained staff. I recently visited three institutions accommodating 362 of these elderly people. Of this number 8.2 per cent are between the ages of 60 and 69; 37.5 per cent are between 70 and 79; 48.9 per cent are between 80 and 89, and 5.3 per cent are 90 years of age and more. It is interesting to note the second group, but especially the third group, in order to make the necessary deductions. The Government pays a subsidy of R3.50 per month in respect of those aged who are still active, R10 per month is paid in respect of those who are infirm and have become bedridden, and R17.50 per month is paid in respect of those who are extremely infirm. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to relax this classification a little. I have already pointed out that only a very small percentage of the aged in these particular old people’s homes fall in the group which receives R17.50 per month. They are those who are extremely infirm. From a financial point of view, these old people’s home cannot manage on two-thirds—that is what they are entitled to—of the pension paid to the pensioner, plus the said subsidy. Considerable deficits are incurred every year, which are made good by funds obtained from sales, street collections, donations and bequests, the proceeds of which have for many reasons decreased considerably in recent years. The deficits incurred at “Ons Tuis” in Johannesburg and Pretoria and the Machtel Posthumus Home ran into considerable amounts over the last three years. These deficits were incurred in spite of the selfless charitable work on the part of the directors and many of those people, and in spite of the utmost thrift being exercised, without the aged being neglected. The deficits over the last three years were as follows: 1964—R4,773; 1965— R13,281; and 1966—R12,424. It is virtually impossible to care for a pensioner at R23.50 per month. Let us assume for argument’s sake that it costs R1 per day to a pensioner with board and lodging, then it is quite surprizing that these people are still able to accommodate the aged in these circumstances. In the case of provincial hospitals it has been established that it costs between R4 and R5 a day to care for such physically infirm people. For example, we find that patients who suffer from cancer are sent back from the hospitals to the old people’s homes from where they came. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member for Hercules, like all other hon. members of this House, is also often weighed down by and feels the weight on his shoulders of the plight of many of these aged pensioners. The position is that until such time as a contributory pension scheme is introduced in South Africa it will always be necessary to have a means test. With the introduction of a contributory pension scheme it would be possible to abolish the means test—that would be one of the advantages of such a scheme. In the past, suggestions put forward from time to time by this side of the House were looked upon by the Government as not being practical, only for them to eventually accept the suggestions as being the wisest course to adopt. The P.A.Y.E. system is one example. We were at first told that the administrative cost would be so great. Well, I believe that the present administrative costs of paying social pensions must be very great indeed.

We had the pleasure of visiting the Department’s head office in Pretoria during December last year and, through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Department, the officials and the other people concerned for a most interesting tour of their head office. I think two important factors struck us. One was the enormous volume of work that the present social pensions system entails, and the other is the installation of a computer which will obviously assist in the administrative work connected with pensions and other clerical work connected therewith. I am sure that the installation of computers would also make possible at some future date the introduction of a contributory system of pensions to replace our present system.

The relaxation of the means test is another very important aspect of the policy of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech can obviously be discussed in greater detail when the amending legislation comes before the House. However, there are certain aspects of the means test which I believe we should comment upon at this stage. Firstly we welcome the proposal in the Budget speech to deal more leniently and more generously with pensioners as far as permissible assets are concerned. But there is one aspect which I believe is important and that is the position of property owners who in many instances have paid off their properties over a life-time. Their properties are to-day unencumbered. When they reach pensionable age they find that they do not have sufficient financial resources to support themselves and to maintain their property, and when they apply for a pension they find that the fact that the property is unencumbered is to their disadvantage. Prior to the 1965 amendment the means test did make special provision for an applicant who was living in his own property. I think the hon. the Minister should give further sympathetic consideration to the position of the pensioner who is living in his own property and who has paid off that property. Perhaps a certain amount of the value of that property could be regarded as a free asset instead of being taken into account under the means test. Then you have the case of people who have made some provision for their old age by buying an annuity and who find that because of the income limitation of the means test they are precluded from receiving a social pension. I think it is a great pity that the income limitations have not been reviewed by the hon. the Minister. Then there is the position of the self-employed person over 70 years of age. The position at present is that the earnings of a person over 70 years of age are not taken into account under the means test. On the other hand in the case of a person over 70 years of age who is self-employed, his profit is taken into account. Here I think we have a case where private initiative should be encouraged. There should be no discrimination against a self-employed person over 70 years of age.

Then when we look at the proposed relaxations, we find that war veterans over 70 years of age will receive no alleviation whatsoever. Considerable relief is given to persons under 70 years of age and to old-age pensioners over 70, but when we come to war veterans over 70 years of age, we find that it is evidently not proposed to grant them any relief. That brings me to the other group of social pensioners, i.e. war veterans of World War I. We know that from time to time various approaches have been made, not to the present Minister but to his predecessor and to his Department concerning the means test as it affects war veterans of World War I. Other members on this side of the House will deal in more detail with that aspect, but I would urge the hon. the Minister to give further consideration and attention to the representations which have been made to his Department over the years. I know that the MOTH organization approached the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, the hon. J. J. Serfontein, on 24th January, 1964. Then there is another small group of pensioners who in my view should receive sympathetic consideration from the hon. the Minister. I raised this matter in 1965 (col. 4802 of Hansard). I am referring here to the small group who served in the 1906 Zulu rebellion, known as the Bambata Rebellion. The position is that a number of people answered the call in 1906 to serve in a full-time capacity in the Zulu rebellion. However, the definition of “war veteran” in the War Veterans’ Pensions Act does not include the persons who served in that campaign. Their numbers to-day must be very small indeed. This is a matter to which the present Minister has also given consideration. The previous Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions also undertook in 1965 to give this matter his consideration. We are now in 1967 and perhaps the hon. the Minister will give the Committee some indication as to what progress has been made in classifying these people who served in the 1906 Zulu rebellion as war veterans. Many of the people who served in this rebellion also served in subsquent wars and in that case they are obviously entitled to receive a war veterans’ pension. There are small numbers, however, who for various reasons were unable to serve in subsequent wars, due to age, or injury or disability, and I feel that these people should also be regarded for the purposes of the War Veterans’ Pensions Act as war veterans. Then there is another group of persons who are also classified as war veterans but who do not receive war veterans’ pensions as such; I refer to persons who are also civil pensioners. There are many of these people who would much prefer to be paid the war veteran’s pension rather than receive a special supplementary allowance to supplement their civil pensions. They believe that if they receive a war veteran’s pension, it is tantamount to a certain degree of recognition for services rendered in war-time. The war veterans receive R8 per month more than the old-age pensioner. That is part of the recognition that they do receive. Some of these poeple are also railway pensioners, and we know that in terms of the Estimates before us the Railway Administration is reimbursed by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in respect of the supplementary allowances paid to certain railway pensioners. These people are also receiving the supplementary allowance to supplement their civil pensions. Sir, I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will reconsider this question of supplementing the pensions of civil and railway pensioners when the persons concerned are really in fact entitled to receive a war veteran’s pension. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. Allow me, however, to break a lance to-day for the National Council for the Care of Cripples in this country. That Council is performing an enormous task. The man in the street does not, realize what an enormous task this Council is performing. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my thanks to those people who assist in the struggle to alleviate the problems of handicapped people. But allow me, Mr. Chairman, to thank also the hon. the Minister and the Government for the valuable work which they have done, are still doing and will continue to do in the future so as to assist those people and so as to assist those institutions which are engaged in this enormous task. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank also our Provincial Administrations for the subsidies which they donate each year to these persons and institutions. I want to thank also the local authorities for their annual donations to these institutions. Various Government Departments are at present concerned with this matter. One has the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions; one has also the Department of Education, Arts and Science; one has the Department of Labour, and, as far as the Bantu are concerned, one has the Department of Bantu Administration. As far as Coloureds are concerned, one has the Department of Coloured Affairs, and as far as Indians are concerned, one has the Department of Indian Affairs. As a result of the various Departments concerned in the matter, I feel that it is difficult to prevent overlapping, and I want to make a plea that the Minister should give consideration in this regard to the co-ordination of the Departments into one Department, if it is possible to do so. To my mind that would lead to better work and to the work being done more smoothly.

Then there is another serious matter. We know that at present concessions are made as regards deductions from income tax for ordinary medical expenses, but they differ from the expenses incurred by the parent of a handicapped child. The deductions allowed differ and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to recommend to the Minister of Finance that those persons are to receive full recognition. This country has done a great deal and will continue to do a great deal in the future to combat poliomyelitis. Poliomyelitis is most certainly one of the cruellest diseases one can find and it is also the disease which is probably responsible for the largest number of handicapped persons in our country, particularly amongst the youth. We thank the State for what it has already done. I think that sometimes it is more merciful for a person to die rather than to suffer all his life as a result of complete paralysis. To-day I want to pay high tribute to an institution in Johannesburg, namely the Hope Home, which is doing a great deal for our children. As far as this matter is concerned, it is most probably one of the best institutions in the whole world. But this institution, as well as all the others, suffer from a shortage of funds. The funds which those institutions receive or which they receive by way of subsidy are small, but in this regard I have to thank the public of South Africa for having made such generous contributions over the past 30 years to assist those handicapped people. That is why I am asking for the coordination of these various Government Departments. An institution may not be in receipt of a Government subsidy as well as a Provincial subsidy; nor may it be in receipt of a subsidy from two different Government Departments, and I believe that if this matter were to fall under one body or one department, better results would be achieved. I want to mention that transport constitutes one of the highest items of expenditure. Handicapped boys and girls who have matriculated do not have means of transport to get to work. There is no provision for wheelchairs on our trains or buses. These associations spend a great deal of money on the conversion of cars so as to enable handicapped persons to go to work, because although their bodies are deformed, many of those people are very intelligent and have done very well at school. I am making a plea that the State should do more for that section of our population and that more funds should be made available to those institutions to assist them in meeting their obligations, because it is a great honour for those institutions to do the work, but money is the big problem. I trust that many hon. members have paid visits to those institutions. I am proud to say that I know those institutions. I visit them regularly and I know their problems. I believe they do have a case when they ask us to assist in bearing that burden. Those children do not want to feel ostracized; they want to be taken up in society. They want to move about like normal people, and it is for us to assist the institutions and in so doing to ensure that the services of these handicapped people may be employed as usefully as those of ordinary normal people. I trust that these few words of mine will have the result that active steps will be taken in the future to assist in alleviating the burden of these people and to assist the institutions for such people in their enormous task.

Dr. E. L. FISHER: I want to compliment the hon. member who has just sat down, on the plea he made on behalf of crippled children. I feel that much of what he has said is what all of us feel in this House and I hope that his plea to the Minister will not go unheeded.

I want to come back to one of the points made by the hon. member for Umbilo, namely contributory pension funds. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that unless we start now to adopt a contributory pension scheme we are going to get ourselves into greater difficulties as the years go on. With the present methods of administration and treating the sick, we find that more and more people are living longer, and because of that the Minister will eventually find that he will have more over-70s who will live longer. So he will have to provide pensions for more people and for a longer period of time. If he has a contributory pension scheme introduced now, in years to come those people who contribute now will be able to benefit from their own contributions and that will be an incentive, as has often been said, to save for our old age. If the Minister realizes that at the moment in the Johannesburg area there are approximately 9,000 old people who live alone, and of these, 7,000 have no source of income whatsoever, and almost all of these 7,000 live in little back rooms, he will also realize that in a few years’ time these numbers will probably double. The question of dealing with the lonely aged is a most important one. I want to tell the Minister that the report of the working group on legislation for the protection of the aged is a very good report indeed, and on page 5 it deals with some of these problems. From experience, however, I can say that these problems are somewhat more intricate than set out in this report. Medical services, for instance, are difficult to administer. The lonely aged person who gets ill does not have the means to afford a private doctor. They therefore have to depend upon the services of district surgeons and these are called almost invariably by contact with the police station. But in many areas to-day police stations have been closed down. That means that a district surgeon can be called only by means of an emergency number—which may be as well because such a call can give the impression of urgency. The result of such a call is, however, not always as good as it ought to be. Very often district surgeons cannot give an adequate service because they are overloaded with work. The Minister must find other ways and means of providing a medical service for these people who cannot afford their own doctors. It may be said that they can go to a hospital, but as the Minister knows It is not as easy as all that. It happens so often that what appears to be a major complaint by an elderly person, is a complaint which is treated as a minor complaint by the hospital authorities. But to the person who suffers it is still of major importance. Thus, a patient coming to a hospital thinking that his complaint is a major one, may be sent back home because the hospital authorities say it is only a minor one. This is happening over and over again. Because of neglect and inattention a complaint which appears to be of minor importance can have serious consequences. A cold, for instance, can so easily develop into pneumonia. One may find that a pain in the chest of which a patient complains disappears by the time he gets to hospital and the result is that no proper investigation is made. The patient is sent home but the end result may be a coronary thrombosis. We must find and introduce a new system of examination and treatment as soon as possible. I want to suggest such a system, a system which will serve many other purposes at the same time. Firstly, the Minister should make a survey to find areas with the greatest concentration of pensioners. In each of those areas he should then establish a clinic. In that clinic only a few beds need be provided—half a dozen or so— where a patient can be kept overnight, pending investigation. At such a clinic a lounge should be provided where a pensioner can go when he feels he needs company.

I wish I had the authority to do it. Unfortunately it is outside my province. Local authorities will be on their hind legs if we tried to do that.

Dr. E. L. FISHER: But we have got to find ways and means of doing this. We have got to find the money and do it. If the Minister foresees these difficulties, let us then reorganize the whole scheme of things instead of hiding behind, “this one does not have the authority; that one does not have the authority”. Otherwise the Minister is going to find himself in greater and greater difficulties.

Are you in favour of us taking away these responsibilities from the provinces?

Dr. E. L. FISHER: I am not concerned about whether the local authorities or whether the Minister is going to introduce the scheme. What I am concerned about, however, is that the Minister is not giving the correct directions. The Minister should direct; he is the leader of the orchestra and he has to direct these people. They must all play in harmony; there must be no discord. All must work harmoniously together. We are dealing with people who need our help. But to return to my suggestion for the provision of a clinic. I should like to add that it should not only be a place where the sick can be treated and where doctors can visit these people. Incidentally, I think the Minister will find that there will be doctors in the area who will be only too pleased, if necessary pro deo, to look after these people. I say such a clinic need not only be there for this purpose. Pensions can also be paid out there. That will obviate these old people queueing up on pavements outside post offices for hours on end without having a bench to sit on. They have to stand there on the pavements in all types of weather to receive their little pensions. This can also be done at this clinic. I also suggest that pantries can be established in that clinic, places where groceries are stored and where these old people can get their groceries at a reduced price in exchange for a voucher. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of the fact that local authorities on occasion have had mobile vans going from district to district to sell, to pensioners particularly, and to the indigent, groceries and other household commodities at a reduced price. What happened then was that those people who were not in need of that type of assistance abused this service. To avoid this, a system of vouchers, instead of cash payment, should be instituted so that the only people who could go there would then be the pensioners in possession of such vouchers. That will obviate other people also getting their groceries there at these reduced prices. I have suggested that pensions also be paid out at such a centre. At present about one-fifth of the rise which pensioners are going to get is taken up by the pensioner having to get from his residence to the place where the pensions are paid out—in other words, it sometimes costs a pensioner as much as 20 cents to go from his place of residence to the post office to get his pension. [Time expired.]

It is not my intention to react to everything said by the hon. member for Rosettenville. He, as well as the hon. member for Umbilo, referred in glowing terms to the advantages which a, what they called, contributory pension scheme would hold for the country. I think it will be a good thing to refer them at this stage to what the Minister said in this connection in this House last year. He said (Hansard, volume 17, Column 2125)—

That then is the contributory scheme; those are the benefits which flow from such a scheme. But that is typical of the Opposition —it leaps before it looks. In this connection I should like to make a plea here this afternoon. In principle I am not opposed to a very thorough investigation being made into such a scheme, and consequently I want to plead with the Minister not to give a decisive answer in this regard now, but first to conduct a very thorough personal investigation into the matter.

To us on this side of the House the care of the aged and related services have never been a matter of raising an artificial and empty cry about the performance of welfare work, for the sake of gaining political popularity. Neither have these things been inspired by attempts at exploiting our older generation for the sake of political gain. This side of the House is, of course, equally concerned about this group of people. Consequently the Government has always approached the problem in a very positive and in a very scientific way, but also with the necessary humaneness. The success with which the Department is performing its numerous tasks, deserves the admiration and sincere thanks of every right-minded person. Something which is too often intentionally overlooked for the sake of convenience, however, is that this Department is not one which only has to distribute temporary relief with a generous hand. That is only a very minor part of its task. Its major and primary task is to teach people, through the medium of its professional and other services, to help themselves. This Department is succeeding admirably in teaching those people who have become its responsibility a fundamental law of life, namely to play an active part in their social environment so that they may use and, if necessary, adapt it to enrich their lives. Otherwise stagnation will set in which means spiritual deterioration, something in which eventual spiritual death is inherent. The visit which the Department arranged for us last year gave some indication of the work which is being very efficiently done by the Department in this connection.

To come back to something more concrete, I want to refer to another aspect of the positive and active steps taken by the Department. In this regard I want to refer with a great deal of appreciation to the example which is worth following, set by the Department by paying civil pensioners with dependents a pension of at least R92 per month. This alleviates the lot of these people to a very large extent. In this regard I do wonder whether the Department will not consider giving more publicity to this example set by it. Certain private concerns have accepted co-responsibility in some way or other for pension funds for their employees who have spent their best years in the service of those concerns. But as a result of relatively small contributions to those pension funds during their term of employment, there are many pensioners who receive much less than R92 per month. I wonder whether that would not make it possible for those concerns to give consideration to supplementing from their increased revenue—which is, after all, due to a large extent to the foundations laid by their former exployees—the pensions of those people so that they too may at least receive R92 per month. I am convinced that if these concerns were to give consideration to this matter, the Government would not be unsympathetic if they were subsequently to plead for tax relief to be granted to them in view of this additional expenditure. As regards old-age pensioners, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not use his influence with the Government to have such people recognized as dependents of their next-of-kin for tax purposes if such next-of-kin contribute in any way to the support of such pensioners. That too can make a major contribution to alleviating the lot in life of this group of people for whom we have a great deal of sympathy.

Then there is only one more matter. It concerns the protesting burghers of 1914, who in some instances experience many problems in identifying themselves in terms of the directions of the Department. They cannot identify themselves, not through any fault of their own, but as a result of the circumstances which prevailed at the time they protested in that proper records were not kept. In many cases the records which were kept have been destroyed. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not cause an investigation to be conducted into the matter so as to ascertain in what way it will be possible to accommodate them.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs started off by suggesting that hon. members on this side of the House rushed into this situation without a full assessment of the implications. I think in his very introduction he made himself guilty of precisely this approach. For example he quotes figures from Britain showing that under a contributory pension fund, as it exists there, a couple will only receive R60 a month, and that is the equivalent of what they would get in South Africa. What he overlooks and what he does not tell us is that everybody gets it in Britain be they rich, be they poor, be they white, be they black or be they brown. That is certainly a different situation.

Dr. C. P. MULDER: Is that your policy?

Dr. G. F. JACOBS: I think there is a complete misunderstanding of our approach by that side of the House. Figures are quoted to show how pension payments have risen over the last 10 years. Details have already been given to show that these have been increased from R50 million to R91 million. We have shown previously that, although this represents an increase of some R40 million, erosion in the buying value of the rand has reduced this increase by probably more than a half. Whenever we talk about additional contributions in this field, the charge is levelled at us that we try to propagate a social welfare state. I cannot see anything which suggests that we are in any way approaching this situation. This whole Vote which is before us now, which amounts to R110 million, represents only slightly more than one per cent of our gross national product. Does that look like a welfare state? It does not begin to approach it.

I have one or two items in the Vote which is before us, in regard to which I would appreciate it if further elucidation could be given. We notice from the summary, which is given on page 87, that the total Vote has increased by slightly more than R3 million. We notice too that major increases occur in item J, as one would expect it to do. In items H and K there are also increases. What is surprising, however, is the reduction of slightly more than R½ million in item F. One assumes that this is due to the fact that there are fewer and fewer people who receive war pensions.

That is correct.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS: We also notice a

material reduction in item P. If we look at the details, which are featured on page 93, we find to our surprise that these reductions occur in the ultimate and penultimate portions, which are concerned primarily with subsidies for homes for the aged and for the infirm. One would have thought that these particular items would have shown an increase. I also want to draw attention to the establishment of this particular Department. This is reflected on page 95. It shows that in the higher echelons, the management of the Department as such, there are about 300 people. It shows that the total strength of this Department is just less than 1,500. This then gives us a ratio of management to total staff of about 1 to 5. I would have thought that in a Department such as this, which obviously contains a high professional element, this ratio would have been higher, in other words that there would have been more on the management side.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to rates of remuneration. One notices from these Estimates when you take a category, such as senior professional officers, that the average earning rate comes to something slightly less than R4.000 per year. We would like to know whether this is considered adequate because we are dealing here with highly qualified personnel for whom there clearly is a general demand, not only in the services but also in outside industry, and we would like to know whether with this sort of rate of remuneration it is possible for the Department in the first instance to entice sufficient personnel of the right calibre and, secondly, whether it is possible for the Department to retain their services.

