House of Assembly: Vol23 - FRIDAY 26 APRIL 1968

FRIDAY, 26th APRIL, 1968 Prayers—10.05 a.m. SECOND REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON BANTU AFFAIRS

Report presented.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Scientology *1. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Health:

  1. (1) Whether he has received any further (a) complaints and (b) information concerning scientology;
  2. (2) whether he will appoint a commission of enquiry to investigate scientology; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (for the Minister of Health):

  1. (1) (a) and (b) Yes.
  2. (2) To justify the appointment of a Commission of Enquiry into the activities of any private individual or organization prima facie evidence of improper practices is essential. Such an investigation may otherwise create the impression of an inquisition against such individual or organization. So far the Department has received no such evidence in respect of scientology.
Reform of Laws Relating to Abortion *2. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the views expressed at the recent congress of the South African Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the need for reform of the laws relating to abortion;
  2. (2) whether he will refer the matter to the Law Revision Committee; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Justice):
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) No. The matter is already being investigated by the Department of Justice.
Swellendam Police Station: Working Hours *3. Mr. J. W. E. WILEY

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) Whether a five-day working week is applied at the Swellendam police station; if not, why not;
  2. (2) what are the present (a) duty and (b) off-duty hours of White and non-White policemen, respectively, at this station;
  3. (3) whether any promises of fewer working hours have been made to (a) White and (b) non-White policemen at Swellendam; if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom and (iii) when will the promises be implemented.
The MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (1) No, since the strength and exigencies of the service there, as at other similar places, do not make it possible.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) White and non-White: approximately 8 hours per day on 6 days per week;
    2. (b) White and non-White: approximately 16 hours per day on 6 days per week and 24 hours on one day per week.
  3. (3) (a) and (b) Yes.
    1. (i) during December, 1967;
    2. (ii) the Station Commander;
    3. (iii) as soon as the establishment has been supplemented and exigencies of the service allow such a step.
Raids and Searches Carried Out in Connection with Bingo or Tombola, etc. *4. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) Whether any raids or searches have been carried out since 1st March, 1967, on premises where bingo, tombola or any similar game was being played; if so, (a) in how many instances, (b) on what dates and (c) in what areas;
  2. (2) whether the raid or search in each case was carried out as a result of a charge laid by a member of the public;
  3. (3) whether any prosecutions were instituted; if so, (a) how many and (b) with what results;
  4. (4) whether he will take steps to ensure that no prosecution is instituted in similar cases in future except on the direction of the Attorney-General; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) 1
    2. (b) 1.4.68
    3. (c) Cape Town.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) Yes.
    1. (a) 97 persons
    2. (b) 94 were convicted and 3 cases are pending.
  4. (4) No, because there is no justification for such a step.
Loans Granted to Citrus Farmers *5. Mr. C. BENNETT

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

(a) To how many citrus farmers were loans granted by (i) the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, (ii) the Farmers’ Assistance Board and (iii) the Agricultural Credit Board during each of the last five years and (b) what were the total amounts of the loans in each of these years.
The ACTING MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (for the Minister of Agriculture):
  1. (a)
    1. (i) None.
    2. (ii) and (iii) The statistics which are kept in respect of loans granted to farmers do not indicate the type of farming. The required information is therefore not available.
    3. (b) Falls away.
Posts Available to Coloureds in S.A.P. *6. Mr. L. G. MURRAY

asked the Minister of Police:

(a) What posts by rank are available to Coloured persons who join the South African Police Force and (b) what rates of pay are applicable to these ranks.
The MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (a)

Special Grade Chief Sergeant

9

Chief Sergeant

22

Senior Sergeant

68

Sergeant

210

Constable

1,178

  1. (b)
    • R 1,500 × 60—1,800 × 84—1,968
    • R1,260 × 60—1,680
    • R1,080 × 60—1,560
    • R1,020 × 60—1,440
    • R576 × 42—660 x—1,320

I might add for the information of the hon. member that an announcement will be made by me in the near future about the institution of higher posts for non-White policemen than those existing at present.

