House of Assembly: Vol22 - FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY 1968

FRIDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY, 1968 Prayers—10.05 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Percentage of Whites Receiving Old Age and War Veterans’ Pensions *1. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

What percentage of each race group in the Republic is in receipt of (a) old age and (b) war veterans’ pensions.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions):

The following particulars are in respect of white persons only as my Department is not responsible for the award of social pensions to non-white persons:

  1. (a) 3.16 per cent.
  2. (b) 63 per cent.
Percentage of Air Fares Allocated to Refreshments *2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Transport:

What percentage of the air fares on (a) Boeing Springbok, (b) Internal Standard and (c) Internal Skycoach services is allocated to the provision of refreshments.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

No fixed percentage of air fares is allocated to the provision of refreshments.

Provision of Legal Aid in Criminal and Civil Cases *3. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether his Department has reached finality on the question of the provision of legal aid in (a) criminal and (b) civil cases; if so,
  2. (2) whether he intends to introduce legislation in this regard; if so, when.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) (a) and (b) No. The matter is still receiving the attention of the Department of Justice, the Association of Law Societies and the General Council of the Bar.
  2. (2) No decision in this regard has yet been made.
Bantu Persons Employed as Contract Workers in Western Cape *4. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) How many Bantu persons were employed as contract workers in (a) the Western Cape as a whole, (b) the Cape Peninsula and (c) the rest of the Western Province during 1966 and 1967, respectively;
  2. (2) how many are at present so employed in each of these areas.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) (a) and (c) The information is not readily available.

(b)

December, 1966

16,462

December, 1967

16,432

  1. (2) The latest figure available is that given above for December, 1967.
Closing of Suez Canal: Increase in Staff of Railways and Harbours Administration *5. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether there has been any increase in the number of persons employed by the Railways and Harbours Administration in the Cape Town Harbour area since the closing of the Suez Canal; if so, what is the increase in each race group.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes; there has been an increase of 57 in the number of Whites, but no additional Bantu, Coloureds or Indians have been employed.

Questioning of Delegates to National Congress of S.A. Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion *6. Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR

asked the Minister of Police:

Whether delegates to the National Congress of the South African Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion, held in Kimberley during January, 1968, were questioned by the Security Police; if so, for what reasons.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:

No.

Appeals Considered under Section 5 or 11 of Population Registration Act *7. Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether his Department has considered any appeals under section 5 or 11 of the Population Registration Act since 19th May, 1967; if so, (a) how many, (b) what percentage of the appeals involved (i) Coloured or White, (ii) Coloured or Malay, (iii) Malay or Asiatic and (iv) Bantu or Coloured classification and (c) how many of the appeals were granted in each of these categories.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

My Department has no power to consider any appeals under either section 5 or section 11 of the Population Registration Act.

(a), (b) and (c) fall away.

Custodianship of Majuba Mountain *8. Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether in a statement reported to have been made by him during August, 1967, he referred to the custodianship of Majuba Mountain being handed over to a youth movement; if so, what was the purport of his statement in this regard.

The PRIME MINISTER:

Since Majuba Mountain is owned by a private company, the company has the right to dispose of it as it thinks fit.

9. Mr. W. V. RAW

—Reply standing over.

White Railway and Harbour Employees: Basic Monthly Salaries *10. Mr. W. V. RAW

asked the Minister of Transport:

How many white railway and harbour employees earn a basic monthly wage of (a) over R500, (b) R401 to R500, (c) R301 to R400, (d) R201 to R300, (e) R101 to R200 and (f) R100 or less.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (a) 167.
  2. (b) 488.
  3. (c) 1,814.
  4. (d) 14,382.
  5. (e) 79,588.
  6. (f) 19,194.

The above details reflect the position as at 15th March, 1967. Later particulars are not readily available.

Teleprinter Service between Cape Town and Johannesburg *11. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether he has received complaints about the teleprinter service between Cape Town and Johannesburg; if so,
  2. (2) whether any action is contemplated to improve this service; if so, (a) what action and (b) when will it be taken.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes; (a) and (b) the old type teleprinter machines will gradually be replaced by machines of the new type. To improve line conditions, the existing open-wire carrier circuits will be transferred to the new microwave system which is expected to become available between Cape Town and Johannesburg towards the end of March, this year.
Re-introduction of R2 Note *12. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) Whether he has given consideration to the re-introduction of the two rand note; if so,
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Because of the intricate and complicated technical processes involved and the time taken to prepare the special watermarked paper, a period from two to three years is required before a new series of banknotes can be introduced. The decision to introduce the new series of banknotes of a smaller size than the old was taken some time before the new decimal coinage was introduced, and it was considered that the elimination of the old R2 note, which was the equivalent of the old monetary unit of £1, would assist considerably in weaning the public of that concept. In order to bridge the gap between the R1 and the R10 notes, it was decided to introduce a R5 note, which would result in the handling of approximately the same number of notes for purposes of change as the former R1, R2 and R10 denominations. The intention to introduce notes in denominations of R1, R5 and R10 was announced by the Minister of Finance many months before their introduction and was widely publicized in the Press and over the radio. As far as can be ascertained, no objection was raised at the time to the omission of the R2 note from the series.

    The new series of notes was introduced gradually as the stocks of the old notes held by the Reserve Bank became exhausted, starting with the R10 note followed by the R1 and R5 notes. The immediate reaction was a considerable falling off in demand for the R2 notes, of which the Reserve Bank held considerable supplies, and, despite repeated requests to the commercial banks and Government departments to continue to make use of these notes, supplies continued to accumulate at the banks. With the introduction of the R5 note, the demand for the R2 note virtually ceased and the Reserve Bank was obliged to accept the position that this note was no longer acceptable. In this connection it may be mentioned that many large organizations have introduced a system of preparing pay packets which does not cater for a R2 note and would not be interested in its re-introduction. Furthermore, it is understood that the $2-bill is not a popular note in the United States of America and that these notes are being cancelled as they are returned by the banks and further supplies are not being issued.

    As hon. members know, there is only ¼″ difference in the dimensions of the denominations of the new series of notes. To introduce a R2 note falling in size between the R1 and R5 notes, even if it had a very distinctive colour, would lead to confusion and inconvenience, particularly to the blind, as occurred some years ago when a smaller £5 note of the old design was introduced, and the Reserve Bank was obliged to revert to the old size. Should a R2 note, the size of the present R1 note, and a smaller R1 note be introduced, there will, for some time, be both R2 and R1 notes of the same size in circulation, and the blind would be unable to distinguish between them. Apart from this, commerce and the public would be caused considerable inconvenience with notes of different denominations but of the same size in circulation at the same time.

    Having regard to the extensive resistance displayed towards the use of the old R2 note and the fact that a very large section of the community is satisfied with the present series of R1, R5 and R10 notes, I am of the opinion that the present series should be left undisturbed for a further period of, say, two years, to determine whether the issue of a R2 note is, in fact, warranted.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder whether he is aware that commercial banks were reluctant to issue R2 notes from their stocks of notes?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Because there was no demand for them.

An HON. MEMBER:

They could not get them.

Stabbings and Assaults in Cape Peninsula *13. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Justice:

Whether his attention has been drawn to the incidence of stabbings and assaults in the Cape Peninsula; if so, what action is contemplated by the Government in this regard.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes. The matter is still under consideration.

Pest Control by Sterilization *14. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

Whether his Department has initiated experiments in connection with pest control by sterilization methods; if so, (a) what has been the nature of the experiments, (b) where have they been undertaken and (c) what measure of success has been achieved.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Yes.

  1. (a) Irradiation and chemosterilants.
  2. (b) Pretoria and Stellenbosch.
  3. (c) Results to date are disappointing.
15. Mr. H. M. LEWIS

—Reply standing over.

Assistance to Immigrants *16. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

  1. (1) How many immigrants were assisted during 1967 by (a) the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, (b) the Southern Africa League and (c) the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie;
  2. (2) whether his Department has any control over the staff employed by these associations and the salaries paid to them; if so, (a) what control and (b) what staff does each association employ.
The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:
  1. (1) (a) 10,173, (b) 2,030, (c) 8,356.
  2. (2) Yes;
    1. (a) the associations are required to carry out clearly defined functions at the request and the satisfaction of my Department and their staff have to perform their duties in close collaboration with my Department’s officials. Furthermore, the associations have to submit annual estimates of expenditure in advance and their subsidies are only paid after the submission of audited statements of accounts; and
    2. (b) the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association—22 full-time, the Southern Africa League—13 full-time and 2 part-time, and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie—15 full-time and 2 part-time.
Dock Permits for Motor Vehicles *17. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Transport:

(a) How many dock permits were issued during 1966 and 1967, respectively, to motor vehicles in (i) Durban, (ii) East London, (iii) Port Elizabeth and (iv) Cape Town and (b) how many of these permits were issued to vehicles plying for hire as taxis in the respective port areas.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

1966

1967

(a)

(i)

506

719

(ii)

6

11

(iii)

21

23

(iv)

19

23

1966

1967

(b)

(i)

63

64

(ii)

6

11

(iii)

21

20

(iv)

19

23

Posts and Telegraphs: Motor Vehicles in Service *18. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

How many motor vehicles were in the service of his Department during 1965-’66 and 1966-’67, respectively.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

As at:

31.3.1966

3,778

31.3.1967

4,009

Blue Train: Passenger and Dining Coaches *19. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister Of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether steps have been taken to replace the existing passenger and dining coaches of the Blue Train; if so, (a) what steps, (b) how many new coaches will be placed in service, (c) on what expected dates and (d) what is the estimated cost;
  2. (2) whether there have been any changes in the original plan; if so, what changes.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) World-wide tenders for the replacement of the existing passenger and dining coaches of the Blue Train were called for on 30th June, 1967, and will close on 30th May, 1968.
    2. (b) Thirty coaches for two train sets.
    3. (c) It is not possible at this stage to indicate with any degree of certainty when the coaches will be placed in service. It is expected, however, that 50 per cent of the expenditure will be incurred during the financial year 1969-’70 and the balance during the financial year 1970’71, depending on the delivery period offered by the successful tenderer.
    4. (d) R2,650,000.
  2. (2) No.
Earnings and Expenditure of Oil Pipeline *20. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) What were the (a) earnings or receipts and (b) expenditure or payments of the oil pipeline from 1st April, 1967 to the latest date for which figures are available;
  2. (2) whether he will consider applying part of the profits on the pipeline to reducing the tariff for transporting petrol to the Transvaal; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) R19,334,146 for the period 1st April, 1967, to 31st December, 1967.
    2. (b) R2,265,388 for the same period.
  2. (2) No: for the reasons I gave during the Railway Budget Debate on 14th March, 1967, as recorded in columns 2930 and 2931 of Hansard No. 8 (1967).
Commission of Enquiry into Durban Corporation *21. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether the findings of and the evidence placed before the Commission of Enquiry into the Durban Corporation have been brought to his notice;
  2. (2) whether he or any Attorney-General intends taking steps in regard to the matter; if so, what steps; if not why not.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) The matter is still being investigated and the Attorney-General has not yet reached a final decision.
Ships Handled at Durban and Cape Town Harbours *22. Mr. W. V. RAW

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) What was the average number of ships handled at Durban and Cape Town harbours, respectively, from 1st January to 30th June, 1967 and from 1st July to 31st December, 1967;
  2. (2) what was the average time spent by ships awaiting berths at these two harbours for each month of 1967.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Durban—

    1st January to 30th June, 1967 278 per month.

    1st July to 31st December, 1967 489 per month.

    Cape Town—

    1st January to 30th June, 1967 272 per month.

    1st July to 31st December, 1967 424 per month.

  2. (2)

Durban

Cape Town

(Port Hours)

January

16

10

February

13

11

March

13

13

April

12

27

May

14

27

June

12

11

July

14

8

August

18

10

September

14

11

October

17

14

November

13

11

December

12

11

The details reflected in the reply to part (2) of the question do not include particulars of vessels diverted from the Suez Canal.

23. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Pension Funds: Committee of Enquiry *24. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) Whether the committee of enquiry into matters realating to pension funds has submitted a report; if so, when;
  2. (2) whether any of the recommendations of the committee have been accepted; if so, what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations;
  3. (3) whether the report will be laid upon the Table; if so, when;
  4. (4) whether legislation will be introduced during the current session of Parliament.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) Yes, on 21st June, 1967.
  2. (2) The report is still under consideration.
  3. (3) It will be considered when a decision on the recommendations has been arrived at.
  4. (4) This depends on the decision taken.
Means Test for Coloured Social Pensioners *25. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether he has given further consideration to amending the means test applicable to Coloured social pensioners; if so, what steps have been taken or are contemplated; if not, why not;
  2. (2) whether consideration has been given to consolidating the bonus with the basic pension payable in order to raise the means plus pensions limitation; if so, when will the new basis of assessment come into operation; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT (for the Minister of Coloured Affairs):
  1. (1) Yes. A study group has already been appointed to investigate, inter alia, the consolidation of social pensions and grants and the adaptation thereof to the present-day needs of the Coloured community. In view of the extensive nature of this task, which will take some time to complete, no finality has as yet been reached.
  2. (2) Yes, as indicated under (1) above.
S.A. Indian Council: Recommendations Regarding Elected Statutory Body *26. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether the South African Indian Council has since 1st January, 1967, submitted any report or made any recommendations in regard to the conversion of the present advisory council into an elected statutory body; if so, what were the recommendations;
  2. (2) whether this report will be made available to members of Parliament and/or the public.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) Yes. On the question of the conversion of the present advisory council into an elected statutory body, the South African Indian Council unanimously recommended that the present council be elevated to statutory status and remain in office until the date on which the first elected council is constituted.
  2. (2) No.
Applications by Indian Pupils for Transport, Boarding Bursaries *27. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) (a) How many applications for (i) transport and (ii) boarding bursaries were received from and (b) how many such bursaries were granted to Indian pupils during each quarter of 1967;
  2. (2) what was the total amount expended during 1967 in respect of (a) transport and (b) boarding bursaries granted to Indian pupils.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

Bursaries are granted on an annual basis and the figures for 1967 are:

  1. (1)
    1. (a) (i) 3,088. (ii) 233.
    2. (b) Transport bursaries: 2,395.

      Boarding bursaries: 46.

  2. (2) (a) R48,998.95. (b) R3,006.00.
Agricultural College for Indians *28. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether it is intended to establish an agricultural college or similar institution for Indians; if so, when; if not,
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) No, except to say that there is no evidence that present demands or requirements justify the establishment of an agricultural college for Indians.
Bus Service between Soweto and Johannesburg *29. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether any applications have been received by his Department for the running of a regular bus service between Soweto and Johannesburg; if so, from whom;
  2. (2) whether any application has been granted; if so, which application; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes. Greyhound Bus Lines (Pty.) Ltd. Tutt Services (Pty.) Ltd. E. Zulu. W. M. Adams.
  2. (2) No. The existing transportation facilities were considered to be satisfactory and sufficient.
30. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

—Reply standing over.

31. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

—Reply standing over.

32. Mr. A. HOPEWELL

—Reply standing over.

Telephones Out of Order in Hillcrest and Kloof areas *33. Mr. A. HOPEWELL

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

(a) How many telephones in the Hillcrest and Kloof telephone areas have been out of order for more than one month since 1s December, 1967 (b) what is the reason fo the delay in repairing these telephones and (c) when is it expected that all the repairs will be completed.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) 86.
  2. (b) The exceptionally large number of faults which were caused by heavy rains and severe electric storms in the areas.
  3. (c) Within ten to fourteen days if further severe storms do not occur. Workmen from other areas are assisting with the repairs.
34. Dr. E. L. Fisher

—Reply standing over.

Njelele Irrigation Scheme: Scheduled Land Hydro-electric Plant

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS replied to Question *12, by Mr. D. E. Mitchell, standing over from 13th February:

Question:
  1. (1) (a) What is the total area of scheduled land under the Njelele Irrigation Scheme,(b) who are the registered owners of the lots receiving water for irrigation and (c) what is the area of each holding;
  2. (2) whether fresh land has been added to the schedule since the scheme was first prepared; if so, (a) who are the owners of the added land, (b) how much added land does each own and (c) on what date was the additional land scheduled;
  3. (3) whether a hydro-electric plant is installed as part of the canal project; if so, (a) on whose property is it installed, (b) at whose cost was it installed and (c) what was the cost of the installation;
  4. (4) whether charges are levied by the Department on this installation; if so, what charges.
Reply (Laid upon Table with leave of House):
  1. (1) (a) During the soil survey of irrigable areas on the Njelele River a total irrigable area of classified soil varieties of 2,600 morgen was determined during 1942-4 on the strength of which the Njelele dam was built, scheduled areas increased yearly as development took place. In 1963 1,933 morgen were scheduled. With the development of the canal system and the consequent improvement of distribution the Irrigation Board has, in terms of powers vested in him by Article 88 of the Water Act, extended his scheduling to 3,702 morgen in 1966, the present figure of scheduling which is also the final scheduling. The total area under gravitation control amounts to 8,300 morgen.
  2. (b) and (c) Riparian farmers to the Njelele River, as follows:

Owners

Scheduled Area

N. M. S. Potgieter

6 morgen

T. White

6 „

Herbert Knott Trust

600 „

M. P. Snyman

30 „

G. J. Fourie

25 „

P. J. Uys (Jnr.)

40 „

Herbert Knott Trust

225 „

P. A. Schutte

27 „

J. D. Nel

70 „

Cawood Investments (Pty.) Ltd

330 „

Mineral Bath Board

150 „

S. P. Botha

500 „

P. J. Uys

100 „

W. M. Herd

25 „

A Fourie

85 „

Republic of South Africa

93 „

C. C. Vermeulen

60 „

Republic of South Africa

100 „

B. J. M. Vorster (Est. late)

40 „

B. J. M. Vorster (Est. late)

50 „

J. C. C. H. Vorster

75 „

J. A. Fourie

100 „

J. O. Higgs

50 „

F. T. Kleinhans

25 „

L. J. Roux

45 „

F. Geyser

25 „

L. J. Roux

25 „

Landbank

14 „

J. C. de Wet

15 „

S. P. Botha

100 „

G. J. Fourie

30 „

A. J. Fourie

298 „

W. M. Herd

30 „

P. J. Uys

25 „

J. F. Wolvaardt

8 „

J. G. Meyer

177 „

B. J. M. Vorster

100 „

  1. (2) Yes. When the White Paper on the scheme was laid upon the Table in 1933 the area was undeveloped and the scheduling for initial development was determined at 1,983 morgen. It was envisaged that with further development higher scheduling would follow from time to time. Expansion was possible on all farms and as it did happen 3,702 morgen are at present scheduled.
    1. (a) and (b) Riparian farmers to the Njelele River expanded as follows:

Owner

Land Added

Herbert Knott Trust

300 morgen

M. P. Snyman

8 „

C. J. Fourie

5 „

P. J. Uys (Jnr.)

10 „

Herbert Knott Trust

25 „

P. A. Schutte

17 „

Cawood Investments (Pty.) Ltd

45 „

Mineral Bath Board

110 „

S. P. Botha

425 „

P. J. Uys

65 „

A. Fourie

65 „

Republic of South Africa

39 „

C. C. Vermeulen

30 „

B. J. M. Vorster (Est. late)

20 „

B. J. M. Vorster (Est. late)

25 „

J. C. C. H. Vorster

45 „

J. A. Fourie

60 „

J. O. Higgs

16 „

L. J. Roux

15 „

L. J. Roux

17 „

S. P. Botha

89 „

G. J. Fourie

10 „

A. J. Fourie

98 „

W. M. Herd

30 „

P. J. Uys

25 „

J. F. Wolvaardt

8 „

J. G. Meyer

52 „

B. J. M. Vorster

65 „

    1. (c) Expansion did not take place on a stated time. Development took place during the period 1963 to 1966 when the Board, in order to prevent salinity of the soil, constructed their own canal system and made better distribution possible.
  1. (3) Yes. A hydro-electric installation was installed as an integral part of the right bank canal project, in accordance with the White Paper laid upon the Table in Parliament during 1963 and on strength of which funds for the project were granted. The applicable part of the White Paper reads as follows:

    “The canal will be 26.9 miles in length … On the farm ‘Hayoma’ the water will be dropped 85 feet through a turbine which will pump 10 cusecs to a height of 200 feet to irrigate 500 morgen of land, which will also be scheduled under the scheme. The tailwater from this turbine will be used for further irrigation and to supplement and freshen the river water further down the valley.”

    This hydro-electric installation is taxed, as any other subdivision of the canal project by various riparian owners with problematic topographic circumstances, in agreeance with and on recommendation of the Njelele Irrigation Board on a differentiated basis so that the owners in question are responsible for all tax liabilities.

    1. (a) On the farm “Hayoma” owned by Mr. S. P. Botha.
    2. (b) At the expense of the Njelele Irrigation Board who recovers the cost from the owners by means of differentiated taxation.
    3. (c) R37,400 being the cost of the turbine installation, turbine house and a fair portion of the supply main which also serves to conduct water from the high-level canal to the low-level canal and the river.
  2. (4) The loan for the whole scheme has not been closed-off yet and, therefore, no repayments in respect of any part thereof are, at this stage, being recovered by the Department from the Irrigation Board.

For written reply:

Pay Increases for Railways and Harbours Administration Staff 1. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) What was the latest date on which (a) white and (b) non-white employees of the Railways and Harbours Administration received increases in pay;
  2. (2) whether any representations for increases have been received since that date; if so, (a) when, (b) for what increases and (c) what was the result of the representations.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) (a) and (b) October, 1965, pay month.
  2. (2) Yes.
    1. (a) On various occasions during 1967.
    2. (b) For varying salary and wage increases and improvements in certain service conditions.
    3. (c) The requests were declined.
Total Number of Bantu Pupils Enrolled, 1967 2. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) What was the total number of Bantu children enrolled in schools in the last quarter of 1967 or the latest date for which statistics are available;
  2. (2) what percentage of this total was enrolled in each standard from Sub-standard A to Standard 10.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1) 1,889,046 (as on the 1st day of June, 1967).

(2)

Sub-standard A

25.43%

Sub-standard B

18.77%

Standard 1

15.58%

Standard II

11.45%

Standard III

8.77%

Standard IV

6.45%

Standard V

4.96%

Standard VI

4.42%

Form I

1.62%

Form II

1.18%

Form III

0.76%

Form IV

0.17%

Form V

0.10%

(6,431 (0.34%) pupils were enrolled in technical secondary, teacher’s training and trade schools.)

Outstanding Applications for Telephones in 1966, 1967 3. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

(a) How many applications for telephones were outstanding at the end of 1966 and 1967, respectively, in the municipal area of (i) Johannesburg, (ii) Pretoria, (iii) Cape Town, (iv) Durban, (v) Pietermaritzburg, (vi) Port Elizabeth, (vii) Bloemfontein, (viii) Kimberley and (ix) East London and (b) how many applicants were provided with telephones during each of these years in each area.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) Records are not maintained for municipal areas, but the position in respect of the relative telephone control areas is as follows:––

31.12.1966

31.12.1967

Witwatersrand

11,865

17,476

Pretoria

3,770

4,388

Cape Peninsula

10,444

10,862

Durban

5,555

7,516

Pietermaritzburg

809

1,110

Port Elizabeth

287

1,770

Bloemfontein

139

45

Kimberley

462

156

East London

621

931

  1. (b) This information is collected half-yearly and the position is as follows for the years indicated:—

1.10.1965-30.9.1966

1.10.1966-30.9.1967

Witwatersrand

40,755

36,160

Pretoria

9,588

8,999

Cape Peninsula

12,894

13,980

Durban

4,020

5,058

Pietermaritzburg

1,155

909

Port Elizabeth

5,330

4,885

Bloemfontein

2,168

3,942

Kimberley

593

1,069

East London

1,678

1,315

Whites and non-Whites Employed in Police Force 4. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) What was the (a) authorized and (b) actual establishment of white and nonwhite (i) warrant officers, (ii) sergeants and (iii) constables as at 31st December of 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively;
  2. (2) (a) what was the wastage of Whites and non-Whites, respectively, by way of (i) discharges and (ii) dismissals during each of these years and (b) what were the main reasons for the wastage.
The MINISTER OF POLICE:

Whites

(a)

(b)

1965

1966

1967

1965

1966

1967

(i)

1,336

1,387

1,571

1,266

1,063

1,192

(ii)

4,416

4,644

4,844

4,096

4,016

4,006

(iii)

9,168

9,222

9,473

8,120

9,357

9,705

Non-Whites

(a)

(b)

1965

1966

1967

1965

1966

1967

(i)

––

––

––

––

––

––

(ii)

2,189

2,395

2,625

1,872

2,238

2,205

(iii):

12,764

13,030

12,795

12,266

12,263

12,432

(a)

Whites

Non-Whites

1965

1966

1967

1965

1966

1967

(i)

1,535

1,053

1,272

534

483

523

(ii)

107

95

133

138

146

183

(b) Purchasing of discharge, superannuation and dismissal as result of repeated misconduct.

Bantu Tried for Tax Infringements 5. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Police:

(a) How many Bantu in (i) the Republic excluding the Transkei and (ii) the Transkei were sent for trial in respect of infringements in connection with Bantu tax during each of the last five years for which figures are available and (b) what were the annual total amounts involved.

The MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (a)

(i)

(ii)

1963 (half year)

66,784

1,368

1963-’64

150,160

2,287

1964-’65

160,432

2,387

1965-’66

192,698

2,673

1966-’67

230,632

2,836

  1. (b) Statistics of this nature are unfortunately not kept.
Number of Immigrants and Emigrants in 1966, 1967 6. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Immigration:

  1. (1) How many persons immigrated to the Republic during 1966 and 1967, respectively, and (b) from which countries did they come;
  2. (2) how many (a) White, (b) Coloured, (c) Indian and (d) Bantu persons emigrated from the Republic during each of these years.
The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 48,048 during 1966 and 35,699 for the period January to November, 1967. Statistics for December, 1967, are not yet available.
    2. (b)

1966

Jan.-Nov. 1967

Lesotho

23

17

Botswana

60

34

Swaziland

88

48

Angola

159

49

Congo

93

103

Egypt

109

82

Ghana

5

4

Kenya

594

512

Madagascar

1

3

Madeira

606

378

Mauritius

297

296

Moçambique

1,739

617

Malawi

114

56

Zambia

5,132

3,271

Rhodesia

5,096

3,796

Tanzania

151

115

Uganda

28

44

Other countries in Africa

178

159

Total from Africa

14,473

9,584

Austria

519

612

Belgium

382

451

Czechoslovaki

4

5

Denmark

64

75

Finland

9

2

France

340

459

Germany

3,289

3,078

Greece

1,507

917

Hungary

17

18

Ireland

226

142

Italy

2,245

1,397

Malta

18

4

Netherlands

1,286

1,470

Norway

29

23

Poland

23

13

Portugal

6,139

2,465

Rumania

1

Spain

142

91

Sweden1

78

63

Switzerland

795

636

United Kingdom

13,130

11,923

Yugoslavia

35

19

Other countries in Europe

42

29

Total from Europe

30,320

23,882

Ceylon

1

China

5

8

Cyprus

242

171

India

4

1

Indonesia

2

Israel

183

176

Japan

9

4

Lebanon

12

12

Malaya-Singapore

9

6

Pakistan

7

5

Jan.-Nov.

1966

1967

Turkey

66

19

Other countries in Asia

43

17

Total from Asia

583

419

Mexico

_

5

Argentina

92

26

Brazil

948

327

Canada

225

218

U.S.A

401

329

Other countries in the Americas

20

14

Total from the Americas

1,686

919

Australia

690

611

New Zealand

295

279

Other countries in Oceania

1

5

Total from Oceania

986

895

  1. (2)
    1. (a)

1966

Jan.-Nov, 1967

9,888

9,454

  1. (b), (c) and (d) Migration of Coloured, Indian and Bantu persons falls under the jurisdiction of other Departments of State.
7. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

—Reply standing over.

Statistics of Unemployed Persons 8. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Labour:

Whether statistics are kept of unemployed persons over the age of 40 years in the various race groups; if not, why not; if so, what are the figures for 1967.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

The Department’s unemployment statistics in respect of adults are kept on the basis of three age groups, viz., 19 to 34 years, 35 to 49 years and 50 to 65 years (males)— 60 years (females).

On this basis the average monthly unemployment figures for 1967 were as follows:

Race Group

Age Group 35-49 years

Age Group 50-60 years

Age Group 50-65 years

White males

799

804

Coloured males

913

292

Asiatic males

590

194

White females

1,017

456

Coloured females

341

63

Asiatic females

74

9

9. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

—Reply standing over.

10. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

—Reply standing over.