We talk here, I think, very often on a somewhat theoretical plane, and I think that it will help us in an assessment of what is happening at the moment if I could refer to a survey which was recently carried out on behalf of the Johannesburg City Council. Let me say right away that, as far as I know, this was done by an independent concern; I concede that the sample is apparently a small one of only about 500 people; I do not know how the sampling was done; I do not know how the extrapolation procedures were handled, and I therefore cannot confirm the validity of these findings. But I think that they are of very great interest to us because they show what is happening in practice.

This survey indicated that out of a total population in Johannesburg of over 400,000 people there are slightly more than 40.000 who fall in the age category 60 years or more; this, therefore, represents 10 per cent of the total white population in Johannesburg. One would expect this sort of figure and it there fore lends some face validity to the findings. It shows incidentally that slightly more than 16,000 have an income of less than R50 per month. It shows furthermore that 7,000 have no personal income whatsoever. Now these are the stark naked facts of reality. It is suggested very often that the strength of a chain is its weakest link. Perhaps we have here the weak link in the whole social structure of our society.

I think that some of the additional information that comes from this survey is also of interest. This has just reached me by telex—I quote the figures in all good faith because I believe they might be of interest to the hon. the Minister and his Department. This survey showed that as far as the over 60’s are concerned in Johannesburg, 52 per cent of them live in private houses; 35 per cent are in flats, and nine per cent are in rooms. It shows, furthermore that 44 per cent of them pay rent; 27 per cent are in homes that have been paid off; 11 per cent are at the moment paying off the homes in which they live; 9 per cent apparently live free or do not pay any rent, and a further 9 per cent pay for board and lodging. It shows also that the average rent which is paid by this particular group amounts to R32 per month. I believe, Sir, that these figures are significant: The survey shows that of all those who do pay rent 54 per cent of them pay 25 per cent of their total income in rent. This is already a fairly high figure. But the survey further shows that 18 per cent pay between 25 and 49 per cent of their incomes in rent, and 22 per cent pay over 50 per cent of their total income in rent.

The accommodation that they have at the moment is rated by these people as “excellent” in 38 per cent of the cases; as “good” in 40 per cent; as “fair” in 17 per cent, and as “poor” in 36 per cent. I might just mention finally that 17 per cent—and, as I indicated, this comes to 7.000 people—indicate that they have no personal incomes at all: 7 per cent have a personal income of R1-R29; 23 per cent have a personal income of R30-R49: 17 per cent have a personal income of R50-R99: 34 per cent have an income of R100 and more, and 2 per cent declined to take part in the investigation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Umbilo and Rosettenville made another plea to-day for a State contributory pension scheme. I want to say immediately that this side of the House has always adopted the attitude that such schemes do not provide a solution to the problems with which we are faced in South Africa. On various occasions we have pointed out that the benefits paid out under such schemes, in Britain as well as in the United States, are not really much better than those paid out under our present scheme in suite of the fact that those schemes are contributory schemes. That is true of the scheme in the U.S.A. in particular. In the U.S.A. the employer as well as the employee contributes to the scheme. The State does not contribute except in the form of subsidies, and I shall deal with that in a moment. In the case of Britain the employer, the employee and the State contribute to the scheme.

I want to point out that the scheme of the U.S.A. does not cover all workers. At present it covers approximately nine-tenths of the workers. I have here a pamphlet entitled “Essentials of the Social Security in the United States” which states, inter alia, the following—

—in other words, the scheme does not cover everyone—

—it is rather strange that that is the case—

In other words, the scheme still does not cover all people in the U.S.A.

90 per cent, though.

Yes, I admit that. Very well, let us now examine the costs involved as well as the actual benefits. For the present I shall not deal with Britain’s scheme but only with that of the U.S.A.

In 1965 increases were announced in the U.S.A. According to this pamphlet the increases had certain effects on the scheme. In respect of the monthly payments the following examples are given. A man who earns 4,800 dollars and who retires at the age of 65 will receive 127 dollars per month. Hon. members should remember that the breadline in America is at 300 dollars per month. The fixed minimum wage which has to be paid to a house servant, for example, in America is 12 dollars per day, in other words, R8 per day. That comes to 300 dollars per month. If one makes a comparison between the benefits, one should relate that to the breadline in America. I repeat that the man who earns 4,800 dollars per year will receive 127 dollars per month in benefits and his wife with one child will receive 63.50 dollars. In other words, the benefits received by the two of them jointly amount to only two-thirds of the bread-line income.

That is not the “breadline”.

That is what they call the “poverty datum line”.

Yes, that is not the “breadline”.

That is what one actually needs for making a reasonable existence in America—300 dollars per month. I repeat: That is the minimum wage paid in America, namely 300 dollars per month. I just want to emphasize that the pensions to which I have already referred amount to only two-thirds of the amount earned by the lowest paid worker in America. Consequently I say that these proposals which people hold out as being the solution to our problem in South Africa—and here we also have a large nonwhite population—is not to my mind the real solution to the problem. But I just want to point out what it really costs the individual to belong to these schemes. A table is given here which indicates how taxes are going to increase: In 1965 every worker will pay 174 dollars and the employer will also pay 174 dollars, but by 1987 the amount for the worker will be 222 dollars and for the employer 370 dollars. In other words, the burden is progressively becoming heavier. I quote from U.S. News and World Report—

In other words, 1.4 billion dollars per annum which it will cost initially—

In other words, the problem of the depreciation of money is not really solved by the contributory scheme; the State constantly has to pay subsidies. We know what is happening in South Africa in regard to the Public Service Pension Scheme and the Railway Service Pension Scheme; we know that the State constantly has to pay subsidies in order to supplement the minimum pensions of public servants; we do so at every Budget. Consequently this is a problem which cannot really be completely solved in that way.

Do you not have the same problems with private pension funds?

I shall shortly come back to what our standpoint has been up to now. I want to make a plea that we should make a study of the American system in order to ascertain whether we cannot evolve an adapted system which we can apply in South Africa. We must remember that a State pension scheme will be an entirely different matter in South Africa than a State pension scheme in a country such as Britain or the United States, for example, because here we have a large non-white population. The administration costs will be much higher. The burden which will have to be imposed on the higher income group in order to provide the lower income group with a pension will be much heavier. That is evidence that this type of scheme becomes a political football between political parties. The one party vies with the other at elections. We know that President Johnson came forward with his new scheme during the previous election campaign and the scheme to which I have just referred was announced as a result of his 1964 promises. We have adopted the attitude that we have to encourage our employers to introduce private schemes and I want to point out that the Minister of Finance, in consequence of a plea I made in this House, appointed a departmental committee a few years ago to investigate the question of the transferability of pensions and the freezing of pension benefits at the age of 60 or 65. The underlying idea was, of course, to see to it that people would not be able to lay their hands on the pension contributions paid in by them before reaching the age of 60 or 65.

The report of that committee has now been completed and is in the hands of the hon. the Minister, and I hope that it will not be long before we can make a study of that report. But as far as I can see the solution in South Africa is not to be found in a State contributory pension scheme but rather in a scheme in which the employers and the workers make their own provision on a basis corresponding to their earnings. I hope that we will make a study of the American system, as suggested by the hon. member for Umbilo, but to me it does not seem as if the solution to our problem is to be found in that. We should rather try to compel our employers to an increasing extent to introduce private schemes. We passed legislation in 1956 to control and register all pension funds and we have to conduct research on this basis so as to ascertain whether it will not be possible to make better provision for our workers in that way.

Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) over the contributory pension scheme. This idea has been discussed across the floor of the House for many years and we have not made very much progress, but just as the Government is now adopting so very many of the good policies advocated by this side of the House, just so will the time come when they will adopt this contributory pension scheme of ours. The only trouble is that they are rather slow and they may be out before they can give effect to it.

The hon. member for Umbilo has referred to our visit to the Department’s headquarters in Pretoria during the last recess. I want to carry that a little bit further and tell the Minister how much we appreciated being able to see the very good work that is being done by his Department for those unfortunate people at Sonderwater. We were very impressed to hear how many of those unfortunate people had been completely rehabilitated, and I think it is only right that we should congratulate the Department and wish them well on the very good work that they are doing there.

Sir, I rise to put in a word for three categories of pensioners. In the first place I would like to plead the cause of the veterans of World War I. As you know, Sir, these people are still subject to the means test. I think the time has arrived when the Minister should seriously consider the abolition of the means test. World War I has been over for nearly 50 years. The policy has been adopted by the State to look after its war veterans. The means test was abolished some considerable time ago as far as the Anglo-Boer War veterans are concerned. Although I do not wish to discuss the system in any detail—that will be done by another member on this side—I do urge upon the hon. the Minister to consider whether the time is not ripe for the means test to be abolished in the case of the war veterans of World War I.

The second group of pensioners for whom I wish to plead are the widows and the children of military pensioners. I raised this matter in the House last year. I thought the hon. the Minister was on my side; he was very sympathetic but he has not translated his sympathy into actions.

He never carries out promises.

Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST: No, I would not like to say that. Sir, I am pleading for the abolition of the ten-year test for widows and children of military pensioners. Office-bearers of the ex-servicemen’s organizations who deal with these people from day to day all tell us that the need is very great and that the time has arrived when some relief should be granted by the Department.

The third category of persons whose cause I want to plead are the widows of those people who fell in the last war, who remarried and then lost their pensions and who then lost their second or third husband through death or divorce. These people find themselves in a serious plight to-day. They are getting a bit old; they cannot earn as much as they used to earn and I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider the question of alleviating their very difficult financial position. These three categories of people comprise the military pensioners. They fall under the heading of people referred to by the hon. member for Hillbrow, where there has been a reduction in the amount spent every year. I think that is a very good reason why the Minister should once again reconsider these three categories and grant them additional aid. You see, Sir, we are at the moment trying to get the right type of people to join our military forces. The sort of people we are looking for in the Forces to-day are people who are interested in their future security. They are the people who want to know that when they join the Forces they will be looked after in future, and they will not join up unless they know that we do not forget them once we have finished with them. I am very sorry the Minister of Defence is not here to-day, because he should get up and assist me in this plea to the Minister, to help his Department to obtain the type of people we want. If the Minister could be sympathetic again, as he was towards me last year, and will turn his sympathies into action this time, we will appreciate it very much, and he will bring relief where it is much wanted to-day.

I should like to leave the hon. member for North Rand with the wishful thinking he indulged in at the beginning of his speech. I presume the hon. the Minister will reply to the other matters he raised.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Umbilo in the gratitude he expressed to the Department with regard to the outing it arranged for members of Parliament last year. On behalf of members on this side of the House, I should also like to convey our sincere gratitude to the Secretary of the Department, Mr. Bosman, and his officials for the thorough arrangements they made and the interesting and enlightening way in which we were informed about the great work done by the Department, and also for the subsequent interesting visits to the various resorts.

South Africa is by no means a welfare state, and we on this side of the House are very grateful for that. We know that there are countries which are caught in the grip of a welfare state and which would pay anything to free themselves from that grip. If this Government—and I also just want to bring this to the attention of the hon. member for North Rand—had succumbed in the course of the past few years to all the pleas, requests and proposals from the (Deposition, we would have been moving towards a welfare state very rapidly. The Government in South Africa has always organized its welfare services on such a basis that it could assist those who needed financial and other assistance. We are prepared to admit that this assistance was not always free of deficiencies, but it must also be admitted that it was not static either, and that it is not static at the moment, because on various occasions commissions were appointed which published reports, which in turn formed the basis for legislation passed in this House. Amongst others I should like to refer to the report of the commission of inquiry on family allowances, which appeared in 1961, and to the family congress of 1961. These recommendations were instrumental in the passing of the National Welfare Act of 1965, known as Act No. 79 of 1965, by this House. I may also refer to the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963, known as Act No. 86 of 1963; and we have just been dealing with a Bill relating to the protection of the aged.

The Government keeps an excellent watch on the interests of every section of the population, just as well and perhaps better than any other government. The services of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions are directed in particular towards the retention of family ties and the promotion of a healthy family life, which is particularly important. The vast majority of the Department’s expenditures and services are devoted to family matters. In addition the Department has always fostered a unique partnership between the State as such and organized charity, in the interests of the needy sector of our society. The care of our unfortunate and disrupted children, as also that of the aged, is not the sole task and responsibility of the State. Welfare work is the duty of all of us and the joint responsibility of the State, the church and the community. Each and every one of us should regard it as a privilege to be able to serve our fellow-men and to do charitable work.

The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions renders its welfare services in the closest co-operation and liaison with private initiative, and the State and every subject of the State are deeply appreciative of the gigantic task performed by voluntary welfare organizations. It is also the policy of our Department to stimulate private initiative and to support such organizations. The voluntary organizations are enabled to supplement the statutory obligations of the Department and to develop their own welfare services by means of the ample subsidies made available by the State. As we know, these subsidies are utilized primarily in connection with organization work, but also to maintain qualified welfare workers. In this connection I should mention that there are some 110 approved posts for qualified social workers, which are subsidized by the State to an amount of R775,000. Furthermore, we know that the Department subsidizes these welfare organizations by approximately R1.4 million for child welfare, as appropriated in these Estimates. It is and remains the policy of our Department to devote special attention to the child as such and to its interests. In the present Estimates an amount of R8,838,600 is appropriated for child welfare. It represents an increase of R158,000 on the previous year’s appropriation. It is during the formative years of the child that this constructive welfare work has the greatest and most lasting effect. Where the social care and rehabilitation of the child are needed, these must necessarily be undertaken —and this is most important and is appreciated by this Department—in the context of the family. The Children’s Act also provides for the care of the child in need of care within its own family circle and within its own milieu, i.e. in its own home. If it cannot be done there, care must be provided in foster care. It is the intention that foster care should be related as closely as possible to care in the context of the family. In South Africa there are other welfare services which are rendered and which enjoy particular attention in this connection, namely the preventive services. The preventive work which is performed actually offers better prospects of success than other services. In this regard the old proverb is also true: “Prevention is better than cure.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the introductory remarks of the hon. member for Koedoespoort and with similar remarks from both sides of the House where members have paid tribute to the hon. the Minister’s staff for their great courtesy and ability. We all owe them a great debt of gratitude. Theirs is a particularly difficult task, more difficult, I should say, than in any other Department. Their task in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions requires great tact and training and they have shown they are able to carry out that work. The hon. member referred to our contributory pension scheme. There is nothing new in a contributory pension scheme. We have it already. Every civil servant has a contributory pension scheme and he pays every month into his pension scheme. What we in the United Party are asking is that this should be extended to all branches of the community, whether a man is a civil servant or not. This does not mean that you are going to create a welfare state. Any man can to-day take part in a contributory pension scheme by joining some insurance company because they make provision for it. What we are asking is that the Government itself should be the great insurance body that will introduce a contributory pension scheme. I do not wish to labour the point because I think it ought to be very clear.

I want to refer to subhead F on page 91 of the Estimates. I look at it every year and I am reminded of the verse the troops sing “Old soldiers never die, they only fade away”. They are fading away very, very rapidly. I want to refer especially to the first item, namely pensions for pre-1914 South African war veterans. The number is reduced every year. When the plan was first introduced I felt the then hon. Minister, Mr. Eric Louw, was optimistic in regard to the cost but he nevertheless introduced it and it made a great impression on the House. It certainly impressed me. I have looked up his speech to use this afternoon because there are certain sentences which he used that I have heard referred to before. He said—

Later he said:

In closing he said this:

I am reminded of this to-day because the time between the Anglo-Boer War and the First World War was 12 years. It was oveR12 years ago that Mr. Eric Louw introduced this scheme and of course it deserved the applause which it received. If we look at the second item in subhead F we find that the number of veterans of the First World War is reduced considerably. The amount is now down to R600,000 for all pensioners of the First World War. We must remember that the boy of 18 who marched into South-West Africa with the South African forces when he was called up in our Defence Force, is now over 70 so that we are not asking for concessions for our young people, even for the 65 year olds, but we are asking for a concession for the men who are in their seventies. Many of them are already receiving their old-age pensions. Most of them who are left are people who have to fend for themselves because they cannot earn a living at that age. I make this appeal to the Minister, that he should give this matter his special consideration. I know he has great influence with the Minister of Finance and I do not think the cost will be great. I want to ask him, with the very able staff, that he has, whether it would be possible to have an investigation carried out to ascertain what the cost would be to extend the pension scheme from the Anglo-Boer War veterans to the veterans of the First World War and to include the veterans of the Bambata Rebellion who were also called up. Those men and those who served in the First Word War should be treated in the same way because we must remember that, when Minister Eric Louw introduced his scheme, it was a pension for the men who served on either side. The English-speaking Tommy who decided to retire in South Africa was brought into the fold because old soldiers are the same everywhere. When General Von Lettow Vorbeck came to this country it was the members of Parliament who gave him a great reception, the members of Parliament who had fought against him. That is the spirit amongst old soldiers. They do not consider the side; there is the same spirit running through them all.

I want to turn now to subhead J. Provision is made here for Civil Service pensions. I suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should have an investigation carried out to ascertain the cost of extending the war veterans’ pensions of the Anglo-Boer War veterans to the First World War veterans and the veterans of the Bambata Rebellion.

Why do you worry about the cost? They must get it whatever the cost may be.

I see that the hon. member is on my side. The hon. the Minister is concerned with Civil Service pensions and I think especially now of the men in the Army, Air Force and Navy. They have a contributory pension scheme and of course in most developed democratic countries they do not (have a contributory pension scheme. They have a non-contributory pension scheme. In other words all the bookkeeping is done by the Government itself. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could have an investigation carried out by his staff, in collaboration with the staff of the Minister of Finance, to ascertain what is the cost of accounting and the amount of work involved in taking a subscription from the civil servant and another from the Government and keeping an account for each civil servant. In other words, would he try to have an investigation carried out in regard to the possibility of introducing a non-contributory pension scheme for all civil servants? But I am thinking more especially of the men in the armed forces. I do not know whether that can be done and I do not know whether his Department is the right department to carry out an investigation in this regard. I think that it would be a good thing to have a small commission and the best people to serve on that commission would naturally not be members of the House but the experts in the departments who are concerned with it and who are interested in it. I do not know what their views are because I have not discussed it with them but when I was in Britain I investigated their system. Their system is a simpler one than ours. Recently I discussed it with an eminent accountant in this country. I asked him what his views were and he said, “I have told them that they should always pay pensions out of revenue”. He says the Government pays insurance out of revenue. One does not insure a Government Department. If there is an accident on the Railways, one does not go to an insurance company. A motorist has to insure, but the Railways do not insure. Why should they have to establish funds in order to pay a pension when their pensions can be paid out of revenue? The hon. the Minister, under item J, is paying the Government contribution out of Revenue. Why should they not all be paid in this way? That is the submission I wish to make to the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington spoke in a very fine spirit on the spirit prevailing among war veterans. I take it that he must have performed an important function in this regard in his day. The thought occurred to me: May it never again happen in our time that great, civilized nations should find it necessary to take up arms against each other. I mention this just in passing. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister some direct questions, and the Minister will reply to them in due course.

I have risen to raise two matters. The first relates to head D, on page 90. Before us we have the report of the Department for the period 1st April, 1964 to 31st March, 1966. I should like to take this opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and his staff that in my view any student in sociology should regard this report as a most important document to a study of this important subject. Not only does it set out the full scope of the work of the Department, but it also contains a very lucid survey off the needs of a large section of our people. But it also contains something more. It implies signs of danger to our national structure. I do not want to give many examples. There are quite a few examples of that. I should just like to refer to one example, and that is the danger sign of child neglect which one notices is already evident in our country. Someone once put it as follows: “Little children who will be deprived completely of the morning glow of a beautiful dawn of joy and happiness unless the State intervenes”. I think this is true, and I should therefore like to take this opportunity to plead that the important information contained in this comprehensive report should enjoy the attention not only of legislators or students or the welfare officers but that it should also enjoy the attention of every individual citizen of this country. I think it will not be inappropriate of the Department to expect the Press to attach more news value to this report in order that it may also enjoy the attention of the general public.