Use of Overseas Television Services for Dissemination of Information about S.A. *7. Mr. L. G. MURRAY

asked the Minister of Information:

  1. (1) To what extent does his Department use television services in other countries to disseminate information about the Republic;
  2. (2) what was the total annual expenditure on documentary films for telecasts since 1st April, 1963.
The MINISTER OF INFORMATION:
  1. (1) The Department disseminates information about South Africa by documentary films or parts thereof and news and topical items through distributing agencies and directly to TV stations in Australia, Belgium, Canada, United States, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Rhodesia, Greece and Spain.
These telecasts and films are seen annually by hundreds of millions of people. For example, in 1967 a three-minute filmlet of the Department was seen, according to a conservative estimate, on 70 million television sets in the U.S.A. alone. The Department’s film-lets on the Cape sea route were seen in 1967 by 120 million television viewers. In a period of three months in 1967 (January to March), an estimated total of 323 million viewers in Germany saw news items furnished by the Department on South Africa. In France 40 million viewers saw four television programmes of half an hour each. In addition to these telecasts of news items on South Africa, the largest percentage of the Department’s documentary films of the past years have been televised in their entirety over Australian networks. In Britain 25 million viewers alone saw a documentary film produced for the Department in 1966. Although these examples refer only to isolated achievements in five countries they indicate in various degrees to what extent the film material supplied by the Department is being used in the other countries mentioned above.
  1. (2)

1963

R57,150

1964

R62,800

1965

R70,610

1966

R63,290

1967

R88,390

Provision of Citizen Force Units with Permanent Force Officers *8. Mr. L. G. MURRAY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether it is intended to provide commanding officers of Citizen Force units with permanent staff officers and clerical assistance; if so,
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (for the Minister of Defence):
  1. (1) Permanent Force officers and/or noncommissioned officers have for a number of years already been provided for command, administrative and training purposes to South African Air Force and South African Navy Citizen Force units. The provision of Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers for administrative and training purposes to Army Citizen Force units, is under consideration.
  2. (2) No.
Transport Facilities between Lenasia and Johannesburg for Indian Community *9. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) What transport facilities between Lenasia and Johannesburg exist for the Indian community;
  2. (2) how many Indian passengers are carried each way daily between Lenasia and Johannesburg by the existing railway services.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Transport):
  1. (1) No separate rail transport facilities are provided for Indian passengers, as such. They avail themselves of the existing train services for non-Whites between Lenz and Johannesburg. There are 27, 24 and 16 trains operating daily from Lenz to Johannesburg on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays, respectively, and 28, 24 and 17 in the opposite direction.
A S.A.R. bus service for the exclusive use of Indian passengers is, however, operated between Johannesburg and Lenasia. This service provides three trips daily in each direction on weekdays and two each on Saturdays and Sundays.
  1. (2) Lenz to Johannesburg—weekdays 4,098. Johannesburg to Lenz—weekdays 4,030.
Particulars are not available in respect of Saturdays and Sundays.
Indian Population of Lenasia *10. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

asked the Minister of Community Development:

What is the present Indian population of Lenasia.
The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION (for the Minister of Community Development):

20,196 persons.

Attempted Escape by Arrested Person from Security Branch Headquarters, Port Elizabeth *11. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report that a man said to have been detained by the police for questioning, fell from an upper storey of Security Branch headquarters in Port Elizabeth in November, 1967;
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes. It was an attempted escape and the man, who was only slightly injured, was re-arrested.
Deputy Attorney-General of the Transvaal: Costs Incurred in Respect of Defamation Action *12. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) (a) What were the total costs incurred by the Deputy Attorney-General of the Transvaal (i) in defending a defamation action against him during 1967 and (ii) in an action brought by him in that year against a Sunday newspaper and (b) what portion of these costs were borne by the State;
  2. (2) (a) what was the total amount of (i) damages and (ii) costs awarded against the Deputy Attorney-General and (b) what portion was borne by the State.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Justice):
  1. (1)
    1. (a)
      1. (i) R4,725.
      2. (ii) R6,451.25 but not yet disposed of.
    2. (b) Everything under (1) (a) (i).
  2. (2)
    1. (a)
      1. (i) R500.
      2. (ii) In case mentioned under (1) (a) (i)—R3,143.98.
        • In case mentioned under (1) (a) (ii)—R1,122.80.
    2. (b) Costs—everything. The amount mentioned under (2) (a) (i) was paid by him but was refunded to him ex gratia.
Agreements re Sale of Gold *13. Mr. S. EMDIN

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) Whether the Republic has any arrangement or agreement with any Government, Central Bank or other organization in terms of which the Republic is able to sell unlimited amounts of gold at a minimum price of 35 dollars an ounce; if so, what are the terms of such arrangement or agreement;
  2. (2) whether the conditions of the arrangement or agreement permit the sale of gold by South Africa on the free market.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Falls away.