Amount of Telephone Charges Refunded 11. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

(a) What was the amount of telephone charges refunded during the latest financial year for which statistics are available; (b) for what reasons were the refunds made and (c) what amount was refunded in each category.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) 1966-’67 — R302,949.19.
  2. (b) The amount mainly represents telephone rental in respect of services that were terminated, and to a very small degree deposits that were refunded.
  3. (c) Separate statistics in respect of each category are not kept.
12. Mr. E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

Television Equipment in Possession of Dept. of Posts and Telegraphs and S.A. Broadcasting Corporation 13. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether his Department or the South African Broadcasting Corporation, respectively, possesses any television (a) receiver sets, (b) cameras or (c) equipment of any other nature; if so, (i) how many of each type of equipment and (ii) what is the estimated value of the equipment in each category;
  2. (2) whether tenders were invited for the supply of the equipment; if so, (a) on what dates and (b) what are the names of the successful tenderers; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Falls away.
Television Equipment in Possession of Dept. of Information 14. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Information:

  1. (1) Whether his Department possesses any television (a) receiver sets, (b) cameras and (c) equipment of any other nature; if so, (i) how many of each type of equipment and (ii) what is the estimated value of the equipment in each category;
  2. (2) whether tenders were invited for the supply of the equipment; if so, (a) on what dates and (b) what are the names of the successful tenderers; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF INFORMATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) No.
    2. (b) No.
    3. (c) Yes. A film editing table with electronic image projection.
      1. (i) One.
      2. (ii) R2,032.
  2. (2) No.
    1. (a) Not applicable.
    2. (b) Not applicable. Equipment is of a specialized nature and was acquired abroad in 1959 under Tender Board Exemption.
Television Equipment in Possession of Dept. of Tourism, S.A. Tourist Corporation 15. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Tourism:

  1. (1) Whether his Department or the South African Tourist Corporation, respectively, possesses any television (a) receiver sets, (b) cameras or (c) equipment of any other nature: if so, (i) how many of each type of equipment and (ii) what is the estimated value of the equipment in each category;
  2. (2) whether tenders were invited for the supply of the equipment; if so, (a) on what dates and (b) what are the names of the successful tenderers; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF TOURISM:
  1. (1) (a), (b) and (c) No.
  2. (1) (i) and (ii) and (2) fall away.
Television Equipment in Possession of Dept. of National Education, National Film Board 16. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of National Education:

  1. (1) Whether his Department or the National Film Board, respectively, possesses any television (a) receiver sets, (b) cameras or (c) equipment of any other nature; if so, (i) how many of each type of equipment and (ii) what is the estimated value of the equipment in each category;
  2. (2) whether tenders were invited for the supply of the equipment; if so, (a) on what dates and (b) what are the names of the successful tenderers; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Falls away.
17. Mr. W. V. RAW

—Reply standing over.

18. Mr. W. V. Raw

—Reply standing over.

Number of Persons Receiving Pensions and Disability Grants 19. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

How many persons are at present receiving (a) old age pensions, (b) war veterans’ pensions, (c) disability grants and (d) blind persons’ pensions.

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:
  1. (a) 97,532.
  2. (b) 19,470.
  3. (c) 17,971.
  4. (d) 906.
Number of Coloureds Receiving Pensions and Disability Grants 20. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

How many Coloured persons are at present receiving (a) old age pensions, (b) war veterans’ pensions, (c) disability grants and (d) blind persons’ pensions.

The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:
  1. (a) 56,570.
  2. (b) 3,070.
  3. (c) 18,280.
  4. (d) 1,640.
Number of Indians Receiving Pensions and Disability Grants 21. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

How many Indian persons are at present receiving (a) old age pensions, (b) war veterans’ pensions, (c) disability grants and (d) blind persons’ pensions.

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (a) 8,789.
  2. (b) 102.
  3. (c) 5,058.
  4. (d) 152.
Number of Bantu Receiving Pensions and Disability Grants 22. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

How many Bantu persons are at present receiving (a) old age pensions, (d) disability grants and (c) blind persons’ pensions.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (a) 248,640.
  2. (b) 62.560.
  3. (c) 12,150.
Old Age Homes for Indians 23. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) (a) How many (i) Government and (ii) Government aided homes for aged Indians are there in the Republic, (b) how many persons are at present accommodated at these homes and (c) where are the homes situated;
  2. (2) whether further Government homes for aged Indians are contemplated; if so, (a) how many, (b) where, (c) when and (d) how many persons will be accommodated.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) (i) Nil. (ii) 2.
    2. (b) 54.
    3. (c) Durban and Pietermaritzburg.
  2. (2) No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) fall away.

For your information it may be stated that vacancies exist at both old age homes. The need for the establishment of further homes is therefore unnecessary.

Old Age Homes for Coloureds 24. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) (a) How many (i) Government and (ii) Government aided homes for aged Coloured persons are there in the Republic, (b) how many persons are at present accommodated at these homes and (c) where are the homes situated;
  2. (2) whether further Government homes for aged Coloured persons are contemplated; if so, (a) how many, (b) where,(c) when and (d) how many persons will be accommodated.
The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) (i) Two. (ii) Three.
    2. (b) 405.
    3. (c) State Old Age homes at Foure, and Kraaifontein, Cape.

      State aided Old Age homes at Athlone, Cape; Oudtshoorn and Johannesburg.

  2. (2) Yes.
    1. (a) one.
    2. (b) and
    3. (c) not yet determined.
    4. (d) 120 men and women.

(In addition to the abovementioned institutions another six private homes for the aged which are not being subsidized, are in existence whilst a further ten similar projects are being envisaged).

25. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Representations on Behalf of Employees of Dept. of Posts and Telegraphs 26. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. (1) Whether bodies representing employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have since 1st January, 1967, made representations to him in connection with (a) wages and salaries, (b) over-time pay, (c) other remuneration or (d) working conditions; if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) what was the name of the body in each case and (iii) what was the nature of the representations in each case;
  2. (2) whether he has received a deputation of such bodies; if so,
  3. (3) whether the deputation was accompanied by a Minister; if so, which Minister;
  4. (4) whether he has replied to any of the representations; if so, (a) on what date and (b) what was the nature of the reply in each case.
The PRIME MINISTER:
  1. (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) Yes in connection with overtime remuneration.
    1. (i) 4 January, 1968, and 12 January, 1968, respectively.
    2. (ii) The Post and Telegraph Association of South Africa and the South African Telecommunications Association.
    3. (iii) In both cases that the overtime rates should be adjusted to the revised salaries introduced with effect from the 1st January, 1966.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) Falls away.
  4. (4) (a) and (b) Yes, on 20th December. 1967, the receipt was acknowledged of a telegraphic request for an interview and on 15th January, 1968, the associations were informed, in response to their written representations, that a further communication would be addressed to them after the matter had been discussed with the Honourable the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. On the 23rd January, 1968, the associations were informed by the Honourable the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that their request for an interview had been granted.
Finance: Commissions of Enquiry

The MINISTER OF FINANCE replied to Question 14, by Mr. S. Emdin, standing over from 6th February:

Question:

(a) What commissions of enquiry have been appointed on submissions made by him to the State President since 1961, (b) on what date was each commission appointed, (c) what was the purpose of each commission,(d) which of these commissions have reported,(e) on what date was each report submitted,(f) which reports have been laid upon the Table, (g) on what date was each report laid upon the Table and (h) what action has the Government taken in respect of these reports.

Reply:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) The Commission of Enquiry into Stock Exchange Matters.
    2. (b) 15th June, 1962.
    3. (c)
      1. (1) To enquire into, report and make recommendations in regard to desirable amendments to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, 1947, in order to—
        1. (a) remedy any deficiencies as disclosed by the administration of the Act;
        2. (b) provide for the control, organization and management of stock exchanges in the manner most likely to further the public interest and promote confidence on the part of the public in a stock exchange as an investment channel;
      2. (2) To enquire into and report on the factors influencing prices on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and to make recommendations regarding the best means of avoiding or countering price variations which are detrimental to the public interest or undermine confidence on the part of the public in the Exchange as an investment channel.
      3. (3) To consider and make recommendations in regard to stamp duties and the marketable securities tax payable in connection with purchases and sales of stocks and shares.
      4. (4) To consider and make recommendations regarding any other matters which in the Commission’s opinion are germane to the subject of the Commission’s enquiry.
    4. (d) and (e) The Commission reported on the 4th February, 1965.
    5. (f) and (g) The Report was Tabled on the 25th May, 1965.
    6. (h) The recommendations of the Majority Report have been accepted in broad outline and draft legislation is at present being prepared in consultation with interested parties and it may possibly be introduced during the course of the Session.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Liquidation of Parity Insurance Company, Limited.
    2. (b) 10th March, 1965.
    3. (c)
      1. (1) To inquire into and report on all the circumstances which gave rise to the liquidation of Parity Insurance Company, Limited, including—
        1. (a) alleged neglect of duty on the part of the Ministers and Departments of Finance and Transport to provide adequate protection to policyholders of Parity and the public in view of their respective duties and powers; and
        2. (b) whether persons in a position of control or management, or otherwise connected with Parity in a position of trust, failed in their duty to protect their policyholders and the public, and, if so, in what respects.
      2. (2) To recommend, in the light of knowledge acquired from the investigation into Parity, suitable amendments where possible, to the legislation in regard to compulsory Third Party Insurance in order to render greater protection to policyholders and the general public.
    4. (e) and (e) The Commission reported on the 4th October, 1965.
    5. (f) and (g) The Commission’s Report was Tabled on the 2nd February, 1966.
    6. (h) Because of the simultaneous investigation by the South African Police into the domestic affairs of the Parity Insurance Company, the Commission limited its inquiry to the matters falling under (1), (1) (a) and (2) of its Terms of Reference (quoted under (c) above). Some of the Commission’s findings and recommendations in terms of the first part of its Terms of Reference did not require further action, while the other recommendations were not acceptable. As regards the second part, the gist of the Commission’s recommendations was that a further Commission of experts be appointed to make further investigations. In view of certain statutory amendments which had already been effected during 1965, the Commission’s recommendation that a further Commission be appointed was not acceptable to the Ministers concerned.
  3. (3)
    1. (a) The Commission of Inquiry into the Fiscal and Monetary Policies in South Africa.
    2. (b) 13 th November, 1967.
    3. (c)
      1. (1) To inquire into—
        1. (a) the present system of taxation;
        2. (b) the existing financial structure in South Africa; and
        3. (c) the fiscal and monetary policies of the South African authorities.
      2. (2) To submit recommendations regarding modifications in the above connection which will tend to promote economic growth as well as financial stability in the Republic.
    4. (d) The Commission has not yet reported.
    5. (e) to (h) falls aways.
Transport: Official Visits Outside S.A.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 8, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 13th February:

Question:

Whether he or his Deputy Minister paid any official visits to other countries during 1965, 1966 and 1967; if so, (a) when, (b) to which countries, (c) what are the names of the officials and other persons who accompanied him at State expense, (d) what were the reasons for each visit and (e) what was the total cost of each visit.

Reply:
  1. (a) 1965: Minister. 1966: No. 1967: Minister and Deputy Minister of Transport.
  2. (b) 1965: United Kingdom and the United States of America. 1966: No. 1967: Minister—Angola, France. Deputy Minister—Australia.
  3. (c) 1965: Mrs. Schoeman. Mr. J. P. Hugo, General Manager of Railways, and Mr. J. H. Viljoen, Private Secretary. 1966: No. 1967: Visit to Angola: Mrs. Schoeman, Mr. J. P. Hugo, General Manager of Railways, and Mrs. Hugo, and Mr. J. H. Viljoen, Private Secretary. Visit to France: Mr. J. H. Viljoen, Private Secretary. Visit to Australia: Mr. C. F. Greeff, Personal Clerk.
  4. (d) 1965: Launching of new dredger and study tour in connection with Railway matters. 1966: No. 1967: Visit to Angola: Investigation of S.A. Airways’ organization. Visit to France: To attend the 27th World Air Show, Paris. Visit to Australia: Inaugural flight in connection with the introduction of jet aircraft on the Wallaby route.
  5. (e) 1965: R9,373.37. 1966: None. 1967: Visit to Angola: R352.63. Visit to France: R560.53. Visit to Australia: R227.72.
Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Official Visits Outside S.A.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING replied to Question 23, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 13th February.

Question:

Whether he paid any official visits to other countries during 1965, 1966 and 1967; if so, (a) when, (b) to which countries, (c) what are the names of the officials and other persons who accompanied him at State expense, (d) what were the reasons for each visit and (e) what was the total cost of each visit.

Reply:

Yes, during 1965 and 1967.

  1. (1)
    1. (a) June, 1965.
    2. (b) Rhodesia.
    3. (c) Mr. C. J. de Villiers, private secretary, and Mrs. Uys.
    4. (d) To open the congress of the Rhodesia National Farmers’ Union.
    5. (e) R499.71.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) September/October, 1967.
    2. (b) England, Scotland, Austria and Germany.
    3. (c) Mr. C. J. de Villiers, private secretary, and Mrs. Uys.
    4. (d) To inspect farming in general and on small farms, to attend by invitation the Anuga show and to open the South African Pavilion in Cologne.
    5. (e) 4,563.57.
Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure: Official Visits Outside S.A.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND LAND TENURE replied to Question 24, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 13th February.

Question:

Whether he paid any official visits to other countries during 1965, 1966 and 1967; if so, (a) when, (b) to which countries, (c) what are the names of the officials and other persons who accompanied him at State expense, (d) what were the reasons for each visit and (e) what was the total cost of each visit.

Reply:

No, not in my capacity as Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

Bantu Passenger Train Services along Victoria Embankment Line, Durban

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 55, by Mr. G. N. Oldfield, standing over from 13th February.

Question:

Whether the Railway Administration intends to route Bantu passenger train services along the Victoria Embankment line, Durban; if so, (a) from what date and (b) how many trains will use the line every 24 hours.

Reply:

No.

PART APPROPRIATION BILL (Second Reading resumed) *Mr. C. J. REINECKE:

I am glad that the hon. member for Walmer lightly touched on this subject of water and soil conservation before the adjournment yesterday afternoon, subjects which up to now have not been raised to the extent they should have been raised in this discussion on agriculture. It is a pity that this hon. member, who is known as a good farmer, with a realistic view in regard to agricultural affairs as such, has not made an even more thorough study so as to rise above mere party politics in this extremely important field of soil and water conservation. It is a pity that he did not come forward with a motivated, acceptable alternative born of love of the soil and the land. Before dealing with his series of complaints, I should like to ask him to be positive in his judgment of what I am about to say and to do so in the light of the fact that hon. members on this side of the House as well as I myself consider the question of soil and water conservation in this Republic of ours to be of equal actual importance as such matters as the extension of our Defence Force, the training of our youth, our economic stability and the development of our foreign relations.

If this matter of soil and water conservation fails, all these other matters will collapse and we shall revert to the stage as described in Genesis where everything was wild and desolate. The foundations for soil and water conservation in our country were properly laid by very competent leaders in the field of agriculture and by competent agriculture officials in the past. Therefore we cannot be frivolous in this regard and hurl reproaches to and fro, something which merely puts a damper on positive action. I am not going to reply to him with a series of statistics. He will find all the replies to the matters he does not know about in the report of the Soil Conservation Board, in the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and in a booklet by Dr. Ross, “Grondbewaring in Suid-Afrika”. The hon. member said that the soil conservation policy of the Government was not succeeding for the reason, inter alia, that the Department was not doing research in this connection in close co-operation with the farmer on his farm. This is not true. In his constituency this may be the case, but in my constituency I can take him to farms where experiments of the utmost importance to veld reclamation are in progress in keeping with the ways of nature and with the closest co-operation between the farmer and the scientist. I also refer him to the case of the De Villiers brothers of Makoppa in the district of Thabazimbi, where experiments are in progress on the basis of voluntary co-operation between them and Potchefstroom to bring back the natural grasses of that drought-stricken area in that arid bus aveld region. I am able to refer him to more examples in the Transvaal, but let this suffice.

In the second place, the hon. member accused the Government of not doing its share as it should. This is not true either. I do not want to bore this House with statistics, but by studying these reports I have mentioned, the hon. member will see that the planning in respect of approximately 40 per cent of all farms in this large country has been completed. This is indeed an outstanding achievement, but the irony of the matter is that to date only 4 per cent of the farmers included in this figure of 40 per cent where planning has been completed, apply conservation farming in all its aspects. The Department is most definitely not to blame for this, although we are conducting a positive investigation into the cause of this state of affairs. Then the hon. member repeated the old refrain that more extension officers must be appointed, that they must be paid more, that better housing must be provided for them and that they must be relieved of administration work to a large extent in order that they might do more extension work on the farms. We realize that this is a problem, but it goes much further than the agricultural field alone. There remains the shortage of trained manpower in this field as well—a shortage from which the ever-diminishing United Party is also suffering.

As regards housing for these extension officers, there is a ray of hope. Apparently the hon. member is unaware of this, namely that the Government has just launched, in January, a comprehensive investigation in cooperation with 60,000 officials, for the purpose of ascertaining what exactly their housing problems are, and where bottlenecks exist. We know that the high rate of interest on housing loans is a factor par excellence which drives officials from the Public Service to seek better earnings elsewhere. I expect that positive results will emerge from this investigation, and that it will be possible to make housing loans available to officials at lower rates of interest. This ought to arrest the flow from the Public Service to a large extent, not only the flow of extension officers, but also of scientists and administrative staff. In spite of everything hurled at our Public Service by the United Party—as was the case again yesterday—it does remain a fact that the Public Service nevertheless offers a sought-after and stable career. Therefore housing loans at lower rates of interest must bring greater stability.

Together with the hon. member I want to pay tribute to the extension officers for the services they render at outlying posts. This is land service in the best sense of the word. Although unsung, their work means as much to our country as the heart transplants at Groote Schuur for they are engaged in giving a soil a new heart. However, we must not overlook the numerous active members of soil conservation committees, those people who apply themselves with love and virtually without compensation to this task at the expense of their own farming activities. The hon. member criticized soil conservation committees for allegedly not making greater use of their powers of enforcement under the Act. But that is easier said than done. Will the hon. member give a fellow backbencher away to his Whip? I do not believe so. A farming community usually is a closely knit community and it is not easy for any leader in the field of agriculture to take action as a member of a soil conservation committee against a fellow farmer in his own community. It is indeed a very heavy burden which has been placed on the shoulders of a soil conservation committee.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member conforming to Standing Order No. 113?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Yes, the hon. member is, I am watching him. The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. C. J. REINECKE:

I know of a number of things which resulted from such prosecutions over the past number of years, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that these are anything but pleasant things.

Then the question of the payment of better remuneration to members of soil conservation committees remains. In this connection I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Walmer. But perhaps he is also aware that organized agriculture and the Department have been engaged in this matter for a long time and we trust that these negotiations will bring relief. The hon. member created the impression that farmers must be stimulated to make more use of fencing and watering-places. Far be it from the principles of soil conservation to put that as the principal task of soil conservation. The hon. member also came along with the revolutionary idea that the Citizen Force should be used to carry out work for the combating of erosion. Now I do not want to say that this is a ridiculous idea, but I leave it to the Minister of Defence to reply to that.

This brings me to two other important points, one of which was raised by the hon. member for Walmer, and the other by the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. member for Walmer alleged that the farming community was sick and tired of the subsidy system for soil and water conservation. The hon. member for Standerton yesterday quite rightly referred to this subsidy system as a “malicious growth”. It is undeniably so that growing circles of farmers are advocating an amendment of this subsidy system and the introduction of a loan system. I do not believe that organized agriculture has expressed an opinion in this regard as yet. But this matter has merit and deserves consideration. It is, however, a matter of profound importance into which a thorough investigation must be made. In the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for 1966, the following significant paragraph appears—

In the Highveld region it was found that only 35 per cent of the approved works under the subsidy scheme are being completed while those under the loan scheme exceed 90 per cent.

Here we are at the root of our soil and water conservation problems. My experience has been that the farmer who has the necessary capital can proceed without the subsidy system, carry out the planning in respect of his farm and apply soil and water conservation. He finds that what he puts into his soil, reverts to him in the form of an increased production capacity of his soil. But in my constituency the people who find it difficult under the present system to get assistance when they want to apply soil and water conservation, are the people who have to make a living from mixed farming on small farms of 100 to 300 morgen in extent. They simply do not have the first R500 or R1,000 to make a beginning. That may be the case as a result of circumstances completely beyond their control. But without credit they cannot get assistance. These thousands of farmers and the thousands of morgen which they occupy jointly, are the ones who ought to receive our attention. The Agricultural Credit Board does not apply any means test in the granting of loans for soil conservation. As I understand the matter, applications for loans are refused only in cases where a farmer’s land has been hypothecated to such an extent that further financial assistance will help him even more into the fire. I think many of the smaller farmers are unaware of this. They ought to be encouraged to make use of this. Radio talks on agriculture and the farmers’ associations must see to that. Drought conditions are once again gripping and alarming. The Soil Conservation Act has been tested since 1946. Now we must start thinking big and along revolutionary lines in order to win this battle, and win we must. Droughts will always be with us. We have a dry country. By keeping our heads, however, we can take the sting from droughts. In this connection I want to mention the following facts. Of our 143 million morgen of land in the Republic, only 2½ million can be irrigated. A further 20 million morgen can be cultivated as dry land whereas 100 million morgen is suitable for grazing only. We have to start with these 100 million morgen which bear the scars of drought. Water conservation must follow on veld reclamation, and if we can reclaim the veld fountains will once again begin to flow, the water supply in rivers will remain constant and the subterranean water table will rise. This applies to the northern regions in particular, the regions I know. There soil and water conservation must be applied simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, rainfall statistics over many years prove that rainfall has not really decreased. On the other hand, it is true, however, that the ground surface can no longer absorb the water when it falls. As long ago as 1927 Eugène Marais wrote about this phenomenon. According to estimates, approximately 8½ per cent of our rain water is flowing away in our rivers. That represents 31,500 million gallons per day, sufficient water for 1,000 cities of the size of Pretoria.

I know our Transvaal farmers well enough to know that if they are given a positive incentive, they will make work of keeping that water on the veld. I believe farmers of other provinces will do the same. Has the time not arrived for giving that incentive by substituting a long-term scheme at lower rates of interest for soil and water conservation for the subsidy scheme in the Act. Couple such a long-term scheme with the principle of rebate for positive progress in conservation farming and the requirement that such loans are to be used exclusively for that purpose, and the results will be noticeable.

At the commencement of a scheme those funds must be made available immediately in order to place the small man, who does not have the capital, in the position to begin straight away. If the conservation plan has been implemented within a period of, say, ten years, and if conservation farming is being practised, the Department may also give consideration to a reduction of the loan or a rebate, which will in any event not come to much more than the subsidies with which we are struggling at present.

Where groups of farmers are farming on smaller units in close proximity to one another, they ought to be able to make use of such a long-term scheme on a co-operative basis in order to undertake jointly, large projects which they cannot undertake individually at present. For instance, they may jointly hire heavy machinery and teams of workers. There are many thousands of farmers like that. This will be one of the best investments which our State can make in its soil.

Mr. Speaker, in the oast the Department of Water Affairs was always afraid that large-scale water conservation on individual farms would have a detrimental effect on the flow of water into the large irrigation dams. I am afraid that the contrary is true. On one farm in the district of Pretoria, Kameelkraal, the farm of Mr. Gert Oppermann, 35 earth dams have been constructed in streamlets and shallow dips by using his own tractors and ordinary farm labourers when they were not working on the maize fields. I took the previous hon. the Minister of Water Affairs to show him that farmer’s initiative, and he saw how that conservation farm supported 2,000 sheep with ease during the time of drought, and supported 950 head of cattle at one stage. On that farm the fountains flowed permanently during the time of drought, while sufficient water was flowing away to the Pienaars River dam, and that without subsidies! What is interesting on that land, is that the veld vegetation has recovered to such an extent that flood water, even during a cloudburst, spread in such a way that it no longer causes any erosion damage at all. There the goal has indeed been reached. Nature has been restored to its original balance.

What is also interesting is that one of the two indigenous species of clover have been rediscovered in co-operation with the Riettondale Research Station on that farm where it has again multiplied under those favourable circumstances. Such appearance of the natural vegetation and the natural grazing is indeed proof that we have made a great deal of progress on the road of soil and water conservation.

Similarly that farmer has constructed 45 small earth dams at suitable places and 50 concrete dams on his bushveld farm on the boundaries of the Bronkhorstspruit district. Those thousands of morgen of land could not support a single animal ten years ago because there was no water and a boring machine could not be brought in. After a period of ten years of soil and water conservation and planning, 2,000 head of red Africander cattle are grazing in the ravines where there are permanent watering-places, and what is more, perennial fountains are flowing once again giving the Elands River a permanent and clear supply of water.

Are permanent silt-free streams which feed the rivers not what we want instead of the brown masses of water which rush to our irrigation dams and silt up our expensive dams? This shows what imagination and initiative can do. There are hundreds of others who would follow this example immediately if it were possible to obtain the initial capital for this purpose on a long-term basis at a low rate of interest. This can be the starting point of a simultaneous countrywide effort.

I want to mention a further two examples of judicious water utilization. My fellow-bencher the hon. member for Standerton, is irrigating 2,400 morgen of land at Moos River in the district of Groblersdal. He says that he is feeding the nation and I agree with him! He has constructed dozens of these smaller dams in gorges and streamlets and he estimates that on the completion of his scheme, he will be able to weather a drought and to continue his vegetable production even if no rain falls for a period of three years. What struck me there was that every drop of water was being conserved. Where irrigation water flows out at the end of the beds, it runs into drainage-channels from where it is pumped back and under this system it is being utilized five times over.

The other example I want to mention in this connection, is not of an agricultural nature. It is the case of the Atlas aircraft factory where they catch water and utilize it in the same factory five times over. To my amazement I have seen here in Cape Town, while water restrictions are being applied, that water is being used in abundance at the Cape Market for washing floors and that such water is allowed to flow away.

In these times when large parts of our country are yet again being afflicted by drought and eyes are raised in prayer to the Almighty as is fitting, for the gates of heaven to be opened, I believe that the hon. member for Waterberg was correct in saying that we had to accept drought conditions as being normal and permanent, and that we simply had to adjust ourselves to utilizing every drop of water judiciously. We have little water and we have to make do with what we do have at our disposal. If Israel could succeed in transforming the Negey Desert into a paradise, our Magalakwen and Magol and other rivers in the Bushveld need not be dry a few months after the rains. There not only one small dam, but thousands, will have to be constructed in the rivulets and streamlets.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the creation of a deputy portfolio or water affairs where an energetic young colleague, full of initiative, has been specially charged with undertaking this important work of water conservation in the interests of the country. We trust that his labour together with the labour of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who is sedulously occupied with soil conservation, will be of great benefit to this country as far as soil and water conservation is concerned, and that our people will join in wholeheartedly.

Mr D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member who has sat down and that of my colleague, the bon. member for Walmer yesterday, underlined once again the seriousness of the position of South African agriculture in regard to the recurring droughts and the need for soil and water conservation. I may say that I have now heard two hon. members on the other side, as far as I can remember, for the first time repeating what we on this side of the House have been saving for so long, namely that the Government must realize that agriculture in South Africa must accept droughts as a permanent part of the natural phenomena under which we have to carry on our farming operations.

Droughts are not things which only occur now and then unexpectedly or out of the blue without us realizing that they are coming and without us realizing what the consequences are going to be; they are a permanent part of the natural conditions under which farmers in South Africa now have to farm. They are recurring and are the norm. Droughts are no longer the exception; they are the norm. Farming in South Africa, even at the highest level, must realize that it can only be carried on in an efficient and profitable manner if that basic feature is taken into account. I want to come back to some of the points arising particularly from the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I am not given to throwing bouquets, but I think that his speech was a very worth-while contribution to the subject we have before us.

I want to deal with a matter which was raised in this House yesterday from this side of the House, namely the question of the losses being suffered by people who export products from South Africa to Britain as a result of the devaluation of the pound. I know that there are a number of highly scientific formulae which are being worked out with a view to dealing with the position of these unfortunate people who have suffered because of devaluation by Britain. I realize that there are very good brains applying themselves to this problem of finding out a formula. But farmers do not live on formulae. They cannot exist and make a profit out of a formula. A formula is no doubt necessary, but while the formula is being worked out the farmer goes bankrupt. I submit that what is needed in South Africa to try to give some stability to all those farming operations of the vast number of farmers who have been adversely affected by the devaluation of sterling, is for the Government to quickly find a formula of some kind. It may have weaknesses, but that cannot be helped. There can be nothing worse for South African agriculture than the uncertainty which is likely to exist, as I see it, as the result of announcements from the Government benches, for many months. The sufferers are not merely the deciduous fruit growers. That is only one branch of agriculture which is suffering, but for some reason or other emphasis seems to be laid on that sphere of agriculture. There are also many other branches of agriculture where the farmers are suffering. My colleague, the hon. member for Pinetown, says that pineapple and citrus farmers, amongst others, are also suffering. That is true, but many others are also suffering. What is wanted is a formula. Quite by chance yesterday when I met an old member of this House, and subsequently a member of the Other Place. I was reminded by him of discussions which took place when the late General Hertzog was Prime Minister in about 1932, when we experienced that very bad recession, and the difficulty in which the citrus farmers found themselves in those days and the measures which were subsequently adopted by the late General Hertzog. He took these measures timeously to give assurances to the citrus farmers and tell them precisely what amount of compensation they would get on a sliding scale. The smaller people got a higher subsidy than the big ones and it led to a terrific outcry. The big men came here shouting because they were given a smaller subsidy per case than the small grower. But the Prime Minister of the day did this with a view to levelling out the position. He took a decision and produced a formula. He got on with his job.