Then I should like to raise a second matter with reference to item L, on page 92. In this year’s Estimates we have appropriated more for child welfare than in last year’s. We should like to express our appreciation for that. In recent times a new phenomenon has come to our notice in our cities, a phenomenon which actually forms another facet of child welfare. It is the phenomenon of children who are not actually in need of care in the economic sense, but who do need day care. I want to set out the causes of this phenomenon briefly. There are many causes, but to remain within the ambit of this Vote, I shall mention only two of the causes. The first is the case of divorces where the children are entrusted to one parent, and where the parent to whom the children have been entrusted is the breadwinner and has to go and work. For a large part of the day, and sometimes also at night, that parent has to be away from home. That is one cause of this phenomenon. The other cause of this phenomenon is that one of the parents may have died, so that the remaining parent is actually the breadwinner. These children are deprived of important care. I am referring to the day care which parents give their children, particularly when they return from school and need the real care of their parents. They are deprived of that day care. This is not a new concept. What has actually happened is that in modern times this phenomenon has been more strongly emphasized. In America the American League of Child Welfare has already published an important book under the title Day Care, in which they discuss this whole phenomenon. In our own country we are also privileged because our churches appointed an important commission which investigated the whole question of family care and also this specific matter of children who are not economically in need of care but who need day care. I have no hesitation in saying that one of our colleagues here, the hon. member for Westdene, has made an important contribution to this work. In my view the time has come to carry out a comprehensive inquiry into this whole matter of day care. I think that if something can be done about this, five important concerns will be involved. They are, firstly, the family itself, secondly the Department of Social Welfare, thirdly the Department of Health, fourthly the Department of Education and fifthly our church and private concerns which operate in this field. In conclusion I want to say that if we can institute a thorough inquiry into this problem, we shall find a solution to it.

Mr. Chairman, so many subjects have been raised by now that I shall have to start replying, otherwise I may perhaps forget to reply to some of them. Then I shall be accused of not replying in full. I doubt whether I shall even be able to reply fully to all the particular points that have been raised here. I want to begin by associating myself with the gratitude which has been expressed from both sides of the House to officials of my Department of Social Welfare. In particular I want to convey a word of gratitude to the Secretary for Social Welfare, Mr. Bosman, who told me that he intends to leave the Public Service during the second half of this year and to retire on pension. During many years of faithful service in the Public Service he has distinguished himself in various capacities. He reached the highest grade attainable in the Public Service, namely that of Secretary of a department. He acquitted himself with great distinction of the duties of Secretary of this difficult department. Now that he is to retire we want to wish him a peaceful, calm, long and healthy life in the company of the aged.

Furthermore, I want to take this opportunity to make a very serious appeal to members of this House not to conduct the discussion on this vote of Social Welfare and Pensions on such lines year after year that it gives the impression that this Department is merely a Department which hands out alms and that it is a Department in respect of which parties can try to out-bid each other to show who can offer most to the needy people of the country. I think this is the wrong approach to adopt. I think it is an approach which does a disservice to our country and to the attitude of the State in respect of welfare services, because this Department has a very wide field to cover. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to child welfare, which is an important section. There are many other sections. There is the important task of family care; the formulation of our family policy; combating the increasing number of divorces in the country; the wide field of welfare services; the prevention of social aberrations in members of the community; the fight against alcoholism—in other words, combating all the different social problems encountered in South Africa. For that reason, Sir, I think it is such a great pity that the emphasis should always be placed on what is being done for a certain group of people and on which Party can make the highest bid.

Who will plead for them unless we do so?

I do not mind if hon. members plead for certain persons or certain groups for whom they think a plea should be made. I have nothing against that. But I think that to place the emphasis on only one part of the work throughout a debate is to negate the important work performed in a much wider field. It also compels me to confine myself to the matters raised here, and I shall now deal briefly with the various questions.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked why the concessions contained in the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance would come into operation only on 1st October and not immediately. The hon. member should bear in mind that with every change that takes place—and here it is not only the question of the bonus increases but also the changed means test— the different punch cards used in the computers have to be corrected and replaced. This, of course, involves a great deal of work. In the past our experience has been that if such a concession was made retrospective to the beginning of the financial year, while the Act authorizing it was passed only towards June, the ladies in that Department had to do a great deal of overtime work during the cold winter months. This gives rise to impossible situations. In the past we have even had to go as far as arranging special transport to take the ladies back home at night, after they had done many hours of overtime work. They had to work overtime to make the changes if the changes were of retrospective force. By “retrospective” I mean from the beginning of the financial year. In practice it was therefore found to be better—and this has in fact been done since last year—to grant all concessions of this nature as from 1st October, because the Department then has time to make the adjustments and calculations gruadually. Consequently more or less all the beneficiaries receive the. benefits to which they are entitled when the October payments are made.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why in 1966 the bonus of R2 per month was granted as from 1st April, namely from the beginning of the financial year?

There were many enquiries, and it was only quite a while afterwards that the outstanding amounts were paid out. As I have now explained, it demanded a tremendous deal of overtime work, in particular during the winter months, and we should like to try to avoid that in future. Apart from that, of course, I received a limited amount from Treasury which I had to distribute in the best possible way. That was a further consideration.

I have also been asked what the position is with regard to war veterans’ pensions for persons who served during the Zulu Rebellion of 1906, which is now known as the Bambata Rebellion. The Government has decided that war veterans’ pensions shall also be payable to persons who served in the Government forces during the Zulu Rebellion of 1906. During 1906 martial law had to be proclaimed in Natal as a result of the Zulu Rebellion of the time. This rebellion took place because the poor financial position of the Natal Administration compelled it to impose a poll tax. Certain elements of the Zulu population, particularly those who had already come into contact with Utopianism, were not prepared to submit to this. Murderous attacks were made on the Government officials who had to collect the taxes. Even police protection was not enough to prevent loss of life among officials. After the rebels had also begun threatening the friendly Bantu and had burnt down their kraals, the Government was compelled to put its full military force into the field in view of the country-wide proportions the rebellion was assuming. Even the Transvaal and the Cape Colony each sent a full regiment to help suppress the rebellion. The actual rebellion lasted from February, 1906, to August, 1906. Certain chiefs remained in a state of rebellion, however, and waged a guerrilla war until 1910. There were between 10,000 and 12,000 rebels, of whom 2,300 were killed, according to officers. However, the magistrates estimated that more than 6,000 had been killed. 10,000 white troops and 6,000 Zulu troops were employed. It has been decided that white persons who served during the rebellion shall he regarded as war veterans and that the means test will be applicable, but as all these persons have already reached the age of 70 years, it follows that the considerably relaxed means which applies in respect of war veterans from the age of 70 years will be applicable to them. The War Veterans’ Pensions Act will also be amended accordingly this year, in order that these troops and volunteers may come under the definition of a war veteran as provided in the Act. The legislation will provide that all applications received as from this month—April—will be considered for Payment. As from this month the pensions will be payable.

Why are they not included with the war veterans?

Surely I have just said that they will come under the definition of “war veterans”. I shall deal with the question of war veterans’ pensions in a moment.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked me whether something could not be done with regard to the position of aged people who during their lifetime put something aside and acquired a home and who now, as a result of that, either lose their pensions or do not receive any. I do not want to repeat the benefits announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance, which mean considerable relief in respect of those persons. But I now want to announce that over and above this, I have decided that as from 1st April this year—notwithstanding the considerable extensions in the allowable assets as from 1st October in respect of a full or partial pension—further provision will be made because problems are experienced with the abnormal increase in the value of fixed property. In order to prevent the cancellation of a person’s pension because the valuation of his property has been raised, it was decided long ago that once the valuation of fixed property has been accepted an increase in it will not be taken into account for pension purposes. The position of existing pensioners is therefore covered. However, problems are being experienced with regard to persons who apply now but who have to be refused on the grounds of the present value of their properties, whereas a person who applied some years ago and who possesses assets approximately equal in value, does in fact receive a pension. It has always been our attitude that pensioners should have a home of their own as far as possible. It is only then that the amount of the pension or allowance can be regarded as supplementary, in the true sense of the word, to meet such a person’s minimum living requirements. In view of the abnormal increase in the value of properties, it has been decided that the valuation of all fixed property should be reduced by 25 per cent for the purposes of calculating social pensions and allowances. Initially this concession will apply only in respect of all new applications and also in respect of exceptional existing cases of people who have little or no property and who receive a small pension or allowance as a result of the valuation of their properties. If a pension case has to be revised in the normal course of events, the new formula will be applied.

Will it be 25 per cent less on the minicipal valuations?

Normally we accept the municipal valuation. Several members pointed out that the pension concessions made to the aged were not adequate. Every now and then the question is asked: “Are you satisfied with them?” I think it is unfortunate that there should be political bidding on the position of these unfortunate people, these people who are in most need of assistance. As it could afford it and as financial policy made it possible, the State has always tried to improve the position of these people. Thus pensions have been increased by 47.6 per cent in the past 10 years, compared with an increase of 20 per cent in the cost of living index. There has therefore been a considerable improvement in their positions. But nobody would say that he is completely satisfied with the existing situation. That is in fact why we try from time to time to bring further relief by means of further concessions.

Are the concessions as regards the means test included in that 47.6 per cent?

No, it relates to the pension amount only. The benefits which arose from a relaxation of the means test are not included. The hon. member for Umbilo also wanted to know why such a great concession had been made to old-age pensioners above 70 years of age in respect of assets, whereas nothing has been done for war veterans above 70 years. The position is that as from 1st October, 1967, old-age pensioners over 70 years of age can possess assets to the value of R8,000 and still receive the full old-age pension. War veterans have enjoyed these concessions since 1st October, 1965, and have therefore been receiving the maximum pension from that date. But over and above assets to the value of R8,000 these war veterans may also have an undivided income of R624 a year and still receive the maximum pension. The old-age pensioner with assets to the value of R8,000, on the other hand, can draw the maximum pension only if he has no other income. The war veteran is therefore in a considerably better position. The war veteran of above 70 years of age can still receive a pension even though he has assets to the value of R16,400. He can still receive a pension, though a smaller one, of course. As for the old-age pensioners, the maximum allowable assets will be R13,200 as from 1st October, 1967—compared with R16,400 in the case of war veterans. Hon. members will therefore perceive that in this regard the position of the war veteran is still considerably better than that of the old-age pensioner.

There is in any event no change in this regard?

No, it remains the same. Several other members have also asked for further concessions—such as the cancellation of the means test for war veterans of the First World War, which will have to include protesting burghers of that period. It goes without saying that such a concession will involve further expenditure, although it may be little. In any event, I do not think we can adopt the principle that as soon as a certain period has lapsed the means test as it applies to war veterans should be abolished. If this is done, it will inevitably give rise to pleas that that period should be made shorter—for example, I am convinced that if I comply with this request hon. members will ask next year that the means test as it applies to war veterans from the Second World War should also be abolished, and if they do not do so next year, it will in any event happen some years later. But it will be asked. I think one should preserve the balance in these matters. We have to ensure that the available funds will be distributed where assistance is needed most. This is in fact the policy of the Government. Therefore, although I am in sympathy with the plea made by the hon. member for North Rand with regard to war veterans who got married within a certain period, etc., and although in principle the Government has no objection to relief for that group, we have to choose the most essential from a number of possible concessions this year. We have chosen those which in our view are most essential. They must get priority this year. We must therefore go by priorities. I may say that all reasonable suggestions are included in my list of concessions which are submitted to the Government from year to year.

Will you show us that list?

I am also only a beggar with my colleague the Minister of Finance, as all my other colleagues are only beggars with him. Each one of us has to try his hardest to get a share.

The trouble is that he has Newcastle disease.

That hon. member also got to know Newcastle once upon a time; he spent quite a while in Newcastle, and I think the greatest problem he ever experienced was in fact in Newcastle. The less he speaks about Newcastle the better for him.

He has still not recovered from that.

He has still not recovered from that.

The hon. member for Hercules raised the question of the classification of aged people for the various categories—the ordinary aged people, the infirm aged and the most infirm aged. This classification is not carried out on a basis laid down by formula by my Department; it is done by a committee set up at every institution, on which my Department and medical officers are also represented. At every home each case is dealt with on its merits. This is the only basis on which it can be done. One cannot lay down a formula as far as the degree of infirmity of an aged person is concerned. These committees classify according to their best judgment at the various institutions.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about cripple care, and I may inform him that this whole matter, apart from the fact that there is a National Council for Cripples, which performs good co-ordination work in connection with all the services for cripples, is at the moment being investigated by an inter-departmental committee appointed by my colleague the Minister of Education, Arts and Science under the chairmanship of an official of my Department. I think we shall be able to meet the problems referred to by the hon. member as soon as we have the report of that committee.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that there were civil and railway pensioners who would rather receive a war veterans’ pension as a supplementary allowance payable in addition to their State pensions. The fact of the matter is that when the supplementary allowance is determined, only a person’s basic pension and temporary allowance is taken into account, whereas in the case of a social pension a person’s assets are also taken into account. Therefore these people could only be better off by receiving a supplementary allowance than they could be by receiving a social pension, in respect of which their assets serve as an income factor. The basis of the supplementary allowance is that it excludes the old-age pension, irrespective of whether or not a person has reached the quality-ing age, and that is a further reason why the system is more advantageous to the pensioner than the proposal of the hon. member for Umbilo.

But he has to pay income tax on it.

Last year I asked that hon. members should bring me cases of persons who are in a poorer position than they would have been in otherwise, as a result of the fact that they have to pay income tax, and I said that I would then investigate those cases, but as far as I know not one case has been brought to my attention.

The hon. member for Kensington asked that the contributory pension scheme for members of the Defence Forces in particular should be abolished. This is completely contrary to his Party’s policy, of course, because they want a contributory pension scheme for everybody, but in this case the official does not contribute; only the State must contribute. But this is just in passing. At this stage I do not think we can contemplate changing the existing pension schemes in this regard. The whole basis of pension schemes in South Africa is that contributions are made by the employer and the employee.

That derives from the colonial system.

Yes, but it is a good system. I have already referred to the cancellation of the means test for war veterans of the 1914-’18 War, but I just want to point out that almost all of them are over 70 years old, and that they are subject to the relaxed means test.

The hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned the relation between the number of executive posts and the total establishment of the Department, and he said that to him it appeared to be slightly disproportionate. In a department such as this, where a large number of files have to be checked to extract particulars, one naturally needs a much larger number of junior clerks than in other departments. The establishment was not determined on the basis of social work or professional services rendered; it is actually determined with a view to the tremendous amount of routine work entailed by pensions. This is the reason why he may perhaps find it quite disproportionate. The hon. member also referred to the care of the aged on the Witwatersrand. I do not want to elaborate on that now. I think that once the Bill has been passed which the House is dealing with at present, the Department, after it has made a full survey of where the people live and under what conditions they live (because the necessary investigations and the registration of institutions will then take place) will be better able to find proper means of caring for these people. The hon. member also asked me what the reason was for the reduction on the two items. The reduction on the item “war veterans’ pensions” is attributable to the natural demise of those persons. The reduction in the amount provided for the infirm aged is attributable to the fact that it is only since last year that an increased amount for the infirm aged has been paid to institutions. The initial estimate was much higher than the actual claims. The reduction is not attributable to a reduction of the actual allocations; in fact, we have increased the allocations, but we now have a better basis on which to draw up the Estimates.

That brings me to the question of a compulsory contributory pension scheme for everybody. I do not want to say much about this on this occasion. The hon. members for Pretoria (West) and Springs have already referred to it. I just want to point out one very important problem. The moment one introduces a contributory pension scheme of which the State assumes control and which it makes compulsory for everybody, irrespective whether or not the State contributes to it and whether or not it merely does all the administrative work, one encounters the problem that when persons who contributed over a long period of many years eventually retire they want rand for rand on their contributions, with due regard to the depreciation of money that has since taken place. Surely we have contributory pension schemes in our country. The civil pension scheme for our public servants is a contributory pension scheme, and we have to pay bonuses on it for a large number of people. In other words, a scheme of this nature will not obviate the necessity for social pensions or pensions-in-aid or an aid scheme for certain persons. One will never be able to eliminate these. The question now arises to what extent one should establish a compulsory State scheme, and to what extent one should continue along the present lines, namely the development of the voluntary schemes established by agreement between employer and employee, under which private employees are encouraged to make their own provision through the considerable tax concessions they receive in respect of such contributions.

Now I want to say at once that I am not condemning the American scheme out of hand. I think there is perhaps a good deal in the American scheme that merits further investigation. Last year a certain official of my Department carried out an extensive investigation there and I received his report only a week or two ago. I have not had time to study it very fully, but I would agree that apart from that Social Security Act there are other schemes in America which one should take into consideration, such as the Medicare scheme. If circumstances permit it—I said yesterday that there were other reasons why an extensive overseas study should be undertaken —I intend going over later this year to make a further investigation in person. I do not yet know whether I will manage to do so and whether the work here will permit it, but if it is possible I shall personally go and investigate these schemes, and particularly the financial and administrative implications of the various schemes, and then we shall see to what extent one can learn from them. As we have a complete survey of the Continental schemes and my predecessor studied those schemes carefully, I think it is necessary that we should also acquire more information on the schemes in the U.S.A. Without accepting the principle —because I maintain that there are problems as far as the principle is concerned, apart from those mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (West)—I therefore think it is nevertheless worthwhile studying it very carefully, and it is my intention, if circumstances permit it, to go and take a personal look at this matter and at the other matters to which I referred, later this year.

The hon. the Minister referred to the imminent retirement of the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions and I am sure I echo the sentiments of all members on this side of the House when I associate myself with his remarks and wish the incumbent of the position Godspeed and many years of health and happiness in his retirement. I would like to say personally that I have always admired his dedication to duty and the courteous manner in which he has always conducted negotiations with the people he is responsible for, the pensioners, and with hon. members of this House. I think, too, that it is only fair to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo when he referred to the very interesting day which, I believe, arose out of the initiative of this particular gentleman, when he made if possible for members of this House to investigate the administration of the Department and then to spend a most instructive day seeing the work being done for the rehabilitation of alcoholics.

I am sure that we also welcome the announcement of the Minister in regard to the concessions he has indicated will now accrue to those people who took part in the Bambata Rebellion.

I want to come back to the question of war veterans’ pensions. The Minister has indicated his viewpoint in regard to the matter, but I believe there are facts and figures I could place before him and which perhaps he should review, with the idea of having a re-assessment of this position. Earlier this year I asked the hon. the Minister whether his Department had conducted a survey to indicate the number of veterans of the 1914-’18 War who would be eligible for a war veteran’s pension if the means test were abolished, and I received the answer from the Minister that no such survey had been conducted. But the Minister went on to say that there was no reason why the means test should be abolished in respect of these veterans in that for all war veterans who had attained the age of 70 years the means test had been relaxed considerably and those who are in need of financial assistance are already in receipt of such assistance. The Minister more or less endorsed those remarks this afternoon, but I feel that, for the record, one should correct one misconception, namely this. Arising out of that question, as a supplementary question, I asked the Minister whether he had received representations from organizations or individuals in regard to the abolition of the means test, and the Minister replied, and it stands in Hansard: “No, I have not received representations from them. I have received them only from two Members of Parliament representing the Opposition.” I do not believe that is correct. I think if the Minister goes through his files he will find that there have been representations from members of the public, from the war veterans themselves. I can think of two specific cases of people in my own constituency, and I also want to refer to the representations made, not to this Minister but to his predecessor, by the M.O.T.H.S. in respect of this matter. Now, we know that the war veteran pensioners have received the benefit of R1 a month which will become due to them afteR1st October, 1967, but there has been no relaxation of the means test and I believe that the war veterans still suffer from the same degree of inflation and the difficulties arising from the high cost of living as many other pensioners, and that those who fall just outside the means test are also having a difficult time as the result of these factors. But the figures I want to bring to the notice of the Minister are these. In 1944 the number of war veterans in receipt of payments—I am quoting round figures to the nearest 1,000—was approximately 12,000 and the amount paid to them at that stage was R1 million. The highest figure that has existed in regard to the number of veterans receiving pensions was in 1957, when 30,000 were receiving benefits and the amount paid out was R10 million. We find that in 1965 the number of war veteran pensions had dropped to just on 20,500 and that the payments had also been reduced to R9.2 million, and we find in these Estimates that the amount allocated in pensions to war veterans has remained almost static at R9.27 million, despite the fact that since October, 1966, there has been the inclusion of the Burger Forces of the 1914-’15 Armed Resistance who fell within the means test. So the conclusion one draws from these figures is that there has been a decrease in the number of war veterans benefiting and that the payments by the State have decreased or have more or less remained static. That is not the case in regard to the old-age pensions and the records show that there has been a considerable increase in the amount of money made available for old-age pensions although according to the Statistical Yearbook the number of beneficiaries has remained more or less static. I have said that some of these war veteran pensioners feel a certain amount of frustration and bitterness as a result of their failure to enjoy a greater relaxed means test and in certain age groups, perhaps the abolition of the means test. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that he has indicated his views in this regard. There has been no survey taken and no accurate figures exist to show the extent to which the State might be involved if further relaxations were undertaken. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come when a survey could be undertaken. I believe that with the modern means of communication at our disposal, namely the radio, the Department of Information and the Press, it would be quite simple to get a message across to the public of South Africa to indicate that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions was seeking information in regard to war veterans. I believe that if a statement were put out on the radio and the other means of communication to which I have referred to indicate that the Department would like to hear from all war veterans over 70 who were not in receipt of war veteran pensions and that they should get in touch with the Department before a certain date, a great number of people would respond to that appeal and the Department would be in the position of knowing how many were affected.

Then the people will expect something.