For written reply:

1. Mr. J. W. E. WILEY

—Reply standing over.

Coloured Pupils and Standard X Examinations 2. Mr. L. G. MURRAY

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) How many Coloured persons (a) were enrolled for Std. X and (b) entered for and (c) passed the Std. X examination or an equivalent examination entitling them to admission to a university during each year since 1960;
  2. (2) how many schools for Coloured children in each province offer Std X with exemption from university admission examinations;
  3. (3) how many Coloured persons had been enrolled for Std. X in each province as at 31st January of 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively.
The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS: The Department of Coloured Affairs has examination statistics only from January, 1964, when it assumed responsibility for primary and secondary education. It may be added that Std. X examinations are still the responsibility of the various Provincial Educational Departments.
  1. (1)

STD. X EXAMINATION

University Admission

Year

(a) No. enrolled

(b) Entered

(c) Std. X Exemption

1960

Figures not available

1961

1962

1963

1964

1,344

Figures not available

198

1965

1,480

217

1966

1,358

195

1967

1,531

257

  1. (2)

Cape Province:

50

Transvaal:

9

Natal:

7

Orange Free State:

1

  1. (3)

NUMBER ENROLLED IN EACH PROVINCE: STD. X

1966

1967

1968

Cape Province

1,097

1,156

1,237

Transvaal

142

172

192

Natal

102

189

197

Orange Free State

17

14

18

Coloured Recruits for Cape Corps and S.A. Navy 3. Mr. L. G. MURRAY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) What was the annual intake of Coloured recruits in (a) the Cape Corps and (b) the South African Navy during each year from 1963 to 1967;
  2. (2) what was (a) the total number of Coloured persons enlisted and (b) the number of vacancies in each of the services during each of these years.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I take it that the question refers to personnel in uniform only and civilian personnel are, therefore, not included in the reply.

  1. (1)

(a)

(b)

1963

65

nil

1964

65

25

1965

80

50

1966

70

43

1967

100

41

  1. (2)
    1. (a)

S.A. Army

S.A. Navy

1963

110

nil

1964

123

25

1965

91

50

1966

87

43

1967

108

41

  1. (b)

S.A. Army

S.A. Navy

1963

85

nil

1964

316

79

1965

286

102

1966

156

77

1967

153

145

There are no Coloured personnel in uniform in the S.A. Air Force.

Admission of Outside Attorneys to Practice in Republic 4. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

Whether any countries or territories have been approved of for the purposes of section 9 of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, 1934; if so, which countries or territories; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No. The Law Society of only one country has so far applied for approval under section 9 of the Act in question. Negotiations towards reciprocity are at present taking place.

Replies standing over from Tuesday, 23rd April, 1968

Financial Assistance Granted by I.D.C. for Establishment of Business Concerns in Certain Parts of Republic

The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS replied to Question 5, by Mr. A. Hopewell:

Question:
  1. (1) How many (a) White, (b) Indian and (c) Coloured entrepreneurs have received assistance from the Government, the Industrial Development Corporation or other agencies to establish concerns in (i) the George/Knysna area, (ii) the Upington area, (iii) the Heilbron area, (iv) the Wepener area and (v) Natal;
  2. (2) what is the total amount of financial assistance given to members of each of these areas.
Reply:
  1. (1)

(a)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

6

1

nil

nil

27

(b)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

nil

nil

nil

nil

2

(c)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

nil

nil

nil

nil

nil

  1. (2) In view of the position of trust the Industrial Development Corporation holds towards these entrepreneurs and in order to avoid identification of their private business affairs, the information requested under this heading is furnished as follows in respect of each race group in all the areas combined:
    1. (a) White entrepreneurs: R20,871,469, including commitments, as well as assistance not necessarily in terms of the border areas development programme;
    2. (b) Indian entrepreneurs: R743,000, including commitments; and
    3. (c) Coloured entrepreneurs: nil.
The amounts involved do not include indirect financial assistance, such as tax concessions, etc., or assistance by other agencies. In the latter case my Department unfortunately does not dispose of the relative information.
Industrial Border Areas: Investments, State Expenditure, Tax Concessions, etc.