The point was that that branch of agriculture then had certainty. They knew exactly for what price they were growing citrus products and they knew what they were going to get out of it. That is what is lacking now. The farmers cannot go on month after month in this uncertainty. No man would consider for one moment taking a beast which he owns to a sale if, when he is offered a price by the buyer, the buyer says, “I will give you a good price now, but of course I do not know what the final price is going to be. I will give you something but I am not quite sure what I am going to give you now. But let me have your ox. I will take it and slaughter it and later on in four or five months’ time I will see what the position is and whether I can pay you some more then, and if so, how much”. No farmer would sell a beast under those circumstances. Why should we sell our exports under those circumstances? That is what is happening. When we send our export products overseas it is exactly the same as handing a beast over to a buyer for slaughter. Once it is slaughtered you cannot get it back again. We do not know what we are going to get when we send our products overseas. We do not know the price and we do not know what help is going to come from the Government. I am aware of the difficulties of finding a formula but they are not my difficulties. They are the Government’s difficulties and that is why they are the Government. They asked the people of South Africa for this responsibility. They keep telling us about the results of elections. The result of the elections was not to give them a privilege; it was to give them a responsibility. It did give them all sorts of privileges about which I do not want to speak today. They are many and manifest; some of them are not so manifest, but very many. But what I am concerned with at the moment is their responsibility. One of their responsibilities is to care for the wellbeing of the people of South Africa. In terms of that responsibility I say that whatever the difficulties may be, and they have all their technical advisers and other experts, they should now quickly and timeously tell the farming public of South Africa what they are prepared to do, even if it is to be a “voorskot” and there is to be some further help afterwards, if it is possible. Let them rather err on the side of generosity because I return to my original point, namely if drought is fundamental in South Africa, then how is the farmer to deal with devaluation in Britain, and the possibility of drought at the same time. These are the insuperable difficulties which are bound to send our people to the wall.

I want to return to the point made by the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Walmer. Subsidies are not the answer to farming in South Africa. Subsidies can help for a time and it is a very necessary help. It is absolutely necessary in certain circumstances, but it is not the answer. Farming can only be put on a proper basis if it is adequately recompensed for the time and labour which are put into it and the capital invested in it. There is no other way of having a healthy farming economy in South Africa. At the present time the farmers are not being adequately recompensed. When one considers the risk factor associated with our climatic conditions and so on, then farming is badly recompensed.

I now want to move on to a kindred subject to which I have already referred, namely the question of our water and soil conservation, upon which our agriculture is based. There is a tendency for us to look at what is being done by our soil conservation committees and other organized bodies, and various communities and individuals who help themselves and who do a magnificent job of it and others who are not so helpful. We have a country with vast differences in climate and soils, but that is not only true of the white areas, but also of the Bantu areas. There is in the Bantu areas just as big a difference in climate and soils as there is in the white areas. One of the things that are worrying me at the moment, when we take the overall picture as far as South Africa is concerned into account, is whether we are not creating out of the whole of the Bantu population merely a market, a group of buyers. In their original state the Bantu were to a very great extent pastoral people, but they were up to a point agriculturists. If one considers the Zulus their normal food consisted, apart from meat and milk, of certain greens and other foods. But they had a very well-balanced diet. When we look at the physique of those people, we also have a look at their diet and see how well-balanced it was and what fine people it produced. But their country is being ruined in exactly the same way as the over-populated, over-cultivated and uncared-for sections which are under white control. Where the white people are concerned, a white farmer who can hardly make ends meet cannot afford to put money into soil and water conservation. He cannot get the money. Where does he get the money from? Money does not fall from heaven because it is for soil and water conservation. Out of the income of the man that he derives from his farm, he has to meet his own living expenses and expenses of his family, and anything that he has to put into the soil has to come from that same income. The man who is living from hand to mouth cannot find the money to go on with his soil and water conservation schemes, and so the thing goes from bad to worse. What is needed is an adequate price for an adequate effort, an adequate return on capital and labour. That is the only way in which we are going to have farmers who will be able to put the necessary money into water and soil conservation. And the Bantu? Let us try to look upon the Bantu as though they were inhabitants of South Africa; let us try to look upon them as being part of the population of South Africa. Let us face the fact that we have a population here consisting of white folk, Indians and Coloureds and that amongst our population we have a group of black people, the Bantu. Sir, the tenure of the Bantu is not a leasehold tenure. One hears so much nonsense talked about the tenure which the Bantu have. One is told that they have the right to cultivate this field or that field. They have no rights. What rights have they got? They have not got any rights in the tribal areas. A native who has a farm there can be uprooted to-day; he can be moved from this season to next season to another piece of land altogether. What incentive is there for him to set to work and to put in money and labour in an effort to carry out proper soil and water conservation. The Department can do it but, Sir, that is not the answer. That is my precise point. The answer is not for the Department to do it. The Department cannot grapple with the problem; the Department can only just work round the fringes of it. Sir, the position has become so bad that during this recess, with one or two other members, I persuaded my hon. Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, to come up to Natal and to go round the Weenen area and all round the mouth of the Tugela Valley, the Tugela Ferry, the Buffalo and those catchment areas and to have a look at the soil, to have a look at the country—not a few hundred acres or a few thousand acres. Sir, if the hon. the Minister of Justice will just leave the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education alone for one moment I should like to have his attention. I want to issue an invitation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I know that he does not usually deal with the Bantu in the locations; that is the responsibility of his colleague, but I want to say this to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is brusque, he is bluff, he is like a bull at a gate; he goes at things bang-bang-bang. He has always been like that since the old, old days. I have known him since the days when he was here in the Provincial Administration of the Cape. He is always like that but, Sir, he has eyes to see and by and large he stands on fairly firm ground as a practical man. The thought processes are so often wrong, but he is a practical kind of gentleman. I want to take him to see what I showed the Leader of the Opposition during the recess.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

When you start praising me I become scared.

An HON. MEMBER:

You want him to march.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

No. I will take him in a motorcar; he will not have to march.

[Interjections.] In any case, Sir, I did my marching and I do not think that either the Minister of Justice or the Deputy Minister did any marching at all. Sir, I will show him thousands of acres to which the Bantu are being sent back in terms of his policy of endorsing them out. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to see the place to which the Bantu are being sent. Year after year we have these faction fights and troubles and bloodshed in this area. We have just had another case now where large numbers of people were killed and others arrested.

An HON. MEMBER:

Something like 40 people were killed.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

This is happening year after year. The Bantu from that area, stretching right up on the eastern side of the Lebombo mountains to the Tugela Ferry area, are being forced out by the troubles there. But let us go and have a look at the area which is forcing them out. Sir, my hon. Leader was shocked, although I had told him what the conditions were. He admitted that until he saw it with his own eyes he could not believe the circumstances under which those Bantu were living on thousands and thousands of acres. The Department of Bantu Administration has put in an irrigation scheme and they are producing food which I believe statistics will show is the most expensive food produced under any irrigation scheme in South Africa. The per unit cost of producing food under that irrigation scheme is higher than the cost in any other irrigation scheme in South Africa. Sir, there is not a blade of grass—not when there is a drought on but at the present time in the middle of summer. There is not one blade of grass; there is only rock and bare soil and gravel. The trees have been pollarded five, six or eight feet, and the whole of the tops thrown to the stock. My hon. Leader said that he could not believe it. I showed him a flock of goats and said to him, “What do you think of that flock of goats?” He had a look and said, “What flock of goats?” I said, “That flock of goats there.” He said, “I can’t see any goats.” Sir, every goat was up in the trees; every goat was up in one of these pollarded trees. They cannot eat rocks and dirt and the goats feed on these short-stemmed trees which have been pollarded. Sir, that is a native territory. We talk about soil and water conservation. My hon. friend over there who has just sat down talked about it; my colleague here, the hon. member for Walmer, talked about it; they talk about it in the Karoo and that sort of thing. Yes, Sir, when there is a drought on, the places that they have been talking about are terrible. but let them go and have a look at Tugela Ferry and the Buffalo and the Tugela Valleys when there is not a drought on. Let them have a look at the conditions under which these people are living. Sir, I invite the hon. the Deputy Minister as a practical man please to come and have a look. When Bantu are being shifted from the towns and sent back again to the so-called homelands, please come and have a look and see the circumstances under which they will have to live and come and look at the place to which they are being sent. These folk, somehow or other, not only have to find a living there, but this area must also provide a living for the increase in the Bantu population. The Bantu population is not static; it is increasing. Sir, this is the worst area I know. I am not exaggerating when I say that there are places up there in the Tugela Valley and the Buffalo Valley which look like photographs coming back from the Moon; they are just as desolate. When you move away from there to other areas, you find that a certain amount of work has been done. But what is happening to-day is that the Bantu people themselves are becoming merely buyers of food. They will not grow maize for the simple reason that they cannot. The crop to-day is utterly unreliable because they have ploughed and ploughed until they have got down to the bare ribs of mother Africa. There is no top soil. Sir, we on our farms—and I take the generality of our farmers to the extent of the limits of their purse—make provision for soil and water conservation to a greater or lesser extent; that is common. The Department of Bantu Administration, here and there, with dedicated officers, who must feel heart-broken sometimes, are also trying to make provision. But, Sir, with our droughts goes something else and that is these flash floods, as they are called. You do not only have droughts; you have the time when the rain comes, when you get up to 10 inches of rain in 24 hours, and that is what puts an end to our soil and water conservation works, when you get those terrific downpours following a period of drought. You have had the desiccation of the soil with the sun and the wind playing on it for weeks and then you get this terrific downpour. These downpours do not come only in the white areas; they come equally in the Bantu areas. It washes away the topsoil until to-day you have hundreds and thousands of acres where you are down to the subsoil and all the topsoil is gone. The Bantu who live in those areas may have a few scrub cattle and goats, but their cultivation to-day is dwindling, and when you ask them why they do not do something about it, they say that it is much cheaper to buy food. I referred just now to the old traditional foodstuffs which these people had. They had their green stuff which they grew, like green mealies and beans, but all that vegetable foodstuff is gone to-day. They are living now on tinned stuff and bread and mealie-meal which they buy in bags. They do not get greens any longer, and they drink Coca Cola and all that artificial stuff. That is becoming the foodstuff of the Bantu people, to their physical detriment and to the detriment of the health of our people.

I do not think agriculture in South Africa is getting the attention it deserves. I think we are dealing repeatedly with palliatives. There is pressure on the Minister in charge of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. There is a deputation representing a number of farmers in a drought-stticken area and they come along to the Minister and ask for help. He listens sympathetically to what they have to say and tells them he will see the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance goes into it and later the machine turns out something and those people get less or more or no help, as the case may be. But that is not the answer. I repeat that the Bantu are part of the people of South Africa. One of the things that worries me about the Transkei is that you are dealing with an area with friable soils where the people have not the money to carry on with the proper soil and water conservation measures to cope with the flash-floods. I know the Transkei and when you get the flash-floods there, those works go down the river exactly in the same way as happens in the white areas. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister asks whether I think the position in the Transkei has deteriorated. My answer is, as I said earlier on, that the types of soil and the climatic conditions, even in an area like the Transkei, change from district to district, so that in some districts the works which have been carried out, are standing up and there is improvement, but in other districts there is serious deterioration. Let me mention one case which I know of. Take the rivers. In the old days we had deep blue pools surrounded by reeds and with water-lilies, and when there was a certain precipitation of rainfall and the floods came, you got a movement of water in that river which took the water above the bank. But it subsided again and the banks were undamaged, and you went back again to those normal conditions with vegetation on the banks and in the water itself. But then came the first serious erosion, with sand and gravel filling the rivers, which meant the end of all the aquatic vegetation. There was then less room for the water to move in those channels. Any hydrologist will be able to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what the position is. That water had to go somewhere and it could not go down the river channels because they were full of sand, so the water spread out on the sides and began to eat away the sides. One of the classic cases is to be seen right in the Transkei, in the Umtentu River. In the Mbundi, for the first time in my life—I had heard of this when I was a young man and I used to go through there often—I saw the Bantu leave part of their crop standing in the field. On the flats they left the mealies standing on the stem. They picked what was necessary to fill their little barns and then they left the rest, and could not be bothered even to reap them. But to-day, through the silting of the river and the flooding, I doubt whether there is any cultivation really worth talking about there. That is what comes from the silting up of the rivers as the result of floods and erosion in the higher reaches. What is wanted, in my opinion, is a completely fresh approach to the whole question of agriculture throughout South Africa, bearing in mind that the Bantu is not a man who is used to working on our farms or in our kitchens, nor for that matter in an industry because it happens to be a border industry. He is entitled to his own way of life in his own country, but he has to have a better hope of making a living there than is given by the present shifting cultivation methods which are brought about because he does not own any land and he never got any right or claim to it. If he puts in manure and applies cultivation schemes, he never reaps the benefit of it. Security for him and for the white farmer, with fair prices and a fair return on their labour and investments, is the only thing that will save agriculture in South Africa.

*Col. J. J. P. ERASMUS:

The hon. member for South Coast will forgive me for not following up what he has said, because he speaks so rapidly that we find it very difficult to follow him. Virtually all aspects of the Part Appropriation have already been covered in this debate by previous speakers on both sides of this House. In order to make a constructive contribution, it will therefore be very difficult for me not to repeat at times what has been said by previous speakers. The theme of the arguments advanced by the Opposition during this Session virtually amounts to one thing only and that is the fact that their arguments practically always involve veiled attacks on hon. members of the Cabinet. The Opposition have been employing their old tactics of hammering at one sore point until making a breakthrough, and in this way they have availed themselves of this opportunity to select one member of the Cabinet in particular for their ruthless attacks. I am referring to the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The hon. member for Orange Grove virtually towered as the instigator of the ruthless attacks made on the Minister. The attacks were launched at the Minister, but in actual fact the intention of the Opposition was to make sufficient propaganda by those means to force the Government to agree eventually to the introduction of television into South Africa. I want to say that when the hon. the Prime Minister announced a change in the Cabinet, the Opposition thought that that was their chance to strike the knock-out blow. They thought that they might be able to drive a wedge into the ranks of the National Party to see whether they could not destroy us in that way. But what happened in point of fact? On the first opportunity that offered itself after the new Minister had taken over the Department of Posts and Telegraphs they put a question in regard to television. They had great expectations in putting that question and thought that the new Minister would possibly agree with them. Therefore they asked him on the first opportunity that offered itself whether he would be prepared to introduce television into South Africa. And what a pathetic sight it was to see hon. members of the Opposition after the Minister had replied with a definite “No”. They simply collapsed; their hopes were shattered and all their efforts amounted to nil. However, we cannot sympathize with them, because they are wilful. We are living in a decade in which hearts are being transplanted. After the reply by the hon. the Minister it seemed to me as though some hon. members opposite qualified for new hearts. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this entire agitation in favour of television is not being conducted because they think television will be beneficial to South Africa. The only idea they have is to make big money. That is what is behind it all. I want to illustrate this statement. At present no less than 1,457,739 radio sets are registered in South Africa. Let us calculate the value of this number at an average of R100 per set. This brings us to the pretty sum of R145,773,900. Just think to what extent inflation will be advanced if the Government were to introduce television and this number of radio sets had to be replaced. To err is human; one cannot withhold a person from going out to buy something. At present we are engaged in combating inflation and if we were now to allow television sets to be imported, we would indeed be promoting inflation.

A great deal has been said here about the economy of South Africa. One can virtually add nothing new to what has been said. Nevertheless I just want to add that in any undertaking, particularly in any large undertaking —be they military operations or industries or whatsoever—one reaches a stage where one has to act wisely and consolidate after having prospered over the years. Now I believe that the time has arrived when we in South Africa must first bring about consolidation in the sphere of economics. As a matter of fact, this is probably being done already. We must strengthen ourselves before tackling the next phase. Consolidation is a sound and praiseworthy step under these circumstances.

I now come to certain accusations made by the hon. member for Salt River. He maintained that the National Party had not carried out one of its ideals or undertakings. The charge has been levelled at the National Party that its policy of apartheid and of job reservation and its refusal to accept the Opposition’s fine idea. according to them, of “the rate for the job”, have given rise to our manpower shortage in South Africa. They, of course, want to give out that if we introduce “the rate for the job” we will get more workers.

I now come to an idea which may be regarded as being revolutionary. My intentions are nevertheless good. As regards the principle of “the rate for the job”, I am opposed to that. But I ask myself whether we cannot do something in another sphere. I want to know whether the time has not arrived for giving the White woman the same status as the White man on the labour market. Why do I ask this? We see women in the service of our country everywhere. They have been enfranchised and can take a seat in the highest councils in the country—sometimes to our regret, when we think of the hon. member for Houghton, for example. They have that right and we do not begrudge them that right. They are members of our judiciary, serve as traffic officers, they are the mothers of our nation and we are even considering giving them a certain amount of military training. In many cases they have to provide for their families, for example, where the husband has died or is in ill-health, or the husband and wife cannot get along and the wife is left alone to provide for the family after a divorce. But she has to do so at a lower wage even if she has all the necessary qualifications. Now I want to ask once again whether the time has not arrived for us to do away with this degrading outlook on our noble women? In every nation an inherited idea survives in some form or the other. Here that is also the case, and here I am referring in particular to this old-fashioned concept of the role of the woman. We are living in an enlightened age and we must do away with these superstitions, if I may describe them as such. Complete justice must be done to women in all spheres. We are living in an era in which the man and the woman are called upon to serve the nation. Why then must the woman always be the inferior one while she is the stronger and the superior one in many respects? The National Party has created this favourable climate where every male citizen and female citizen in South Africa who wants to work can get employment. In the annals of our nation it will be written that the National Party was the party who saw to it that employment opportunities existed for everyone.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Salt River. When he says that the National Party is the party that is responsible for the problems which exist to-day, I say that he does not know what he is talking about. We often hear that the policy of apartheid cannot be implemented. In Cape Town as such that may still be the case, but elsewhere most definitely not. In our northern province, for example, there are properly planned Bantu townships. We have largely succeeded in removing the Bantu from slum areas within municipal areas and in resettling them in those townships. Within the municipal area of Pretoria, for example, there are two such townships: Mamalodi and Attridgeville. And outside that area we have Gerankua. Years ago these Bantu were housed along the main railway line between Pretoria and Lourengo Marques. And do you know, Sir, I often felt ashamed when I travelled by train and saw under what circumstances those Bantu were accommodated there. There were tin shanties and rubbish dumps. Sick dogs moved about amongst them. Livestock, goats and a few head of cattle, stood in small enclosures up to their bellies in mud. Those were the circumstances under which the Bantu lived there. Then we must bear the fact in mind that many foreign visitors travelled along that same route. They had to see those conditions. It is due to the National Party that that clearance work has been carried out and that those Bantu have been re-settled in decent Bantu townships.

We proceed, Sir. We now go to the large metropolis, Johannesburg, and to the areas surrounding Johannesburg, Pretoria and Germiston. There too we have established such a Bantu township called Tembisa. That township serves no less than seven municipalities. The Bantu there have decent accommodation. They have all the necessary facilities and health measures have been taken for them. Now we come to the next point, and that is in connection with Sophiatown and Martindale which always used to exist in Johannesburg. Do you know, Sir, what the costs were of removing those two slum areas, the hot-beds of iniquity, from Johannesburg? You will recall, Sir, that the City Council of Johannesburg opposed that step with might and main. They did not want to allow it. The Government was then obliged to create a re-settlement board for the removal of the Bantu to Diepkloof and Meadowlands. I think the hon. member for Benoni was a member of that board. To-day we invite the world to go and have a look at the beautiful Bantu townships we have there.

The last point I want to mention to the hon. member for Salt River is that we have also removed compounds from the areas of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark. The Bantu there have been moved to proper houses and hostels in a place called Sibukeng. Several hundred houses have been built for those Bantu. We now call the families accommodated in those compounds lodging families.

Sir, we now proceed. In the cities I have just mentioned one also finds apartheid in other spheres. For example, in Pretoria and Johannesburg we have separate buses for the conveyance of the residents of those areas. Those buses are for White and non-White. Each group has its bus. I now come to a tragic case which I have to mention. I find it most distressing to do so and I am sorry that so few members of the Opposition are present. Here in the Mother City of the Republic of South Africa we get a foretaste of what would happen if the United Party were to come into power again. Here we have a mixing of races. I say in all seriousness that it is much worse than in Lourengo Marques. In Lourenço Marques one will not see such a mess as one sees here in Cape Town. I am going to mention it. The city of Cape Town, which is more than 300 years old, is at present under the management of a United Party municipality. Here we have this mixing of races. I call it a mixing of races because that is what it actually is. I shall prove it. Here we have mixed transport on buses, for instance. Do you know, Sir, that it disgusts every good South African to have to use those buses which are being forced down our throats here in Cape Town. We Transvalers feel strongly about our wives, and even ourselves, having to be in constant danger when we have to travel on those buses here in this city. The hon. member for Krugersdorp and I had the experience the other night of what insults one sometimes has to endure on those buses. And this happens every day. Now I put the question: When we have to come to Cape Town to serve as Members of Parliament, why must we be humiliated in this way to have to sit with any riff-raff in those buses where one finds all smells and odours? And even if it is not for our own sakes so much, I want to ask: What about our wives?

Mr. Speaker, do you know we read a notice the other night, “Beware of Skollies”? In addition our people are being assaulted and robbed on those buses. Then the Opposition says that the National Party is not the friend of the poor man. What is the real state of affairs here in Cape Town. The grand fellows drive in shiny cars. They do not travel on those buses. The poor worker and the middle income groups—the people who work—have no option but to use those buses. These hon. members cannot tell us that they cannot do otherwise and that it will not be a paying proposition. If that can happen in the Transvaal and elsewhere, why cannot it happen in our Mother City, Cape Town? If these bus companies do not see their way clear to give us separate buses for White and non-White, then it is the duty of this City Council to do so itself. Here I am referring to something which happened prior to the Anglo-Boer War. When the mining magnates of Johannesburg did not want to work the mines any longer under certain circumstances, late President Kruger told them, “Look, if you cannot work these mines, tell me and I shall do so myself”. If these companies do not see their way clear to respect the Whites as well and to give all of us our rights and to implement the apartheid policy of our Government, I say that the time has arrived for other steps to be taken.

*An HON. MEMBER:

They must throw out the city council.

*Col. J. J. P. ERASMUS:

That is a matter for the voters of Cape Town, but I am afraid that that will be very difficult because one sometimes finds a concentration of certain types of people who flock together at certain places under certain circumstances. A short while ago I made the allegation of a mixing of the races. I want to tell you, Sir, that I live in a new block of flats in Green Point. Do you know, Sir, what happens downstairs? There are small rooms for Coloureds. Do you know, Sir, that sometimes we cannot sleep? You should see what is happening there, and that in the beautiful Sea Point and Green Point, the suburbs of Cape Town which are really meant to attract the overseas tourist.

Sir, we are taking a very serious view of this. We say that we can no longer endure this. Now the people of Cape Town must not hold it against us if we come to feel that this fine institution will have to be moved somewhere else where we will not be insulted. We regard the actions of members of the United Party here in Cape Town as a blatant insult to the Whites who live here.

I am sorry that I have come to the end of my speech. But before I conclude, I nevertheless feel that it is my duty to bring a matter of the utmost importance to your notice. Recently foot and mouth disease once again broke out in my constituency in the North-Eastern Transvaal. A large portion of my constituency borders on Mozambique. It also includes a tremendous area of the Kruger National Park. There we regard foot and mouth disease as being virtually endemic. Now, unfortunately, that catastrophe has once again hit our farming community. Those people, hardworking farmers, cultivate their farms well. They apply soil conservation. They improve their herds. I can invite anybody to go and have a look at those cattle farmers. They really are an example to our farmers in South Africa. Then such a catastrophe hits them and they are stuck. At present those people cannot send their cattle to the open market. They are under quarantine. They have many obligations they have to meet. They have to pay for their land. They have other responsibilities. They have to educate their children. I feel that it is my duty to plead for those people in order that the State may once more assist them by rendering the necessary aid. I trust that the Government will again assist those people in their difficult struggle against foot and mouth disease in the same way as the National Party has always been prepared to do so. A great deal has been said here about droughts and I want to conclude on that note. In one part of my constituency, at Trichardtsdal—a beautiful name and a beautiful region—the drought is very serious. Yesterday I spoke to those people and they told me that up to now they had had only thee inches of rain this entire season. Those people are irrigation farmers, they are vegetable farmers. I want to ask the State to help those people and that the proposed irrigation dam to be called Balloon should be built as soon as possible. I ask for that to be included, if possible, in this year’s Estimates.

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lydenburg who has just spoken, talked about the internal troubles of the Nationalist Party. I must say that these are no concern of this side of the House, except, of course, that the more they quarrel the greater the fluidity in our national politics which can only be of benefit to the country as a whole. I can only commend him at this stage of the debate for his comments on the status of our women-folk in South Africa and I look forward to his support for my private member’s Bill which will be introduced in due course later in the session. However, I cannot congratulate him on the rest of his speech, and as regards his remarks about the City of Cape Town I want to say to him if he does not like Cape Town, and the voters here know what they are about, he is very welcome to go back to Lydenburg and stay there. I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

UNITED NATIONS INTERFERENCE IN SOUTH AFRICAN AFFAIRS *Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper—

That this House is of the opinion that—
  1. (a) certain actions of the United Nations such as, for example, the series of resolutions on South Africa’s racial matters, the seminar on apartheid, the use of this world organization’s Secretariate for propaganda purposes against South Africa and the recent remarks by the Secretary-General, constitute nothing less than interference in the domestic affairs of a member state;
  2. (b) statements by the Secretary-General and the text of the most recent United Nations’ resolution in regard to the so-called “explosive conditions in Southern Africa” can only be aimed at causing unrest in one of the most peaceful regions on earth;
and consequently desires to emphasize most strongly that this world body should refrain from actions of this nature and instead devote its attention and all its energy to those parts of the world where international peace is being seriously threatened.

I think that nobody can fail to appreciate the contribution South Africa has been making at U.N. since 1946. South Africa was one of the founder countries of U.N. when the organization consisted of only 51 member countries, and since then 72 countries have joined U.N., countries which did in fact have no share in the process of founding that body. Since then South Africa has been one of the most regular payers of its subscription. In 1965 when U.N. found itself in major financial crises, we were one of the nine countries which paid in advance in order to keep U.N. going. We have also been playing our part in the various agencies of that organization. Apart from U.N. itself, we belong at present to nine of its principal agencies, to five Africa organizations, to 18 other international organizations, and this does not include the membership of South African statutory bodies in international organizations. In this process since 1946 South Africa has indeed been making a major contribution where it was granted the opportunity to do so, and I am convinced that with this contribution South Africa has largely contributed to the stability we are enjoying in Southern Africa to-day. Nobody can deny that South Africa does indeed have a contribution to make, as it has already shown not only South Africa but also the entire world, and as it has just done again by means of the heart transplants, for instance. In other words, South Africa can play a role if only it is granted the opportunity.

It is a fact that since 1946 there has repeatedly been interference in our domestic affairs, and I want to repeat the date—since 1946. Year after year they have been taking resolutions in regard to our policy of so-called apartheid, in regard to our race problems. They have had seminars on apartheid; they have published reports and appointed committees. In some way or other they have continuously been trying to interfere in our domestic affairs. The latest example of this interference is this so-called report by a team of experts on conditions in our prisons. In spite of the fact that Dr. Hoffman, who is chairman of the International Red Cross Association, came here in 1964 and inspected our prisons, these so-called experts, all of them people who were known to be critics of apartheid, have now drafted a report in which they condemn us.

At San Francisco in 1945 there was one thing that was acknowledged throughout by all the countries concerned, and that was that the proposals accepted at Dumbarton Oaks in connection with the proposed founding of U.N. had been incomplete, and that is why article 2 (7) was inserted, in terms of which countries were forbidden to interfere in one another’s domestic affairs, unless there was a threat to world peace. One can say that this has been a ray of light in this whole matter, namely that from time to time countries have come forward—countries such as Japan, Britain, the U.S.A. in 1965, the Argentine and New Zealand, for instance, in September, 1966 —and stated explicitly that conditions in South Africa did not constitute a threat to world peace. The latest development is to be found in a report published in Die Burger of two days ago under the heading, “Apartheid— America wants High-level Talks to Persuiade South Africa,” in connection with its so-called policy of apartheid. According to the report the American delegate, Morris Abram, said (translation)—

The idea is for the Secretary-General to designate some leading judge or other, perhaps from a Western or Eastern country. However, he must be a person with wide experience and of great esteem, a person who has dedicated his life to the supreme authority of justice, which the South Africans say they want to maintain and do indeed maintain.