I appreciate that but these expectations could be fulfilled gradually. I am suggesting to the hon. the Minister that perhaps there could be the entire abolition of the means test for those over 80, to start off with. Having found that position and assessed the State’s liability in this regard, there could be a further relaxation for those between the ages of 75 and 79. If one comes down to actual population figures, my argument is not an unreasonable one. I can only quote the 1960 census figures. I realize that in the years that have intervened there has been a change in the number of people in certain age groups. [Time expired.]

In the short time at my disposal I quickly want to put a few matters to the hon. the Minister. I just want to refer in passing to the thanks that has been expressed here to the Minister and his Department, including Mr. Bosman, and I want to associate myself with it. I want to tell you, Sir, that I particularly appreciate the fine welfare services and pensions which are being provided, and especially this small increase which has now been granted. Since I have one of the largest welfare settlements in my constituency, I think that I am in a better position to appreciate these things than are persons who do not know what goes on in such a settlement. I should like to refer to the settlers in that area. There are two groups of people in such a welfare settlement, namely the settlers and the settler tenants. It amounts to this, that the settlers consist mostly of disabled persons. The father is consequently unable to care for his family and he is admitted as a pensioner, and then each couple receives a pension of R60 per month, from which the State deducts R10 for rent. In addition the usual free medical services plus the other services which are obtainable in such a settlement are provided. In the same settlement and perhaps in the house right next door we find the true settler. These settlers consist of the older group of persons, namely those who qualify for pensions because of their age. Those people get the same houses with the same benefits, but their pension is only R29. Where the other couple get R60 less R10, namely R50, such a couple get only R29. To my mind this anomaly must be eliminated. I want to make an urgent and very earnest request that the Minister consider this matter very seriously and put it right, and I want to say at once that he must not decrease the R50 to R29, but must increase the R29 to R50. There is considerable dissatisfaction amongst these people—apart from envy and even worse things—as a result of the fact that two couples living next to each other are not treated on the same basis. Then there is still the position of the children. Settlers who still have children at home get an allowance for the children as well. That allowance, however, falls away as soon as those children leave home to go to school elsewhere. Because the children are growing up there in those backward conditions their I.Q.S are generally very low. I think that conditions there are really one of the causes of that. Then it happens that these children are sent to schools of industries—as at Wolmaransstad, Kimberley and Christiana. As soon as the child goes away the parent loses the allowance in respect of that child. But then the expenses of the parent are even higher; as an example I want to mention that every other week the children have the weekend free and have to be brought back to their homes either by train or by taxi; in addition they have to be provided with school outfits, and they need more clothes at school, because the parents are not at hand to wash and to repair their clothes. I therefore plead that parents should not lose these allowances, otherwise they simply cannot make ends meet. As things are at present, these children only wait until they reach the age at which they may leave school and then they do so—with only Std. VI or Std. VII and without having qualified in any trade. In that way these children become indigents and dependants on the State. Is it not better rather to see to it that the parents are assisted to keep their child at school by allowing them to retain the allowance? Through that the child will be afforded an opportunity of receiving a proper education and as a result becoming a good citizen of the country. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the Minister to put these few matters right. At the moment they are causing very serious difficulties and even hardship among those people, especially in my constituency.

I appreciate the plea of the hon. member who has just sat down and I hope the Minister will heed that plea. I want to speak about the welfare side of the portfolio of the hon. the Minister and to relate certain unpleasant experiences which have come my way. First of all I want to refer to the fact that a pensioner in need, does not, apart from what his pension can bring him, receive much help from the welfare services of the Department. I have come across cases as a doctor, cases in need. When I spoke to the Department about them welfare officers did not seem to me to be very interested. They seemed to base their attitude on the fact that once a man has got his pension there was nothing more that they could do. This, I feel is not a satisfactory attitude. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should regard pensioners as its wards—it is not enough to give a man a pension and then say to him that that is all there is to it; now he must do the best he can. There should be a spirit in the Department, a spirit to help in every direction. The fact that a man is a pensioner should not preclude him from other assistance.

I want to refer to the medical side of the needs of pensioners. Here again, when the need arises, help is not readily available. A pensioner can obtain help from the provincial clinics and hospitals, provided he is mobile and can get to the clinics and the hospitals and provided there is public transport available and that he has the money to pay for the transport. It has also to be during the daylight hours. But the daylight hours are not always there and the person is not always mobile. Neither is there always some friend available to go with him. I know I will receive the reply from the Minister that the district surgeon is available. That is not good enough. The district surgeons are not easily available. What happens in the end, is that some friend, or perhaps the man himself, communicates with a private doctor, who, out of the goodness of his heart but not always, goes to see the man and either deals with his trouble, or sends him to hospital in an ambulance. This is done after usually having an altercation with the ambulance as to who is going to pay for its service. Life should be made as easy as possible for these people, not as difficult as possible. One hardly expects illness in old people, or in anybody else, to stick to office hours. It comes when it comes and it has to be dealt with when it comes. The Welfare Department should go out of its way to arrange matters in such a way that help is available, and available easily. It is the word “easily” I want to emphasize, because …

Order! Should that matter not be raised with the Minister of Health?

No, Sir. The Minister of Health thinks he is providing well and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions thinks the Minister of Health is providing well. Both of them are satisfied. I am trying to bring home to one and then to bring it home to the other later. But, whatever it is, this unfortunate pensioner falls between two stools. That is the difficulty.

Many people who are not pensioners are evidently in the same position. In my opinion this matter really falls under the Department of Health.

There are not many who are not pensioners and who are in the same position. It is the pensioner I am dealing with, the poor man who, even if he is not a pensioner, should be under the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It is the welfare man that I am referring to; not anybody else. However, I shall not take the matter any further.

I want to move on to another aspect. I also think that they should be provided with dental care, but perhaps you will rule me out of order, Sir. [Interjections.] I know, but I want to go on to something which even the Department of Health will not take up. That is chiropody. So many of these old pensioners, these old poor people who may not even be pensioners, are immobile, because they have corns, or because they have callouses on their feet. They are immobilized. One of the greatest needs for which the welfare services should provide is chiropody. They should go so far—this is not a medical question—as to have a mobile chiropodist, who will go round to these unfortunate people and make them mobile. These unfortunates are given shoes that do not fit them by charitable-minded people. It is all right to wear a suit which does not fit you, but to wear shoes that do not fit you, will not do your feet any good! I say that chiropody is an urgent need and I hope that the hon. the Minister will put his mind to this aspect of the welfare of these people.

Lastly, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the great increase in the mental ill health of the aged. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will be a little lenient, because it does …

Order! I really think the hon. member is raising matters which should be raised under the Department of Health. Every one of the matters raised up to now should be raised under that Vote.

Dr. A. RADFORD: To a point I agree with you, but I am now moving towards a matter at which the hon. the Minister’s care and attention could prevent ill health and a point with which the hon. the Minister of Health cannot deal, because I cannot go to the Minister of Health and say: Look, isolation is making these people ill. That is the problem of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. That is the whole problem. It is a question of creating circumstances for these people who are aged, so that they do not become isolated and desolate, particularly when they have a bereavement. These are the conditions that bring the aged into the mental hospitals. These institutions are crowded with people who would never have gone there, had we known about these matters in the past. Now we know that aged people, properly cared for, can be kept out of the mental hospitals, because it is largely insecurity that puts them there. If the Minister’s Department will create a feeling of security among the aged, he will keep a great number of them out of the mental hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with previous speakers who have expressed their thanks for the very well organized and informative tour through the offices of the Department, as well as the rehabilitation centre, which we have had the opportunity of undertaking. We were immensely impressed by the zeal and devotion with which the officials carry out their task. The only further comment I can make is that it is a pity (that all the alcoholics who still disfigure our parks have not also been or cannot also be admitted to those centres to be rehabilitated there.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister said here this afternoon that the main function of his Department was not to distribute alms, but that it was to do rehabilitation work and to try to prevent social deviations. If it were to be the policy of the Department to distribute alms, then they would only aggravate the danger pointed out by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, namely the tendency towards a welfare state. That would then eventually be the breeding-ground of greater socialism, which I cannot call anything but a scourge for any society. If the Minister makes it his object to try and resist and eventually eradicate that tendency, we can assure him that he is rendering a great service to this country. Because he said that, I feel myself at liberty this afternoon to make a plea particularly on behalf of private institutions that specialize in welfare work which is aimed at preventing the distribution of alms and at enabling people to be self-supporting. Surely it is the pride, or it ought to be the pride and the honour of every human being, every living creature, if physically and mentally sound, to be self-supporting and not always to run to the State and ask for alms.

I now want to refer to the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home, which is situated in my constituency and which has two subdivisions in Potchefstroom and Nylstroom. This institution has over a period of many years rendered service to the Afrikaner people which certainly cannot be measured in terms of money. I cannot but express my praise and gratitude to not only the founders of that laudable institution, but also to everyone who has over the years helped to develop into the excellent institution which it is to-day. There is among others the hon. member for Kimberley (South), who was the superintendent of that institution for several years. Now, it is sometimes very difficult for that institution to carry on this great and excellent work in the way which it should be done. I cannot omit to mention, too, that the original purpose of the institution was to care for war orphans. At that time it was in fact called the Abraham Kriel Orphanage. Today it no longer cares for orphans, but for children who become neglected in broken homes, homes in which the parents do not know how to fulfil their duties, parents who, in most cases, really ought to be in institutions themselves. Because it cares for those children —a task which, to my mind, is actually the responsibility of the State—I feel myself free this afternoon to plead for larger allowances to be granted to that institution. Not only allowances are necessary, but also assistance in the form of expert and scientific support. With the funds at their disposal it is extremely difficult for these people to obtain the necessary experts and scientists to assist them in word and deed. I am not asking that the Department should interfere with their work, but I am pleading for co-operation on a sound basis so that they will be able to make use of the necessary professional and scientific knowledge which the Department has at its disposal. In that way they will be able to render better service to those children.

Another aspect which is causing the people there a great deal of difficulty is the absence of the highly necessary facilities for not only the mental and spiritual, but also the physical development of the children. With the funds at their disposal it is extremely difficult for them to provide the necessary sports facilities and so forth. That is why I am asking that the Department should assist the institution not only financially, but also in words and deed. It is a fine Afrikaans institution, an institution of which everyone who is worthy of the name of Afrikaner, everyone who loves his people and his country, can be proud. It is an institution which has rendered this fine service over many years. I feel myself at liberty to plead for that institution because it has rendered fine service over the years.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer, and that is that there is perhaps not enough co-ordination between the Department of Social Welfare and our education authorities. To-day I want to refer specifically to children and young people who go astray in our large cities and who perhaps are not brought to the notice of the Department sufficiently. I am thinking of an area such as Johannesburg, where I had the privilege to serve on the school board for some years. There we had cases of children asking to be exempted from attending school. One of the grounds on which the school board may grant exemption in terms of the relevant ordnance is for financial reasons.

Then one finds that a child with an I.Q. of 125 oR130 comes and asks to be exempted from attending school while he is still in standard eight or nine, the reason advanced, being lack of money. The school boards have school attendance officers who make investigations, and after investigations have been made the officer tells the school board that the parents are in fact very poor and financially unable to keep that child at school. Now I am asking for the necessary co-ordination to be introduced so that such a case has to be reported to the Department. The Department can then carry out an investigation and see to it that assistance is granted. That does not mean to say that the Department must grant the assistance, but surely there are other concerns which can grant such financial assistance so that that child will be enabled to attain the highest level which he is mentally capable of attaining. There are also cases where children abscond from school and where the parents have to appear in court because of the children’s poor school attendance. In most such cases it is the parents who are negligent towards their children. Then the child is the one to suffer as a result of the negligence of his parents. Those cases are not brought to the notice of the Department, as should be the case. I want to declare that the Department should force education authorities to bring such cases to the notice of the Department. Sir, I say that South Africa cannot afford to lose that potential. We must see to it that those children are saved in order to ensure the continued existence of our nation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to refer to a few matters which I advocated during the Budget debate already and which belong under this hon. Minister. I thought at the time that I might not get a chance to speak during this debate. I do not wish to repeat or elaborate on what I said on that occasion, but I nevertheless just want to mention a few matters, and if I should perhaps get off the track, I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would indicate the right direction to me.

I should like to refer to pensioners who also receive a cost-of-living allowance. I said at the time—and I do not want to cover that ground again, because the Minister himself is fully informed—that I should like to see the means test raised or even abolished. Another aspect in regard to which I submitted a plea is in actual fact more a matter concerning the hon. the Minister of Finance, but as it is also in connection with pension cases I shall briefly refer to it again. I pleaded for a tax reduction for our pensioners, whose pensions remain constant although the cost of living is continually increasing. I shall be glad to hear the Minister’s views in that regard.

Another matter I should like to touch upon is the question of subsidized homes. It is wonderful to see the tremendous advance made in that field by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in the past number of years. On 31st March, 1966, there were as many as 119 subsidized homes, while 51 new ones were in process of construction. These homes will be able to accommodate approximately 10,000 persons. In the financial year 1964-’65 the aggregate per capita subsidy was R274,023, while the subsidy in respect of furniture was R19,600. As I have said, it is a wonderful advance that has been made here if regard is had to the fact that we have 85,000 old-age pensioners, while there are 10,000 for whom care is provided. In addition there are, of course, the three State homes, and a large number of private homes which it is not possible to take into account. I find this simply fantastic. Further to what I have just said, however, there is a certain section of these aged persons, particularly in our cities —and I am now speaking from experience of Johannesburg and the Rand, and not only of my constituency—who ought to receive a subsidy. There is a surprisingly large number of these aged persons, and I feel that the time has arrived for us to introduce some kind of subsidy to assist these people as well, because these are the aged persons whom we should like to keep in the community; it is our policy and it is the general view that the more we can retain the aged in the community, the better for those aged persons themselves and the better for the children, the grand-children and the entire family circle.

The aged in the cities who receive social pensions are the very people whose children are in the lower or middle income groups. One finds that as a rule the children cannot make any contribution to the maintenance of their parents. Mr. Chairman, you yourself know what the position is in the cities to-day. These old people can only live in the old, dilapidated residential areas. One finds that they usually live in a few small rooms in the back-yard, because they cannot afford anything better, and I can assure you, Sir, that they sometimes have to pay exorbitant rentals for those small rooms. I feel that it may be possible to solve this problem in the following way: When a housing scheme is built by the State itself or by the town councils, two or four small houses can be built for these aged persons on a site situated among the dwelling houses so that they may be kept in the community. If those people cannot afford the rentals, their rentals can be subsidized by the Department of Social Welfare. The old people will then be able to live in such a suburb in a national housing scheme in which ten to one some of their children may also be living. Then they would be a support to the children and the children would be a support to them. Then they would not be crowded together as happens in the old people’s homes.

I have nothing against those homes; there are people who prefer to live in old people’s homes, but there are some of these old people who are still active and still want to play their part in the community and who would like to have their own little homes in an ordinary residential area near their children and their friends. They would still like to have their children visit them on Sunday afternoons. After all, it is our policy and our ideal to keep these old people among us and with us. To my mind this is one of the directions in which a solution may be found. The old people could then be cared for in that way. There are probably other ways as well in which they may be assisted.

Order! The hon. member is submitting his plea in regard to this matter under the wrong Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am making my plea under subsidized accommodation.

Order! The hon. member is submitting a plea in regard to something which belongs under Community Development.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I shall abide by it. I have finished dealing with the matter in any case.

The hon. member for Springs talked about the protesting burghers of the 1914-’18 War who were finding it difficult to prove their identity, because there are no complete records through which they can be traced. A few of these cases have been brought to my notice, and at present my Department and I are trying to find ways and means for working out a proper system whereby we can in fact accept and verify the necessary statements from these people. After all, one has to be careful. Recently I had a case where a person applied for a war veteran’s pension as a war veteran of the Second Anglo-Boer War. When I checked all the details, I found that at the outbreak of the Second Anglo-Boer War he was only five years of age, and I found that the person who had provided him with a sworn statement to the effect that they had gone on commando together, that they had fought side by side, was only six years of age at the outbreak of that war. Therefore one has to display caution. Fortunately these are the exceptional cases. For the sake of proper financial control, one has to make sure that there is a proper check, but I nevertheless want to try to accommodate these persons, and together with my Department I am engaged in investigating this entire matter.

The hon. members for Rosettenville and Durban (Central) talked about the functions of my colleague, the Minister of Health, about the provincial administrations and to local authorities. I just want to tell them that as regards the medical care given to persons who have been admitted to old-age homes, there is no problem. The problem lies with those elderly people who are living alone. I agree wholeheartedly that something has to be done about that, but the provision of the necessary clinics is a matter which, in terms of the present provision or powers, actually falls within the scope of local authorities. The provincial administrations must help them in that respect. As far as my Department is concerned, I shall nevertheless see whether something can be done to achieve better coordination in connection with these services and possibly to provide a little incentive in the right direction. I also want to have inquiries to be made as to whether there is any possibility of eliminating a problem which is being experienced by many elderly people. The present position is that an elderly person who is indigent and who has to avail himself of the district surgeon’s services, has to obtain from the magistrate or from the police the necessary certificate for going to the district surgeon. I want to investigate the possibility of issuing in conjunction with the Department of Health—just as pensions pass books are being issued to the aged—some document or other to such persons enabling them to avail themselves of the services of the district surgeon, without having to go to the magistrate or the police. It does not really fall within the scope of my Department, but we shall nevertheless see what we can do in this regard.

The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to rehabilitation work and the good work which is being done in children’s homes. It is the policy of my Department that the child should be kept in his family circle as far as possible. Even if the child has to be taken out of his family circle for the time being—because his family has broken up or is in the process of breaking up or because there are difficulties in that family—it should nevertheless remain our aim to return that child to his family circle at the very first opportunity. In addition to that there is the whole matter of improving the circumstances for the education and the care of children from indigent families. That is something which does not always fall within the scope of my Department. Within certain limits we do pay children’s allowances to the indigent, but the greatest assistance which can be rendered is, as a matter of fact, by way of bursaries granted by the provincial authorities or by other bodies. The Piek Commission, which inquired into family allowances recently, published their report and indicated the various methods which might be used rather than paying out cash allowances to these people. That work is being followed up and, especially in view of the fact that in terms of the new Social Welfare Act we now have a commission for family policy in the Department, I think that it is one of the functions of that Commission to evaluate the situation from time to time and also to indicate the sore points and the points where the necessary progress is not being made. I think it is their function to determine, by means of research and proper investigations, what is being done at present and what additional steps are to be taken so as to meet the kind of problem the hon. member mentioned.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) spoke about the problem in connection with the various categories of income which apply to social welfare settlements, and about other related problems. I have taken note of them and I shall have further inquiries made into the matter, but I just want to point out to him that at the moment the Department has just carried out an extensive evaluation inquiry into the services being rendered at these settlements. This inquiry has been completed and the officials concerned are writing the report. The moment the report has been completed, it will, of course, be submitted to me and considered by my Department. This matter has therefore already been investigated and we are waiting for the report, which we hope to receive in the foreseeable future. He and other members also referred to homes for the aged, children’s homes and other institutions, and all of them emphasized the fact that the per capita subsidy which is being paid, is not sufficient to meet the costs, and that they have to collect a fair amount of money amongst members of the public. But that is in fact the pattern of our social services in South Africa, namely that the State does not assume full responsibility for the care of those who are indigent and destitute; that this is a partnership of the State, the church and the community; that one should involve private enterprise in those services; that it is one of the tasks of social care that one has to collect money from the public so as to obtain the latter’s active co-operation. Because we must bear in mind that every community has the deviates it deserves, and every community is responsible for its deviates. For that reason we cannot remove the responsibility of the community by assuming full responsibility for subsidizing. Subsidies are being improved from time to time, as circumstances render this possible, but at this stage we cannot give any thought to making somewhat bigger contributions than is the case at present. I think it is essential for the community to contribute its share, as it did in the past.

The hon. member for Mayfair wanted to know about the raising of the means test which applies to civil pensioners, and whether it applied to temporary allowances. The Government does not adopt an unsympathetic attitude to this matter, but this is once again a question of priority. I have submitted various proposals to the Government this year, and it had to choose from the various proposals as far as priority was concerned. It was simply impossible for me to obtain everything I had asked for. This is once again a question of rendering assistance where it is needed most. That is what we have done, but particularly in view of the existing anomalies in connection with these temporary allowances to civil pensioners—there are various anomalies—I am exerting myself for having the means test abolished in that respect. My success in this matter will depend on how soon my colleague will be able to provide me with the necessary funds and also on how soon the Railways will be able to meet its corresponding obligation, because one cannot, at the same time, do this for Public Service pensioners and not for Railway pensioners. I am in favour of that in principle, but as a result of priorities it had to stand over this time.

Then it was also said that there should be more co-ordination between the various education authorities and my Department. I do not think that we need to be concerned about that. The new Welfare Board with its commissions will go into that, and my Department is investigating that matter all the time.