The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS replied to Question 6, by Mr. A. Hopewell:

Question:
  1. (1) What has been the total investment by (a) the Government, (b) the Industrial Development Corporation and (c) private industry in the industrial border areas each year since 1st June, 1960, in (i) Natal, (ii) the Eastern Cape, (iii) the remainder of the Cape Province, (iv) the Orange Free State and (v) Transvaal;
  2. (2) what has been the total expenditure by the State in these border areas in respect of (a) housing for the different race groups, (b) water supplies and (c) other services;
  3. (3) what has been the total expenditure by the Electricity Supply Commission in these areas;
  4. (4) what is the total extent of tax concessions and rebates granted in these areas in respect of (a) buildings, (b) machinery, (c) power, (d) water and (e) transport.
Reply:

The furnishing of the information in the form requested by the hon. member will entail a considerable amount of work. Moreover, the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries and Border Areas Development does not dispose of details of expenditure in border areas by other Government Departments, such as Health, Community Development, etc. In these circumstances the information requested is furnished as follows up till 31st December, 1967, except where otherwise indicated:

  1. (1) (a) (i) Industrial townships:

1960

nil

1961

nil

1962

R2,098,000

1963

nil

1964

R672,000

1965

nil

1966

nil

1967

nil

  1. (ii) Water schemes, including schemes with indirect advantages to border areas: June, 1960 till 31st December, 1967: R46,000,000.
  2. (iii) Loans to municipalities for railway sidings:

1960

nil

1961

nil

1962

nil

1963

nil

1964

R125,000

1965

R125,000

1966

R135,000

1967

nil

  1. (iv) Railway rebate (Ciskei/Transkei):

1960

nil

1961

nil

1962

nil

1963

nil

1964

R120,000

1965

R189,500

1966

R208,000

1967

R239,500

  1. (v) Housing, public buildings and related services for Bantu as at 30th September, 1967:

1960-64

R16,800,000

1965

R4,100,000

1966

R2,100,000

1967

R13,100,000

(Of these amounts a total of R17,500,000 was spent on services included in the figure given in (2) (c) (ii) below.)
  1. (b) Commitments by the Industrial Development Corporation in respect of financial assistance to individual industrialists—
  2. (i) by way of loans, share capital, factory buildings, etc.:

1960

nil

1961

R568,000

1962

R5,800,000

1963

R3,600,000

1964

R12,600,000

1965

R11,800,000

1966

R6,900,000

1967

R5,700,000

(During 1965 further commitments to the extent of R5,100,000 in respect of economic development areas were undertaken.)
  1. (ii) for the housing of White key personnel:

1960

nil

1961

nil

1962

R278,000

1963

R255,000

1964

R202,000

1965

R115,000

1966

R1,200,000

1967

R553,000

  1. (iii) development of Hammarsdale industrial township by the Industrial Development Corporation: 1961: R282,000.
  2. (c) While, for reasons previously given in this House, it is impossible to furnish exact information in this regard, the following cumulative totals of estimates, including adjustments which become evident in the light of information becoming available from time to time, are furnished:

1960-64

R65,000,000

1965

R142,700,000

1966

R178,300,000

1967

R243,500,000

  1. (2)
    1. (a) Please see (1) (b) (ii) and (1) (a) (v).
    2. (b) Please see (1) (a) (ii).
    3. (c)
      1. (i) By the Industrial Development Corporation: R282,000, as indicated under (1) (b) (iii).
      2. (ii) By the Government: R20,655,000, as indicated under (1) (a) (i) and (1) (a) (iii). Please also see the remark under (1) (a) (v).
  2. (3) According to the latest figure furnished by the Electricity Supply Commission for the period ending 31st December, 1966: R45,000,000, including schemes of indirect advantage to border areas.
  3. (4) (a) and (b) Approximately R5,000,000; (c), (d) and (e) as from 1st May, 1964, approximately R500,000 (by way of a 10 per cent tax allowance on cost) over 5 years, mainly in respect of water and power.
Unfortunately separate figures for the items, as specified by the hon. member, are not available.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Resumed)