They admit that. The report goes on to say—

This emissary must have deliberations with them and say that in the name of the international community he wants to discuss certain practical steps and directions with them. Abram said that of all the possible solutions to the “abominable wrongness of apartheid”, this one was the most practicable.

I do want to grant him that readily. In the light of this thought I want to suggest that with certain reservations we should accept this very fine suggestion on the part of the U.S.A.’s delegate. The reservation is that such a person should not be sent by U.N., because we do in fact no longer have any confidence in U.N. I am rather of the opinion that a stigma attaches itself to U.N. to-day, a stigma which is repulsive to many countries. I want to suggest further that that person should not necessarily be a jurist. Then I want to suggest that that person should come here without any prejudice, with an open mind, that he should be prepared to listen to us, and that he should come here to see what is happening here in South Africa. He should be able to travel all over the country so that he himself may become convinced of the true state of affairs. Since it is America which has made this suggestion, I want to suggest that the President of the U.S.A. may be a suitable person. He is a person we esteem very highly. But I do not want to limit the choice to him. I want to propose that we should extend these invitations to cover a very wide field and that all leaders of Western, Latin America and sympathetic countries who are prepared to make a contribution towards peace, should avail themselves of this offer which Morris Abram has made.

Apart from this interference, there is a second matter that has been worrying me recently, and that is the increasing extent to which U. N. itself as well as U.N. officials have been making statements which simply point to the fact that they would like to stir up unrest in this peaceful region we are occupying on the face of the globe. I am referring, for instance, to U Thant’s statement in August, 1967, when he spoke of the “explosive conditions in Southern Africa”. What can these statements be aimed at other than that those people are provoking unrest in South Africa? I want to quote one of those examples where this is done specifically, and that is in connection with the latest statements in regard to our terrorist trials. This very afternoon the Security Council will meet to discuss this matter, and this will be done in a time when the world is virtually on fire. In spite of that UNO makes and finds time to discuss this matter. I not want to go into this matter, but I just want fo refer to the World Court’s advisory opinion in 1950, namely that the mandate was still in existence. In 1956 and in 1962 this view was not confirmed.

In fact. in 1962 three judges who voted in favour of South Africa and one who voted against South Africa, stated that after the dissolution of the League of Nations U.N.’s supervisory position over South Africa no longer existed. Eleven of the judges said nothing about this matter, but seven of them intimated in their arguments and findings that they were in agreement with the view that the supervisory function of U.N. or of any world body over South West Africa had lapsed; and in 1966 the Court stated explicitly (translation)—

Another argument that has to be considered is that in as far as the Court’s opinion gives rise to the conclusion that there is at present no entity which is entitled to demand proper observance of the mandate, it must be inacceptable …

In other words, the Republic is fully competent to govern S.W.A., and no entity, neither U.N., nor any other body, has any authority over it. But even if we argued that the mandate still exists, then we still have the very clear guidance which the case Rex v. Christiaan, A.D. page 101, 1924, has given us. I do not want to quote it; I do not have the time for doing so. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America and U.N. have now made the request that the terrorists should be freed, and that was done after the terrorists had tried to murder a white farmer and nearly succeeded in doing so. In addition they almost succeeded in murdering an Ovambo headman, and now we are to set them free! What attitude would those countries have adopted if they had succeeded in doing so? I think that if there is one country that ought to realize the danger of terrorism, it is the United States of America. At the moment the U.S.A. has to contend with tremendous problems that have been created by terrorism in Vietnam. If the U.S.A. does not realize the danger of terrorism, then it should take a look at the 525,000 Americans who are fighting against terrorists in Vietnam at the moment; then it should take a look at the 9,168 Americans who died in combat last year, before this major offensive started; it should take a look at the 61,567 Americans who have been wounded in this fight against terrorism; it should take a look at the 116.468 persons on both sides, women and children, of various allies as well, who laid down their lives in this struggle in Vietnam. That is why I say that America and U.N. are making a blatant blunder by judging the situation in South Africa to-day in the way they are in fact doing.

What really galls me, is the fact that they are now coming forward with action of this nature against a part of the world which has always lived in peace. Let them look at the situation as it is found in other parts of the world to-day. In the Middle East forces are being concentrated against each other. In Vietnam the real struggle has only just started; in India and Pakistan they are watching each other; in the U.S.A. numerous racial clashes have occurred; at present they are preparing for new racial clashes. If one turns to look at Africa, what does one find? In Uganda in 1966 there were 266 tribal clashes; in Burundi 25.000 people died last year; in the Congo large sections of the population have been wiped out; in Nigeria more than 200,000 have already died in combat, and in the Sudan 500,000 have already died, equal to the entire population of South West Africa—White, Coloured and Black. Incidentally, at the seminar on apartheid held in Brazil last year, they passed a resolution to commemorate Sharpeville every year. Do they know that in the recent riots in America alone more people died than did at Sharpeville? Do they know that in South Africa in the past 100 years not nearly as many people died in racial clashes than did in the coup d’etats which took place in 13 African states last year? Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record of U.N., if you look at what it has left behind, you will see that wherever U.N. has been, chaos still prevails. Look at the Suez crisis in 1956. The Indian invasion of Goa is really a classic example, where members of the Security Council openly condoned aggression. Look at the war between India and Pakistan; look at the Congo and the Middle East. I say that U.N. has a poor record as regards world peace to-day. It is interesting to note that the greatest problems of the world since 1946, the Cuba question for instance, were not even submitted to U.N., and the same holds good for Vietnam. But where U.N. has in fact achieved success, such as in the Palestinian question and in Korea, they did so by way of partition, the very policy they are condemning in South Africa. That is why I say: May South Africa be spared interference on the part of U.N.!

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there were two castaways on an island. They were in a desperate position. A carrier-pigeon arrived there with a message. While one of them was deciphering the message, namely that they only had to give their position so that they might be saved, the other one, in his wretched and hungry state, roasted the carrier pigeon over the coals. If U.N. is the pigeon of peace which it should have been in 1946, then South Africa should not be the person to roast it over the coals and to land us in a worse position. But we must also be realistic. If a bird is circling above us, we should not simply accept it as a pigeon of peace. It may be a vulture circling above us in order to watch our wretched situation and later to peck out our eyes, and that is why I say that South Africa, in the light of U.N.’s reputation, should watch that situation. The world is in a wretched state to-day, just as those two castaways were. It is not necessary to quote all the figures; all of them are published in the official reports of U.N. More than half of the world’s population suffers from malnutrition; more than 500 million of the world’s population are being crippled by diseases that can indeed be cured; more than 700 million adults in the world to-day are illiterate. Some of the world’s greatest natural resources—those which sustain the human race—have virtually been exhausted entirely. Whereas there was an increase of 70 million in the world population last year, the food production in Africa, Asia and Latin America decreased by 5 per cent. But take for instance the question of armaments which is literally and figuratively hanging over the head of the world like a sword. In 1964 the world collectively spent 120,000 million dollars on arms. Within six years the Allied powers threw 1.2 million tons of bombs (i.e. 1.2 megaton bombs) on West Germany, with the result that virtually all of the German cities were wiped out. The atom bomb which either killed or maimed 300,000 people at Hiroshima was only 20 kilotons. In 1961 Russia exploded a 60 megaton bomb, i.e. equal to 30 bombs of the Hiroshima type. Mr. Speaker, it is calculated that a 10 megaton bomb can wipe out a city such as London within a radius of 40 miles. We do not know the figures for Russia, but America has at its disposal to-day 60,000 megaton bombs, i.e. sufficient to wipe out in a fraction of a second 6,000 cities the size of London.

That is why I say that the modern world finds itself in a very wretched position, and what is U.N. doing? They interfere with matters such as the one they are going to interfere with this afternoon when the Security Council will meet. It is interesting to note that since U.N. has come into being, it has from time to time cast off its pigeon of peace cloak to reveal the claws of a vulture underneath. I just want to mention a few of those things in which Western powers have had a share, actions directed at another country but which can in the same way be directed against themselves. In the first instance I want to refer to the very famous or well-known Uniting for Peace Resolution in 1950, when Russia stayed away from the meetings of the Security Council and when U.N., at America’s suggestion, decided that the General Assembly should be granted the authority to convene a session with a mere majority of votes, and the General Assembly were granted the authority to take over the function of the Security Council with a two-thirds majority. Mr. Speaker, at that time it worked in the case of Russia, but do you know that with the present composition of U.N. that very same weapon can at any time be used against America, because the Afro-Asian and communist countries have more than a two-thirds majority in the United Nations?

I also want to refer to the invitation extended by U.N. to every country, no matter how small, to become a member of the Organization. Barbados, the 123rd member, merely covers an area of 166 square miles and its population is only 250,000; the Maldives have 98,000 inhabitants; Gaboon, 462.000; Gambia, 330.000; Botswana 543,000; Malta, 319,000; and Kuwait, 467,000. Two weeks ago Nauru became a republic, and it will shortly apply for membership of the United Nations. It covers an area of eight square miles and it has 3.100 inhabitants. It is very interesting to note that with this rule, namely that every country has a vote in U.N., a very strange situation arises, which I should like to mention. If one compares the population figures, then, in the case of Gambia for instance, one Gambian has a say equal to that of 660 Americans in determining world peace and in world politics to-day. If one takes the Maldives, then one inhabitant, no matter how uncivilized he is, has an equal say with 2,000 Americans. If one takes the case of Nauru, one will find that one inhabitant of this island will have the same say as 66,000 Americans in modern world politics. But if one takes the whole situation in Africa, one finds that one forest-dweller of Africa has the same say in world politics as 400 Americans have. That is why I say that in this regard, too, a new formula should be found as regards the right to vote in the General Assembly. A new formula has to be found which will be based, firstly, on the population of a country, secondly, on the military and economic power of that country, and thirdly, on the social development. Those circumstances must determine what that country’s say will be in modern world politics.

But I want to mention a third Frankenstein which U.N. has set in motion since 1960, and that is the way in which African countries and other communist countries have been disparaging the World Court. The World Court gave judgment in favour of South Africa, and subsequent to that there has been a fierce campaign against the Judges and the Court itself. Various African countries did, for instance, refuse to approve estimates for the World Court; they voted them down. Russia said that it was doing so because it wanted to discredit the World Court. Yes, Tom Lalekele, the Tanzanian representative, accused the Chairman of the Court of having stabbed Africa states in the back. Attacks of this kind on a body such as the World Court serve no other purpose than that of absolutely discrediting that important U.N. body. The same thing can happen when, for instance, the World Court has to give a ruling in respect of America or one of the other Western countries. In the same way ill-disposed countries can also bring it into discredit. That is why I say that this is a dangerous precedent which is being connived at by the Western countries. They are doing nothing to stop it. In fact, many of them gaily participated in this.

But there is also a fourth point I want to mention, and that is the liberty the Secretary-General and the U.N. staff are claiming for themselves to-day to criticize South Africa all the time and at any time. In U Thant’s cabinet there are only three representatives of the Western countries as against six representatives of the Afro-Asian and communist countries. This cabinet of U Thant’s is in a position to-day to appoint in that organization whom it pleases. In fact, it is interesting to note that in 1952 33 Americans, employed at U.N., were asked whether they were communists, and 26 of the 33 appealed to the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, in terms of which they need not incriminate themselves; in other words, a very clear admission that they are communists. But look at what happened in the Congo. There was a Frenchman by the name of Michel Tombolaine who was second in command there, and it is indeed attributable to him that the whole situation in the Congo and the relations with Katanga failed. That is why I say that this Frankenstein which is being created and connived at by the Western countries, may just as dangerously be directed against the Western countries themselves.

A fifth point is the walk-outs that are being staged to-day at virtually every meeting of a U.N. agency in respect of South Africa. Recently we saw this repeatedly happening in New Delhi. They walked out four times for South Africa, but they also staged walk-outs for South Korea and Israel. This is a conference which deals with world trade, a matter which does in fact concern them deeply. I want to say that these delegates have proved that they are more interested in a little political propaganda than in solving these enormous world problems of which they are the very people who form the central point. These walk-outs are being staged against us today and they are being connived at by the Western powers, but to-morrow or the day after they may be directed against America or France or any of the other Western countries. I am glad that a country such as America sounded a warning at this conference in New Delhi. This did at least show level-headedness on their part.

There are several leading personalities in the world who have already criticized U.N. I have here articles by Mr. Eban, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Sir Mohammed Kahn, who was chairman of the General Assembly for a long time. I have here statements by De Gaulle, Macmillan, Lord Home, Herbert Hoover—a former president of the United States—and even by Adlai Stevenson, who was ambassador at the United Nations for a long time. I have not the time to read out all of them. That is why I say that not only in South Africa, but throughout the world there is lack of confidence in U.N. Generally speaking there are throughout the world few bodies which have not yet voiced some misgiving against U.N. Now I want to say this, and then I shall have to conclude. If U.N. has served one purpose, then it has to a large extent been to bring about a split amongst Western friends. It has done so, for instance, between France and America, and between Britain and Israel. Yes, in that respect it is working very energetically. It is doing so between South Africa and its friends. I can mention fine examples of this, but I see that my time is running short. Now I want to say that at the moment, as far as South Africa is concerned and in my summary of the situation, Western solidarity is of greater importance to-day for the maintenance of world peace than is the continued existence of U.N. I say that what U.N. needs, is a new heart. A heart transplant should be performed on it, and the person who is pre-eminently capable of doing so, is Professor Chris Barnard, but I would say that even America could take this upon itself. It is pre-eminently the country which is keeping U.N. going. It is the one which by means of its relief programmes is financing these wild and irresponsible countries which are so quick to take action against South Africa. If they can give U.N. a new heart, they can do so in one way only, and that is by first of all bringing it back to the basic principle of international law, that of non-interference in one another’s domestic affairs; and once they have brought it back to where it was when it started, to where international law was before U.N. started interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, there may once again be confidence in U.N., which will be a good thing for world peace. That is why I say that within the next two years it will not only be determined whether South Africa will remain a member of this body any longer, but I also foresee that the next two years will be decisive for the future of this world body. That is why I think that America now bears the chief responsibility for seeing to it that this body is not only realistic in its actions, but also that it acknowledges the basic principle contained in the international law of the civilized world and that it starts with that as a basis.

Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

The Opposition’s foreign policy is based on the belief, firstly, that every country has the right to elect its own Government and to administer its internal affairs according to its own desires; and, secondly, that world peace will depend on the degree to which all countries and all organizations of an international nature adhere to the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others, unless, of course, such interference is properly requested. It is clear from the statement made here to-day by the hon. member for Middelland that he shares this belief with the Opposition, with the result that we are leaving the motion he introduced as it stands, and only propose to move as an amendment—

To add at the end “and urges the Government—
  1. (i) to make every endeavour to induce that body to play a more useful role as an international organization; and
  2. (ii) to resolve South Africa’s problems with the Organization”.

The hon. member opposite presented us with a long catalogue of sins by U.N. in respect of South Africa, and, to be sure, there are many. It is no problem to list the sins of U.N. against our country. In fact, it is quite easy to find even better examples of violent language, uninformed criticism, even of downright dishonesty. and extravagant resolutions against South Africa than were given by the hon. member. But having done all this, and having expressed our disapproval, and having lodged our protest, where do we go from here? Must we quit the organization; and if so, will that improve our position in any way, except that we will probably save something like R1 million?

That brings me to the one thing we missed most in the hon. member’s speech. He sits there on the Government side. He is a senior Whip and chairman of their Foreign Affairs group, and he should have been able to prescribe some medicine. Instead, he impressed one as a man who speaks well, but who did not give much thought to any kind of planning as to how our country should try to overcome the serious problem we have with the U.N. I concede that this is no easy task. We are not dealing with easy people; we are not dealing with an easy situation. I concede that there is a limit to what any Government, and to what this Government, can do. But the question which comes up is: Is there nothing more we can do than what we are doing at present to overcome this difficulty? There was a time in the past when the Government did neglect to provide adequate information to the world, especially in regard to South-West Africa, and more often than not our case went by default, as we so regularly pointed out in this House. That caused attitudes to form and to harden, and these attitudes are now extremely difficult to change. I know that all this was done in the name of the so-called legalistic approach, but all the same it was no service to South Africa. But at last the Government has changed its line. Attacks are now being answered on the spot; and in the case of South-West Africa the Government has spared no effort to engage the best possible available men to re-cast Government policy and to express it in the most sophisticated way it has even been done. As far as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is concerned, he now regularly leads our defence at the U.N., and he has been making better speeches there than any of his party before him. It was most refreshing to hear him speak for South Africa there in terms of emancipation and human dignity and self-determination and the removal of discrimination. I say sincerely, that I doubt if the Government policy, for what it is, can be better stated than it has been stated in the last two years.

But what now interests us most, is the result. One wants to see a meaningful lessening of the hostility towards us, and one is sorry to note that what changes there have been in the attitude towards South Africa have been of little practical consequence for us. In the last few months alone we have seen the hard line taken by Mr. Wilson in respect of the sale of arms to South Africa, although we did have on the credit side statements by Sir Alec Douglas Home. We saw America’s attitude on the sale of Beagle aircraft to South Africa. We heard Vice-President Humphreys’s reproachful remarks when he visited Africa. We read all the condemnatory, damning reports issuing forth from the U.N. There are the frantic activities of the Council of Eleven for South-West Africa and the attention which the Security Council is giving to the Terrorist Trial, and the plans of the Council, if reports are correct, to enter South-West Africa in the near future to create a scrap. The hon. member for Middelland himself referred to the situation, and one is sad to see that the over-all picture is still one of a tough line towards South Africa, so that our future is as fraught as ever with difficulties and, indeed, with dangers for us.

There have been certain unofficial suggestions that we should leave the United Nations. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to say that if such a step is to benefit South Africa, then by all means let us consider it. However, I fail to see how such a step could improve our position in any shape or form. Such a step could be likened to a minority political party in this Parliament quitting Parliament because it is being treated unfairly by the majority. Sir, I do not believe that our membership of this organization should be made an issue at all. There have also been suggestions from many quarters that the United Nations should be reformed. The hon. member came with the suggestion of a new formula for membership, based on population figures. Of course, it is not quite true to suggest that a small country like Nauru has more say than, for instance, Russia or America. In fact, real power in the United Nations is not based on ordinary voting strength. Power in this world body lies with the big nations—no matter what the voting position in the General Assembly is. However, it is interesting to note that that hon. member there desires voting in the world on the basis of the counting of heads, on the basis of “one man, one vote”. Really, Sir, that does not appeal to us. There have been, as I have said, suggestions that the United Nations should be reformed. The general complaint against the United Nations is that it is ineffective in maintaining and restoring the peace where it is most necessary. I believe, however, that this is a line which we should treat with the greatest caution. We of all people should not try to make the United Nations more than it was intended to be. If we want to see the United Nations become really effective, then we shall have to give it teeth. If the hon. member wants to see every quarrel on the globe stopped by means of the United Nations’ authority, that body would have to be equipped with military power; it shall have to be equipped with an army stronger than the strongest. But if this was possible and was done, what would our position be? What would be the position of the smaller nations of the world? I do not believe that any of us really want to see the United Nations becoming an overall world power able to deal effectively with whoever in its eyes disturbs the peace. We do not want to see that, and to such a proposition we say categorically “No”. Most certainly we believe in the maintenance of the United Nations. In spite of its many shortcomings, and in spite of its many stupidities—in respect of South Africa especially—as an international forum it has been a going concern now for more than 20 years. One hates to think what the state of the world could have been, what dangers could have confronted the world if, for instance, East and West har been forced into militant, competing and opposing organizations without any forum for contact, discussion or negotiation, a forum such as the United Nations. Would America and Russia, for instance, have come to the hopeful agreement which was published a few days ago in connection with nuclear armament if there had been no such contact, if there had been no forum such as the United Nations? I was interested to see what Field-Marshal Montgomery had to say about the United Nations following his visit to South Africa—

The critics of the organization are not at fault. Its real enemies are those whose enthusiasm for it has caused its reach to far exceed its grasp. The Congo venture is a case in point. U.N. was given a task which was out of all proportion to its political and financial resources.

Now he makes the following, for me important, point—

The United Nations have become a vast, sprawling organization which can never be anything more than a forum for the exchange of ideas.

It is a talking shop. It is good that it is so. It will never be anything else. As I have said, we believe in the maintenance of the United Nations as an international organization and as a forum for the exchange of ideas, for contact between the nations and for negotiations where that is necessary. Further, we believe that we should censure the United Nations whenever it is necessary, as we are doing here to-day in fact. Remember, Field-Marshal Montgomery said its real enemies were not its critics. But most necessary of all we believe that we should maintain a thoroughly realistic attitude about the nature of international politics. There is, after all, very little difference between international politics and national politics. All the characteristics of national politics are present in international politics. For instance: In national politics parties do not go out of their way to try to help the other party or to be fair towards the opposing party; there is much distortion; wilful accusations are often made; every effort is made to place opponents in the worst possible light and to cast suspicion upon them. In national politics we see these things every day, also in the national politics of our own country. And international politics is as good and as bad as the national politics of countries everywhere.

In the light of this fact I believe we have no other choice but to fight it out internationally. Let me say this to the Government party: If they are really such skilful politicians, capable of fighting it out successfully at home, then they should display the same skill in the wider field of politics and fight it out successfully also abroad. Because, as I have said, international politics do not differ fundamentally from national politics. This being so, the first thing we should do is to drop every suggestion that we should quit U.N. To do that would be a psychologically bad thing. It gives the people the impression that there is an easy way out by just running away. The first essential is that we should display a firm determination to fight it out internationally and not entertain the possibility of quitting. Secondly, we should try harder to find allies amongst members of the United Nations. Here again I was struck by what Field-Marshal Montgomery had to say after a discussion he had with the late Dr. Verwoerd. He said—

No nation can do without allies. These may at times be most irritating and may bring “conditions” with them which add to the irritation, but allies are necessary.

This he said after having visited most of the important leaders in the world. Apart from ordinary diplomatic traffic I believe there should be more top-level political traffic between our Government leaders and leaders of the West. We live in times of constant personal talks, visits between Prime Ministers and Presidents. Just recently Mr. Wilson visited Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson. This is the only way in which to achieve a closer understanding of aims and attitudes and an ultimate solution to problems. I seriously believe that our Prime Minister himself should back up his outward moving policy by personal contact with important leaders as often as is possible. Not so long ago President Johnson said that he would like to see South Africa play a more important role. Why does the Prime Minister not go and talk to him about it? If the Prime Minister had seen Mr. Wilson who can say if there would not have been a better understanding in so far as the delivery of arms is concerned? We are important. We are going to continue to be important in the international world even if only on account of South-West Africa.

Further, I believe we should expand our Africa effort. We have made excellent progress with Malawi, but I believe we are too slow in the matter of diplomatic recognition of countries such as Botswana and Lesotho at the time when these nations are sensitive. I further believe that the Government should in its internal administration and in its legislation give less unnecessary ammunition to opponents abroad. The Government says it is supported in its plans by the majority of all races in South Africa. If that is so, why do they not show it? Because if they can show it to the world that the Government’s plans have the backing of all the non-White races in South Africa the United Nations would not have a leg to stand on. This morning we heard the wonderful news—our return to the Olympic Games. I know it is a miserable day for the “verkramptes”. It is such a far cry from Loskopdam. But here was painstaking negotiation, talks at top level between the sports prime ministers of the world, prime ministers in the field of sport. Why do we not follow that example if we want to be successful by also seeking the co-operation of the leaders of the non-white communities in our country in the field of international politics, as is done now in the field of sport, and allow them to participate in our mission at the U.N.? Then I believe we would have gone a long way towards resolving our problems with the U.N.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has stated his views here on what we must do to deal with the so-called U.N. situation and he suggested certain “remedies”, to use his own term. We on this side believe that the United Nations has, through its own helplessness, landed itself in a situation where it has so little power that it is better for South Africa not to try and solve problems in and through the U.N., but, as most of the responsible countries of the world are already doing, to realize that there is no salvation to be found in that organization and to proceed under our own steam. The establishment of N.A.T.O. by the states round the Atlantic proves more clearly than anything else that those nations have lost confidence in the U.N.’s ability to solve their problems. Consequently they are trying to secure their future safety by means of their own defence treaties. Therefore I say that the U.N. does exist, that it goes its own way—I will deal with that in a moment—but that in the present world political scene South Africa would do well in devoting more time to making friends outside the U.N. with countries that have real power and significance in the world, countries that really have some significance and that really have authority. At this stage it is more important to us to have trade partners in Europe and to expand our trade, so that for the sake of trade and their economic interests those people will not be prepared to throw us to the wolves, rather than to make concessions to the U.N. and to crawl before it, as the United Party expects us to do. At this stage it is more important to us, and, with a view to the future, more effective not only to have trade partners in Europe, but also to expand our trade with friendly countries in Asia, so that those countries which will perhaps vote against us in the U.N. for political gain and for the sake of outward appearance, will know deep in their hearts that it will be to their advantage if South Africa continues to exist in its present form. It is more important to us to show the world that we can live in friendship with other Africa states, in spite of our apartheid policy, a policy which they regard as an insuperable obstacle. It is more important to us to show the world that we are going to carry out our domestic policy of social apartheid to the full, steadfastly and inexorably, that we are going to demand that it be carried out, but that at the same time we can maintain friendly relations with these states on the international and the inter-state level, without sacrificing one single principle. When we discuss these matters, I maintain that South Africa’s future task lies in the spheres I have just mentioned. Our task does not lie in trying to reform the U.N., because I believe it is past the stage of reform. Only the big five, who in actual fact have all the say in the U.N., and who dictate what is to be done there, can reform this world body.

Let us take a closer look at the U.N. The mover of this motion, the hon. member for Middelland, gave a fairly comprehensive survey of the whole situation. It is probably common knowledge what the charter and policies, etc., of the U.N. are, but for the sake of the record I want to mention a few of these points to illustrate to this House what the true objectives of the U.N. were when it was originally established. We must keep in mind that it was established in 1945, when world leaders who were sick and tired of war and strife, came together. They had experienced the horrible deeds of the Second World War and there was a deeply felt need for a super-institution to ensure permanent world peace. When one reads the Charter of the U.N., one sees that it was really that institution’s intention to do precisely that. The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations reads as follows—

We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind …

This is the spirit of the preamble—

… and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

This is the spirit in which this institution was founded. It had quite a number of objectives, of which I will read only one or two—

The purposes of the United Nations are: to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

These are perfectly sound principles. Further on we find the following—

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attachment of these common ends.

The words “peace-loving states” are used time and again. I want to say that the U.N. was originally founded by people who were sick and tired of world wars and who had the best intentions. I think the establishment of the U.N. was a brave act on the part of the world leaders at the time. They disapproved of all such things as might lead to war or similar tragedies. There is no doubt that the organization was not yet flawless. But immediately after this Charter had been signed by the 51 founder members, some of them began to look for loopholes in this beautifully worded document, by means of which they could manoeuvre to serve their own personal interests. Right from the start there was political manoeuvring, unconstitutional practices came to light, and unhealthy tendencies began to develop. All these things crippled the U.N. from the very beginning and completely destroyed its effectiveness in breaking down international tensions. I do not have to go far to illustrate this. I want to mention only one example, namely that of our own country, South Africa, in 1946. South Africa was not represented by a National Party apartheid government at that time, but by Field-Marshal Smuts, at that time the favourite of the world as a result of the important role he had played in the Second World War, which had ended shortly before. He was a founder member of this organization. But in 1946 he, as a founder member of this organization, returned to South Africa and threw up his hands in despair in this very Parliament over the attitude adopted by Mrs. Pandit in regard to the treatment of Indians in South Africa, and said: “I found myself up against a wall of prejudice.” The then government was not a National Party apartheid government. There was no question of the apartheid policy as yet. The man who had been treated in that way by this same U.N. was the favourite of the world at the time. This was only a year after the U.N. had been established. Right from the day this wonderful Charter was drawn up and this fine policy was laid down, tensions started coming to the fore as a result of the actions of people who, through these channels, only wanted to serve their own ends and nothing else.

The newspapers of those days also began to react negatively right from the start. I refer to a report which appeared in Die Burger of 12th February, 1951, only five or six years after the establishment of the U.N., and in which the London Sunday Express was quoted as follows—

It can only become a meeting-place for quarrelsome and railing diplomats and a focal point for the generation of national antagonism: What has U.N. done for Britain? It has attacked us continually and has achieved nothing.

Not only then, but throughout its entire existence the U.N. has been criticized in this way.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Mr. Speaker, according to an agreement with the Whips I have only five minutes left in which to complete my speech and therefore I shall have to make haste to say what I should like to say. I immediately want to draw your attention to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say at once that we have no fault to find with the first part of the amendment. We agree with it, but the sting in the tail is definitely not acceptable to me. It reads as follows—

… and urges the Government … to resolve South Africa’s problems with the Organization.