If there are other matters which were raised by hon. members and to which I failed to reply, I shall furnish those hon. members with information about such matters if they would bring them to my notice again, and the suggestions which were put forward here I shall bear in mind for the future.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could reply to my suggestion regarding a survey in connection with war veterans’ pensions?

I am afraid that I cannot agree to that. I have stated my view as regards the war veterans of the First World War. I cannot have a survey made at this stage, because the moment one does so, one raises hopes amongst those people, and the moment one raises those hopes, it becomes all the more difficult to resist the pressure. I know the hon. member wants the pressure on me to become unbearable, because then he will obtain pensions for all those people. But I do not think that we can do so at this stage, because there are other priorities.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 10,—“Interior, R2,200,000”.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity we now have before we adjourn. to discuss one particular subdivision of this Department, and that is the subdivision dealing with something which is near to the heart of every member of this House. That is of course the Electoral Act. I should like to put a few questions in particular. The first is in connection with the general registration. In terms of the Electoral Act there are fixed maximum and minimum periods within which a general registration must take place. In the normal course of events we shall have a general registration round about next year, or at the latest in 1968. The next general election will be the provincial elections of 1970. That means that by that time the voters’ roll will be two years old. Since the abolition of continuous registration that means that there will be a lot of dead wood on that roll. I think that in the forthcoming by-election in Johannesburg both parties have had experience of a voters’ roll which is not up to date. If one looks at the advertisements and the concern on the part of the Nationalist Party, one realizes that it is a matter which rests heavily on the heart of the National Party. Therefore I want to ask whether the Minister has given any thought to either holding two general registrations or in some way or other avoiding that the next general election is held on an outdated voters’ roll.

As far as the system of registration is concerned, there is also a great deal of misunderstanding in connection with the application of the R.V.4 system for deleting from the roll the names of voters that have moved. Every returning officer has his own interpretation of the Act. You find one office that acts immediately when an objection is lodged, and that sees to it, on confirmation of the information, that those persons’ names are removed from the roll. Others are inclined to put it aside, especially when an election is approaching, and say: I have sent out an R.V.T, I have had no reply and I have no time now to investigate the matter and to send out inspectors to ascertain whether the persons concerned have in fact moved. I think this is a matter which deserves attention and in regard to which very clear instructions must be given to electoral offices, and which might also call for guidance from the Minister himself as far as policy is concerned. If we are sincere in our intentions to have a clean voters’ roll, which was the original object of the registration system we now have, then we must also be sincere in implementing the system which is aimed at deleting or transferring the names of persons who no longer reside at a certain address. I think both sides of the House are anxious to ensure that we have no dead wood on the voters’ roll, and that we have no persons on a roll who already moved away two or three years previously. Where a party takes the trouble to obtain a person’s new address, lodges an objection and says that a person is now at this address and it can be confirmed, then it should be the policy to transfer that person as is provided for by the Act. In the application of that particular procedure there should be no delay as a result of misunderstanding or different interpretations.

Then I want to deal with the Electoral Act itself. Last year the Minister said that he was contemplating amendments and that a select committee would be appointed to investigate the matter and that it was therefore not necessary to discuss the matter here. I agree with him. If we start discussing the snags now, we shall have to devote to that all the time that is left for the discussion of this Vote, because there are many points which are now obviously unsatisfactory in practice. We have now had an opportunity of testing the two systems of postal votes and special votes, and I think the time has arrived for us to study that experience as parties and as a Parliament and to decide whether the stage has not been reached where we should make use of the special vote systems only. We had misgivings about the ordinary postal vote system, and I think that the last two general elections and the by-election which took place last year, showed that those misgivings were well grounded. I know of one by-election in which, for example, one of the officials whom we said ought not to act as a postal vote officer, namely a Railway official, in this case a captain in the Railway Police, did in fact act as a postal vote officer for a party candidate. He is allowed to do that under the Railway regulations. That is proof of the danger we pointed out when we said that a person who is employed by the Railways and who is entitled to take part in politics, should not have the same powers as a public servant who stands outside politics.

Where is that public servant?

In terms of the law and by tradition—I know that hon. member has no respect for tradition—public servants stand above and outside politics and do not take part in politics as party politicans, as happens in the case of Railway officials. I mention this case of a Railway official who acted as a candidate's postal vote agent, and in that constituency almost 200 postal votes were handled by the Railways or the Railway Police. I mention this as one of the dangers which has become a reality in the application of the Act as it stands. I mention it solely as a reason why I believe that the time has arrived for the system to be investigated. We now have the experience and I believe that the time has arrived for the entire Electoral Act to be reexamined. We must endeavour, if possible, to agree on the points which are to be amended now.

There is another reason why an examination is necessary, and that is the finding in writing, but as a result of that court case it is clear that quite a few amendments will have to be effected, because in terms of that finding the returning officer of a constituency can in many cases only give a temporary decision. For example, if two signatures are completely different and the Act provides that he must decide whether those two signatures were made by the same person, the decision given by him is merely a temporary one, in terms of the finding by the court. If affidavits are subsequently submitted to the court to prove that the signatures are those of the same person, even though they differ, then the affidavits are accepted. [Time expired.]

Before giving the next hon. member an opportunity of addressing the Committee, I just want to point out that in Committee of Supply it is not the object to plead for legislation to be amended. It may be permitted to be mentioned in passing, but if we devote our attention mainly to that, we shall never come to discuss the administration of the various departments. I shall allow passing references to amending legislation, but I shall not allow anyone to make it the main theme of his speech.

Mr. Chairman, in passing I just want to say that to a large extent, except for the details that were mentioned, I can agree with the previous speaker, who represents the constituency which partly bear my Christian name. I am glad that we can at least tread partly on common territory. Fortunately there is still a great deal of time, but it is a fact that there still are certain deficiencies after the improvements which were effected by means of previous amendments, and that there are certain improvements which can still be effected. I believe that with the assistance of both sides and with pointing out errors, these matters can be rectified at a future election.

However, I am requesting the kind attention of the Committee in respect of two other matters, in the first place in connection with the work done by the Publications Control Board. I believe that I shall also have the support of the other side of the House when I express my appreciation of the work this Board is doing in our country under difficult circumstances. All of us are perhaps not familiar with the constitution of this board and the difficulties experienced by the members of this board in holding regular meetings and in doing their work in such an objective and thorough way, particularly since they are living in different centres. I think that the nation and particularly those people who believe—as the majority of the people in our country, but for a few exceptions, probably do—in decency and the establishment of decent norms for the next generation, the children in whom all of us are interested, are deeply indebted to them. I suppose that possibly there are people who will regard this speech as the sermon of a minister. I can at least say that I believe that, when I claim that a great many obstacles are being placed in the way of our young people to-day, feelings of this nature are shared by all people whose concern it is that the morale of our nation should be kept up. It is not only the task of the churches, which are doing excellent work, and of other people, who are providing guidance, but also the task of every decent South African—irrespective of race or colour—to combat things of this nature, these temptations which are being placed in the way of our youth at present. In carrying out this particular task the Board of Censors, or the Publications Control Board, is faced with an extremely difficult and delicate task. I am aware of the polemic in both our English and Afrikaans language newspapers from time to time. I do not want to express my opinion on that, or on the merits of works of art. I do not want to pick a quarrel with people who know art. However, I think that it is not necessary to be a connoisseur of the arts to be able to distinguish between what is ugly and common and what is at least decent. It is with gratitude that I want to claim that in this sphere at least, even though politically we might differ on many matters, common territory can be found to devise methods whereby we can open up more possibilities for our youth to find the way under the same circumstances we were able to do so in the past. I suppose I shall not be accused of prudishness if I refer to what is being done in the commercial world at present to womankind—whom we regard as being the finest and most noble being to have been created—as a result of which our morale is being broken down and our respect for what is beautiful and good is being undermined. This has now exceeded all bounds. Let us consider, for instance, what is being displayed in windows. In spite of this board, which watches over publications, such things are still being displayed and dished up in magazines as reading matter for our young people. If it had not been for this Board, one can merely wonder what would happen to our youth. I also feel at liberty to ask the Opposition for their support in facilitating the work of the Board of Censors, by advising these people from time to time when it is evident to us that there are matters which are going wrong. In last year’s debate there was, unfortunately, some evidence of a tendency to defend one, two or three publications which may—if the case were argued on its merits— perhaps be banned in our country without just cause. I hope that that will not be the case this year. Let us argue about one book and the reasons for its being prohibited, or the reasons for cuts being made in a certain film. Let us seek the whole from amongst these particulars. That is that so much has to be banned from our national life by this board that they may have our gratitude. In the second place, let us not split hairs about works of art, or so-called works of art, in regard to which there can be no difference of opinion. Let us at least lend our wholehearted support as far as the whole is concerned. We can do so in various ways. Amongst other things we may, when certain publication come to our notice, inform members of the Publications Board that there are publications—unfortunately also publications which are distributed domestically and written by our own authors—which are offensive to all of us, because under the cloak of so-called arts they deal with what is the most common, the lowest and the filthiest in the lives of human beings.

With that I want to drop this matter, and I just want to request the Minister’s attention, if I may modestly do so, for the purpose of considering a request which cultural associations and other bodies in our country have made time and again and which has also appeared in the Press. I am doing so in connection with the registration of citizens. I want to ask whether it will toe possible for the Department to consider—as, I am told, has already been done in America and in other countries— whether a method can toe found whereby, upon reaching the age of 18, something can be presented to our young citizens to tell them what their civic duties and privileges are. I am convinced that large numbers of our young people, particularly as a result of history as a subject being neglected in our, schools, are in actual fact almost becoming strangers to what their privileges and duties will be when they become full-fledged en-franchized citizens of our country. It is true that on the occasion of accepting their new citizenship, naturalized immigrants are presented with a memorial book. It is a de luxe edition, and it was a fine thought on the part of the Department to have chosen this method of telling our new citizens from other countries something about this fatherland which they have adopted and of which they have become citizens. But our own citizens, who are born in this country and who reach that age, are not presented with anything on that day to remind them that they have become fullfledged citizens, and that they are accepting a new task in our country when they reach that age. What I want to ask, is that the suggestions put forward by various bodies from all language groups should be considered and that thought should be given to the publication of such a book when they reach the age of 18. If this is not acceptable, there can be any other gesture, such as the hon. the Minister and his Department may consider fit for such an occasion, to make that day a memorable one for our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to discuss the Publications Board, but since there are only a few minutes left it is not worthwhile making a start now with the subject. For that reason I would just like to raise something else in the meantime. Firstly: there are a few years left now before we have another general election in the country. I wondered whether the hon. the Minister could not at this stage appoint a commission of inquiry, or a Parliamentary committee, that could go into the desirability of simultaneous elections for the House of Assembly and the provincial councils. I think it is something which would meet with the approval of most members. But then we must set the ball rolling now, and we should like to hear whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to have an investigation made. If it then appears that it is generally acceptable there would be time before the next general election to introduce it.

A second point is the question of electoral officers. We in the urban constituencies have this problem that during an election our electoral officers are not stationed in the constituencies. For example, in a place such as Johannesburg, in a constituency such as Bezuidenhout, one has to drive a long way into town, often when the traffic is at its worst, to go to the chief magistrate’s office to deal with electoral affairs. The electoral officers are usually to be found in the chief magistrate’s office in the central parts of the city. This causes excessive delays. There are major parking problems. I do not think it is fair to a constituency that there should be a system where the electoral officer, whom one must often go and see at short notice, is outside the constituency. I have raised this matter before and the former Minister said that he would go into the matter. I can understand that there may be problems in regard to staff, but I think that it is surely a principle which should be laid down. It simply must be done, and sufficient people must be trained in order to ensure that a constituency will have its own electoral officer in the constituency during an election. I shall approach the hon. the Minister in regard to the matter again next Session. I would be glad if he would go into the matter in the meantime, bearing in mind that we must get the principle accepted that a constituency is entitled to have its electoral officer within that constituency.

Business interrupted at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, just before the adjournment you made a statement in the form of a ruling from the Chair to the effect that in Committee of Supply legislation could not be criticized and hon. members were not to refer to proposals or changes in legislation. In regard to the first matter, that has been established convention in this House for some time. In regard to the second matter, the convention was changed at the time of the changing of the Rules, and I rise to ask you for clarification because your ruling has created some misunderstanding on this side. We have always understood since the Rules were changed that a member can advocate changes in legislation in Committee of Supply. I simply rise to clear up this matter and I hope that you will take the opportunity, Sir, of doing so.

I cannot give the hon. member a reasoned ruling, but I want to point out to him that in Rule 118 it is stated that—

That in effect means that he must move a substantive motion. In Rules 94 and 95 it is very clear that what has been referred to the Committee is the Estimates as recommended by the State President. The Committee’s primary object is to discuss the administration by the State of the money provided for in the Estimates. I do not mind if hon. members discuss legislation and advocate new legislation in passing, but it must not be the main theme of their speeches.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior to the position in regard to our official holidays. I think that everyone would agree that the official holidays which we have at present take the historical dates of our two most important population groups, as well as those historical occasions which draw the two groups together and which have the same significance for both groups, very thoroughly into account. However, the question which bothers me is whether we regard those official holidays purely and simply as holidays which serve as a break from the daily work routine, or whether we regard them as festive days proper, as most of them were intended to be. I do not think there can be any complaints as far as the religious holidays are concerned; I think that our churches give the necessary attention to those religious holidays and see to it that they are celebrated in the right way. As for holidays for specific language or cultural groups, such as Kruger Day for the Afrikaans speaking people and Settlers Day particularly for the English speaking section of the population, there the responsibility and the initiative rests upon the shoulders of the various cultural groups to give such attention to the celebration of those days that they will have some significance and effect. However, there are two holidays in regard to which I believe that the State should take the lead in endowing them with special significance. These two holidays are Republic Day, the 31st May, which we celebrated as Union Day before we became a Republic, that day which is very closely associated with our political growth and ultimate political maturity when we became a Republic. The other date to which I want to refer is 6th April, known as Van Riebeeck Day, but which actually has significance to us as the day which celebrates the establishment of white civilization and a white civilized state here at the southernmost tip of Africa. As far as Republic Day is concerned, the Government and the State has already in a very praiseworthy fashion indicated the direction to be taken in future by stipulating that every five years there shall be major festivals at some central point or other—last year it was in Pretoria and in future it will be celebrated every five years in one of the provincial capital cities of the country. On these occasions the festival is organized on an official level and also decentralized to local towns and cities, and we are justified in saying that the lead which the authorities have given here has been only to the advantage of the country as a whole. There is no doubt that the Republic Festival last year conveyed a message, a message which our country and our people in particular stood in great need of at that particular time, a message to the effect that we would be strong if we were united, and a message of courage and faith in the future of our country and the task awaiting us in this particular part of the world. I also think that the emphasis placed on our own symbols on that occasion lent particular significance to that festival. The value of those festivals, where the initiative is taken by the State, cannot be measured in terms of money or otherwise. On the occasion of those festivals, where the initiative was taken by the State, there was true nation building, something we stand in great need of. I also want to say on this occasion that we are all grateful for the fact that work is already being done, at this very early juncture, on the next festival. There has already been liaison on the part of the Government with bodies here in the south, and we who live here in the southernmost part of the country are of course particularly grateful for the fact that the next festival will be celebrated here in this vicinity. We just want to express the hope that the weather on 31st May, which usually falls in the rainy season, will also cooperate and that we will have a truly colourful festival on that occasion. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned about the celebration of Van Riebeeck Day on 6th April. I have stated that it is in fact recognized as the founding day of our white state, our white civilization, here at the southernmost tip of Africa. That day should also in fact convey a great message to our nation, should also convey a message to the world at large which is so inclined to regard us as being a merely ephemeral colonial territory. Particular use can be made of this day to convey the message to the world that we have a long history and that the coming of the white man on 6th April, 1652, was in fact the beginning of civilization here in Africa; that it was the beginning of the building process of an orderly and civilized state; and that with the coming of the white man a love for this South African soil developed. I want to ask the question whether 6th April is not for us merely another holiday to serve as a break from the daily work-routine, or whether it is or whether it should actually be a true festive day for us all, just as Republic Day is. Here in Cape a very short ceremony is arranged each year on 6th April by the Cape Town City Council, which takes place at the statue of Jan Van Riebeeck. It so happens that Parliament is normally in session at that time. I do not want to plead here that Parliament should have a holiday—not in the least. That is precisely the point I want to come to. We should endeavour to make of this day not a holiday as such but a true festive day. I feel that this day could have much greater significance for us if the arrangements for that festival were to be made by the State, and if Parliament were able on that occasion if it is in session to participate actively in the Festival proceedings here in Cape Town, even if it is only in the afternoon. I feel that if the initiative were to come from the State then one would also be able on that day to bring the young people of this vicinity together and then one would be able to make use of all the talent of which there is a tremendous amount in our country, to make of this day a true festive day with a message of its own. It is true that attempts have recently been made locally to attach a greater significance to this day. A few years ago a great feast was arranged here in Bellville on the 6th April by cultural bodies. This year a great festival day was arranged at Stellenbosch where the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was the speaker, and on both those occasions the talents of the newcomers to our country, of immigrants were made use of. If the festivals on both these occasions had a particular flavour, then it was due to the way in which we were successful in making our immigrants aware of the fact that they now formed part of our country and our people here in South Africa. Where voices of people are often being raised who do not understand the immigrants or their place here, I feel that use can be made of this day on the part of the officials to make our immigrants realize that they now form part of a particular country, a country and a nation which originated out of Western civilization but is to-day a country and a nation which has a particular task here in Africa, one which is also prepared to share its knowledge and its prosperity and all its other qualities with Africa. [Time expired.]

There are a few aspects of the work of the Publications Board which, in my opinion, deserve a little attention. I have been trying to follow the lists of banned books reasonably faithfully as they were published in the Government Gazette. Of course, no reasons are given for the banning of a specific work, and this Committee, and Parliament, is consequently in the position that it really does not have any way of judging whether the Publications Board has done good work or bad work. I am inclined to think that the hon. the Minister is in the same position. I want to ask him specifically what he, for example, does to ensure that the Board is doing good work. We take it for granted that the hon. the Minister cannot read and go into all the works in order to determine whether a decision was correct or incorrect. One would like to know in what way the hon. the Minister supervises the activities of the Board. I should very much like to know whether he receives a report from the Publications Board which affords him the opportunity of forming a judgment. If he does get a report, is it not possible for Parliament also to get to see that report? The hon. the Minister will concede that we are in an altogether hopeless position at the moment. We are being asked to vote money to keep this body in existence, but we have no real supervision, nor do we have any means of determining whether the decisions of the Board have been taken fairly. I think this is an incorrect principle, and I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider whether an annual report cannot be submitted to the House of Assembly in regard to the activities of the Publications Board, a report in which the Board, for example, can indicate under what heads, according to the provisions of the Act, it has banned those works which have in fact been banned. If this is not possible one feels that the hon. the Minister ought to take some step or other to bring the activities of the Board under the supervision of Parliament. The best idea I can think of is that it should be considered whether the activities of the Select Committee on the Library of Parliament cannot be extended to include in its purview the activities of the Publications Board and to pass judgment on those activities. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has a better plan, but I do not think it is fair that Parliament should blindly vote amounts for the Publications Board and have no form of supervision or control over the activities of that Board.

Secondly, as things stand at present, we have to try and determine from the lists as they are being published in the Government Gazette what the tendencies are which are being displayed by this Board. In my opinion a tendency which we on this side do not like, is beginning to develop for the Board to ban political books—and I say again that we can only judge from the lists which are being published and comments which appear in the Press—for no other reason than that they are critical of aspects of the Government’s race policy. Let me mention a practical example. There is the book of Douglas Brown, a British journalist, who lived for years in South Africa and who was reasonably well-acquainted with the political situation in the country. He wrote a book, Against the World: A Study of White South African Attitudes. I have not yet read the book myself; but every person whom I have come across and who had read the book, has expressed amazement and could find no reason for the book having been banned. Even newspapers supporting the Government expressed their amazement that a book such as that one which was in fact reasonably sympathetic, particularly towards the Afrikaner in South Africa, had been banned. The general opinion was that it was fairly written. What upsets me a little is that when the book was banned, the Press approached Mr. A. J. van Wyk, the Deputy Chairman of the Publications Board, for an explanation and according to a report which subsequently appeared in the Cape Times Mr. Van Wyk had the following to say. Now, let me say at once that sometimes a short Press report can create the wrong impression, and if Mr. Van Wyk meant something else, I will accept it as such, but on that occasion Mr. Van Wyk said—

And by that of course he means the policy of the Government—

I want to ask whether this is also the view of the Minister and the Government? Does the Minister subscribe to the policy that if a book is critical, even in one paragraph or on one page, as that man stated, of the race policy of the Government, it will then be banned? If that, is the position, that that is the policy of the Government, it is a position which we can in no way accept and against which we will have to protest. Then we will have to go deeper into the matter. There are books which I have read myself, and I can think of one, the book by Professor Vernon McKay, Africa and World Politics, which was published in 1963, and which was banned a few years later. I read it myself and I must honestly say that one can criticize the book but one can find no reason for such a book being banned after it had been on the bookshelves in South Africa for years. I am merely mentioning these few examples, but I must say that in the light of the statement made by Mr. Van Wyk, we do not feel at all reassured, and I think the Minister ought to give us an explanation, because if that is the attitude of the Government, i.e. that a book must be banned if it is critical of the race policy of the Government, we will have to go into this matter seriously, because the board is then in our opinion committing a serious error of judgment as far as its duty is concerned. I agree that where a book is a mere incitement of racial feeling, as White Man Think Again was, which then falls into the same category as communist reading matter encouraging class hatred, we for our part have no objection to such books being banned. But once we have reached the stage where the normal Government politics have to be protected against intellectual criticism, then it is time that we took notice and objected.