It is now the Government’s responsibility to resolve our problems with the organization. Why do we have problems with that organization? It is because they want to interfere unlawfully and in violation of their own Charter in our domestic affairs, but the request made by the United Party is that we on this side must see to it that that situation is resolved.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

It is in keeping with the motion.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

No, it is not in keeping with the motion. This is my problem with that hon. member. He can never view a matter quite objectively, that is to say, without at least injecting a little bit of poison at the end or putting a little sting in the tail. This is simply the way he is. We definitely cannot accept that part of the amendment which contains the sting. I think that for the sake of the record it would be a good thing to mention a few figures at this stage in order to show how the U.N. has undergone a metamorphosis as far as the number of members is concerned. It was founded in 1945 with 51 members, comprising the following: The five major powers, which I am not going to name; five Communist states; ten Western European states; seven Asiatic states; 20 Latin American states; only two black Africa states, namely Liberia and Ethiopia; and then further in Africa, the Union of South Africa and Egypt—a total of 51. To-day this total has increased from 51 to 123. The five major powers are still there, but the Communist bloc has increased from five to nine, the Western European states from 10 to 19, the Asiatic states from seven to 27, the Latin American states from 20 to 24, the black Africa states from two to 37, and in addition there are South Africa and Egypt, which gives us a total of 123. In its membership the U.N. has therefore undergone a complete metamorphosis which is quite out of proportion to the organization as a whole. But 1 want to add that the interesting and tragic part really lies in this: Here we have a group of states which can take an irresponsible decision without being burdened with the financial cost of carrying it out. States contributing only 5½ per cent of the budget can secure a two-thirds majority in the U.N. if they club together. Ninety per cent of the total cost of the U.N. is contributed by less than one quarter of its total number of members. That is to say, R71,400,000 out of a total expenditure of R78 million last year, was contributed by 26 countries. We are dealing here with an organization which is grand in its design, ambitious in its planning and ambitious in its display, and great and powerful in the passing of resolutions, but quite powerless and helpless when it comes to putting them into effect, which would not have been the case if it had adhered to the Charter and its original purpose. Then it would have been able to control matters within the framework of its Charter, and then it would have been able to intervene, in terms of its Charter, whenever there was a threat to world peace. But now countries such as South Africa which do not present any problems are continually being placed in the limelight for purely political purposes. When real aggression is committed, as was the case in Goa for example, then the U.N. is powerless. Whenever there is a real violation of rights, such as when Russia invaded Hungary, then the U.N. does nothing at all. Because it has become untrue to itself, it is today a weak body without any function. I want to conclude with the suggestion that South Africa should rather pay attention to building up friendly relations with states that really matter. It is certainly time that the U.N. underwent a change. I think the time has come that responsible, mature states which can act responsibly should form a new organization alongside the U.N., an organization of responsible states which will again have real power and not merely be a showcase for the new young states in which to display their muscles to the world outside.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member who has just sat down, made a plea for a sister organization to the United Nations. But I believe that this sort of argument could go on for ever. I agree entirely that we should have consultation with as many people as possible, if necessary outside the United Nations. I think that one might mention in that regard the South Africa Foundation who has brought out some very important people to this country. I want to deal with the United Nations from another angle. We have heard in this debate a great deal of criticism heaped on the shoulders of the United Nations. I would say that a lot of this criticism is justified and I do not intend to deal with that criticism, but might I remind hon. members opposite that if the founders of the United Nations had dreamt for one moment of the criticism that would be levelled at them and the problems they would have to face, it might well have been that they would not have proceeded with the formation of the organization itself. I would suggest that it is perhaps a very good thing that they never had the foresight to see the problems with which they would be confronted in the years ahead. We must remember in this regard that General Smuts, the finest son yet produced by South Africa, had a great deal to do with the formation of the United Nations. I should like to suggest that we also look at the other side of the coin and remember the good the United Nations have done. To-day, for instance, we had the news that South Africa has been re-admitted to the Olympic Games. I would suggest to that hon. member that it may have had nothing to do whatsoever with the United Nations, but this supports my argument that the talking shop of the Olympic Games enabled us to put our point of view year in and year out and ultimately this point of view had some success. I believe that this is the whole point of the United Nations. As I see it the United Nations is a talking shop of the world. It is where the nations and people of the world get together to discuss their problems. It has been said time and time again that at least while they are talking they are not shooting. I should like to mention that in dealing with the results which we heard about the Olympic Games today that it may be as well for some members of the other side of the House to recall an incident which took place in this House not more than 12 months ago, when the Government adopted the policy which we propagated. As a result of adopting that policy we now find ourselves back in the Olympic Games. One must remember that just as the Government side is not perfect, so the United Nations is not perfect either …

An HON. MEMBER:

And the United Party is imperfect.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

As long as men do wrong and as long as men tell lies, the United Nations will be imperfect as a body. But we know that in this century—and indeed we have never had an organization like this in the past—this is the finest thing that could have happened to this generation in the atomic age. I would like hon. members opposite to remember that they must expect no more from the United Nations than they expect from themselves. I would say that when the United Nations suggests sending a person of impeccable integrity and of international reputation, to the Republic to reason with the authorities here in the hope of persuading them to abandon apartheid, I do not believe that the United Nations could have been very serious in making this suggestion. Can one man sent to South Africa by U.N. do what nearly half a million voters in this country have failed to do during the last 20 years, and that is to persuade members opposite that the policy that they propagate for our country is incorrect?

But, Sir, there are other aspects of the United Nations, and hon. members on the Government side who have spoken in favour of this motion have only criticized the United Nations. I would like to mention one or two other aspects. Can any member on that side find fault, for instance, with the Disarmament Commission? Perhaps the Disarmament Commission has not come up with the answers that they would like, but nevertheless, that Commission in the last 20 years has made tremendous progress. Has any hon. member opposite mentioned the Scientific Advisory comittees, the scientific commission on the effects of radiation, a problem that is so important in this space age? Have hon. members opposite mentioned the International Law Commission, the commission for the peaceful uses of outer space; have they mentioned the Children’s Fund which educates half the world’s children who would receive no education otherwise, which has helped to vaccinate 162 million children in the last 20 years, that has cured three million children of yaws and protected 12 million from malaria, and helped to equip 26,000 health centres and trained more than 90,000 teachers in South America alone? Sir, no hon. member who has spoken on that side has mentioned these positive aspects of the United Nations, neither have they mentioned the economic commission, the Internation Labour Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization. Sir, 80 per cent of the world’s population live under starvation level. This organization advises them on the right kinds of food, on health and on distribution. Have any hon. members opposite mentioned Unesco which is trying to teach 700 million of the world’s illiterate adults? Has anybody mentioned that this organization is helping the African emerging states to a better understanding? Sir, these things are important in Africa as well, because unless we educate the masses of the world our way of life must be endangered. I have not heard a single reference here to the World Health Organization, but the World Health Organization, since it came under the aegis of the United Nations, has wiped out cholera in Egypt; it fights malaria, diphtheria, bilharzia, T.B., and leprosy. By 1969 malaria will probably be wiped out in the western Pacific. It helps in the fight against cancer; it has a quarantine control which advises every nation of quarantineable diseases. Of the 140,000 children born each day, one in five will not live to the age of five. Sir, when hon. members on the other side criticize the United Nations, which I say they are justified in doing, I believe that they should be honest at the same time and mention some of these things that they are doing.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that they are dishonest?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

No, Sir, not in that sense. How can the task of the United Nations be finished when this is the sorry picture presented by the world’s population? Therefore I say that those who criticize the United Nations, should bear the other side in mind as well. I have heard no mention here of the International Monetary Fund in which we, South Africa, play an important part. No one has mentioned the International Civil Aviation Organization, which accounts for over 95 per cent of international air transport, which supplies weather reports, which has succeeded in reducing the death toll amongst passengers from 4.9 in 100 million passenger miles in 1945 to 0.76 in 1963. Has any hon. member opposite given credit where credit is due in that respect? This organization lays down the rules for the safety of passengers, for airports and the training of crews. These organizations, Sir, also fall under the aegis of the United Nations: the Universal Postal Union, the Telecommunications Union and the Maritime Consultative Union. Who can deny that the world is not a better place for these bodies?

Under these organizations men are learning to work together and to solve their problems together. Co-operation in the world’s family is being achieved even if it is at a slow rate, but at any rate something is being done. The rate at which it is being achieved one would like to see speeded up, but this is in line with what the last speaker on that side said: We are in consultation all the time and continuously. Man is beginning to learn that peace does not come by accident, it has to be worked for, it has to be nourished over the years. I would like to remind hon. members who criticize the United Nations very strongly that it took England 700 years to develop the democratic system which has enabled the giving of universal franchise to all. Democracy in England had to grow; it had to grow over a period; it had to be nurtured; it had its set-backs but nevertheless it succeeded in growing. I say that when we criticize a body such as the United Nations, we must be very careful to temper our criticism with the knowledge and the warning that we must not in the end bring about its destruction. Can it be said by any member opposite that the Commonwealth became better because we left it? For that reason I would say that in criticizing the United Nations we must be very sure that we do not do more damage to the human race than we could probably sustain. I think that history may yet show that when we left the Commonwealth we in fact helped to bring about the position in which it is to-day. No one has helped to mould an organization to its own liking by leaving it, so I say that we must temper our criticism with the object in view that we seek to build in this House, not to destroy. We seek to build the greatest organization of its kind, devised for the benefit of mankind; the United Nations cannot prevent war, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, and it cannot enforce peace, but does anybody opposite know of a better way in which we can help to solve the world’s problems?

An HON. MEMBER:

I do not know of any worse place.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

At least the United Nations gives man a chance in this world of atomic weapons. I would like to quote what Adlai Stevenson said at the United Nations, and I do this to show hon. members opposite that we do not only have our critics there; we also have our supporters there. Adlai Stevenson said this—

Racial hatred, racial strife, has cursed the world too long. I make no defence for the sins of the white race in this respect, but the antidote for white racism is not black racism.

Sir, I am sure that no member on the other side could find fault with that, yet that statement was made in the United Nations where hon. members opposite claim that we have so many enemies. Even here in this country we should be grateful to the United Nations. Did the existence of the United Nations not help to prevent sanctions being applied against us? The world to-day is blinkered by an unholy prejudice of race, and I suggest that this will pass but it will only pass while we can continue to keep these organizations in existence, while we still have these talking shops. Sir, I offer no excuse for quoting Adlai Stevenson again. This is something which applies very aptly to us at the present time; he was talking Geout the United States, and this is what he said—

Our country has become so conspicuous that every small economic or racial injustice and every debasement of quality, every blemish of bad taste, bad manners or of shoddy self-indulgence, is likely to be studied and commented upon in the cruel light of world opinion. We must learn to avoid the false alternatives that sound so good in argument but which mean so little in real life.

Sir, can anything be more true of South Africa than this to-day? I would like to conclude by saying that when Dag Hammarskjöld said, “If you don’t like the United Nations you don’t like the world”, I think he was speaking sense.

*Mr. P. H. MEYER:

The hon. member who has just sat down, made a speech which in my opinion has no relevance at all to the motion under discussion. The motion introduced by the hon. member for Middelland has absolutely nothing to do with the continued existence of U.N. It only deals with the erroneous course taken by U.N. to-day. I would not expect any member of this House wanting to deny the necessity for the existence of an organization to assist other countries in their socio-economic development. I would not expect any member of this House wanting to deny the existence of an international body which had as its aim the promotion of world peace. But the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Middelland is in fact that U.N. has departed from the course which it was supposed to follow. It seems to me that it is not only U.N. that is pursuing an erroneous course to-day, but also certain inhabitants of Port Natal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to elaborate on the good work being done by U.N. and its agencies; I take it that they are doing a great deal of good work, but is it not in fact the very same bloc of countries that are denouncing South Africa at U.N. and at seminars and at all other discussions in that body, that have also begrudged South Africa the part she could play in those agencies? Are they not the very ones that have always taken steps to have South Africa expelled from those agencies? As the leading country in Africa we are able to do good work in assisting an emergent Africa so that all of us may coexist here in peace and prosperity, but is it not those very countries that are making it difficult for us to play this important role? I think the hon. member for Port Natal must reconsider the motion before the House to-day.

I do not want to re-enter the field which has been covered so often here to-day, by referring to the resolutions passed from 1946 to December, 1967. Over the 20 years from 1946 to 1966, such resolutions dealing with the policy of apartheid or the race policy of South Africa were adopted on 29 occasions. In 1967 mainly three things were added. In the first place we saw for the first time that certain organs of U.N., and particularly its publicity section, as well as the so-called United Nations Monthly Chronicle, were also being used for the purpose of making propaganda against South Africa. In this regard I think we as a House must express our gratitude to the permanent representative of South Africa at U.N. for the brilliant reply he gave at the beginning of August 1967, when he objected to the abuse being made of that information service. Furthermore a special seminar, organized by the Secretary-General of U.N. was held in Kitwe, Zambia, in the second half of 1967. If hon. members would take the trouble of reading the addresses delivered there by various speakers and saw the spirit of hatred towards Southern Africa emanating from them, I think the hon. member for Port Natal would also realize that all is not well in the glass palace in New York. There have also been the special reports which were presented in October by the special committee in regard to the policy of apartheid of the Republic of South Africa, and agreed to by the special political committee on 22nd November, and which, over and above the resolutions passed before, added further points and which clearly reflect the attitude that U.N. should from now on concentrate on exerting pressure on the major trading partners of this country.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to trace briefly the reasons for this pressure being exerted in 1967, while it is perfectly clear to all of us that no explosive situation exists here in Southern Africa, and why we must expect the same or possibly greater pressure to be applied in 1968 as well. If we look at the future, we must expect 1968 to be another year in which certain power groups at U.N. will try to intensify the resolutions of the past. I think they will do so all the more because 1968 is the so-called international year for human rights. I think they will try to seize upon, this so-called year for human rights as an opportunity of making an old story sound new. That is also the reason why the special committee in regard to the policy of apartheid of the Republic of South Africa has been authorized to hold a special session in Geneva from 20th May to 7th June, 1968. at an additional cost of 105,000 dollars. I believe that this story has become a hackneyed one in America, and therefore it is now being aimed at Europe, where the third world power is coming into existence. The fact that international financial power is centralized in Switzerland is perhaps the reason why they want to place the accent on Europe in particular, and I think that they will try in this way to weaken the gradually strengthening trade connections between Europe and South Africa and other countries in Southern Africa. I think there are deep-seated reasons for us to expect that the pressure being exerted on South Africa by groups in the U.N. will be intensified. I think the best answer for us came last night. If South Africa’s participation in the Olympic Games had been placed before the U.N., we would most probably have had a unanimous vote against South Africa, but the fact that the sporting countries of the world have had to decide the matter and express their views independently, and that they showed that they were prepared to accept South Africa in the international community, causes these power blocs at U.N. to fear that South Africa is proving to the world that, notwithstanding a policy which is not accepted by the rest of the world, she nevertheless has an important part to play in the world community.

I think these power groups are beginning to see that a new spirit is developing in Southern Africa, a spirit of friendship between the technically developed South Africa and her neighbouring states and the countries further to the north. I think these power groups are aware of the powerful stimulus which is being generated in Southern Africa to extend the peaceful state of affairs which is prevailing here and to make this a peaceful part of the world for the rest of this century. I think these power groups have taken note of the progress made in a country such as Botswana, and which we hope will continue to be made there. I think these countries have taken note of the fact that a country such as Lesotho has called in a great South African industrialist to advise her in regard to her industrial development. I think these power groups have taken note of the fact that Rhodesia, in spite of the fact that sanctions have been applied against her for so long, is still moving forward on an even keel and that there are indications of greater confidence in her future. I think these power groups have also taken note of the fact that Portugal has announced a programme for the next five years in terms of which she is going to spend the sum of R1,112 million in her overseas provinces, and that she is going to give Angola an injection of R622 million over the next five years and is going to invest a sum of R389 million in the further development of Mozambique. I think these power groups have seen that as soon as it is announced that the construction of a shipyard is being considered in South Africa, the Government of South Africa is immediately approached by a large number of firms which are prepared to invest their capital in that enterprise. I think these power groups have seen that when a search for oil is mentioned, all the great oil companies of the world are anxious to make their knowledge available with a view to possibly finding oil here. I think these states realize that the rest of the world no longer believes their tale that an explosive state of affairs exists in the southern part of Africa, and that the rest of the world is prepared, as in the case of the businessmen who arrived here on the Windsor Castle on Wednesday, to invest their money in this so-called explosive part of Africa.

Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have not the slightest doubt that the founders of U.N. had noble motives when that organization came into being. I think we all want law and not war, and peace and not power, and goodwill instead of hatred. But some people even went this far, and I want to quote here C. M. Eiselenberger, who said this—

The problems of the world are one. If this vision is lost, the world is lost.

It did not take this gentleman very long to realize that he was wrong and subsequently he wrote a book in which he suggested how the U.N. should be altered, and this same man to-day is not quite so happy about the position of the U.N. It was stated that you have to have a public meeting place to mobilize public opinion which will serve to restrain the extremists. How far they have been restrained we can read in the newspapers any day. Just yesterday we read that a gentleman from Tanzania suggested that we are doing heart transplants here because we want to kill the black men and put their hearts into white people. The three elements making for war, namely nationalism, imperialism and militarism, have to be contained. People who had just been through the last war quite obviously worked in that direction. How far they have succeeded, and for how long the U.N. succeeded in restraining them, will be shown in a moment. But collective security at that time looked so right, it was so just and correct, and in anycase it was the fashion that you had to agree to the so-called collective security proposals. But nobody questioned the validity of this organization. But very soon thereafter things began to happen. Many people in the U.N. clamoured for freedom of speech and travel and political action for other nations’ subjects but not for their own. In their own countries they had given none of these freedoms, but they certainly shout in the U.N. for those freedoms. But what is forgotten is that more than half of the nations at the U.N. are not democracies in the normal sense of the word. In 1945 Russia refused to allow a freely elected government in Poland. In 1946 in Hungary the conservative Smallholders’ Party won the election, and in 1947 it was dissolved by the communists who took over. In 1946 in Czechoslovakia the social democrats under Benes won the election, but in 1948 there was a coup d’etat and they were kicked out and the communists took over. So one can go on quoting. This then became quite clear, apparently also to America—because I am sorry to say that one got the impression at one stage that the U.N. was America’s U.N. In the beginning she intended this to be her U.N., and the Security Council, consisting of the big powers which had the veto, worked fairly well.

I must say that it is rather interesting to note that at the time of Teheran the Americans did not want a Security Council with a veto right, but the Russians were more realistic. They were not going to allow tinpot nations to trespass on the sovereignty of Russia and they insisted on the veto. But an early clash came between the two concepts of morality, the American concept and the Russian concept of morality. So, for instance, we see that in 1945 it was suggested that there should be two disarmament commissions, one to deal with conventional weapons and the other one to deal with atomic weapons. You must realize, Sir, that at that stage only America had the atomic weapons, so she asked for two commissions, one to deal with conventional weapons and the other with atomic weapons. Russia opposed this and said that both must be dealt with by one commission. A year later Russia also had the atomic bomb and so she suggested that there should be two commissions, one to deal with conventional weapons and the other with atomic weapons. Then America said that the position had changed now and she would insist on only one commission, but nothing came of that. There was the other case when in 1946 America applied that certain countries which were on the list be admitted en bloc, and Russia objected. In 1947 Russia proposed that Italy, Finland. Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria be admitted after the peace treaties, en bloc, and America said that they could not be admitted en bloc. So one can go on and mention the case of Mossadegh, who nationalized the oil industry in Persia, and attacked British property and lives but no action was taken by the U.N. because America’s interests were not at stake at that time. Then a new era dawned, the era of Korea, and there America went to the U.N. and said: Here a country was invading another sovereign country and we want the U.N. to take action. But she first instructed her own army to go to the assistance of South Korea, with which nobody had any fault to find, but then she went to the U.N., to the Security Council, and we all know what happened there and the trick that Russia tried to play on her. When America saw that the veto was being used—and by that time I must say that it had been used by the U.S.S.R. about 100 times— America said that they would change it. America then said, “No, we are going to change this”, and that is when Mr. Eiselenberger, the person I mentioned earlier, began to realize that the U.N. is no longer an effective medium for preserving world peace. As a result they came with a new system, the so-called “Uniting for Peace” to which I think the hon. member for Middelland referred. What that in fact meant was shifting the gravity point of the U.N. from the security council to the general assembly, and that was fine because for the moment it worked. America was quite happy with that. But if one looks at the list of nations who subsequently fought in compliance with a U.N. resolution they may as well have been the N.A.T.O. nations because they were all traditional military allies of either Great Britain or America. The Eastern countries, particularly India, did not have the courage to say, “Look, this is either aggression, or it is not, and I am going to stand up for the principles, there is morality involved too, I take a stand on behalf of all these wonderful principles of the U.N.”, but she was just not there. As 1 say, it was actually N.A.T.O. fighting under the auspices of the U.N.

At that time all the newly-independent colonies swelled the numbers in the U.N. The U.S.S.R. were anxious to have these colonies “liberated”, as they termed it, for perhaps a different reason to that of America. The U.S.S.R. realized that where stable, wellorganized colonies disappear, unstable governments usually took over and created a vacuum that could eventually be filled by communists. A merica had a different reason. I do not know, but perhaps trade may have been the reason. America was at a disadvantage as regard trade with Africa because she could not obtain raw materials on the same terms as Great Britain and other colonial powers, and that may perhaps have been the reason. But in any case. whether they were selfish motives or lack of foresight, a situation was eventually created whereby in the general assembly these smaller nations, nations who paid less than three per cent of the total expenditure of the U.N. could actually command a majority in the assembly itself. The hon. member for Vasco quoted a figure here, and he is quite correct, though the figure may be a little bit on the low side because I think it has gone up since. I tried to work it out yesterday afternoon. Under the resolution “uniting for peace” one can to-day find in an organization such as the U.N., an exceedingly responsible organization, the mustering of a two-thirds majority with all the implications that go with it by people who pay less than eight per cent of the total income of that organization.

The PRIME MINISTER:

If they pay at all.

Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Yes, if they pay at all. I think it was Kipling who said, “Power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”.

I have already dealt with over a hundred vetoes by the U.S.S.R., but the position has now developed to this. Since the entry of these smaller and perhaps inexperienced states America to-day finds herself in the position where she dare not take Vietnam to the security council and she may not take it to the general assembly either. She also may not take the matter of the Pueblo seized by North Korea to the security council and, because of her own actions, she dare not take it to the general assembly either.

I really do not know what, but some good may yet come of the U.N. However, so long as the U.N. remains an echo chamber built to measure for ambitious politicians of small states without responsibility, it will not work. It will be dangerous to allow such an organization to outgrow its own volume. Anyone who follows the proceedings in the U.N. will realize that those people who shout the loudest there, get the most and that from both sides. What happened to those African leaders who had foresight and acted with restraint? What happened to the President of Nigeria? He was one of the most honourable men, an honourable Black man. What happened to him? They cut his throat, they killed him, because this so-called platform for world opinion has become an echo box, and the louder one shouts into it, the better; indeed, one cannot resist shouting there for fear of losing face with he firebrands in one’s own community. That is exactly what is happening there. Recourse to the U.N. has too often of late become an excuse for a lack of policy. I have always been told that emotion is no counsel in diplomatic circles, and the U.N. has become but a chamber of emotion.

As I said before, the late Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of Nigeria tried to act in a responsible manner, and we know what happened to him.

Let us see what happened to many recommendations of the U.N. I have extracted just a few which were simply ignored by the Communist bloc. There was the instance where mines laid at the entrance of the Adriatic Sea near Albania sank a British destroyer in 1946, and when the U.N. urged that Albania compensate Britain, it was ignored and nothing happened. Here are a few others: Soviet Union urged by security council in 1947 to agree to supervision of disarmament—vetoed and ignored; in October, 1947, security council calls on Russia to lift Berlin blockade—vetoed and ignored; council resolution requesting admission of U.N. commission to investigate communist coup in Czechoslovakia in May, 1948—vetoed and ignored. The same thing happened to hundreds of other resolutions. What happened about the recommendations made to the colonial powers? Britain, Holland, France and Belgium practically without exception had to accept them. Holland had to quit New Guinea, which was handed over to Indonesia in 1962; Belgium accelerated the date of independence of the Congo; Anglo-French forces evacuated Suez in 1957. What happened to the recommendations directed at the Arab and Asian states? Egypt refused free passage to Israeli ships through Suez, despite security council instructions in 1951; Indonesia ignored U.S. request to recognize territory in North Borneo and Sarawak as part of Malaysia: India rejects U.N. appeal to hold a plebiscite in the territory of Kashmir. These are the people who talk so easily of self-determination. What happened in Goa has already been mentioned. And so I can go on and quote many examples but I do not want to read too many instances of resolutions being flouted.

However, there is another interesting development which I thought I should draw attention to, and that is this. It has been stated both inside and outside this House that only the big powers can preserve the world peace. To-day I, and I think the whole Western world, place far more reliance on N.A.T.O. as a peace-keeping organization in the West than on U.N. The old story that the U.N. is supposed to be a universal body, is hollow. How universal is it if the most heavily populated power, Communist China, a country with over 750 million people, is kept out of U.N. whilst Formosa, a country with approximately 40 million people, is a member and fills the place of China at U.N., not only in the general assembly but also in the security council? This strange position obtains, because at the time when America insisted on China’s right to the veto power, she looked upon a China which was non-communist, and she insisted on that right in order to keep Russia in her place. Now the position has changed, and the biggest power in the whole world is being kept out of this so-called world organization. How much of a world organization is it? More than that, Sir. The wealthiest country in the world, per capita, as far as gold cover is concerned, i.e. West Germany, is not a member. She has been kept out deliberately. So, if the biggest and the wealthiest, per capita, is being kept out, what must one think of those within that body? It has been said here by my hon. friend in front of me to-day that we must have contact. Of course we must have contact. But is it necessary to have that contact through the United Nations? Is it not far more expedient and honourable rather than contact through the United Nations to have direct contact with the powers concerned? Not only do I think so, but the U.S.A. is also thinking so. Russia is thinking so. The world is thinking so. It was as a result of private discussions that the Berlin Blockade came to an end, not as a result of the United Nations. It was as a result of direct action between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Russia that the problem in Cuba was solved where it certainly would have led to war. The warships were already at sea and, not the agents of the United Nations, but actually the agency of the Red Cross was called in by America and agreed to by Russia to supervise the destruction of those missile bases in Cuba. The position is the same now with the case of the Pueblo. It is not being taken to the United Nations. The Red Cross is asked to intervene. The case is the same as regards Vietnam, as well as the Triest settlement. I venture to say to-day, that if there were no United Nations, there would already have been peace in the Middle East as a result of direct negotiations between Israel and the Arab states. Since 1962 the United Nations have been increasingly ig nored and recourse is not being taken them, but to direct negotiations between the countries concerned. It has been said here this afternoon that the agencies are wonderful. How wonderful are they! What are they doing? What are they doing that cannot be done without the United Nations? Do not forget that many of those agencies existed long, long before the United Nations were founded. My hon. friend referred to telecommunications— that organization was actually formed, not as a result of the action of the United Nations; it was formed towards the end of the last century, long before the first World War. Forget about the United Nations. So I can go on. About Unesco I would rather not say anything much more, except the following. I see my time is running out. There was a good party given for the Unesco boys. This party, attended by 2,000 people, cost R6 million. A special hall, the Marble Hall in Rome was built for that particular party. Do you know what the occasion was? The cost of this picnic was estimated at R6 million and the purpose was to inaugurate a conference on world hunger. A Henry Moore mobile was raised above the Unesco building in Paris and provoked this comment from one of the leading authorities in the world. He said:

It has iron fins that flap about. It balances in mid-air. It is sensitive to every passing breeze; it is quite meaningless, absolutely useless and it cost a lot of money.

I believe that something may perhaps come out of the United Nations on condition that one can make out of it an organization such as, for instance, the old British Commonwealth of Nations, where discussions were in secret and where it was not then an echo chamber or a platform for the loudshouter and the emotionalist. [Interjections.] That may perhaps be, but I do not know. I am not very hopeful, but at least I am optimistic enough to suggest to the Minister to try. It may perhaps be that something useful could come out of all this and I do think that some of the agencies are already doing good work, but the majority of them are completely useless and can function far better and far more cheaply and effectively without the interfering and the nonsense of the United Nations.

There is one thing that I should like to put right. Nobody must say that it was as a result or our contact with the United Nations that South Africa was re-admitted to the Olympic Games. In fact, if ever there was a case that proved that one must stay out of the United Nations if one wants to achieve anything, then it is these negotiations in connection with the Olympic Games.