A third point I want to mention is this: I think it is time the Minister gave the English-reading public of South Africa a greater reassurance. I think he must consider reconstituting the Publications Board so as to give the English-speaking sector of the population greater representation on that board. We Afrikaans-speaking people are very determined not to tolerate any injustice, or even the suggestion of injustice. The moment we feel that the Afrikaans section is being unfairly treated, we are up in arms, and quite rightly so. But then I feel that we have a duty, particularly in this case where the Government is mostly Afrikaans speaking, to see to it that there is not even a suggestion of unfairness towards the English-speaking people. Now we have the position that the work of the Publications Board deals 99.99 per cent with English books. In fact, in all these years I cannot remember even one Afrikaans book occurring amongst the thousands which have been banned. However, the composition of the Board is predominantly Afrikaans. There are one, or at the most, two English-speaking persons on that Board. I do not think that is fair, and the English-speaking people feel it to be an injustice, because very scathing comments were made when a book by Nadine Gordimer was banned. Then the attitude of a newspaper such as The Cape Times, which is a mouthpiece of English-speaking opinion, was that when it came to the banning of literary works of well-known English writers—

[Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded here for an annual report from the Publications Board, and I can understand that such a report would probably be useful, but at the same time the hon. member indicated in his speech why such a report could also be undesirable, i.e. because it could very easily be used for a witch hunt against the Publications Board to furnish reasons for its having rejected certain books. The hon. member said that in such a report the tendency could be indicated, and then he wanted to imply in his speech that certain political schools of thought would prove the decisive factor when books were being banned. I want to tell the hon. member that the Publications Board does, after all, not act in an arbitrary fashion when rejecting books. As a senior member of this House the hon. member ought to know what the Act states in this regard. There are definite instructions in the Act which have to be followed by the Publications Board. The objection which the hon. member has in regard to the fact that a single page in a book can lead to the entire book being rejected is also provided by the Act. Section 5 (2) states that a publication shall be deemed to be undesirable if it or any part of it is indecent or obscene, etc. It is indicated very clearly in the Act that the publication or a part of it is to be taken into consideration, and then it is stated very clearly in the Act on what grounds such a publication is to be rejected. It is therefore not necessary for the hon. member to look for ulterior motives on the part of the Publications Board when they reject certain books. If he understands the Act correctly, he would know why the Board rejects publications.

The hon. member also made a plea for greater representation for English-speaking persons on that Board. I think that this is just a method which is being used to rouse suspicion against the Publications Board and to cast reflections on it, something which I regret very much. Surely it is the case that the members of the Publications Board are all very eminent people who are highly bilingual and who can read publications both in English and in Afrikaans. I find it regrettable that the hon. member spoke about this matter.

Last year under this Vote I spoke about certain imported films and paper back books which, to my way of thinking, would not be beneficial to the moral standards of our nation. I was unable to conclude on that occasion and I would just like to continue from the point where you, Sir, interrupted me last year. I want to state very clearly that what I am going to say here must definitely not be interpreted as criticism of the composition or the work of the Publications Board. On the contrary, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Witbank, who paid tribute to the members of that Board. I think it is very fortunate and that we should be grateful that people with such a high degree of skill and integrity could be found to devote their services as well to this work. I believe that the general public accepts the Publications Board as a very useful and effective institution. The balanced attitude and discriminatory ability of the Publications Board has contributed to its being accepted as such by the public. The fact that no appeal was made against their findings during the past year is evidence surely of the thoroughness of their work, but in spite of that I personally, as an individual who is interested in education, cannot omit to express my concern at the quality of the reading matter, particularly in the form of paper back books which is being forced upon our youth in almost every café. We know that as far as mental development is concerned, the pen is far mightier than the sword, and although we are grateful that the Publications Board has kept the worst pornographic and sensational reading matter out of our country, the fact nevertheless remains that there is a major and fundamental danger in the inferior reading matter the contents of which, although legally permissible, sometimes border on the very fringes of the indecent. In my opinion these inferior films and publications are to a certain extent even more dangerous perhaps than the very worst pornography, because they are often disguised and are often presented as being quite moral and pious, and because their effect is a slow one does it not mean that their poison of superficiality and degeneration is even deadlier? In order to prevent misunderstandings, I want to say that it is not my intention to declare war on all paper back books. We know that some of the best literature in the world is available in the form of paper back books; because the reading public in Afrikaans is relatively small, it means that the circulation must also be small and that is why the price of paper back books which are being printed in Afrikaans is still relatively high. Local booksellers and printing companies have informed me that last year they printed reasonably good types of paperback books with a circulation of 8,000 in the one case and of 10,000 in the other, but that they could not sell them for less than 50 cents to the public, with the result that they are sitting with more than half of those books. In contrast to this overseas firms are able to print thousands of these books per edition and are even able to distribute them in our country for as little as 20 cents per copy. The question then arises whether the import duty on the poorer quality paperback books should not be reconsidered, in order to protect the local product. Unfortunately it is not the good quality paperback book which is being imported into the country in thousands, but in fact that inferior sensational reading matter which peddles sex, murder and homicide. One can ask why these books are not being kept out of the country. I understand that more than 500 of these publications have already been banned during the past year. We must probably accept therefore that those which get through are still the best of the large quantity of poor material which is being submitted to the Publications Board. These type of publication are aimed at “impulse buying”—in other words, they must provoke a person into buying although that person had no previous intention of doing so. That is the reason for the suggestive titles and, in most cases, the photograph of a scantily clad woman on the cover. At every café on every corner in every town or city hundreds of these kind of books are being displayed in the most prominent place where they force themselves on our young people, young people who are in their adolescence and who therefore display a natural curiosity in regard to anything which has to do with sex. I have already said that these books are not so vulgar and so pornographic that they can be rejected. They stand on the borderline between decency and indecency. Book dealers have also become much more careful and usually they submit a copy of an edition to the Publications Board before they import a large quantity. My complaint here is not in regard to the few individual cases. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to another matter, one which is closely allied to the one raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He talked about books not being allowed into South Africa because of unfavourable comments they may contain about South Africa’s policies, although that may only amount to a page or two. The matter I should like to discuss with the Minister is the refusal of visas to people who want to visit South Africa. This is usually done on the basis that the people involved had commented unfavourably in the past on South Africa’s racial policy or on the basis that they belong to organizations which are not favourably disposed towards this country. By studying the cases where visas were refused one can only come to the conclusion that we are frightened to allow anyone to come into this country, anyone who might voice criticism against our policies. We have many examples of this and I will cite them. These certainly reveal that this “new look” of sweet reasonableness with which the Prime Minister is being credited has not yet penetrated to the Department of the Interior in so far as its attitude towards the granting or refusal of visas is concerned. There is, for instance, the refusal to allow accredited correspondents of newspapers of world repute into the country —newspaper such as the New York Times,—a newspaper which has not had a resident correspondent in South Africa since February last year, when its then correspondent was denied the right of retaining his temporary residence permit. Time is another well-known news magazine which has not been allowed to have a resident and accredited correspondent here. Furthermore, there are no staff correspondents here representing any of the vast television networks. There was a time when networks like C.B.S. and N.B.C. were allowed to have resident correspondents. Now, however, these vast modern means of communication are dependent on the occasional visa granted to roving correspondents to come here to do television programmes or on stringers. I believe this type of blanket ban on foreign correspondents is unique in the world to-day. Not even in Russia, or in China, in Communist China, is there such a blanket ban. In Moscow and in Peking, whether hon. members like it or not, resident correspondents of newspapers clearly hostile to the Communist régime are allowed. And yet correspondents of a newspaper like the New York, Times cannot come to Pretoria. That seems to me to be quite ridiculous in this day and age. Even when correspondents are allowed to come on temporary visits to this country they have the utmost difficulty in obtaining their visas. There are these interminable delays. They apply for a visa in New York, or London, or from wherever they are, and are kept waiting for months and months on end before the final answer comes and very often that is “No”. I want to know what we think we are gaining by this sort of adolescent behaviour. Why are we afraid to allow people to visit this country, people who might have some hostile words to say about us? Why are we not prepared to allow them into the country and possibly even to change their attitude after they have had an opportunity of seeing …

Because we do not want our country to be smeared unnecessarily.

The hon. the Prime Minister cannot isolate South Africa from the rest of the world and whether he likes it or not news about South Africa goes abroad, reports about South Africa go abroad …

Unfortunately, yes, because there are people like you here.

It is the actions of this Government that are reported overseas, actions that put odium on South Africa, and not the criticisms of the actions of the Government. The sooner the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that the better, and the sooner the Government realize that they cannot isolate South Africa from the rest of the world, the better. Let me quote two examples of well-known people who wanted to visit South Africa recently but who were denied visas. In passing let me say that this certainly did South Africa no good in the eyes of the outside world. And let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it was not I who refused them viasas, but his Government. There was Professor Deutsch, head of the department of history at the University of Minnesota, a large university in America. He is a renowned Atlantic historian. He was travelling through Africa on a U.S. state department specialist grant and wanted to come to South Africa for a few days because he was invited to lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand. However, he was refused a visa. Then there is Mr. Ralph McGill, the publisher of the Atlantic Constitution, one of the largest newspapers in the U.S., a Pulitzer Prize winner, a well-known moderate. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many of these hon. gentlemen who are laughing have set foot outside South Africa, let alone having gone to America, because if they had they would not have burst into laughter at my description of Mr. Ralph McGill. I repeat that he is a well-known moderate in the field of civil rights. He is outspoken against extremists like Floyd McLissick and others who are out for black power in America. He is a well-known publisher and a syndicated columnist in 125 newspapers throughout the U.S. Yet a man like this is refused a visa to visit South Africa. I want to know whether his attitude will in future be more, or less well disposed for South Africa after this slap in the face? Surely, the sensible thing to have done would have been to allow him to come to South Africa as an objective oberver to see things for himself?

I think we are making idiots of ourselves by refusing visas to reputable and well-known people while at the same time welcoming all kinds of minor cranks whom the Government is quite prepared to allow to come in because the Government believes that they will make favourable reports about South Africa. [Interjections.] I will name two of these—two recent ones. The one is called William Simmonds head of the utterly discredited White Citizens Council in America. Anyone who knows anything about America knows that the White Citizens’ Council is run by a lot of way-out cranks. Yet we allow this man not only to come to South Africa but we also welcome him and give him red-carpet treatment. Another example is that of the famous Major Bundy, a friend of the hon. member on my left, the hon. member for Innesdal. Major Bundy has been described in reputable and responsible church circles in America as an apostle of discord. At the same time he is a minor character—hardly known at all. Where he is known, he is known as an apostle of discord. These men have not only been granted visas without much difficulty, but have also been welcomed and given red-carpet treatment in fact. We allow neo-Nazis to come to South Africa while we keep a man like pastor Niemöller hanging around for months on end before being granted a visa. Yet neo-Nazis are allowed to walk into South Africa without any difficulty at all. But let me give some further examples. There is a man like Dr. Kleist, editor of a student magazine of a neo-Nazi party in Germany.

There was an American negro, a professor of economics at one of the large universities in the U.S., who was invited to deliver the T.B. Davie Memorial Lectures at U.C.T. But he was not allowed to come. The explanation which was given was that there might be embarrassing incidents because he was a negro and we did not want to risk our good relations with the U.S. At the same time, however, there was no difficulty in allowing another American negro to visit the country, namely Dr. Max Jergen. He is well known to favour Government policy. He has been, I believe, three times to this country. He has had no difficulty in obtaining a visa. Yesterday I read a news item that a number of Peace Corps workers in Botswana, young American workers doing work for the Peace Corps, applied to visit South Africa to come and see for themselves how things are working out. All of them were refused visas.

The hon. member for Algoa said a moment ago that he wanted to resume the discussion of a certain matter from the point at which he had left off last year. Well, I am in the same position as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned. During the discussion of this Vote last year she also raised the question of visas, and more specifically in connection with Professor Gwendolen Carter. On that occasion I put certain facts to her. Thereupon the hon. member for Houghton got up and said that they were untrue and that she was going to America and would ascertain whether the position was, in fact, as I had stated it to be. The facts I had put to her were that Professor Carter had addressed a meeting at the North Western University—I am not quite sure where it was —where she had referred to the South-West Africa case which was being heard by the International Court and where she had said, “It is our aim to arouse opinion and suspicion against South Africa.”

That is untrue.

Professor Carter also said that the great benefit that would accrue from the decision of the International Court would be that the United Nations would be on the borders of South Africa.

That is untrue.

Those were Professor Carter’s words, as quoted by someone, a South African, who had attended that meeting and who later issued a publication in which these words were included, appearing in inverted commas.

That is untrue.

It is no use keeping on saying it is untrue when the facts are against the hon. member. Last year already she said it was “untrue”, but she added that she would put the matter right if she found herself to be wrong. The fact that I now have to ask her to do so does not go to show that she feels very sure of her case. [Interjections.] Now, the hon. member for Houghton made a number of very wild statements here to-night which I am sure she cannot substantiate. For example, she spoke of a “blanket ban on foreign correspondents …”

On resident correspondents there is.

… which one cannot compare even with China or Russia. I challenge the hon. member now to substantiate that statement. The hon. member knows there is no “blanket ban on foreign correspondents”.

On resident correspondents there is practically.

Neither is there a “ban” on “resident correspondents”. The hon. member knows that is not so. It is said for one purpose only, namely to create the impression in the outside world that in South Africa conditions prevail which are worse than those in China or Russia. I challenge her to produce one scrap of evidence to substantiate that statement of hers. I now tell her in advance that if she cannot do that, I am going to accuse her of malicious intent against South Africa, because one cannot interpret it in any other way. I am speaking on the basis of facts which are before this Committee now. If a person like the hon. member for Houghton, who is neither a barbarian …

Thank you.

… nor an illiterate person who is not acquainted with conditions in South Africa, says there is a “blanket ban on foreign correspondents” in South Africa, then, if she cannot produce evidence which will convince us that she is labouring under a misapprehension, I say she has only one object—an object she has been accused of many times in this country and of which there is a great deal of evidence, namely that she is not well-disposed towards South Africa.

The hon. member mentioned persons whom we do not want to allow to enter South Africa. What about Bobby Kennedy?

What about him?

If the criteria according to which we keep people out of the country are as suggested by the hon. member for Houghton, on what grounds did Senator Bobby Kennedy qualify then? Surely he should have stayed out then? Surely the hon. member knows that? The hon. member therefore ought to know that what she said here is untrue. Surely it is not true that the Government wants to keep out all those who are opposed to it. In this case probably one of the most extravagant critics of the Government was allowed to visit South Africa, and I want to say quite frankly that I do not think his actions in South Africa did him much credit. Nevertheless, we tolerated him. He was here and he said what he wanted to say, as he also did very vociferously outside. But we allowed him into the country. Consequently, on what grounds can the hon. member for Houghton make the irresponsible statements she made here this evening?

I repeat that also as far as this question of the visas is concerned, the hon. member for Houghton is trying to create the same impression as she created in the case of foreign correspondents. She selected the names of a few persons who, in her opinion, should not have been allowed to visit the country if certain other persons had not been allowed. But I ask the hon. member: If she wants to test those people, people whom she called “minor lights” or something of that nature …

Minor cranks.

… “minor cranks”, then some of those we have allowed into the country are probably “major cranks”—perhaps I mentioned a few examples to her. She may compare them with those people and then she can draw a fair conclusion, because the conclusion the hon. member has drawn here is not fair to South Africa. It is completely out of context, surely.

The hon. member mentioned the “peace corps” people who are not allowed to enter South Africa. After all, those people went to Botswana to go and work there. Is that not so? The reports on what is going on in the areas where they are, are not so encouraging as to make us believe that they would do us any good here. In the same newspaper report on which the hon. member based her arguments, it was stated that they were allowed to come to this country for 24 hours. If they had any business to attend to here, they could come. What is the hon. member objecting to then? Does the hon. member want to say that they should come to South Africa to do here what they are doing there? Is that what she wants them to come and do here? It seems to me that is what the hon. member wants.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member referred to certain publications. We know the hon. member’s criteria as far as these matters are concerned. He referred to the fact that only Afrikaans-speaking persons are serving on the Publications Board and that more English-speaking persons should serve on the Board, because there is a great deal of English reading matter in South Africa. Can the hon. member tell us how much English reading matter that was produced here in South Africa has been banned? That is the criterion, and not the fact that English reading matter from outside has been banned. Because, Sir, there can be no Afrikaans reading matter coming from outside. It is therefore a completely wrong impression which the hon. member has tried to create.

The book written by Miss Gordimer to which he referred, was banned a number of years ago, but what does Miss Gordimer herself—and we know what her political convictions are—say about her own work? According to the Star, when she was asked in London a number of years ago about conditions in South Africa, she said the following—

Surely it is perfectly clear what she means by that? She says that if one wants to sell propaganda and it is not presented in the form of a normal prose dissertation but in the form of a story, then “you will get away with it”. Her terminology points to one thing, and that is that she deliberately contravenes the code on which the Publications Board bases its decisions, but she does it in such a way that the criteria cannot be applied to her. This is what Lewis Nkosi, a Bantu at present living in Britain, said about her book A World of Strangers—

He states explicitly that it is a piece of propaganda, and he is a supporter of Miss Gordimer. This is what he has to say about Mr. Alan Paton—

The position is therefore not as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to make out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not imagine for one moment that an author of the status of Nadine Gordimer is going to pay very much attention to what the hon. member has just said. Also I cannot imagine that Alan Paton would lose any sleep over the criticism that the hon. member has offered. I have no intention of replying to that nonsense. He takes everything out of context and he uses it as he wishes. But what interests me is what the hon. member has said about Gwendolen Carter, whom I happen to know extremely well, and who is head of the Northwestern University Program of African Studies, the great African Studies department in the United States. What he has said about Dr. Gwendolen Carter is absolutely untrue.

I quoted what she herself said.

No, the hon. member is quoting not what Dr. Gwendolen Carter said but what somebody said Dr. Carter had said at a lecture which she delivered at Howard University, which is in Washington. I have here a letter from Dr. Carter—who was not in the States when I was there last year—and this is what Dr. Carter has to say herself. She says in the letter that she lectured at Howard University and she says that a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce who was present was in fact shocked at what he termed— and I quote here from the letter—

—because Howard is largely a Negro university—

—We apparently send people round to make notes. I continue—

These are the facts. It is not that Dr. Carter was advocating the use of force; she was telling students the exact factual position of what could have happened had South Africa lost the case at the World Court. [Interjections.] Well, everybody was anxiously anticipating in advance what might happen.

You too.

Yes, and you too. Everybody knew that the case was going to be decided and therefore people had to anticipate what would happen as a result. Dr. Carter then writes that the speech was actually intended to dampen the ardour of the student audience in trying to organize action against South Africa and against American firms that do business with South Africa and to make them look on the judicial proceedings before the World Court as the proper remedy. She goes on to say:

If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the very learned books Dr. Carter had written about this country, then he would certainly agree with that statement. She goes on to say:

I say all that for the record because the hon. member thinks that I am unable to reply to his completely erroneous report of what had happened at Dr. Carter’s lecture. All he has is a distorted report that was sent to him and from which he quoted.

It was published in South Africa.

That does not make it the Holy Bible. This report was published in Die Vaderland. Mr. Chairman, I forget that every word that goes into Die Vaderland must of necessity be absolutely correct!

As for this nonsense about how very generous we were to allow Senator Kennedy to come to this country and that therefore this proves that what I said was incorrect, I want to say that I never heard of such nonsense. Senator Kennedy was rather a special case, I would say. None of this in any way excuses the absurdity of denying visas to the sort of people that I have mentioned as examples today.