The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

Mr. Speaker, it will be generally welcomed that a motion such as this has come before this hon. House. My Department and I are, of course, continually reviewing and considering our relations with the United Nations Organization. The Government, too, is constantly giving attention to this matter. But I nevertheless think it is a good thing that our relations with the world organization should be discussed in this the highest legislative council in our country, so that both the public outside and the outside world may know how the representatives of our people feel about the world organization. Our relations with U.N. are an important matter. U.N. is an important institution. As a matter of fact, it is the most important world organization. It is also very important to South Africa as a member and as a foundation member of the organization, and as a country which is constantly receiving the attention of the organization. I believe that U.N. has a right to exist. I also believe that it is not perfect, and this is in fact the subject of this debate to-day. To my mind the motion appearing on the Order Paper reflects the Government’s attitude to the organization, as do the speeches made from both sides of the House, with one exception. There has been one discordant note. However, I am not going to deal with that hon. member. I am quite sure his colleague, the hon. member for Sea Point, will be able to deal with him. We have seen that this hon. member has a thorough knowledge of these matters, and I am sure that he will deal with him privately. The speeches made here to-day, serve to confirm that both sides of this House support the attitude and the policy adopted by the Government in regard to U.N. This is no secret either. It has been stated repeatedly by members on both sides, also by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on that side. I think we may accept that the general public in South Africa also supports the Government’s attitude and policy in regard to U.N. It is a good thing that the world should take cognizance of this. It is very important. It is of very great advantage to South Africa that we are at one in speaking to the outside world and that we present a united front to it.

With regard to the reference made by the hon. member for Middelland to the possibility of extending an invitation to even the President of the United States, I wish to say that we as a Government are not opposed to visits being paid to our country by members of other Governments. As a matter of fact, hon. members will recall that four or five years ago already the Government extended an invitation to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Nordic countries. Just recently we invited the ambassadors of countries with diplomatic missions in South Africa to visit South West Africa. Last year we probably had more distinguished visitors in South Africa, at the invitation of the Government and otherwise, than ever before in our history. I may inform hon. members that quite a few more are still to come.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout submitted a plea that we should not terminate our membership of U.N. But, Sir, the present Government’s attitude in this regard has been stated over and over again, both in this House and elsewhere, and stated very clearly. Besides, I do not think out membership is an issue at the moment. Our attitude may be said to be that we are waiting to see what U.N. is going to do on its part. Meanwhile the attitude we are adopting towards the organization is as I shall outline in the course of my speech. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that U.N. should not be a kind of super-parliament or super-government. None of us on either side of the House wants that. What we are in fact doing, and I think this is highly necessary, is that we are doing our best to get U.N. to realize its own limitations and that the organization must not over-reach itself. The concern that was apparent from the speeches made here this morning and this afternoon, and which is apparent from the terms of this motion, is nothing new. As hon. members have stressed, this concern has existed ever since shortly after the establishment of U.N., when India poked its nose into our domestic affairs for the first time. But this interference as well as other abuses increased in the course of the years until we reached the extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs which has been so clearly outlined to-day by hon. members on both sides of this House.

What is more, we in South Africa are not the only ones to be concerned about the direction in which U.N. is moving. This concern is shared by others. The recently concluded 22nd session of the General Assembly was conducted in an atmosphere of despondency, frustration, impotence and powerlessness because of the inability of the organization to serve its purpose and to solve serious world problems. One need only read the annual report of the Secretary-General, or the speech made by the retiring president of the organization, or the speeches made by leaders of delegations to U.N., including the speech I myself made there. It is not difficult to determine why there is this frustration with and concern about the organization. It has already been referred to and dealt with by hon. members. U.N.’s inability to promote and maintain world peace is clearly apparent from the many trouble-spots in the world where armed violence is already the order of the day or is threatening to break out. We think of the Congo, Berlin, Aden, Cyprus, Nigeria, the Middle East, Korea, Vietnam, all of them danger-points about which U.N. can do nothing or very little. But neither is U.N. capable of putting an end to or even reducing the suffering, the misery, the despair to be found in so many parts of the world. In his annual report the Secretary-General said, inter alia, the following in this regard, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Natal is not present at the moment—

We are not winning the war on want. We are near the point of no return.

I think the hon. member for Randfontein also quoted this. I want to stress it. The Secretary-General went on to say—

Living in urban centres in developing countries will become almost intolerable. Violence will become the rule rather than the exception.

There are many other abuses and malpractices causing great concern. We think of the violation of the Charter, the double standards that are being applied, the squandering of funds, particularly in connection with ideological disputes. We think of the expenditure in connection with the Kitwe seminar to which an hon. member has referred. As was envisaged, South Africa has already refused to pay its pro rata share of the costs involved in this matter and other similar matters. Mention has already been made of the admission of large numbers of small, insignificant states, all of which have equal voting powers, as the principle of “one country, one vote” still applies there. Increasing concern over this has become noticeable over the years. We think of the formation of blocs, of pressure groups, particularly by the Afro-Asians, sometimes aided and abetted by the communists, who use their preponderance in voting power for selfish ends, to carry on their own vendettas in the organization. Mention has already been made of the scandalous behaviour in New Delhi at the UNCTAD Conference which is taking place at the moment, and which is being held in the interest of those very states which are taking the lead in these demonstrations, demonstrations against a country which is capable of making a contribution and which is in fact rendering to its neighbouring states in Southern Africa the very kind of aid now being discussed at that conference.

We think of the abuse being made of the Secretariat. This has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Vasco. We think of the abuse being made of the Secretariat in order to make propaganda against members. In this regard, too, I may point out to the House that the South African Government has refused to make any contributions for this particular purpose.

There are many other examples that have already been mentioned. The first part of this motion, namely paragraph (a), deals with the principle of non-interference, which is the cornerstone of all international co-operation. Failure to observe this fundamental principle is one of the main reasons for U.N.’s failure to achieve its noble objectives.

South Africa has over the years made a point of exposing the malpractices, stressing the dangers resulting therefrom, and trying to put a stop to such malpractices. We have done so virtually ad nauseam. Hon. members are welcome to look at the published collection of the speeches made by my hon. predecessor and at speeches by his predecessors, the leaders of South African delegations over the years. I say we have done this ad nauseam, and the Government still regards it as its duty to-day to continue exerting itself to that end, not only in our own interest, but in the interest of the world as a whole and of world peace.

Paragraph (b) of the motion is very closely related to the preceding paragraph dealing with non-interference. In this regard, too, we have not hesitated to raise our voice and to take action. Reference is made here to the “explosive conditions” and resolutions which have been passed in this regard from time to time, the so-called explosive conditions which would allegedly lead to South Africa’s becoming a threat to world peace. Fortunately the majority of the Western powers have consistently refused to support proposals at U.N. calling for the application of compulsory sanctions against South Africa on the grounds that in terms of chapter 7 of the Charter we presented a threat to world peace. This happened again at the last session, and I think we can only hope that the Western powers will persist in this attitude of theirs. I can think of no reason why they will not do so in the future. Even a person such as the Vice-President of the United States of America, who made vehement and unfair attacks against us during his visit to Africa, declared publicly upon returning to the United States that he did not foresee a colour conflict in Southern Africa in the near future. Fortunately the leading Western powers have not yet yielded to the pressure in this regard.

However, the action taken by South Africa at U.N. is not limited to making protests. Throughout the years, but particularly of late, we have deliberately tried to act in a more positive way and to move away from the negative and formalistic attitude which very sound reasons compelled us to adopt in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister has on various occasions declared in public that we in South Africa have nothing to hide, that we have achieved a great deal, that there are many things in our country of which we may justly be proud, and that we are going to make a special effort to bring the true facts about South Africa to the notice of the world. We have in fact been doing this to an increasing extent at U.N. This is the attitude we have been adopting to an increasing extent at U.N. of late. There, too, we have been drawing attention to the true state of affairs wherever possible. In the first place we have been doing this by means of publications. Apart from the numerous publications which are prepared and distributed by the offices of the Department of Information both here in South Africa and abroad, the Department of Foreign Affairs has also undertaken various publications in the recent past. Where necessary, my Department has, of course, also been assisted by other technical departments, and we are very grateful to them for that.

The first important publication that I want to mention here is not unknown to you; it is the South-West Africa Survey, which has been distributed in book form throughout the world, and the indications are that this work has met with a favourable reception. A further publication that has already been issued arose from two articles which appeared in the official journal of U.N., the so-called United Nations Monthly Chronicle, which has been referred to by my hon. friend. Two virulent articles against South Africa appeared in editions of this publication. The first of these appeared in March last year, dealt with education, science and culture in South Africa, and was based on the annual report of Unesco. The article which appeared in the May edition of the same publication was an attack on the internal affairs of South Africa, an attack which was made under the cloak of human rights. This article contained, inter alia, vicious attacks upon conditions in our prisons. The allegation was also made that we were committing genocide in South Africa, a subject upon which interesting and encouraging statements were made at U.N. by the representatives of the United States and Jamaica a day or two ago. Both these articles which appeared in an official publication of U.N. were extremely one-sided and prejudiced and bristled with distortions and untruths. We drew up documents refuting these allegations, and we succeeded, not without difficulty, in persuading the Secretariat of U.N. to circulate the documents we had prepared in this regard among members as official documents of U.N. The result is that they are coming to everybody’s notice.

But this is not all that we have done. These documents refuting the allegations as well as the correspondence we conducted with the Secretary-General in regard to these two publications have also been issued in printed form and are being widely distributed outside U.N. A third publication, dealing with the treatment of prisoners in South Africa, has already been issued. It is a refutation of the allegations made in respect of our prisons by the study group of so-called experts appointed by U.N.’s Human Rights Commission. This publication will be followed up by a bulky and authoritative book, running into a few hundred typed pages, about our prisons in general. This work will also be distributed throughout the world. We are distributing these publications not because we are accountable to anyone outside South Africa, but in order to expose these gross misrepresentations and to bring the true facts to the attention of the world. Another important publication has already gone to Press and will be available within a week or two. In this a full exposition is given of a very important matter, i.e. our judicial system. Mr. Speaker, we can be justly proud of our judicial system. This publication will also contain an analysis of certain legislative measures in regard to terrorism, communism, and so forth, measures which are so often regarded by the world as being a violation of civilized legal principles and the rule of law, a charge which is regularly levelled against South Africa, in season and out of season.

Then Unesco, the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, in the course of last year published a book on “Apartheid, its Effects on Education, Science, Culture and Information”. This book contains a typical vehement and unfair attack upon South Africa. My Department is preparing a refutation of this work. It will be another bulky publication running into several hundred pages—sections have already gone to Press—and will be published shortly.

*Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Can’t you arrange for us to get copies?

*The MINISTER:

Yes, I shall do so. We are trying to keep the costs as low as possible, but we shall gladly provide copies of the publications which have already appeared to hon. members who are interested, and we shall make copies available to members in future if they let us know and if at all possible. I may add that we are planning more such publications at the moment and that we shall issue more such publications in future as it becomes necessary.

But, Sir, we are also stating South Africa’s case in other ways at U.N. Take for example the latest action by the Security Council in connection with the terrorist trial and the judgment given by the court. I have communicated with the Secretary-General in this regard, and I wish to stress once again that I have done so not because we are accountable to him or the Security Council or U.N. in any way, but in order to present the true facts and to place this matter in the right perspective. I have got into touch with the Secretary-General and, inter alia, I have informed him in detail of the South African legislative measures relating to terrorism and of the circumstances which gave rise to these measures. I may just point out that I have stressed in that document that the South African Government will under no circumstances whatsoever allow a second Vietnam to develop here in Southern Africa. In this document I have also dealt with the trial of terrorists, the fundamental points of our policy in regard to South West Africa, and the results we are already achieving there in the application of that policy, and I have, of course, once again dealt with the invalid resolution which was adopted by U.N. and which gave rise to all these developments.

As far as our general course of action at U.N. itself is concerned, this too is constantly being considered and reviewed and, where necessary, amended and adapted to circumstances. During the past session South Africa’s representatives took part in debates conducted at U.N. and in its committees in virtually every field. As a result of a careful choice of subjects on which to speak, the way in which this participation took place, and the timing of the speeches, the contributions made by the South African team at U.N. were very effective. I wish to point out that we had an excellent team there, of course, and I am not referring to myself in this regard; I am referring to our ambassador at U.N. Mr. Thys Botha, with his permanent staff, as well as members of my Department who were sent there for the session, and also the members of my Department here at the home front who have constantly been called upon to perform hard work under difficult circumstances and great pressure. I am convinced that this action taken at U.N. will yield good results. I am convinced that a very careful analysis and a systematic refutation of the charges levelled against our country, which are mostly unfounded, will compel our critics to be more circumspect; that it will compel them to adhere to the truth and to cease their reckless attacks upon South Africa.

I must add that we are constantly and wherever possible emphasizing and drawing attention to the true state of affairs and the progress we are making. Mr. Speaker, we have definitely made progress as far as our foreign relations are concerned. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded that we should seek new allies. The hon. member is apparently not aware that we are doing so, inter alia by establishing diplomatic relations. I do not want to furnish the details, because my time has almost expired, but we have, for example, established diplomatic relations with quite a number of new countries in the past few months. The hon. member said that “we were too slow in giving diplomatic recognition to Botswana”. I take it that the hon. member expressed himself incorrectly and that he really meant to say that we were too slow in exchanging diplomats.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Yes, that is what I meant.

*The MINISTER:

That is what I took the hon. member to say. But I wish to point out that we must not attach too much importance to exchanging diplomats with our immediate neighbours on our borders and even within our borders. I cannot go into this fully at this stage, but I just want to remind this House of the fact that in the history of the world there have probably never been two states which co-existed, co-operated and even waged war together on such an intimate basis as the two Boer Republics in South Africa in the last century; and the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State, as you know, had no reciprocal diplomatic representation. But I am just mentioning this in passing. Mr. Speaker, we are making some progress. We are grateful for that. But we must not underestimate the obstacles on the road ahead. Recently the vehement reaction to the terrorist trial once again proved how inflammable the atmosphere is in the outside world, particularly at U.N., an atmosphere which has been systematically built up against South Africa over many years. This vehement reaction proved how cunning and dangerous and influential the agitators against South Africa are. One finds this agitation quite incomprehensible, inexplicable, illogical and totally in conflict with the splendid and lofty ideals of the United Nations Organization, because on the very first page of the Charter of the United Nations Organization, where the objects of the Organization are set out, we find inter alia, the following—

To practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours.

What a splendid ideal, one which is continually being reaffirmed! Two years ago, for example, the U.N. once again adopted a resolution in this regard. This was also the theme of my speech last year. I can say with a clear conscience that as far as this objective is concerned, we in South Africa have not only emphasized it over the years, have not only emphasized the dangers involved in departing therefrom and warned against this being done, but have in practice acted in a positive and constructive manner and are giving expression to this ideal in the case of our neighbours. Instead of stirring up unrest, we are living in friendship and are co-operating with them in our own interest, in their interest and in the interest of the whole of Southern Africa. In this way we are setting an example to the United Nations and we are showing how the fundamental principle of the United Nations can be applied in practice and with what good results. I hope the world will realize how much more beneficial this is than stirring up hatred among nations.

Experience has shown that as a rule decisions and actions which determine the fate of nations do not depend upon a majority of the members of U.N., but remain the responsibility of the leading states. I am thinking of Cuba, the war in the Middle East, and Vietnam. One can only hope that the leading anti-Communist states of the world will, in their own interest and in the interest of world peace, do everything possible to reform the U.N. and will not allow this organization to be abused for the purpose of undermining their best ally in Africa.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC AND RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS SERVICES Mr. W. V. RAW:

I move—

That this House calls upon the Government to consider the advisability of appointing a commission comprising, inter alia, representatives of public servants’ organizations, Railway Staff Associations, Commerce and Industry, to investigate and report upon—
  1. (a) the serious discontent within the Public and Railways and Harbours services;
  2. (b) conditions of service, promotions, pay and allowances;
  3. (c) resultant shortages of staff, inefficiency and virtual collapse of public administration in many spheres;
  4. (d) wastage and unnecessary red-tape.

I regret that I have to bring the thoughts of the House back from the outer world to deal with problems nearer home.

Sir, the words I use in my motion are fairly strong words. They are strong charges to make, but charges which I believe I can substantiate. This motion affects over one-third of the economically active white population of South Africa, i.e. over 200,000 public servants and 115,000 white railway workers. When I refer to the Railways, I would like to place on record that the hon. the Minister of Transport did me the courtesy of explaining that he could not be here this afternoon. The Deputy Minister is with us, but as he has not had an opportunity yet to get his hand on the rudder I will not deal this afternoon with details in regard to Railway affairs. However, I do want to emphasize that I include the Railway services in the general picture. Merely to show why I include them I want to quote from the latest report of the General Manager himself for 1967. In this we find, and this is an achievement of which the Railways can be proud, that there was a decrease of 6,312 workers in the Railway Service and yet they handled an additional 4.6 per cent of traffic. With less workers there was a greater carriage of traffic. The House may remember that last year when the Railway Estimates were before this House we warned that this would place upon the Railway servants a very heavy burden indeed, that a smaller number of people would have to carry a greater burden. Now we find that the General Manager reports that—

Despite substantial increases in salaries and wages with effect from October, 1965, paymonth and the Department’s intensive recruiting effort, the staff shortages in certain key grades such as fireman, guard, shunter, station foreman, electrical fitter, fitter, electrician and motor mechanic, continued to cause serious concern.

Then he deals with specific cases and says—

Owing to the continual high wastage and the dearth of suitable applicants for appointment as trainees …

Why is it that there is this inability to get staff? Why is there a dearth of suitable applicants? I say that the same reasons apply in the Railway Service as apply in the Public Service; that there is over-work and overstrain for many, over-demands on those who are pulling their weight. So, whilst I will not deal with the details of Railway problems, I do include them in all the general aspects with which I will deal.

The motion has four legs and I will deal, as far as time allows, with each of those. The first one is that I allege that there is discontent. Now, what right have I to say that? If I say there is serious discontent in the Railway Service, I must substantiate it. I do so, firstly, from my personal contacts and knowledge of the people themselves who are concerned, from my talking to people who have expressed the deepest and most bitter dissatisfaction with their conditions of service, often over promotion and often over transfers, over salaries and allowances and over the conditions under which they are obliged to work. These are not hearsay; they are first-hand complaints. I have in this file alone four cases of complaint which are current and with which I am dealing at this moment. This is going on all the time, complaints of one type or another. Only this morning I received a letter stating the following—

In fact, I think that there would be ten times more dissatisfied Government and Railway servants than there were who applied to the last S.A.R. Grievances Commission in 1948.

That was the view of a presently serving member. I had a letter yesterday welcoming this motion and stating that a commission like this is long overdue and should have been appointed many years ago. These are from people who are actually concerned with the job. Therefore I believe that those of us whose duty it is to represent the people in this House have a duty to heed their pleas and to deal with their problems. It should be common cause. I challenge any hon. member on the Government benches to deny that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Public and Railway Services. You see, Sir, those hon. members do not like me to challenge them because there is now a dead silence. Hon. members must agree with me then. [Interjection.] I hope hon. members will make it clear where they stand, so that public servants and railwaymen will know the extent to which their interests are served by Government members who represent them in this House. All I am asking is for a commission of inquiry to investigate the grievances and the conditions of service. If everything is in order, if there are no complaints, if there are no problems, then the commission will prove it. Then that commission will justify the Administration and the Government and will prove that in fact I am wrong. But unless there is an investigation, the matter will still remain unresolved. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister of the Interior says that less than two years ago it was proved that I was wrong. I ask him now to test it again. [Interjection.] I have got now the repudiation which I wanted from the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He has made it clear now that he does not accept that there is any dissatisfaction. Then let me call other witnesses. I quote from the speech of a former Secretary of a Government Department, Mr. Piet Meiring, when he was addressing a gathering of public servants in October last year, as reported in the Rand Daily Mail. He said the following—

The Public Service was virtually the most unpopular of all employment choices of matriculants, and the time has come for a thorough investigation to find ways of improving the Service’s image.

He continued—

A thorough investigation was necessary to establish the cause of the lack of faith of the public in the Service.

Those are not my words, but the words of a former Secretary of a Government Department. I call him as witness and quote from the same speech in Die Vaderland of 21st October, where he is reported as saying—

Een van die vernaamste kwale wat hy by amptenare gevind het, is ’n gevoel dat hulle hul nie kan uitleef nie, ’n gevoel dat hulle hul teen ’n klip muur vasloop, ’n gevoel van frustrasie.

I quote from an article in The Public Servant, the journal of the Public Servants’ Association, which states, inter alia, that—

“the middle-grade public servant’s standard of living has not fallen.”

It has crashed. So I could go on calling witness after witness, the persons affected themselves, people who are serving members of the Departments. I could call as evidence a letter, obviously without a name, in Die Beeld. I say “obviously”, because what public servant dare put his name to a letter of complaint in which he makes the allegations that are made here? What should be challenged is not the authenticity of the letter but the facts that are stated in it, a letter quoted in Die Beeld of 16th July last year and signed by “Een Wat Weet”, in which he alleged chaos in the Service. He complains of “swak kantoorakkommodasie, swak of geen behuising nie, swak personeelvoorsiening. verlofen aflosreëlings, besoldiging en toelaes, organisasie, verplasings”, and he ends this letter by saying: “Die ontploffing kom.” Die Beeld then carried out an investigation, but how did it investigate? It went to an official of the Public Service Commission, who said: Well, there are a few complaints; you must accept that. But he whitewashed the allegations. I submit that if that investigation had been carried out on a broader field amongst the personnel themselves, there would have been many more people who would have supported this particular letter-writer.

If hon. members want more evidence, let me turn to Die Transvaler and refer to a report in its issue of the 4th October dealing with the agenda of the conference of public servants. These are some of the items which appeared on the agenda: “Die agteruitgang van die geldelike toestand van staatsamptenare weens stygende lewensduurte; Onvermoë van die Departement om met huidige Diensvoorwaardes kandidate te trek en te behou; Gevorderde en selfs senior vakkundige beamptes bedank om buite die staatsdiens beter salarisse te kry”. Then there was a complaint from the fingerprint department where there was a turnover of some 1,000 people in some 200 posts in a matter of 15 years. Another item reads: “Daar is baie klagtes oor die hoë rentekoers wat staatsamptenare op huislenings moet betaal. In vyf mosies word om verligting gevra”. Another complains over the “tariewe vir verblyfstoelaes wat op hoteltariewe van 1959 gegrond is”. So they go on. I have quotation upon quotation, not from political witnesses but the mouths of persons who themselves are members of the public service. So I say that not only from the knowledge that we have as a result of talking to these people but out of their own organization, their own conference, their own mouths, there is incontrovertible evidence of the need for an inquiry.

There is other evidence, statistical evidence. I am not a great believer in statistics, but nevertheless they are there. If one reads the latest rebort of the Public Service Commission which was tabled this Session, which goes back to the 1966 calendar year, one finds that the Commission seemed quite pleased with the position. It spoke of the favourable recruiting, reduction in vacancies, reduction in vacant posts and the success in recruiting new members. It states—

Recruiting was so favourable that most of the vacancies could readily be filled in the larger centres of the Republic.

Now, what does this “satisfactory position” consist of? The figures show that 6,305 persons joined the public service during the year under report, 1966. but at the same time 5,557 left the public service, in other words, a net gain of 800 out of some 212,000 people. This is regarded as satisfactory! Of the 5.500 who left. 4,500 resigned, 315 left on pension, 171 died and 468 were dismissed. 4.500 resigned the service. It proves there must be something wrong with the service if it loses almost as many people as it is able to recruit in one year. [Interjections.] It is also interesting to note that the P.S.C., when it deals with the question of resignations, gives a figure of 4,136 on page 4 of the report, but when one studies the tables at the back and the reasons for the resignations, one finds that figure is 4,503—only a mistake of some 400 or so! [Interjections.] They do not seem concerned about this position.

Mr. J. M. HENNING:

What percentage is that?

Mr. W. V. RAW:

The percentage is approximately … [Interjections.] No, I can give the exact percentages … [Interjections.] No, I will give the actual percentages; it varies for the different sections, the different departments.

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

I will help you: It is 4.5 per cent.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

No. In the general section it is 9.6 per cent. The hon. member for Primrose said it was 4.5, but if he had taken the trouble to look it up he would have seen it, it is here. It is, as I say, 9.6 per cent in the general section, 6 in the technical section, 5.8 in the professional section, and 1.7 per cent in the administrative section. If one adds those up and the numbers of each section, it is way up over 5 per cent … [Interjections.]. The figures are 6 per cent for the bottom group and 9.6 per cent for the general group. Last year the percentage for the general group was 9.1, whilst that for the administrative group increased from .52 to 1.7. In the professional group the percentage rose from 5 up to 5.8, and only the technical group came down from 6.9 to 6 per cent.

The point is that here we have 6,300 people joining the service, whilst 5,500 leave. We find as a result we have in the public service 23,000 vacant posts, some of which are filled by temporary incumbents and consequently not properly filled. This means that nearly 10 per cent of all posts in the public service are not filled.

We have knowledge of what the people concerned themselves say. We have the statistics. Moreover, we have the evidence of their own organizations and their resolutions and I submit that the basic cause of the dissatisfaction is inadequate pay and allowances. On a par with that are the poor conditions of service under which persons are expected to work.

The pay increases from 1948 to 1965 in the public service were 61 per cent, whilst the official cost of living index for the same period showed an increase of 70 per cent. If hon. members on that side do not believe it, they can look in Hansard of the 8th August, 1966. So. before the 1966 increases in salaries and wages the public servant was already 9 per cent behind the cost of living index. The cost of living had increased 9 per cent more than his own wages over that period. Thus the increase which the public servant received in 1966 was swallowed up before he even started.

Since then more time has passed, and to-day from every single department of state demand after demand for pay rises are being received.

Let me give hon. members another example of the unsatisfactory position. Let us look at the subsistence and travelling allowances paid to civil servants. A senior official gets an allowance of R5 per day. This Government is responsible for raising the standard of hotels so that to-day one cannot get bed and break-fast for R5 in any of our better hotels, let alone the other meals, let alone any other expenses. But a senior official is expected to come out on a mere R5 a day which does not even pay for his bed and breakfast, unless he goes to a third-rate or fourth-rate hotel. This sort of complaint creates dissatisfaction in the service. Municipalities pay between R8 and R13 subsistance allowance to their officials, and the Government should look after the officials who have to travel about in the interests of South Africa.

I have here an advertisement offering a job in the Customs Department. It advertises the job of outdoor officer, a job which has attached to it the temptation of bribes being offered by people attempting to smuggle goods. What is the salary scale of the job? It starts at R750 per annum, which means R64 per month. That is the starting salary of an official in the Customs Department. How do we expect people to exist on such poor pay? [Interjections.]

I said that the discontent and the poor conditions of service have led to the large number of vacancies. The fact that there is a 10 per cent shortage of staff in the service does not mean that everyone just has to work 10 per cent harder. The extra work is not spread in that way. No, it means two things. In the first place, the many thousands of dedicated and conscientious officials have to work impossible hours in order to carry the extra load. Not only do they have to do their own work, they also have to carry the minority of slackers, the people who do not or are unable to pull their weight. They are unable to do anything about it because they cannot replace those slackers if they sack them. So the dedicated worker has to carry a tremendous burden, a load out of all proportion to the existing shortages. With the extra strain it is inevitable that in its wake must come tension and, with that, inefficiency. In some departments the administration has almost broken down. [Interjection.] The office of the receiver of revenue in Johannesburg is one of those offices from where the files have to be sent to Pretoria to be assessed. Do you know what those people are paid, Sir? They have gone over to a five-day week, but they still work on Saturdays; so they still have a six-day week, only Saturday becomes overtime. For this they get paid the magnificent sum of 28c per hour for overtime if they work a minimum of five hours.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Are these assessors?

Mr. W. V. RAW:

I assume this applies to all staff in the revenue office who work on Saturday mornings. That means they get paid R1.40 for a Saturday morning. However, if their buses are 15 minutes late and they get to work at 8.15 instead of at 8 o’clock, they cannot work the full five hours and they do not receive a cent for the 4¾ hours which they work. These are the sort of complaints we hear. [Interjections.] Disprove it. The hon. member doubts this, and I ask him to disprove it. I say that is in fact the position. If that hon. member wants them to work that way, then the civil servants can know where their friends are in this House.

The hon. the Minister may say the public service have their own channels through which they can air their complaints. One of them is the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. I do not have time to deal with them in detail, but 12 resolutions were submitted during the year under discussion. What happened to them? According to the report the following was their fate: Rejected; receiving consideration; still under consideration; rejected; no comment at this stage; no comment at this stage; not prepared to refer to the Administration; rejected; still receiving attention; satisfied that the official measures are satisfactory; satisfied that the present system is sufficient; the time is not opportune; will be prepared to consider cases favourably. Only one matter was dealt with satisfactorily and that is the re-employment of people who resign to marry and then rejoin because they in fact did not get married. That is the only recommendation which was acceded to. The ones dealing with pay, with conditions of services, with the welfare of the staff in general, are all postponed, put off, or rejected.

So much then for that official channel. What happened to the resolutions? The answer from the Chairman of the P.S.C. when he addressed the conference was that “people should try not to live beyond their means. We should seriously take stock of our position and consider whether in fact we are not living beyond our means.” He conceded that there were a few who were suffering, but he appealed and said that public servants should make every effort to curb personal expenditure. So much for Dr. Steyn, the chairman of the Public Service Commission. So much for the sympathy of the Government. And so, the Public Service having failed through its official channels, I bring their problem and their case here before the highest court of appeal which is available to them, namely the Parliament of South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister and Government members will agree to investigate the conditions, the circumstances, the problems and the difficulties under which some one-third of the economically active white people of South Africa are obliged to work to-day. I believe Parliament owes this to the Public Service of South Africa, it owes it to the people who are responsible for making the wheels of Government turn, the people without whom there would be no government in South Africa, the people on whom every Cabinet Minister depends in order that this department functions. Without the Public Service there is no government. And we as the legislators of South Africa owe to the Public Service and the Railway Service of South Africa at least the opportunity to state their case, to state their problems, not before their own bosses, but before an independent commission on which they will themselves be represented, on which commerce and industry will be represented and before which they can put their case fearlessly with the knowledge that it will receive impartial consideration. Appeals direct to the Minister, we realize, cannot help. And so, Mr. Speaker, I move this motion in the sincere hope that we will achieve something for the Public Service of South Africa.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

This motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point) creates a totally distorted image of a very important situation in South Africa. Under these circumstances I move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to

substitute “this House—

  1. (1) expresses its appreciation to the Government for the steps which have been and are being taken to improve conditions of service, remuneration, working conditions, promotions, allowances and efficiency in the Public and Railway and Harbour Services;
  2. (2) expresses its appreciation to public servants and officials of the Railways and Harbours Administration for their important share in the development of the country and for their responsible attitude in connection with claims for wage increases; and
  3. (3) expresses its confidence that at the earliest opportunity the Government will favourably consider the claims of officials in connection with remuneration and other matters affecting their interests, having regard to the best interests of the country.”

The hon. member introduced this motion here this afternoon, which I really regard as a very irresponsible one and with which I am now going to deal, as if he had a Rolls-Royce to offer, whereas in reality he had nothing more to offer than a bicycle. We are not going to deny that in a Government establishment with more than 202,000 white posts and in the Railways administration with more than 115,000 white posts we will not meet with dissatisfaction. We will not deny that. There is dissatisfaction and we are aware of it. But what sort of dissatisfaction is there? There is dissatisfaction with concepts, and I am afraid that this is more than one can say of the hon. member for Durban (Point), as has been demonstrated in this motion, where he stated for example that the public administration was collapsing, and where he spoke about serious dissatisfaction in regard to scores of things he mentioned. If one takes a closer look at this motion it is very clear that it was moved with certain ends in view. It is being moved here to serve to clear the way in order to try and stir up a rebellion in the Public Service and in the Railways Administration in South Africa. That is the point. The motive is very clear. The motive, in the first place, is to make political capital out of it in a subtle way, and in the second place to undermine in a subtle way the successful steps taken by the Government to combat inflation. In the third place the motive is—and this is contained by implication in the motion—that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is calling upon the Public Service and the Railways Officials to do that hon. member’s and the Opposition’s dirty work for them. That is what it amounts to. And I am very convinced that the officials will never lend themselves to that sort of thing. But in the fourth place the motion contains something which is even worse than what I have already mentioned. Mention is made of the virtual collapse of public administration. This motion is a motion of no-confidence in the existing Government machinery to bring about negotiations in respect of remuneration, allowances, increases and all those things. And what is that system of negotiations in which no confidence is being expressed through this motion? That system of negotiation is a system whereby the officials can have their case put by staff associations and the Appeal Board of the Railways Service, in which the officials have representation and are able to elect the best people from their own ranks who, to their minds, will be able to put their case most favourably. That is the system of negotiation. In South Africa, unlike Great Britain and other countries, we have no strikes. Why not? Because our system of negotiation is such an excellent one. And now, if you please, a frontbencher of the Opposition stands up here on a Friday afternoon in the House of Assembly and talks about public administration which is collapsing, and about this serious dissatisfaction in the Public Service and in the Railways Administration. I maintain that it is a serious motion of no confidence in the leaders of their staff associations, the management of these staff associations of the officials, and a serious motion of no confidence in every public servant and Railway official. They will know how to deal with his hon. member. I shall support my statements. As a result of this negotiation —and remember now that we say that these people do have a case to put in the present circumstances and we admit it very candidly— these responsible parties, consisting of elected Public Servants, issued the following Press statement on 22nd August, 1967, their mouthpiece being the Joint Advisory Council for the Public Service. I quote (translation)—

Although the Council realizes …

This Council of officials,

… that the officials are suffering financial hardships and are lagging behind the workers in the private sector, it is—in view of the hon. the Prime Minister’s appeal to the effect that workers should not at this stage make claims which may further the danger of inflation—not prepared to support a general salary increase.

The officials, therefore, are saying so themselves. Furthermore the statement reads that the Council is, however, making an appeal to the Government to institute an urgent investigation into the possibility of doing certain things which, owing to lack of time, I cannot go into any further. I am quoting only the last paragraph of the Press statement.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Were those things done?

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

I shall deal with that in a moment. The Press statement concluded with these words—

At the same time the Council takes cognizance of the Prime Ministe’r indication that, as soon as the struggle against inflation has been won, any reasonable salary demands can be taken under review.

That is why I say that as it has been moved by the hon. member, this is a motion of serious no confidence in the officials. I want to issue him with a challenge. I want to ask him to approach the officials of the Public Service and the Railways Administration and ask them whether they are satisfied with the system of negotiation with the State and the Government, and then ask them whether they are dissatisfied. I want to make a bet with him. If he returns and is able to say that the officials have stated that they are not satisfied with it, I shall give him a bottle of whisky. But if I win, he need not give me anything. He must simply promise me that he will speak in every debate in this Session, because every time the hon. member rises to speak, the National Party wins great support in South Africa.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

You want to gamble with the welfare of the …

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

No. I want to ask the hon. member a straight question. Since he has now moved this motion of no confidence this afternoon in the staff, their administration and their associations, I want to ask him—if he has that lack of confidence in them now—what he would suggest in its place. Will the hon. member go and inform the officials outside of what it is he suggests in its place? He has nothing to put in its place, because the system is functioning extremely well in the sight of all, and is the best system in any country in the whole wide world. But I am coming now to the representations of the public servants.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Will their requests be accepted?

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

I am coming to that in a moment. In regard to the representations which the public servants made for wage increases and allowances, this Government has never adopted the attitude that that position is frozen. The Government has never said that those claims will not be granted. And what I am going to say now, I shall say with all the responsibility I can command. Our Government realizes only too well that wage increases for our officials may be justified. The attitude of the Government in this regard is extremely sympathetic. We agree that the officials are making out a good case in regard to these matters. But in contrast to an irresponsible Opposition which has a lot of glib things to say about this matter, the Government, as in all matters, is adopting a very responsible attitude, by determining in the first place whether, in the present economic circumstances of South Africa, it is in the country’s interests to grant wage increases at this stage. That is the difference between that side and this side of the House. We make inquiries and we make certain whether it is in the interests of the country or whether it is not in the interests of the country. But the Opposition cannot worry, because it is not necessary for them to worry about it. The question in regard to wage increases for our officials is something towards which we are very sympathetic. But can our economy in its present condition, where we are struggling to cope effectively with inflation, afford it? Can the Opposition differ from this point of view? Surely they cannot. I am even prepared to go further. This is what the hon. member for Durban (Point) really wants me to say, and I am going to say it. I am prepared to venture my own opinion in regard to this matter, and it is as follows. I personally think that it can be anticipated that the time can no longer be far off when the representations of these officials will be complied with. And if that happens it will be in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of the officials. I want to tell that hon. member emphatically that this Government is not there to stand by and witness the liquidation of our Public Servants and Railways officials, but to let them have in every respect the very best of what South Africa can offer them. We are very proud of our officials and we know what we have in them. That is why we want to offer them the best in the interests of the country and in their own interests which we are able to offer. But I want to go further.

This motion talks about serious dissatisfaction, staff shortages and the collapse of public administration. Now I should like to say the following to the hon. member: He who ex-aggerates his statements, belittles himself. Now I do not know whether the hon. member feels the need to belittle himself. The fact of the matter is simply that the labour turnover amongst public servants, male public servants,

in the Public Service is only between 6 and 9 per cent. That is the labour turnover. I can, however, inform you that one of our largest and most Well known private companies, which functions on a country-wide basis in the Republic of South Africa, had a labour turnover last year—when that of the Public Service was between 6 and 9 per cent—of 26 per cent. Let that hon. member and a few of the businessmen on the opposite side of the House stand up and tell us how the labour turnover of our largest and best private companies compares to-day with this labour turnover of 6 and 9 per cent in our Public Service. But what is more: Are you aware that in one of our largest Departments in the Republic of South Africa, namely the Railways, 18,777 people resigned in 1965? But, in the same year, there were 21,127 applications for re-employment. In other words there were over 3,000 more applications for re-employment than there were resignations in the Railways. In 1966 the resignation figure was 16,238, but there were almost 17,000 applications for re-employment, almost a thousand more.

Now I ask the hon. member who introduced this wild motion here: Since, in 1965, almost 12,000 people had been appointed in the Railways Administration after they had applied for re-employment, in 1966 almost 7,000, and in 1967 almost 8,000, what else can this testify to than the security which the Public Service, and also specifically the Railways offers its officials? I should like to know whether it testifies to anything else but that. Does it look like serious dissatisfaction if these people return in their thousands after they went to graze on the other side of the fence where attractive offers were made to them and then returned to make application for re-employment? The general increase in the total number of appointments and re-appointments in the Public Service is to a large extent attributable to the favourable recognition of seniority and salary which is given in respect of qualifications and experience in these Departments. The general position in respect of the Public Service, in violent contrast to what the hon. member wants to make us believe in this House, is an extremely favourable one. I am giving the hon. members on the opposite side the facts. The general staff position on the Railways and in the rest of the Public Service is extremely favourable, and I shall prove this. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the number of posts —and now the hon. member must follow me carefully—in the Public Service stood at 161,000 on 31st December, 1962. It increased to 202,000, at the end of 1966, the last year for which figures are available. The percentage increase in the number of Public Service posts in 1963 was 3.7 per cent, in 1964 11.9 per cent (12,800 Coloured teachers, were, however, included then), in 1965 2.6 per cent, and in 1966 it was 5.7 per cent (in that year Indian teachers were included which pushed the percentage up a little).

I now want to issue a further challenge to the hon. member. [Interjection.] Well, the total increase is quite correct, after the deductions have been made. I do not dispute that figure. It is correct. But I now want to ask the hon. member to mention a single private company with such a large establishment which displayed this favourable, stable increase in officials, over such a short period as that from 1962 to 1965. But now he must view this against a different background which is even more important, and this is something which has been conducive to great efficiency in our Public Service during the past few years. As a result of the work study programme which this Government, and not the hon. Opposition undertook, to save costs, to reduce work and to obtain more productive labour, the Public Service succeeded up to and including the end of 1965, in the midst of the expansion of these figures which I furnished you with, to meet the needs of a developing country, and—to my mind this is a miracle—to bring about the abolition of 2,762 posts as a result of these investigations and the introduction of improved working methods. But that is not all. As a result of this work study programme they prevented 2,390 posts, which would otherwise have been created, from being created. I challenge the hon. member: Give me the name of one private company, Harry Oppenheimer included, that can do what we have done. [Interjections.]

No, that hon. member has not yet received his drubbing. That is still to come. On an extremely conservative estimate—and I took a great deal of trouble to establish this, and he can test my facts—it entailed a saving of more than R5 million. Does that look like wastage, as this motion is trying to indicate? Does that look like inefficiency?

But that is by no means all. Investigations in regard to the efficient utilization of accommodation alone, led to a capital saving of R9,300,000, whereas the reciprocating savings amounted to R154,000 per year. Is that wastage or inefficiency? I should like to know. But I am not finished yet. The estimated annual reciprocal capital savings on equipment was R4,800,000, and on supplies R2,200,000.

Is that wastage or inefficiency? Since a start was made with mechanization investigations in 1966, 336 investigations had been made and these have lead to reciprocating savings in the region of R160,000 per annum. This is why the hon. member’s motion puts me in mind of what Langenhoven once said, since the hon. member is saying here that the Public Service is topsy-turvy and that everything is chaotic. Langenhoven said: I often think the whole world is topsy-turvy, and then it turns out to be my stomach all the time.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

You can jest if you like.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Mr. Speaker, as far as greater efficiency is concerned, it is being increased by training, by bursaries—up to 1966 3,300 bursaries had been granted for local and overseas students—diploma courses, inaugural training, supervisor’s courses, management training—in 1966 363 officers were given this training—training in work study, as well as departmental training.

In addition I want to discuss automatic data processing. In this respect, according to the report of the Controller and Auditor General, no less than R2,254,000 has been spent on the installation of electronic apparatus and equipment in our Public Service since 31st March, 1966, up to the end of 1967. Does that look like wastage and inefficiency? Go and have a look on page 60 of the Controller and Auditor General’s report and see how many departments already have electronic equipment to-day. The hon. member went along with me to the Department of Social Welfare, surely he saw it himself? He must not come here with these allegations. Then I am not even mentioning how, over the past two years, the position at the management level in the Public Service has been improved as the result of a brilliant management system in order to ensure the smoother functioning of business.

What I do want to talk about before I conclude, and this is hilarious, is the last sentence of the hon. member’s motion in which he talks about “unnecessary red tape”. We are all agreed that official red tape, if it is unnecessary, is of course a bad thing. Nobody likes red tape in the Public Service, but it is sometimes necessary. We must act responsibly towards this so-called red tape. In 1967 this Government amended the Public Service Act in order to get at the root of this red tape and do something about it. We have also heard of Parkinson’s law. It is being applied on this side of the House. The solution to the root cause of red tape is rapid decisions. How does one obtain rapid decisions? It is very simple, it is done by means of a greater delegation of power. Last year this Public Service Act for the purpose of obtaining increased delegation of power and more rapid decisions, to reduce red tape therefore, was before this House. The Opposition opposed it and voted against it. What a circus! Now, scarcely a year later, the Opposition is comdemning red tape. Why did it not support us when we wanted to restrict this red tape? That is why I say: The Opposition is in fact a circus, and the finest and most charming clown in the entire circus is the hon. member for Durban (Point). I think the Public Servants will deal with him.

I want to conclude by quoting from a speech made last year by the one man who ought to know what is going on in the Public Service, namely the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. In a public speech he had the following to say—

I wish to assert with confidence that both the Central Public Service and the Provincial Administrations are as efficient and as trustworthy as any of the leading organizations in this country. In saying this, I do not try to convey the impression that there is no scope for improvement. On the contrary there will always be scope for improvement, since no organization can ever claim to be super efficient.

That is our point of view. Things are going well in the Public Service. Things are going well in the Railways Administration, but we shall continue to make improvements. We are sympathetically inclined, and we shall, in a dynamic manner, meet these people’s needs in accordance with what is in the best interests of the country, as is befitting a responsible government.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

*The ACTING SPEAKER:

Order! Order! I just want to point out to hon. members that this is not a circus, and that I will not allow this shouting. The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The hon. member for Primrose moved an amendment here this after-noon. The amendment consisted of three parts. I think it ought to be stated here that we agree with the spirit, if not the words, of one part of that amendment, namely the part where appreciation is expressed to the Public Service for the competent way in which it is fulfilling its task, and in which appreciation is also expressed to the Public Service for the sense of responsibility it displayed in regard to claims for improved wages and working conditions. We are agreed on that. We are particularly agreed on that because it constitutes such a glaring contrast to the lack of action on the part of this Government and the boundless irresponsibility in regard to a matter such as this.

The hon. member for Primrose made a few excuses for nothing having been done for public servants. He admitted that public servants had a case. These were his words: “These people have a case. We say this candidly.” I am pleased that we had this admission, because after this admission we are entitled to ask: When will there be action? The hon. member for Primrose came forward with the old story. Yes, it is the story of the danger of inflation which will exist if Public Service staff were given better conditions. Let me furnish him with a reply from the official publication of the public servants themselves. The following appeared in Die Staatsamptenaar (translation)—

Increasing the salaries of public servants will not promote inflation. It has been proved in the past that general salary increases in the Public Service have given indications of a very slight influence, if any, on the price index figure. And yet we now find this strange situation.

This is what is stated in Die Staatsamptenaar, and it is virtually a reply to what the hon. member for Primrose said (translation)—

The price index is increasing relentlessly, but they cannot be granted an increase, because, you see, it would promote inflation. The Estimates show excessively large surpluses, but a share of that is not allotted to the official. The only thing expected from him is to make firm sacrifices in order to combat possible inflation.

These are not my words, but the words of the official publication of the most important association of public servants in South Africa. They say it in polite words, but say that it is sheer, blatant nonsense to be continually coming to light with the story that inflation is to blame for it being impossible to create better conditions for the Public Service. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there may well be inflation amongst certain people in this House. The hon. member for Primrose can afford to bet a bottle of whisky, as he did here this afternoon, on the future of the families, children and parents of the public servants. I wonder how many public servants could afford to do likewise?

The hon. member boasted here that the turnover in the Public Service was between 6 and 9 per cent per year. If it is 9 per cent per year, it would mean that in the course of 11 years, if new people resigned each year, an entirely new Public Service would come into being. That is how serious the position is. However, I believe that the situation is far more serious. Last year the Cabinet addressed a special circular to Government Departments in which they were requested not to canvas staff from one another, and in which it was stipulated that public servants were not allowed, except under the most stringent conditions, to apply for a post in the Industrial Development Corporation, Escom, or any of those other bodies outside the direct control of the State. It was even stipulated that they were not allowed to make applications to the S.A.B.C. There would have been tens of thousands more applications for transfer and resignations from the Public Service each year if it had not been for provisions such as this one, provisions which, for example, stated that officials from one Government Department could not transfer to another unless a full period of six months had elapsed, and if arrangements had not been made between this Government, certain Departments and major private undertakings, inter alia, banks, the names of which I cannot mention, to the effect that they could not appoint persons who had been employed in the Public Service. Here is proof that the turnover in the Public Service would have been much greater if it had not been for this virtual dictatorship over the public servant in the Public Service to-day. The same applies to public servants and municipalities.

Let us admit on both sides, as the hon. member for Primrose said, that the public servants have a case. Let us see how strong their case is. Let us have a look at what has not been done, and what can in fact be done. I think we owe the hon. member for Durban (Point) a vote of thanks for the private motion he introduced. It is not only the public servants who will be grateful; I think the country is grateful because it points a finger at a difficult problem which is virtually crying out for a solution. There is no doubt that the Public Service to-day is to a large extent the step-child of this Government. We were told in this House last week that it made no difference what the Bantustans would cost; but the interests of the public servant, his wife and his child, even though it would only cost a few rand, are being neglected.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You want the black man in the Public Service.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

That hon. member actually does not realize that the figures show that under his Government more and more Blacks are coming into the Public Service than ever before, and also that more and more Blacks are coming into the Railways. It has also been brought to my attention that more and more black people are being taken up into the Police Force. We admire the public servant for his patience, particularly when he has to hear, not for the first or the tenth but for the hundredth time, that the Government is sympathetically disposed towards the public servant. Mr. Speaker, can one eat sympathy? What does that sympathy signify, if it is not followed up by sympathetic deeds?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

You tried once to be a candidate for the officials.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I would not mind standing for an election in Pretoria at some time or other, because there are all kinds of elections being held in Pretoria to-day. The Prime Minister probably has as much difficulty with an election there. I just want hon. members to understand that I am justified when I devote my discussion this afternoon to one very important section of the Public Service, namely that large, hard-working group of people in the Post Office service. Approximately 40,000 out of an approximate number of 200,000 public servants are employed by the Post Office. This is the largest department, as far as staff is concerned, and I am not talking about the Railways now, but about the entire Public Service in South Africa. I want to contend that of all the public servants, they are receiving the worst treatment. Of all public servants they have the least chance of promotion. The number of high posts in the Post Office service is the smallest, expressed as a percentage, of all the departments. In the Department of Bantu Administration there are, expressed as a percentage, four times as many highly paid posts than there are in the Post Office. The Post Office is also in a unique position. In most of the other departments a 40-hour week has, for the most part, already been introduced. But in the Post Office the majority of the officials are still working more than 40 hours. Many of them work from 42 to 48 hours per week without payment for overtime. They are also in a unique position because a five-day week has been introduced in most branches of the Public Service, but not in the Post Office. In the Post Office 75 per cent, if not more, of the staff are still working on a longer basis than the five-day week. The Post Office is also in a unique position because its staff do more overtime and Sunday time work than any other department in South Africa. Almost 80 per cent of all the overtime which is being worked in the Public Service, once again excluding the Railways, is being worked in the Post Office. This year I expect that almost 11 million hours overtime are going to be worked. That is a fantastic figure, and it is no wonder that the Post Office staff are entitled to special treatment for what they are doing.

I am pleased that the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has done us the honour of being present here this afternoon. He is a new Minister and I do not want to lay the blame on him for any of the things which I have mentioned up to now. I even want to go so far as to say that the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was not entirely to blame either for what happened to the staff in the Post Office in the past. There are other Ministers who were also concerned. This afternoon we have the Minister present here who is in command of the entire Public Service, the Minister who does not care much for what the Post Office Staff Association wants. Perhaps this hon. Minister of the Interior is the next stumbling block. Perhaps it may be necessary to “leapfrog” over his head to the hon. the Prime Minister again. I come at last to the hon. the Prime Minister himself, and we hope that we will, at least within the following month or two, have a statement from him which, if it does not satisfy the Public Service, because it is too late to satisfy them, will at least eliminate a small number of their grievances.

One must view these things against the background of the promises which were made by this Government to the public servants and the workers of South Africa. Let me read to you what promises were made by the main speaker on labour matters many years ago on that side of the House. I would prefer not to say how many years ago, because then they will feel even more ashamed when they realize how long those promises have remained unfulfilled. Here is a promise made by the present Minister of Transport quite a good few years ago. He said this: “There must be uniformity in regard to wages between the private service and the Public Service.” Is there uniformity of wages to-day between private concerns and the Public Service? They were promised the following in regard to Sunday time—

When work has to be done on Sundays, it should only be done at double the normal wage.

Mr. Speaker, I can indicate how Sunday-time is to-day being worked not at double the wage, not at time and a half, not, at the same wage, but at less than the normal daily wage, and even less for normal overtime. There is to-day a working week of 44 to 48 hours in the Post Office, but years ago they were promised something else, once again by the Minister of Transport, when he spoke on behalf of his own party. This is what he said: “I want to go further. We propose a working week of 40 hours.” He said that that was the policy of the National Party. Here are the promises. The promises came and the promises went, but what never came, was the fulfilment of those promises. The position in regard to overtime is truly an unendurable one. Let me sketch it briefly.

Overtime scales were last laid down in November, 1963. That was five years ago. In the meantime there have been salary adjustments, and one of the most important was the salary adjustment of 1st January, 1966, more than two years ago. Now one would have expected that overtime payment would also have been adjusted. But do you know, Sir, that since that increase which I mentioned, namely, that of the 1st December, 1966, public servants have been paid overtime on the 1963 scale for more than two years. Is it any wonder that overtime rates and overtime scales are to-day in numerous cases 10 per cent, 20 per cent and—so somebody told me—even more than 30 per cent below the daily scale of the public servant? I wonder whether it is possible to mention any industry, or business, where people are being forced to work overtime at a lower scale of remuneration than their normal wage. This is not even the case on the Railways, as far as I know. As far as I know, this is not the case in one single undertaking of a private nature in South Africa.

Once again one sees this against the background of a promise. I am referring here to a circular in regard to overtime payments sent out two years ago. It was sent out to Post Office and other public servants. The contents of that circular were conveyed to us last year by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It was indicated in that circular—this is the Government circular—that a general revision of the basis of overtime payment would be undertaken, and that revised tariffs would subsequently be announced. Then the Minister— I do not want to say had the temerity—revealed his ignorance by adding to that that no undertaking had been given. But here he is giving that undertaking. The undertaking was given that overtime payments would be revised and that it would be announced what these revised overtime payments would be. What else can it mean but that those overtime payments would, in some way or another, be adjusted to normal wages? That is what the public servants expected, and that is what the Post Office expected for its 40,000 people.

They gave the hon. Minister time, more than eleven months’ time, and then on 3rd November, 1966, 11 months later, one of the Post Office staff associations went to him and asked: “What has become of this promise?” The reply was: “We are sympathetically disposed towards you; you will have to wait.” Two months later, 13 months after it all began, they asked again. Once again the reply was: “We are sympathetic; be patient.” In February, 1967, they asked again. Once again the reply was: “We are sympathetic; but be patient.” In March, 15 months ago, they asked again, and once again received the same reply. In July they again received the same reply. In November they received the same reply. On 1st December last year, almost two years later, they once again received the same reply. This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister, in reply to a question put by me, stated that on 20th December last year he received another request from the Post Office staff. He replied to it. Telegrams were sent to him. On the 4th and 12th January telegrams were sent to him. On 23rd January the Minister, Dr. Hertzog, was notified that the Post Office staff had been granted an interview. I take it that that interview is going to take place. I expect that it is going to take place within the next week. Today is already the 16th February.

I hope that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, as well as the hon. the Minister of the Interior will both be present at that interview, that they will not go and talk about inflation there, that they will not go there to support stories about costs, and that they will, in particular, take a little less sympathy and a few more deeds with them, We are entitled to ask that these matters in regard to wages and overtime, which also affect other sections of the public service, be rectified as quickly as possible—I almost wanted to say “before the Budget”, but let me rather say, “long before the Budget next month”—and that this be done according to the principle that proper overtime payment and fair adjustment of wages will be granted. Secondly, I am asking that serious attention be given to the possibility of making these increased payments with retrospective effect. That is what is being requested by the staff associations. That would be a small concession to make for the 25 to 26 months which public servants have had to wait up to now with sympathy their only reward. I hope further steps will be taken to see to it that something of a similar nature does not happen again, that wages are not adjusted after years, and that a further two years have then to be waited before overtime payment is adjusted. If it is possible to adjust overtime payments more rapidly on the Railways, why is it not possible for this to be done in the Post Office and in the Public Service itself?

Sir, there has already been a speaker on that side, and we will have other speakers on this side. We have heard the story of inflation here, but we have not yet heard the specific story that there is no money at present. There is as much money as is necessary to implement the Bantustan policy of the Government, but according to the other side there is no money for the improvement of the working conditions and the wages, and the overtime of the post office staff and the public servants. Let us consider for a moment how much money there really is, not money which was derived from good and hard work by the Government, but money which was derived through further direct and indirect taxes imposed on the people of South Africa. Let us look at the Post Office. Last year the hon. the Minister of Posts increased telephone tariffs. He increased them by 30 per cent and more, and when the tariffs had been increased, he said: “I am going to increase the tariff, because I want to supply the public with better services; because I want to improve the position of the Post Office staff—just give me the money and I shall do so; do not be angry with me about these extra telephone tariffs; I know it is going to cause a little inconvenience, but think of the great advantages attached to it, i.e. better Post Office services and a happier Post Office staff.”

Sir, we have been waiting now for a year. When are those improved conditions for the Post Office staff going to come? Let me mention this factor to you: During the last nine months of last year, from 1st April to 31st December, the Post Office service made the greatest profit in its history as a result of this increase in tariffs. In those nine months the Post Office obtained R31 million more than it paid out. The Post Office was R12 million better off than in the previous year. I admit that a part of that money goes in interest and that there are still books which have to be balanced, but there is one clear deduction.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What about the capital expenditure?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The hon. member did not listen to what I said. I said that I admitted that interest had to be paid …

*An HON. MEMBER:

But what about the capital expenditure?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

If capital expenditure is included then the income of the Post Office is now exceeding its expenditure by more than R21 million. The money is therefore to be found there in the Post Office. It is not money which fell from the air, it is money which was taken from the pocket of the ordinary citizen in South Africa, with the promise that it would be used, inter alia, to supply improved Post Office services, and one can only have a better Post Office if one has satisfied staff. Now I am asking the hon. the Minister of the Interior: Why has nothing been done up to now? Do not tell us that there is no money. We know that there is in fact money. Do not tell us that it is going to cause inflation if some money is put into the pockets of the public servants. They are not going to spend that money on luxuries; no, it will be used to pay overdrawn accounts and debts. Surely that does not promote inflation; it is a form of saving. [Interjections.] Why can I not talk about it?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am pleased to observe that there is one person in the Government front benches who is now emerging as an expert on finance, namely, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the well-known former expert in the field of agricultural technical services and who to-day, for some reason or other, is the Minister in control of the Public Service. Let me recommend to him that he should rather display the modesty of the hon. the Prime Minister who admits frankly that his knowledge of economy is perhaps not as extensive as he would have liked it to be.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have proved here this afternoon what the hon. member for Primrose said, but did not want to prove, namely, that the public servant has a case, and secondly, that that large group of 40,000 people in the Post Office, of all the public servants, have the best case; that the money is there and that it will not give rise to inflation if something is done for them, and done quickly. Let us admit that whatever is done, it will already be a year or two too late. It has been too late for months already, but let us hope that the damage which has been done will, to a small degree, be rectified. More legislation is going to be introduced. The Staff Board of the Post Office is not going to obtain the powers it wanted; the hon. the Minister is coming forward with another piece of legislation, but a new piece of legislation is not the most urgent matter at the moment; the urgent matter is to improve the standard of living and the working conditions of public servants in their tens of thousands. When I say this it is more than a plea; it is more than an appeal; it is more than a request. I think I am entitled to say that, in the name of common justice, on behalf of tens of thousands of families in South Africa, it is not an appeal or a request, it is a firm and compelling demand addressed to this Government from this side of the House and from South Africa.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

Mr. Speaker, permit me to read to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove, what appears in the third part of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He accuses the Public Service of three things.