As for the Peace Corps visitors about whom the hon. member asks, “Should they be allowed to come and work in South Africa?”, I want to say that nobody asked that they should be allowed to come and work in South Africa. That was never the suggestion. They asked to be allowed to visit the country for longer than 24 hours at a stretch. What on earth can one see in South Africa in 24 hours? These people wish to take leave and come and see for themselves what is happening in South Africa. All in all, I say that we badly need a team of professional advisers because I want to know who takes these decisions about visas. At what level are these ridiculous decisions taken? Are they taken at ministerial level or are they taken by an official who is obviously nervous of allowing anybody into the country who might subsequently criticize the Government? We need a team of professional advisers and we need these decisions not only to be taken at the highest ministerial level, such as it is. We need the Minister to consult the Department of Foreign Affairs in this regard because every bit of good work which is done by the Department of Foreign Affairs is absolutely nullified by these absurd denials of visas to reputable people from other countries for the sole reason that these people may have expressed hostile opinions about South Africa’s racial policy or because they may, after they have come, make statements which do not show the Government in its best light. I want to know at what level these decisions are taken and what sort of consultation takes place with other Government Departments before these visas are refused and whether we at least consult people overseas where well-,known people such as Mr. Ralph McGill are concerned before we refuse a visa. Do we take the trouble to investigate the matter or do we simply accept the fact that Mr. McGill publishes a newspaper which is on the side of civil rights in Atlanta? I believe one of the reasons that was advanced was that he was a member of the Carnegie Peace Endowment. This is of course considered sufficient in itself to bar the man from coming to this country.

The trouble with Government members and particularly with the hon. member for Innesdal is that they confuse analysis with recommendation. They can never understand that an academic study of South Africa and its policies can be undertaken and that an analysis can be put forward but that this does not necessarily mean that recommendations are made. There is complete confusion between analysis and recommendation. This, I believe, is one of the reasons why these hasty decisions are taken. I should rather say these foolish decisions, because they are not so hasty. It takes months on end before we hear the net result of the application. This is one of the reasons for these foolish decisions which I believe make us look absolutely absurd in the eyes of the whole civilized world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton referred to Professor Gwendolen Carter’s scientific approach, and on those grounds she in fact appealed to us to believe that Professor Carter would not have said what I quoted. However, she did not give me any proof as to the correctness or not of what Dr. Claassen quoted, not in Die Vaderland, but in a publication of his. It seems to me the hon. member for Houghton is operating on a totally fictitious basis in order to refute the argument. If I judge her correctly to-night, it seems to me as though the information she submitted to Professor Carter was wrong.

Those are not the only grounds for our believing that Professor Carter does what Dr. Claassen’s publication says she said. There are other publications of Professor Carter by which we may test her. There is not only The Politics of Inequality, which the hon. member for Houghton wanted me to read and which I have read. That I told her last year already. Here is another publication, and this time she cannot say to me again that Professor Carter did not say this. The publication appeared under her name. The publication is entitled African Concepts of Nationalism in South Africa, by Professor Gwendolen Carter, published by the Northwestern University. Here are a few of the statements she made and which I have looked up quickly. [Interjections.] Here, for example, she writes about the “freedom charter”. You know what the “freedom charter” is; it is something which was passed at Kliptown in 1955 and which served as a very important document in the treason trial. This is what Professor Carter has to say about it—

Now listen to this—

[Interjections.]

This is a scientist who writes: “was largely free of communist phraseology … the re division of land amongst those who work it”.

What about Ben Schoe-man?

Mention me one instance where the hon. the Minister of Transport has ever pleaded “for the re-division of land among those who work it”. [Interjections.] Let her mention me an example where something similar was said, or let these noisy United Party members mention me an example. Let the hon. member for Rosettenville get up and mention me an example. [Interjections.] Would they try to do so? If the goldmines are nationalized on the basis of Iscor, can that be compared with “the re-division of the land among those who work it”? The hon. members of the United Party must not think they are dealing with children. After all, we have nationalized industries in South Africa.

Where?

Iscor. The steel industry is a nationalized industry. The Railways is a nationalized industry and it is not the National Party that nationalized the Railways. If somebody advocates that the mines should be nationalized, it is quite a different matter from what was advocated in this freedom charter. If the hon. members of the United Party do not know it yet, it will do them good to read the judgment given in the treason trial, in which the Judge found that the Transvaal executive committee of the A.N.C., which drew up this freedom charter, advocated a communist state in South Africa. That was the finding in the treason trial. And here we have a great scientist who says that the freedom charter “was largely free of communist phraseology”. I can also quote other statements she made. For example, this is what she wrote in an American encyclopaedia about the Suppression of Communism Act—

I now challenge anybody, including the hon. member for Houghton, to tell me that that is an Act which has been employed “indiscriminately against all opponents of apartheid”. [Interjections.] Has the hon. member for Houghton been muzzled? Has the leader of the hon. member’s party been muzzled? [Interjections.] What does “all opponents of apartheid” mean? [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please give the hon. member a chance to complete his speech?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to raise one more matter as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned. She also tried to act as apologist for the report published on South Africa by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Endowment of which Dr. Ralph McGill, Mr. Ernest Gross, who was the prosecutor against us in The Hague, Dr. Philip Jessop, who is a Judge of the Court in The Hague, and Mr. Arthur Goldberg are all members. That was in 1960, when the case against South Africa was brought before the World Court. The hon. member says we must not confuse “analysis” with “recommendation”, but I have just read to her what analysis was made of South Africa by this scientific friend of hers. She cannot even understand what is said there. I just want to tell her that I have read the report entitled Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and I can assure the hon. member that it is stated quite positively in that report, that, in the first place, an internal rebellion in South Africa alone will not succeed in overthrowing the South African Government and that outside help will be needed to accomplish that. Secondly they state that it is anticipated that the World Court in the Hague will give judgment against South Africa and, thirdly, that the U.N. will have to enforce the judgment. In the fourth place they state that the U.N. has the means at its disposal to enforce the judgment, and everything that is necessary is mentioned in detail, and, fifthly, that the political desire—that is the word they use—to enforce the judgment is all that is lacking. I say to you, Sir, that that document was one of those things with which they wanted to create the position in the U.S.A. to bring about the political desire there to enforce the decision of the Court. The object was … [Interjections.]

Order!

… to show that military action against South Africa was not only desirable from that point of view, but also possible, and that it depended on the political climate in the U.S.A. whether the U.S.A. would act or not. This is not an “analysis”. No specific recommendation was made, but throughout that document it is as clear as daylight what was going on in the minds of those people, and that was to bring the American public and the Government of the U.S.A. to a point where they would be prepared to use military force against South Africa if the Court gave judgment against us. What is remarkable about that document is that in 1960, when the case was brought before the World Court, Mr. Ernest Gross was a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment. And hon. members need not take my word for that. I want to read to you, Sir, what was said, I think, in the Court in The Hague by one of our witnesses, Brigadier-General S. L. A. Marshall. This is what he wrote in an American newspaper about the matter—

This is what was said by an American himself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I almost feel as if I am intruding upon a beautiful relationship [interjections] and I am rather loath to do so …

Order!

… but I must leave these two hon. members by quoting the old proverb: “The course of true love never did run smooth”. If I may be permitted I would like to come back to the Interior Vote and to ask this hon. Minister, who has been enjoying the fray, one or two questions. First of all, I want to ask whether he has any further information for this House about certain goings on in his own Department. I would refer him to a certain statement he made in the debate on the Border Control Bill in replying to me, in which he said that I had asked him a question regarding forged documents, about which there was a report in the Press, and forged passports which were issued. That matter is being investigated at the moment. We do not have full particulars. I think a great deal which will be sensational, will be brought to light. But in the meantime we have to regard the matter as sub judice. There have been certain prosecutions in this matter. I believe that having made a statement which aroused the interest, not only of the Opposition, but of the nation, it is incumbent upon this hon. Minister now to make a statement.

Order! Is that matter not still sub judice!

I am asking the hon. the Minister.

As far as I know, it is.

But I want to know as soon as possible. There have been convictions, and that is why I am asking the hon. the Minister. People have been brought to justice. They have been tried before the courts.

I have just been informed that it is still sub judice.

I take it the hon. the Minister will let us know that, but I want to ask him to inform this House and the country as soon as it is possible what exactly is going on in his Department concerning these matters, because we want to know. He cannot stall us off all the time by saying this matter is sub judice, because I believe that we have been kept waiting too long. I think he could have made a further statement.

Order! I think the hon. member is now reflecting on the courts.

All right, Sir, I leave it at that. But I have put it quite clearly.

On a point of order, Sir, I do not know what information the Chair has, but from the information in the Press, those cases have been dealt with.

Some of them may have been dealt with, but not all.

That means the Chair has some information we do not have.

Order! I do not want the hon. member to discuss the merits or demerits of the case.

But as far as we know, the cases have been disposed of. That is why we are discussing them.

Will the hon. member allow the Minister to tell us?

The case has not yet been disposed of.

Not a single one.

What do you mean, a single one? The whole lot have been disposed of.

Order!

This is the information I want the hon. the Minister to give us when he replies to my question. I want this information from him, not by way of interjection. I want a statement from him.

Now I want to move on to another matter. This hon. Minister’s Department is the department which deals with the basic colour problems of South Africa. We have just had long discussions on this particular matter. But there is an aspect of colour which is cropping up in our country at the moment and I want this hon. Minister to tell us what action is being taken, what thought is given to the matter and what he is going to do about it. I want him to do this before we once more become the laughing stock of the world, as we did in our treatment of the Japanese nation here in South Africa by way of classification and other dealings. I would like to put it this way to the hon. the Minister, that the present definition of a white person in our laws was in fact inspired by a gentleman called Mr. Song, Mr. Song being a Chinese gentleman who admitted that he was Chinese and that his parents were Chinese but demanded to be classified as white because of the advantages that he would enjoy, and he was so classified. But let us hear what Mr. Wu has to say and let us see who Mr. Wu is.

Did they woo Song?

Well, I am sure that this hon. Minister, or one of his colleagues, will be wooing somebody just now; of that I am absolutely certain. Let me just quote to the hon. the Minister to show who Mr. Wu is and what he said. Under the heading of “Multi-million Rand S.A. Sugar Boost Likely” in the Sunday Times of the 9th April, there is a report which says—

I hope the hon. the Minister’s colleague will note that remark—

The hon. the Minister will note that there is no mention whatsoever of pig-iron—

And this I want the hon. the Minister to read, learn and inwardly digest; I will give him the cutting—

Sir, I will give the hon. the Minister this cutting. I think he should read it a few times so that this can sink in. I want to know whether the Minister has applied his mind to this particular position which threatens the whole corner-stone of apartheid, because here in S.A. we classify these Chinese people, who are going to help the sugar industry of Natal, and who are going to help South Africa, in the same way in which the Japanese have done so by taking our pig-iron, as a sub-group of the Coloured people.

What do you want?

I am not telling the other side what I want; I am asking the hon. the Minister what he wants. He makes the law. I want to know what this hon. Minister is going to do about it. You see, Sir, he has set himself in a position to judge these people—this civilization which Row-Cropped Tea a 1,000 years before the birth of Christ. This is what China did and this is what Mr. Wu says they did, and I have told you what Mr. Wu says they are going to do in South Africa. Sir, I will take a bet with this hon. Minister. [Time expired.]

I do not intend following up on the argument made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat because I should like, in the short time at my disposal, to say a few words about the Publications Board, particularly as a result of the suspicion-mongering which has come to the fore in speeches made this afternoon by hon. members on that side of the House. Mr. Chairman, every responsible person, particularly in our age, will be aware of the fact that mass communication means are one of the most important formative influences in modern life, and that is why, if we discuss the task of the Publications Board, then that immediately forms one of the most important fields for which, in a political sphere, there are grounds for a common united front and for a display of true patriotism. For if we discuss this Board and its work then we are dealing with the protection of the spiritual property of the Whites in South Africa, with the maintenance of our traditional way of life which is founded on our Christian faith. But what do we find in South Africa; what is the attitude of the United Party in regard to this matter? Each year when the Publications Board is discussed in this debate the most vicious attacks imaginable are made on that Board and its activities. Mr. Speaker, to ensure that you will not accuse me of generalization you must allow me to refer to two examples in this regard. Last year, on 15th September, (Hansard Column 2165) the hon. member for Houghton spoke inter alia about the Publications Board and said the following—

But on the same occasion the hon. member for Orange Grove also spoke about the Publications Board and he suggested that the Publications Board were coming forward with censureship methods. One wonders what the reason for their attacks is. Is it that the United Party is merely looking for something to criticize, or are there other motives behind their attitude? If they had been in power then I could perhaps have understood their attitude as being the revelation of a kind of political victory and that for that reason they did not realize that the victory was not permanent if one could not apply the benefits of the victory which testifies or which could testify to the fact that one was a dedicated victor. If the formative influences of the means of communication are negative and have a degenerative effect on the spirit of the nation then it must lead to the stage where the people will break away from their philosophy of life, and that in itself will lead to spiritual dislocation. Is it the endeavour of the United Party to see the nation break with its past so that it does not know where it is going, so that it no longer has an anchor in the past and as a result does not have any destination in the future? Is that what the United Party is trying to achieve in order that it might come into power again?

If we on both sides of this House are in earnest about really countering the softening-up of the spirit whereby our realization of the spiritual values are gradually undermined to a point where they disappear altogether then we shall have to get up in this House and support with our positive contributions the Publications Board in its very difficult and often ungrateful task. I want to ask to-night whether the time has not come when the hon. the Minister should consider expanding the Publications Board into a kind of cultural bureau of standards which will not only examine what has been submitted to it but will also take the initiative itself of investigating the cultural products of the Whites in South Africa very thoroughly and, if they are approved, to provide them with its hall-mark which will be the guarantee of quality. That would of course mean that the Board would have to be expanded, but when dealing with the protection of one’s most precious heritage, one’s spiritual possessions, then no expense and no trouble can be too great. As far as the Publications Board is concerned, I want once more to convey to it our appreciation, but I want to express the hope, in association with what the hon. member for Algoa pleaded for here, that they will take immediate action in order on the one hand to scrutinize more carefully the demoralizing reading matter from overseas and on the other hand to scrutinize our own products where necessary but at the same time, through the selection they apply, to encourage the increasingly better products of our own people in the cultural field. Unfortunately it is necessary to emphasize that In South Africa itself a vast quantity of all kinds of cheap reading matter is being distributed on a large scale, and those products are not intended to make a positive contribution to the spiritual defensibility of the people in South Africa, but are in fact intended to do the opposite. For that reason I say that it is essential that the Publications Board should give its immediate attention to this matter.

When I, as Afrikaans-speaking person, pleaded here for greater fairness in respect of the representation of English-speaking persons on the Publications Board the reply we got was the old parrot cry of “racial hatred”. If fair treatment is demanded for the Afrikaans-speaking community, then it is a good thing; but if the same is done for the English-speaking community then suddenly it becomes race hatred. We reject this kind of double standard.

That is a mere generalization.

No, it is no generalization. What I am discussing here is a Board which deals almost 100 per cent with the cultural heritage of the English-speaking people. The White way of life in South Africa flows in two cultural streams, the Afrikaans cultural stream and the English cultural stream, and we must give recognition to both. When it comes to the cultural heritage of the English-speaking people then a greater share in decisions in regard to that cultural heritage should be given to the English-speaking cultural group; it is on that basis that I said that the Board, as it is constituted at present, is altogether too one-sided. It is necessary that a more equitable representation be given to English-speaking persons on the Board. [Interjection.] The same applies to all public boards, but we are now dealing with the Publications Board. I would have thought that the hon. member for Prinshof would support me in this.

Why? It has nothing to do with our cultural heritage.

You can look at it from whatever angle you like, my point of view is still the correct one. It is right that both groups must receive equitable representation on all public boards in South Africa. In any case, that is our attitude. Mr. Chairman, I am not merely interpreting my own feelings here; I am interpreting here what I know to be the feelings of the English-speaking people. They feel dissatisfied with the position as it is to-day. If the Minister does not see his way clear to re-forming the Publications Board immediately, and giving more equitable representation to the English cultural group, then he ought to think of something in the nature of a panel of competent reviewers which could decide when English cultural matter came under the magnifying glass, because without a doubt, if the roles were to be reversed and if the Board were to be predominantly English-speaking and it had to take decisions in regard to the cultural matter of the Afrikaans-speaking people, then we would not have been satisfied with that position.

There are two further questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Over the last few years there had been a great influx of immigrants to South Africa from countries which had previously not contributed much to the population growth of this country. In the last few years many Portuguese, Italians, and Greeks have entered the country, and one must now expect a great increase in reading matter from the countries of origin. I find that the Dutch Reformed Church has calculated that in Johannesburg alone there are now 70,000 Portuguese. To what extent the figures are correct, I do not know, but it is interesting, in the banning list of books in March this year 18 of the publications out of a list of 33 which had been banned, were Portuguese publications; this is an indication, almost, of the rise of a new language group in South Africa. My question to the hon. the Minister is this. There will also be a great influx of reading matter from these countries, and I should like to know from him what steps are being taken to keep an eye on publications in the foreign languages, and how the Publications Board deals with the new position which has arisen.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that a consolidated list of banned books ought to be published annually. There are thousands of book lovers in South Africa who do not usually subscribe to the Government Gazette, and it is interesting to find that wherever one goes, people, without their knowing it, have banned books on their bookshelves; quite unwittingly so. They are usually very worried when they learn that that is the case. I do not think it is fair towards these people, and the Minister must consider publishing, at least once every year, a consolidated list of these banned books for sale purposes.

I want to discuss the question of passports. Every now and again we have an uproar in the country about the refusal of passports to South Africans wanting to go abroad. There is also the question of the refusal of visas to foreigners who want to visit South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister will be fair enough to admit that this sort of thing is not good publicity for South Africa. It does us a great deal of harm. In fact, I remember a report which appeared in Die Burger a few years ago, which dealt with the refusal of a certain passport, and Die Burger said at that time that the damage which had been done to South Africa by that refusal would run into several million rand, if it could be calculated in terms of money. I am not proceeding from the assumption that the Minister wantonly refuses a passport nor do I proceed from the assumption that he is always wrong; but the Minister must understand that we cannot always proceed from the assumption that he is always right. Or does he want to say that he is infallible? Can the Minister tell us that he never makes a mistake? He does not seem to want to react, but surely he cannot expect us to assume that he can make no mistakes. Now my question is this: What machinery exists to rectify mistakes and to prevent injustice being done? Will the Minister explain to us what procedure is followed when his Department has to deal with an application? In particular I should like to know what percentage of the cases which are rejected are brought to his personal attention, where he then gives the final decision. The problem is this, the refusal of a passport really amounts to the imposing of a penalty. There were cases of leading figures who wanted to attend conferences abroad, and they were prohibited from doing so. That is a major punishment. If it is made public, a stigma attaches to them in any case. Some are prohibited from taking up bursaries to go and study abroad. Others are prohibited, sometimes throughout their entire lives, from travelling abroad. This is a serious penalty which is being imposed on a man when he is refused a passport. What worries me is that it all takes place without any reasons being given. In other words, the man who is affected and who is indeed being punished, has no recourse. He has no defence; there is no machinery to which he can appeal. [Interjection.] He can appeal to the Minister, but the Minister is that very man who has already taken the decision. What must the man do if he believes he has been treated unfairly? We must begin thinking of creating machinery—unless the Minister can say that he never makes a mistake—to which a man who has been punished in this way can appeal. There is a possibility of a definition of the powers of the Minister by legislation, so that there can be more statutory protection for the ordinary citizen. The Minister’s powers of refusal may perhaps be restricted to certain categories of people such as communists and people who are a danger to the country so that, if he exceeds his powers, a man can at least have recourse to a court if he feels that he has been done an injustice. There is also another way; that is the appointment of a committee of appeal, which can consist of a Judge and two magistrates. It does not matter how large the committee is, but there ought to be machinery outside the political administration through which a man can appeal and where the State can put its case and the individual can be afforded an opportunity of finding out what the objections are and whether they are based on facts or on misconceptions. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has once again produced the typical plea we hear continually, that reasons should be given for every action taken by the Government, whether it concerns the refusal of passports or visas or anything else. I am convinced that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows just as well as anybody else that it is not always in the public interest to furnish that kind of information. He knows as well as I do that when restrictions were imposed on persons like Dennis Brutus or John Harris or Abram Fischer, or anybody else, it was done because the authority concerned knew that there were good reasons for doing so. In these cases there are mostly equally good reasons, but it is not in the public interest to furnish them. There was the case of the refusal of a passport to a Coloured student who received a bursary to study in Norway. The passport was refused, and he slipped across the border to Botswana, and when he arrived in Norway he was welcomed at the airport by 5,000 Norwegians. Hardly had he arrived in Norway when he went to the U.N. and gave evidence against us. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the bursary awarded to him was merely a subterfuge to get him out of the country. The nagging that we are always refusing bursaries to keep people from studying and what have you, is all nonsense.

But I want to come to another point raised by the hon. member for Umlazi. This is also the kind of cry that we hear continually and that is aimed at embarrassing South Africa. He made a plea here for the recognition of the Chinese. He did not say that directly, but in effect he asked that the Chinese …

On a point of explanation, Sir, I never said that.

It is very easy to infer things from what the hon. member said. I do not think I am making a mistake. He asked that the Chinese, because they are supposedly going to trade with this country in future, should be afforded the same recognition in this country as the Japanese and that the Chinese in this country should be recognized as Whites.

You must not twist what I said.

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw the word “twist”?

I withdraw it.

I should now like to counter with what one of his own frontbenchers, the Chief Whip of the United Party, said last year. Last year the hon. member for Von Brandis pleaded with the Minister in this House that he should expedite the removal of the Chinese from Von Brandis. That is what it means in effect, and it may perhaps be expressed as one faithful old United Party supporter in the Umlazi constituency put it to a National Party canvasser who visited him. He said: “I will vote United Party in this election, but if I have the slightest fear that the United Party might win the election I will vote Nat.” That is typical. If there is dirty work to be done or difficult decisions to be taken, they say: Let the National Party do it, but leave me out of it. That is consistently the United Party’s attitude with regard to all political decisions that have to be taken in this country. They have no intention of taking any clear decision on any matter as far as clear policy is concerned. That is why they are grateful that there is a National Party Government in power to take difficult decisions, because they know that this is a purposeful Government which pursues a certain policy.

May I ask a question? What is your attitude towards treating Japanese and Chinese as white people?

I would gladly answer that. The hon. member should know that here in South Africa there are no permanent inhabitants who are Japanese. In effect it means that if Japanese come from overseas to do business here, they receive the normal, decent treatment afforded visitors from abroad. But we have several thousands of Chinese in South Africa, and that is why we can under no circumstances accept the Chinese in this country, who form a permanent section of the population, as Whites. If the hon. member pleads that the Chinese should be regarded as Whites because we trade with them, then I should like to know from him whether he expects us to treat all the Bantu here as Whites because a trade agreement has been entered into with Malawi. In view of the fact that contact was recently made with Indian businessmen from India and that there is a possibility of renewed trade relations with India, would the hon. member have the Indians here treated as Whites too? The Opposition has absolutely no policy principles. They act on the premise that they will decide from day to day and will adapt their policy to the circumstances, and that is why that party will be rejected at one election after another, because they have no policy.

I should first like to reply to some allegations made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with regard to the Publications Control Board. If I followed the hon. member correctly—I was actually surprised to hear that—he said that we had no way of ensuring that the Board was doing good work. I say I was surprised to hear those words, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is an experienced member of this House and he knows as well as I do that a criterion was laid down in the Act and has to be observed by the Board. How can the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say that we know nothing whatsoever about the actions of the Publications Control Board? The hon. member could simply take up any book dealt with by the Publications Control Board and examine it himself.

Where do I buy it if it is banned?

According to the criterion laid down in the Act, he may see for himself whether or not that Board acted correctly.

Where do I get the books?

You may buy the books if you like, or you may get them from the Board if you want to examine them. You may also get them from the Department if you would like to examine them.

No, you are wrong. Where do I buy them?

You may examine them at any time. The hon. member knows as well as I do that before a book is examined by the Publications Control Board, somebody has to lodge a complaint about it. The hon. member can take any book and examine it according to the criterion laid down in the Act. Surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not trying to tell this House that he possesses none of the books banned by the Publications Board? He knows as well as I do that any member of Parliament who wishes to examine them can go to the Department and say: “I am a Member of Parliament and I should like to examine this book as the Board must have examined it; I want to see whether the Board acted correctly.” He will get such a book for examination. The hon. member knows that as well as I do.

I have examined some of them.

The hon. member says that he has examined some of them, and by implication he is now saying that he does not agree with the Publications Control Board. I shall now tell the hon. member why he does not agree: Because he examines them through liberal spectacles, whereas the Publications Control Board examines them quite objectively, in accordance with the Act. That is the reason. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that the Board has also banned books which are apparently in favour of the Government’s policy. He knows that. Now he is trying to suggest that the Board is in league with the Government and bans only books which are opposed to the Government’s policy. That is what the hon. member said in effect. But that is not true, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows as well as I do that it is not true. Certain books which are apparently in favour of the Government’s apartheid policy have also been banned. Is that not true?

Which ones?

For example this book White Man, Think Again.

Is that the Government’s policy?

I said “apparently”. The hon. member is not listening. He should not think he is going to catch me with a wide noose the way he catches his voters in Bezuidenhout with a wide noose.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said that more English than Afrikaans books were banned. But is the hon. member surprised at that? I made a note of what the hon. member said. The hon. member said more English books were being banned than Afrikaans books. I made a note of that.

I said the Board dealt virtually 100 per cent with English works.

Well, and what does that matter? The hon. member knows as well as I do that there are far more English works. There are thousands more English works than Afrikaans works. Does the hon. member find it strange that more English books should be banned than Afrikaans books?

That is not my point.

Let the hon. member tell me what his point is, and I shall reply to him.

I simply said the Board dealt 100 per cent with English books.

The hon. member said more English books were banned than Afrikaans books. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that with the simple object of inciting racial hatred to-night. That is why; that is the reason. The hon. member said we should reform the Board. The hon. member levelled no criticism at the members of that Board. His only criticism was that there were not enough English-speaking persons on the Board. But why should the Board be divided into English and Afrikaans-speaking people? Surely it is not the object of the Board to try to preserve the cultural properties of each section of the population. That was never the object of the Board. The object of the Board is to act as a board of censors for books. All one should take into consideration is expertise; one should not consider who speaks English and who Afrikaans. If there are more Afrikaans than English-speaking persons who are qualified to serve as members of the Board of Censors, would the hon. member have them replaced by English-speaking persons regardless of their ability, simply to maintain the ratio? Is that what the hon. member is advocating?

I believe in equitable ratio.

Are there no English-speaking persons who are capable enough?

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

You did, by implication.

No, I did not say that, not even by implication. My point is this: There is no need to draw a distinction between English and Afrikaans-speaking persons in respect of the Publications Control Board. Even if there are English-speaking persons who are 100 per cent qualified to serve on the Board, I would have no objection to all the members of the board being English-speaking. The whole object of the Publications Control Board was to perform a certain function. They are not there to wage a cultural struggle and to preserve cultural properties, as some of the jingos on the opposite side would have it.

Who are the jingos? Where are the jingos? [Interjections.]

If the hon. members have finished quarrelling across the floor of the House, I should like to devote a few minutes of my time to the hon. member for Houghton. She said that certain people had been refused visas “because they commented on the South African racial policy”. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton this: I know why she is angry. I can well understand why the hon. member for Houghton is angry—the hon. member for Houghton is angry because as a liberalist she is standing virtually alone in South Africa. Those liberalist friends of hers who enter South Africa as so-called friends and then denigrate South Africa are now being kept out, and now the hon. member for Houghton feels a bit lonely. That is the reason why the hon. member for Houghton became so angry to-night. That is the real reason. That is because we have discovered what was going on. The hon. member knows that we have discovered that those people come here with a hypocritical face and a television camera and then tell us that they just want to record the beauty of our country on television, but when they get back to their own countries we find that they present a completely distorted picture of South Africa. Now the hon. member for Houghton does not want us to keep those people out of the country. She mentioned the television networks. But did the hon. member for Houghton not see what happened? The hon. member for Houghton is so negrophilistically blind to the criticism and stabs directed at South Africa that she actually comes and pleads in Parliament that those people who are undermining our country all around should be admitted to our fatherland! I want to tell the hon. member that she may advocate that hour after hour. This National Party Government will stand firm and will not yield an inch to that kind of subtle liberalism. Let me assure the hon. member for Houghton of that.

We witnessed how people came to this country and took television shots of the poor living conditions of the Bantu, but they “forgot” to turn the camera’s lens to the new buildings erected for the Bantu. Then they go overseas and show the people what the South Africans are doing to the Bantu. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember when we last had such an enjoyable evening in the House as this one. I am sure you will agree with me that the reason for that is the fact that this debate on the Interior Vote was introduced on such a high note. The debate started on such a high note. I want to thank the hon. member for Durban (Point) for setting such a good example. There were many people who were surprised—they did not know that he was capable of such a high note! No wonder, then, that the hon. member for Witbank immediately continued on the same high level. Apart from a few skirmishes here and there I think the high level was maintained. I am not suggesting that the level of the contributions of the hon. members for Durban (Point) and Witbank was necessarily as high as that of the hon. member for Houghton! But I mention it nevertheless.

You break my heart.

I do not want to waste time, therefore I shall begin with the questions put to me by the hon. member for Durban (Point), and in the same connection also the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I shall first deal with the question of elections and the registration of voters. There are deficiencies; that is the general feeling. In fact, I admitted even last year, in the debate on this Vote, that they existed. As hon. members know, my Department has made an experiment with the special vote. The Electoral Act has also been amended. These problems should enjoy even further attention and should be eliminated. I asked last year that political parties in the Opposition, all interested parties, all electoral officers, presiding officers, etc., should bring the problems they experienced during the general elections and the shortcomings that still existed, to our attention, in order that we may investigate them and go into them departmentally. We could then compile a preliminary list of all these points, following which we could sift them to see what was practicable and what was impracticable in order that the system of elections, postal votes or special votes, registration, yes, everything involved in elections, may be tightened up properly. Then the Department—this is how I understood and meant it—will perhaps draw up draft legislation which we will refer to a Parliamentary select committee for report in order that we may see whether we cannot get a system that will function more efficiently and that will be more acceptable. The reports of various political parties have already been submitted. I am not saying that all of them have been received. There is still time for further reports to be submitted. Reports have also been received from electoral officers. The Department’s work-study division under the guidance of a Public Service inspector has been instructed to attend to this and they are specifically engaged in this matter. I believe that before long—I think in the next session—we shall be in a position to bring up a tentative amending Bill as a basis for an inquiry by a select committee. There we shall try to smooth out all kinds of problems and consideration will also be given to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said with regard to electoral officers in urban areas, who do not always necessarily live in the constituencies. All the matters mentioned by hon. members on that side—and last year also by hon. members on this side; and I am thinking in particular of what was said by the hon. member for Malmesbury and others— will be thoroughly taken into consideration. This matter is of the utmost importance, of course, not only to members of Parliament but also to the country in general, and we shall therefore try to make the best of the matter and to get the best out of it. We should not act precipitately, however, otherwise I think we may cause the continuation of certain deficiencies which we should have met by now. I am not saying that we shall succeed in drawing up legislation in such an ideal form that there will be no cause for any complaints, but I do hope that the new legislation will have the result that there will be less inconvenience than in the past.

The implications of the ruling by the Supreme Court in Pietermaritzburg will also be taken into consideration when this matter is dealt with. I hope hon. members will be satisfied with this reply at this stage, because I have nothing definite to present to them now or to hold out as a prospect. I should like to have the co-operation of hon. members with a view to achieving something which is really substantial.

On behalf of the Publications Control Board I also want to thank the hon. member for Witbank and other hon. members for the fine things said here.

Would you mind replying to the question of general registration as well?

I think the general registration should take place in 1968 and we will probably have to carry it out then. The point was raised that we should not like to vote again on the basis of an outdated voters’ list or registration. In the course of the inquiry we shall make we shall also see what changes can be effected in order that we may not meet with the same difficulties again as a result of an outdated voters’ list, a list containing people who have moved away and who cannot be traced. I do not want to say too much in this regard at this stage. But I want to tell hon. members that the work study division in the Department and the Public Service Commission, in co-operation with my Department, are working on a great scheme which, if it can be put into effect, will bring about a revolutionary change in South Africa which will meet all these problems and which in this field will also modernize us just as much as other countries in the world. This scheme demands greater study, however, and in this regard we are in fact going to send a representative of the Department to an international conference to be held abroad in the course of this year. We are engaged in studies which, if they go according to plan, will have the result that we shall be able to effect revolutionary changes in this field in South Africa. This change will be for the good of our election system and will result in tightening up and modernizing registrations, addresses, and scores of other aspects.

As I said, I should like to thank the hon. member for Witbank—he is not here at the moment—and also other hon. members, on behalf of the Publications Control Board, for the refreshing tone of their observations. It is true that the Board has a most difficult and delicate task to perform. I think the way the Board is performing this task merits our praise and gratitude. Amongst other things the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me whether I received a report from the Publications Control Board. Well, the Board is an autonomous board established under the Publications and Entertainments Act, and although the Board comes under my control I, as the Minister, cannot interfere directly with the Board’s activities and functions—nor do I want to do that. The Board submits no reports to me, but if they ban a book, anybody has the right to write to the Minister and to ask him for the reasons for the banning. If I receive letters and representations, if there is reaction to the banning of a book, it surely follows logically that I may then ask the Board: “Can you give me a report on this matter and just tell me on what grounds you did it?” That is what I in fact do. I would be the last one to say that the Board, although it consists of 11 members, highly cultured, specialized, trained and knowledgeable people, cannot also make mistakes. Because, Sir, they are also human beings. If an entire House of Assembly can make mistakes, surely a small Board such as this can also make mistakes!

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton thinks she does not also make mistakes now and then. I was asked on what grounds the Board decided. Paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 5 (2) of the Act—Act No. 26 of 1963—lays down the grounds to be taken into consideration. They are set out very clearly in the Act. I quote—

1. (a) is indecent or obscene or is offensive or harmful to public morals;
2. (b) is blasphemous or is offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic;
3. (c) brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt;
4. (d) is harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic;
5. (e) is prejudicial to the safety of the State, the general welfare or the peace and good order;

That is the basis on which works are judged. Now I just want to say that not all books which appear or are published, all publications, are admitted or banned by the Board. The Board does not see all of them. Thousands of publications enter the country, and the first people to examine them are the Department of Customs and Excise. If the officials of that Department consider a publication admissible, the work is admitted. Publications on which they are in doubt they refer to the Board. It is only the works they refer to the Board that come to the attention of the Board and that the Board then has to examine thoroughly. They have to judge the work by norms I have just read to you and decide whether or not they have any merit, and whether they should be admitted or banned. The books that come to the attention of the Board are not books that the Board simply picks off a shelf here or there, from pure mischief or because they have a surplus of leisure time, and which they then ban or approve. Only books brought to the attention of the Board by members of the public are judged by the Board. It does not go and hunt for work— after all, enough work is brought to its attention.

It is of no concern to the Board whether a book is English or Afrikaans. I just want to say the following about the constitution of this Board. There are three very eminent, highly respected and recognized English-speaking experts in this field on the Board. The other members are in fact Afrikaans-speaking. But there is not one Afrikaans-speaking member who is not completely bilingual. There are, however, quite a few of these English and Afrikaans-speaking members—I am personally aware of this in the case of some of the Afrikaans-speaking members—who command more languages than only English and Afrikaians. In other words, these Board members are highly cultured people.

Once the Board has decided to ban a book, the parties concerned have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court—even to the Appeal Court. In that respect the Minister has no say. I think it is just as well that I have no say, because I would be a poorer judge than the Board, considering its constitution.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Board was examining, approving or rejecting predominantly English books. Perhaps that is true. They are English books in the sense that they are books imported into the country. One cannot expect Afrikaans books to be imported. Here and there a Dutch book may be imported, but it will be read by few in South Africa, because so few of the youth and the young people of to-day can still understand and read Dutch. For that reason imported books by foreign writers will be mainly English books. I now want to inform the House that I have been informed that the Publications Control Board has not rejected one English book written by an English-speaking South African. Nor has one English book written by an Afrikaans-speaking South African in the Republic been banned or rejected by the Board. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised in connection with the Publications Control Board. The ones I have not referred to, have been dealt with by other hon. members on this side of the House.

I now come to the question of passports and visas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know what machinery there was for people to appeal against the refusal of a visa or a passport to them. Well, there is no such machinery. In cases where I myself had to decide whether a visa or a passport should be issued, and I refused, it has happened that some of the persons concerned or their relatives or other interested parties asked me whether I could not grant them an interview in this connection. They wanted me to reconsider my decision. I have granted such interviews and talked to the persons themselves and in certain cases I asked that the person concerned should state his case in writing and set out all relevant aspects. Only the other day I initially rejected an application for a passport, an application with which the hon. member for Wynberg was involved. On the grounds of information submitted to me by my Department I refused the application. The hon. member for Wynberg then asked me for an opportunity to have a further discussion with me on the matter. I consented. The hon. member then submitted information to me which had not been recorded when the application was originally made. If the information she furnished to me has been submitted when the application was originally lodged, I would have approved the application, which I did after the hon. member for Wynberg had made the representations to me. In any event, the point I want to make here is that this is the only kind of appeal available to people whose applications for passports or visas are rejected. But there is in any event no government I know of in any country in the democratic world which has machinery to provide for appeals in respect of matters of this kind. Let me give hon. members the assurance that applications for visas or passports are not things which are casually dealt with, although it may appear to be a simple task to refuse or grant a person a passport or a visa. All applications for passports or visas do not come to my personal attention, of course— only those cases in respect of which officials consider that the circumstances of an application require that the Minister should in fact be consulted in the matter. In fact, cases are even referred to me which may perhaps be treated as an ordinary routine application. They prefer to be on the safe side. Under what circumstances is a passport or a visa refused? The question was asked whether in this connection there was adequate consultation with other departments involved in the matter. My reply to this is that there is very thorough consultation with other departments that should be consulted in such a matter, departments which from the nature of their work have more knowledge of the backgrounds of persons who apply for such visas or passports —whether they are South African citizens or whether they are foreigners from abroad. After considering all aspects that may be relevant to such an application, the Minister makes his decision. There have been cases in respect of which I even consulted the Cabinet because I wanted to be certain that the Government would be behind me as regards the decision to be taken. Of course no reasons are stated for refusing passports. There are good reasons for this—on the one hand it is in the interest of the person himself and on the other hand it is deemed not to be in the interests of the country to do so. Then it should also be remembered that a person to whom a passport or a visa is granted does not simply obtain it without any questions being asked. We first ascertain that it will be in the best interests of the country to grant a visa or a passport to a certain person.

There are other hon. members who made speeches on this matter, mostly members on this side of the House, and if I were to refer to all of them it would merely be to praise them, and I do not want to indulge in too much of that! As regards the hon. member for Innesdal, I want to tell him that as long as he is here and can handle the hon. member for Houghton so efficiently, I shall leave her to him.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke about public holidays. He said that the State should play an important part in Republic Day festivities, and that there are people who would like to see this also as regards the celebration of Van Riebeeck Day. This day, they say, should be celebrated more festively in order that the day may have more significance and value to our young people. That is true, but I nevertheless feel that this is a suggestion which hon. members should make to organizations concerned with these matters, organizations that do exist. Everything should not be placed on the shoulders of the State.

If there are points which hon. members raised and to which I have not replied, I shall be grateful if they could bring them to my attention in order that I may give further attention to them.

What about Mr. Wu?

The hon. member for Umlazi made a point about the classification of industrialists who come to South Africa. I do not blame him for still being dizzy from classifications, because in the past few days we heard a great deal about that. In any event, whether those industrialists should enjoy certain business rights or privileges is a question which should actually be put to the Minister of Economic Affairs. He wanted to know from me whether I would classify them. How can I? Surely they are not here? Surely they just want to send money, not so?

Do you classify their money?

The Chinese are a subgroup of the Coloured group. In this country we have a permanent Chinese population group and we have to take them into consideration and classify them. Of course I recognize their culture and standard of civilization, as also that of the Japanese. But classification is not founded on standard of civilization, nor does it determine standard of civilization. There may be brown and yellow people who are more civilized or whose civilization is older than that of the Whites. The fact that a person is not classified as a White does not necessarily mean that he is either uncivilized or civilized.

What are you going to do with these people as far as group areas are concerned?

Order! That matter does not fall under this Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 11—“Public Service Commission, R2,230,000”.

There is a substantial amount involved in this Vote. The Minister should tell us what attention is being paid by the Public Service Commission to the question of productivity. This commission is concerned with appointing people to the Public Service and with their grading. What attention is being given to improving their efficiency? I suggest there is room for improvement in this respect. This was impressed upon me during recent months when I had occasion to meet various members of the Public Service, people who spent a lot of time on routine matters—such as the writing out of letters. In how many departments are letters dictated onto a dicta-phone, in how many departments are letters dictated to a typist and how many hours are unnecessarily being wasted by senior officials having to write out letters in longhand for the typist to type? If ordinary business managers have to run their businesses in the same way as public service departments run theirs, those businesses would have been bankrupt long ago. If members of Parliament, for instance, had to write out their replies to letters all in longhand before handing them over to the typist to type, we would never get through our work. And yet you find many civil servants protesting at the amount of time they have to spend in writing letters out in longhand. There is an item in this Vote itemized as “work simplification” for which the princely amount of R100 is being asked for. I think we are entitled to ask whether sufficient attention is in fact being given to this matter. In how many departments are there electric typewriters? To what extent is there increased output. We have some very fine professional officers in the public service. Yet they cannot do the amount of planning they ought to do because they are tied to their desks by routine jobs, jobs which should be done by people on a lower salary scale. If the Public Service Commission is to carry out its function efficiently it should give attention to this matter so that we can get more efficient work from our qualified officials.

Another aspect is the replacement of senior officers at present filling top posts. The problem here is that if the present departmental heads retire and have to be replaced it may be found that those who have to take their place have been taken up by commerce and industry. I should, therefore, like to know whether the Public Service Commission has given consideration to the present practice pertaining in commerce and industries—the granting of fringe benefits.

Progress reported.