In the first place, he refers to shortages of staff, something for which the Public Service officials is not responsible. But then the hon. member for Durban (Point) refers in his motion to “inefficiency and virtual collapse of public administration”. That is what appears in the hon. member’s motion. And right away the hon. member for Orange Grove gets on his feet and praises the public servants for their efficiency and their diligence. Did you ever! The motion reads that the Public Service and the public servants are inefficient and that the public administration is virtually collapsing, but the hon. member for Orange Grove says: “Things are going beautifully and we thank you for what you have done.”

But this is not all that I find so strange about the hon. member for Orange Grove. If he submits a lengthy plea here on behalf of the Post Office staff, then I agree wholeheartedly with him. I think that the Post Office officials are doing excellent work for us and that they are working under difficult circumstances. The hon. member said here with a great deal of emphasis that the Post Office staff was still working a 42-hour week in contrast with other public servants who have been working a 40-hour week for a long time. I want to ask him whether that 40-hour week worked by other public servants was introduced by the United Party Government or whether this Government created those improved conditions? The hon. member must admit that the five-day week, improved pension benefits, etc., were introduced by this Government, while these improvements should have come at the time when it was in the power of the party opposite to take action and not only to criticize.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) refers in his motion to the so-called “serious discontent within the Public and Railways and Harbours services”. Sir, I represent a constituency in which officials of the South African Railways and Harbours are working and their interests are near to my heart. In introducing his motion the hon. member levelled the charge at the Government that the reason why these people could not be paid more, was to be found in the fact that the Government was implementing its Bantustan policy. I want to tell the hon. member that I know the Railway officials and the public servants. Ask them if they want higher salaries and endanger White civilization. Ask them to make a choice. I know the Railway officials and the public servants. They will tell the Government, “Go ahead with the work; we do not mind paying for our own future and for that of our children”. The hon. member must therefore not come to us with that argument. [Interjections.] No, we are going to have a wealthy South Africa; South Africa is wealthy to-day. I want to agree with what the hon. member for Primrose said and I hold that out as a prospect for the future as that has always been the policy of the Government—not because I know anything more than the Opposition does, but only because I know what the policy of this Government is, namely, that the officials will receive the assistance to which they are entitled.

But I want to mention a few small matters in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Primrose. While tribute is being paid to the public servants and the Railway officials, I just want to place it on record that this side of the House appreciates the work being done by the Railways officials and the public servants. I also want to ask the Opposition, and in particular the mover of this motion, to go into the special circumstances of South Africa before criticizing the entire Public Service and all Railway officials in a motion such as this. If I were to judge by the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite, then it would seem as though the circumstances prevailing in South Africa were unknown to the Opposition. I want to ask them to think again about the growth which our country has experienced over the past years, the tremendous growth in all spheres, and at the same time to think about the special circumstances which do not exist in industries, or in other concerns localized at one place, but which do apply to our public servants and Railway officials to a marked extent. I am speaking here of the division of the Republic of South Africa into four provinces with three capitals for the Republic. Have hon. members of the Opposition ever thought under what tremendous tension the Public Service must work? Because for six months of the year public servants must be here in Cape Town, because there is a gentleman’s agreement between the provinces to maintain this arrangement. Have hon. members ever thought of the particular demand made upon public servants and Railway officials in that they have to travel from Pretoria, with all the disruptions involved for their families, to do their work here as a result of arrangements which have existed for years? Have hon. members ever thought, when they speak of red-tape, and when accusations are made here in connection with the wastage, what it means to the officials to have to telex to Pretoria from Cape Town, for the benefit of Members of Parliament who sometimes come to them with trifling things, so as to enable members to obtain information for solving the problems of even a pensioner, an old-age pensioner, who lives in the far off constituencies of the Transvaal and Natal and the Free State? Have hon. members ever thought of the sacrifices these people make in that they have to do their work from Pretoria? And then hon. members of the Opposition come with the accusation that there is unnecessary red-tape. I want to say that an industry would indeed be fortunate if it could obtain the staff of the Public Service, these loyal officials, who can do so much work under these conditions. I would rather pay tribute to them than produce the veiled criticism contained in this motion. But more than that: Have the hon. members opposite, and the mover of the motion, given any thought to what disruption this system on the basis of Union, with its resultant duplication, can sometimes bring about in the work of the officials? Is it therefore necessary to direct accusation at the public servants, or should we rather pay them the tribute they deserve for the efficient work which is being done, even though there may be necessary overlapping at times?

But I take special exception when this sort of accusation is also brought against railway officials who work under difficult conditions.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

What accusation?

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

The accusation contained in the motion, unless you drafted it in such haste that you did not grasp its meaning. It is contained in this motion, where reference is made to the “resultant shortages of staff and inefficiency and virtual collapse”. [Interjection.] I should not like to involve myself in an argument with the hon. member across the floor of the House, but the fact remains that these words appear here; he accuses the public servants and the Railway workers of inefficiency. Whatever the cause may be, he says that the present Public Service is inefficient and virtually collapsing. One cannot interpret it in any other way. I say that the public administration has not collapsed; it is still being conducted in an excellent way by the Government, by the Ministers and by the officials.

In conclusion I just want to ask that in considering the special circumstances prevailing in South Africa and in passing judgment on public servants, we must also have regard to the fact that in the implementation of Government policy, however little hon. members opposite desire that, the training of non-Whites in the administration of the non-White divisions, is another task which is being done with special devotion by the public servants.

If I add to this that public servants enjoy the privileges—and the hon. members will do well to recommend to some of the companies that they should do the same as the Public Service in this regard—of getting full pay when they are called up for military service, and that as a result the Public Service suffers during the months for which they are absent, I want to ask the Opposition that next time they should rather introduce a motion calling upon the companies which make so much money to tell their employees that they can also get full pay when they have to undergo military training in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I rise for the second time this afternoon in order, as the mover of the motion said, to bring the problem far nearer home. I believe the problem is even more serious than the one we discussed earlier. I want to start off by reading the third leg of the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Primrose. He says “expresses its confidence that at the earliest opportunity the Government will favourably consider the claims of officials in connection with remuneration and other matters affecting their interests, having regard to the best interest of the country”. I think one could almost at this early stage say that this will be done five or six weeks before the next general election. Reverting to the other thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Primrose, the longer one sits in this House the more one comes to the conclusion that so much that we talk about is completely devoid of any reality. Listening to hon.

members opposite who spoke to this motion, one comes to the conclusion that either they know nothing about the Public Service and its problems, or if they do know something about the problems they could not care less. Have they visited the public servants at his job to see under what conditions he works, and have they visited the homes in which the officials live? Before I go any further, I would like to say that not more than two or three weeks ago I visited a police constable transferred to my constituency, who was living in a kaya in the backyard of a house with his wife and two children. Has any of those hon. members raised any thought, as long as I have been in the House, in regard to the conditions and the plight of public servants? That is why I feel that a motion of this nature is so necessary. They may bleat as much as they like, but I have not yet heard one single word expressed by them unless it is couched in the form of congratulation to the Government for what they have been doing. How is it that if the public servants are so satisfied with the result of the representations made through their own bodies, that they have had to apply, as in the case of the Post Office, for a direct interview with the hon. the Prime Minister? Does it seem that they were satisfied with the progress made by their own officials? Their own officials tried their hardest, but when they dealt with the Government they found that they were up against a brick wall and the only recourse they had was to approach the Prime Minister to see whether they could get some redress for their grievances.

I represent a constituency which has any number of public servants and I claim to be able to speak on behalf of the public servants because I have visited them in their homes and in their jobs. The hon. member for Primrose also made a statement that this motion this afternoon was a wild motion. I would say to him that he certainly has not visited any of these officials, or walked among public servants in the last few years. He said also that it was peculiar that although there was a number of resignations from the Public Service, so many of them applied for re-appointment. It surprises me that the hon. member has not worked out the reason for this for himself. Public servants are having to resign from the service merely to draw their pension payments so that they can get themselves out of the financial difficulties they are in, and they are in those difficulties through the actions of the Government. Having drawn those payments, they square their debts and apply for the same jobs again. That is the reason why they resign and re-apply. It seems to me that there is little that the Government does in respect of public relations to find out just what is happening in the Public Service to-day. The hon. member for Witbank, who has now made a fast disappearance, mentioned that if public servants are given the choice between salary increases or Bantustans, they would choose Bantustans. Sir, I do not think he has ever put that question to a public servant. Nor can I see what the one thing has in common with the other. If a public servant wants to have Bantustans, I can see no reason why he should not be prepared to pay for it, but the question I want to put to the hon. member is this: Why must he pay for Bantustans now when that money could well be used to satisfy the public servants who are struggling so much? Would it make any difference if the department concerned had not moved the 12,000 people from Meran? Would it have made any difference if they had delayed that until the country could have afforded it? The cost of that removal is another thing that means the public servants cannot get their just desserts. If hon. members opposite think this amounts to nothing, I will give them a few figures. If you walk down any street in South Africa and stop any male employee, the chances are that one in three will be employed by the State in one form or another. In Cape Town alone there are 85,000 white male workers. Of that number, 25,000 are employed by the State, either by the Central Government, the Provincial Administration or the Railways, etc. In Pretoria there are 59,000 in employment, and only 25,000 of those are. in private undertakings. In Durban 15,000 are in the Government Service. In Bloemfontein 10,000 out of 16,000 are in the Government Service, and in regard to the females in Pretoria, Government employees exceed those in private industry Another interesting fact emerges from a study of these figures put out by the Bureau of Statistics for 1960, which are the latest figures. It shows that of an economically active white population in South Africa of 1,150,000, over 400,000 people are earning their income through the State. In England, as a matter of interest, one person in 50 is so employed. In South Africa one person in 17 is so employed. It also has another peculiar effect in that if one takes the number of public servants in South Africa and applies the normal formula, one comes to the conclusion that more than half the people on the voters’ roll work for the Government; this means that any Government in power to-day can, by the wise use of the Public Service, almost guarantee its remaining in power for a very long time indeed. Coupled with the delimitation, the public servants have come to play a very important part in elections. I mention this because it leads to this point. While it may satisfy the Government to use such a vast army of public servants, they must be warned that this vast army of public servants can turn against them just as easily. I would like to warn them that in the last six months the Public Service has begun to turn against this Government because of the treatment it is getting from the Government.

I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) when he said yesterday it is no good quoting cost-of-living figures to the housewife; when she goes to buy bread or milk or pays the rent, there is where she feels the figures. And no statistician in the world can convince her that the cost-of-living is not continuing to rise, and no magician in the world can enable her to come out on the salary which she is at present drawing, or her husband is drawing, from the Public Service. But what is the sympathy these people get? The hon. member for Durban (Point) read out a statement made by Dr. Steyn at the Congress of the Public Service Association. I want to repeat that, because it leads to something else. Dr. Steyn says we should seriously take stock of our position and consider whether in fact we are not living beyond our means. Does he suggest, and does the Government suggest, that a railworker who works 84 hours a week to take home R220 a month is possibly living beyond his means? I want to suggest that that statement is a disgrace. What do they expect of this man? Must he work harder? He is already working 84 hours a week. When he goes to work in the morning his children are still asleep; when he comes home in the evening they are already asleep. The whole family structure of the working class man in South Africa, particularly the man employed in the civil service, is beginning to disintegrate. [Interjections.] If any hon. members on that side wish to make interjections in that regard, they are quite welcome to do so, because to my mind it is an indication of the callousness of hon. members on that side in this regard. Hence the motion now before the House. I want to know, when a man works 84 hours a week overtime, does he work any harder? What is becoming of these people’s health? What must be the result on the social structure of South Africa when children never see their father because he is always working? Moreover, if he does not work to that extent, they will starve, and that is really happening here. Mothers often have to go out and work. Earlier on we were told that meant nothing at all. But the 20th century has produced its problems, and the civil service in this country, through the Government who controls it, are adding to those problems completely unnecessarily. How exhilirating it must be for a civil servant to read in a report that “we must live within our means”! I do not want to be so kind as to suggest that since I have been in this House I have not seen an hon. Cabinet Minister living within his means. These unsatisfactory conditions are encountered all over South Africa. The health of our civil servants is being affected, and I am now going to prove this to those hon. members who apparently are so callous in this regard. Last year in Natal a railway worker was fined R400 because of his negligence which caused a train accident. I do not want to mention his name. To me the significant aspect of this case is that during his cross-examination he said that he had been tired from over-work. His tiredness from overwork cost four lives, it cost the man concerned the resultant agony which he had to endure, the possibility of a goal sentence being imposed, the fine I referred to, and to crown it all it also cost him his job. All that he had done was to work for the civil service and render service to the country, something which hon. members on that side make so much play about.

I will tell you another story, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister is worried about this story, he can confirm it from his own reports, because this is a report issued by the Department of Transport. The report states that during the previous years the department had 11,165 motor vehicles, and of those vehicles 6,900 had been involved in motor accidents. I was shocked to read this. Admittedly this has nothing to do with the civil service, but I would like to know how many of those accidents were caused because the civil servant was over-worked, driven thereto because of his being underpaid. These people are underpaid because the Government wastes money on projects like Bantustans.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, if I were a racehorse breeder and I wanted to have my horses take part in a race in the hope that they would win and make some money for me, then the hon. members opposite who participated in this debate would be the last three gentlemen I would choose to ride any horse of mine to victory. They would ride their mounts to death within the first 100 seconds. That much is clear to me, and I do not want to hold it against the hon. members opposite that they pleaded here for the needs and interests of public servants, railway officials, post office workers, etcetera. I do not reproach them for having done so. But it was obvious and conspicuous that the main thing hon. members opposite had in mind was to see in advance whether they could not gain a little more support from the public servants for their Party; whether they could not do so by means of the pleas they delivered and the generalizations they made here this afternoon of how bad, how dissatisfied and how inefficient these services were. One does not gain the desired support in such a manner, nor can one expect to do so. One cannot woo them on the one hand and lash out at them on the other hand, as they lashed out at public servants. Hon. members opposite alleged that the Public Service was hovering on the verge of collapse, that certain departments were virtually unable to continue. But the contrary was proved to be true. Figures were quoted here, by, inter alia, the hon. member for Primrose to prove that this was not so. It was proved here that the Public Service was not as understaffed as the hon. gentlemen opposite alleged. But if the Public Service were going to collapse, there must be reasons. I think frustration, which causes an unwillingness to work, may be one of the reasons. Incompetence on the part of the worker may be another, because he is the one that has to do the work. I want to say, however, that none of these phenomena are to be encountered to any appreciable extent amongst our public servants as a group. And I now know what I am talking about. Since I have assumed office as Minister of the Interior, as a result of which the Public Service also falls under me, I have regularly performed liaison duties in respect of different staff organizations within the Public Service on different occasions. Not only did I attend their congresses, but I also listened attentively to what they said, to what they wanted, and to what their needs were. In point of fact, I think it is my duty to do so. Now, I will be the last person to contend, and this point was also made by hon. members on this side, that it is possible even under the most favourable circumstances in a large service organization such as the Public Service, where so many workers are employed, to satisfy every one completely at all times. This is being too idealistic. It cannot be done, and it has never been done under any government. If there is one thing, however, of which this Government may be proud since it has come into power, that is the record which it has built up for itself, namely that it has more than proved its policy as regards its workers and its interest in their needs. The Government has not proved that merely by words, nor, as that side of this House maintains, merely by means of a sympathetic interest and the promise that “we are working on it”, subsequent to which nothing more is ever heard. No, the Government followed that up with action. That is the reason why our public servants to-day have so much confidence in the Government and why one encounters so much peace and contentment in the Public Service, more so than in any other country I know which functions in the same way. Not only do we have labour peace outside the Public Service, but we also have labour peace inside the Public Service.

Last year was probably one of the most difficult years we have had. The trouble had, of course started the year before. Midway through 1965 we could observe certain trends, namely that the country was developing so rapidly and that there was so much prosperity in the country that we could expect to experience inflationary conditions which, if they went too far, could not be arrested except with very adverse effects on public servants and the entire country and its population. Consequently the Government took certain steps. What was the attitude adopted by that side of the House? Hon. members will probably agree that last year no one could predict with any degree of certainty what was going to happen. We did not know whether the measures we had taken would have the desired effect. The effect our measures have had, however, is to be seen in the speech made by the Minister of Finance when he introduced his Part Appropriation Bill the other day, and gave, to my mind, a fine picture of the sound financial position of South Africa. The Government, however, would not have been able to combat inflation without the assistance and co-operation of the workers of South Africa. I make bold to say that we received that assistance and co-operation in abundance. Furthermore I want to say that we received it particularly from those employees to whom the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point) refers. Last year the public servants held their usual congresses. Staff organizations met. Their advisory board, which the public servants themselves constitute, made a report to me. I attended their congresses. Now I want to say straight out that they acted very responsibly, much more responsibly than the Opposition, with regard to the combating of inflation. The measure of success which we achieved in our fight against inflation, we achieved not with the support of the Opposition, but in spite of the way they acted. They critized this side no end. They said our efforts were worthless. On the one hand they complained that the cost of living was rising, but on the other hand they did not want to assist the Government; they did not want to support us in our efforts to curb the rise in the cost of living.

We naturally find a complaint here and there among our public servants. Surely they have the right to say, “We would like to see an improvement here, and we should like to see a change there.” But not one of their staff associations asked for salary increases last year. There are certain railway staff associations which did in fact ask for salary increases. They had on interview with their Minister and he explained to them, that however much he would like to comply with their request, in view of the fact that they had advanced a very strong case, he could not contemplate such a step under the prevailing circumstances because that could be neither in their interests nor the interests of the country. He explained to them that we had to overcome inflation. I do not want to say that we have overcome it completely, but I do think that we are rapidly approaching that stage. The public servants know that this National Government has a fixed policy, and, because it has proved itself, they have confidence in the Government.

The hon. member for Druban (Point) proposed the appointment of a commission of enquiry. This is not a matter which can be settled in this manner. Every large employees’ organization or service organization requires investigation from time to time. But we do not want investigations such as those that were conducted during the days of the United Party Government. The first was in 1918, under Mr. Graham. Subsequently there was the Centlivres Commission of 1944. They did not reveal much of a really practical nature. The proposals were more of an academic nature. The only thing that followed from last-mentioned commission was a small salary increase two years later. Thereupon the entire matter as well as the entire report of the Centlivres Commission, was over and done with as far as the United Party was concerned. Let us now see what happened under National Party rule. Since we have come into power we have been doing different things indifferent ways. I think we have granted five specific and appreciable salary increases and service improvements since we have come into power. These concessions have been made since 1951. For that reason there is continuous contact between the Minister concerned and the public servants through the medium of staff associations as well as the Public Service Commission. Now it is being said that we have done nothing and that serious dissatisfaction prevails. I maintain that that dissatisfaction does not exist. But I admit that the salary increases which came into effect in 1966 mainly as a result of the rise in the cost of living—something which did not only occur in South Africa but occured everywhere in the world—has been cancelled or neutralized. I do not want to go into the aspect of the rise in the cost of living. The rise over the past three months has been much less, however, than it has been compared to any three months since 1965. But I can tell you now that various steps have already been taken to meet the different requirements which have been mentioned here. As regards better pension benefits, I appointed a commission last year under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, and this commission’s terms of reference are to make a very thorough investigation into all aspects of the matter, and to bring out a report. I expect the report to be available in the course of this year. There are various other similar commissions which do not consist of members of the Public Service Commission only. I am referring to commissions which are complementary to the Public Service Commission and representative of various services, various departments and staff associations. These commissions have been appointed to investigate various aspects with a view to ascertaining what can be done for the public servants as regards those matters where they feel the pinch. Cost accounting is included in this. These commissions have been asked to make proposals involving certain financial restrictions—no one knows how much they will be —and these proposals may deviate from the traditional salary increases on a notch for notch basis. I think those recommendations will meet with approval. A study will first have to be made and a decision will have to be taken as to whether or not the time is ripe for the implementation of those recommendations. Public servants know that the Government’s record has not been broken. Five increases have been granted since 1951, whenever they have been considered necessary. That has been done within the framework of the then existing needs of public servants and with due regard having been had to the available capital. The Government itself determined the time for those increases. This is not, however, merely a matter of improved salaries which may cause frustration—if such a thing exists—and which may stand in the way of the happiness of the public servants. There are other matters which we have rectified with a view to ensuring a larger degree of continuity within Government departments and fewer transfers from one department to another—something which entailed great expense and inconvenience. Now I hear for the first time from the hon. member for Orange Grove that this is a foolish principle. He is the first person with a reasonable degree of intelligence that I have heard complaining about this matter. It is something which has been welcomed throughout the public service. Now a person in a particular department will not have to wait for a vacancy to occur, he will be able to remain within the framework of that department all along and get promotion on merit in that department. By keeping the official in that department, instead of constantly transferring him to and fro, one will be ensuring much better and more effective service. The hon. member for Port Natal said that the persons who returned to the Public Service after they had resigned, were the persons who wanted to get their hands on their pensions in order to pay their debts, and that they subsequently returned to the Public Service. If things were so bad in the Public Service, why do they return, especially at a time when there is a manpower shortage throughout the country? Are they unable to do better anywhere else than in the Public Service?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

[Inaudible.]

*The MINISTER:

Why do they return? Is it not because the employment is better? Are they not being paid better salaries? Wait a minute. No less than 7 per cent of the officials (men) employed in 1966, were officials who had left the service previously and were reemployed. They went in search of something better but did not find it. Since 1st October, 1967, we have established, inter alia, a compulsory medical aid scheme for public servants, with a per capita contribution by the State. This is something which the public servants wanted and which meets with everyone’s approval. Now they have it. The medical aid scheme has been in existence for a long time, but has never been compulsory. I trust that as a result of the expansion and the re-organization which will take place and the greater numbers which there will be, public servants will in due course receive more benefits for at least the same contribution to the medical aid scheme—and this is an important factor, especially in the case of a married person with a family. In addition they need not be afraid that they would receive fewer benefits if the contribution were to be decreased.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows that the manager of the Durban Municipal Bus Service earns a good deal more than the system manager of Railways in any province.

*The MINISTER:

Yes, I know for example that the General Manager of the South African Railways gets a good deal more than his Minister. But that is no indication. No public service in any country has ever managed to compete with the private sector as far as salaries one concerned. That is so. But competition does take place in other ways and therefore there are still people in the Public Service. There are two reasons for that. The one is because they choose that as their career. It is their calling. It is no longer merely a career, it is actually their calling. Usually these persons are the ones who reach the top of the ladder. The second reason is that they attach more importance to a secure wage than to the amount of money they earn, but in respect of which they cannot be sure when or for how long they are going to get it. We have, for example, introduced a one hundred per cent housing loan scheme for public servants. This is an additional benefit they have received. This was not in the form of a direct increase in salary, but it is something which has meant a great deal to them. Let me just furnish you with the following figures. The scheme was established in 1965. Up to the end of 1966—-the latest figures at my disposal—no less than 10,615 loans, amounting to R64 million, have been granted. The Government guaranteed R18 million of this amount. It is a great help that the Government stands surety for those public servants who want to build houses in order that they may get 100 per cent loans, which the Government guarantees. They would never have been able to obtain those loans from anyone else. This is one of the things for which they are very grateful. Holiday bonuses have recently been increased from 5 per cent to 8⅓ per cent. The consolidation of their cost of living allowances with their basic salaries. which was done in 1958, has had an appreciable effect on the pensions which they are to receive. I can continue in this vein, but when there is talk of inefficiency, I just want to say this, without any fear of contradiction. There is probably no large employer who goes more out of his way, does more, and who creates more facilities within the service for the training of his employees in order to equip them to the highest degree for their specific tasks, than the Public Service. Reference has already been made to the organization and method system, which has been introduced into virtually all departments of the Public Service to-day. It promotes the highest efficiency, and what is more, it has also been introduced outside the Public Service. This stimulation provided by the Public Service, has led to the establishment of a permanent Institute for Organization and Method, which is a nation-wide organization and which also has members outside the Republic, as in Rhodesia, for instance, where I had the privilege last year of opening the annual conference. On that occasion special mention was made of the service and the guidance rendered by the Public Service, the Public Service Commission in particular, not only with regard to their normal duties, but also by stimulating and influencing the staff of business concerns outside of Public Service. To make a political issue of the position of these people is totally unnecessary. I want to repeat the assurance which has already been given. I do not want to go into the matter of the Post Office too extensively, except to say the following: The hon. member is quite right. An interview has been arranged with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and myself for the 22nd. I was informed by the hon. the Prime Minister to be present. But certain things have been happening. During this session, the former Minister of Post and Telegraphs made mention in this House of the removal of the Post Office officials from the control of the Public Service to the direct control of the Post Office, and he mentioned that the revenue of the Post Office would be used for the needs and the development of the Post Office, and would no longer be surrendered to the Treasury. Such a step will naturally require legislation and this will be passed. The hon. the Minister announced that in this House; and the reason why, in the opinion of the hon. member, Post Office staff had been kept on a string for such a long time and had been given no direct answer, was embodied in that announcement and must be sought in this reorganization and new dispensation which would henceforth exist in the Department of Post and Telegraphs.

The hour is late and the hon. members are tired. I do not wish to take up any more of their time. I just want to express my gratitude for and give my support to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Primrose. For the reasons mentioned here, I am of the opinion that a select committee or a commission of enquiry holds no promise of better conditions of service, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) claimed. Our method holds much more promise, and has more substance, namely: Investigate these matters on a continuous and not on an ad hoc basis, and keep an eye open to and remain in close touch with the needs of the people.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I must reply to one or two points made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and particularly to the last point he made, namely that their method promised more to the Civil Service. That is exactly our complaint; it is all promises. The hon. the Minister has spent half an hour telling us of all the things that have been done in the interests of the Public Service, of the seven increases in salary. But he ignored the fact that I pointed out in my introductory remarks that salary increases, prior to the last one, had aggregated 61 per cent, whereas the cost of living increased by 70 per cent. In other words, they are not level as the hon. the Minister says, but the increases are always one election behind the cost of living. Increases are always just that one election behind so that the money is spent and the person is in debt before the further increase comes. That is our complaint. One would have thought, listening to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he expected nothing to have happened in twenty years. Of course even this Government, in twenty years, has to do a few good things. They cannot help it. Our complaint is that it has not done enough. The hon. the Minister was responsible in his reply. He dealt with the matter reasonably, but I want to point out that when he referred to the Joint Advisory Council he did not point out what had happened to the twelve recommendations made by the last meeting, of which one was accepted. That is why we say that that machinery which he says is promising, is nothing but promises. It just goes on promising. I am not going to go into detail, but I suggest that the hon. the Minister reads the Public Service Commission Report, and looks at the recommendations, and how they are repeatedly put off.

Finally I want to deal with the tactics, which unfortunately were not the responsible approach of the hon. the Minister, of the hon. members for Primrose and Witbank. I take the strongest exception to their attempt to imply that this motion of ours is an attack on the Public Service. I almost used un-Parliamentary language in describing what I thought of that attempt on the part of those two hon. members. The motion states clearly that there is discontent due to certain causes with resulting shortage of staff, inefficiency, and virtual collapse resultant on the shortage of staff. If you do not have the staff, you cannot do a job. I repudiate any suggestion that we have in any respect criticized or attacked the Civil Service.

HON. MEMBERS:

Challenge them.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

I have no need to challenge them. Those hon. members have shown their lack of sympathy for the Public Service in South Africa. Their answer to the needs of the Public Service is an “mbongo” to the Government—a “we thank the Government.” We on this side of the House realize that the playing of politics by those hon. members, has made this motion a futile effort. The hon. the Minister’s rejection of it makes it even more futile, and therefore, in accordance with the normal accepted practice, I ask permission to withdraw the motion.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

The House adjourned at 6.11 p.m.