Revenue Vote 7,—Cultural Affairs, R3,722.000 (continued):

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The main charges against and criticisms of the hon. the Minister will most probably be raised under the next Vote, No. 8, but under this one, No. 7, there are a few matters which I should like to touch upon. The most important one is in connection with the National Advisory Council for Adult Education and the money voted for it by this Parliament. This is reflected on pages 32 and 36 of the Estimates. A total amount of R880,000 is spent on it per year, and it seems to me as though the administrative costs involved, i.e. R122,000, mainly for organizers and liaison officers, are fairly heavy. I concede that this Council for Adult Education, as I have always known it, does good work for the most part and that the majority of its grants are made for good purposes. I am thinking of the South African Library Association, the Bach Choir, the National Drama Library, and so forth. However, here and there are items about which I want to make inquiries from the hon. the Minister, and before expressing any further criticism in that regard, I should like to have further particulars from him.

The first is this. An amount of R75,000 was provided for the integration of immigrants, and according to the report which he tabled in June last year, an amount of R30,000 was provided for the assimilation of immigrant youth. I have no objection if we teach young immigrants more about our country and try to integrate them with out ordinary South African way of life. I just want to know how the organization works which tries to teach these young immigrants to become good South Africans.

I should further like to know from the hon. the Minister what the “Foundation for Education, Science and Technology” is. There is one in Pretoria, one in Johannesburg and I think Bloemfontein also has one. The one in Pretoria received the very large amount of R29,100 from this organization, and, of course, indirectly from the taxpayer of South Africa. Who are the members, who are the directors, and what are the objects of that organization?

Then there is an amount granted by this Council to a body called the “Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees”. When it comes to a body such as this, I begin to have strong doubts. This amount appears in the report of the National Advisory Council for Adult Education which was tabled by the hon. the Minister on 8th June last year, and the details are given there. In reply to a question of mine the hon. the Minister also furnished details, not in respect of this specific amount, but in respect of other amounts. I am a little concerned about this amount being given to the Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees. This is the governing body of the F.A.K. We know that the F.A.K. does good cultural work, but we also know that the F.A.K. is connected with a secret organization, the Broederbond—and this has been admitted and proved. I do not know if hon. members want to put questions to me about that. I have here a copy of a secret circular of the Broederbond, which reads as follows (translation)—

The Executive Council of the Broederbond is pleased to announce that friend Dr. Piet Koornhof, previously Under-Secretary of the National Party of the Transvaal, has been appointed as General Secretary of our organization with effect from the new association year of the Broederbond. Outside he is known as the Director of Cultural Information of the F.A.K., and in this capacity he will also serve as liaison officer between the affiliated bodies of the F.A.K. Although friends can get in touch with him by dialling our ordinary telephone number …

That is the telephone number of the Broederbond—

… or by telephoning the F.A.K., you are requested rather to telephone him at 344064.

This number is not in the telephone book. I should now like to know why it is necessary to give an amount of R700 of the taxpayers’ money to the Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees? We know that there are certain of these liaison committees which are not in very good odour in South Africa. I am thinking of the one in Johannesburg, whose chairman, Mr. Twakkies du Toit, described a large section of the immigrants in South Africa as scum. Our ordinary taxpayers do not want to give money to an organization which proclaims those views.

Then I come to another important and amazing point. This concerns particulars supplied to me by the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question on the 15th March, in which I asked him whether this National Advisory Council for Adult Education contributed to the Christmas funds of certain newspapers. Now, we know that the objects of the Christmas funds of newspapers are reasonably good, and in some cases very good. It is money which is voluntarily given by the public for a good purpose. But I think that there is something wrong if the principle is accepted here that the Government can give amounts to the Christmas funds of certain newspapers only. Amounts were given to the Christmas fund of the Vaderland and amounts were given in four successive years to the Christmas fund of the Burger. An amount of R2,800 was given to the Christmas funds of the Burger over a period of four years, and as far as I know—I may be wrong; the Minister does not know—that amount was not acknowledged.

I say that Christmas funds are a good thing, but that it is wrong, when there are many other newspapers which also collect amounts for the Christmas funds, that special amounts be given to the Christmas funds of the Burger and the Vaderland. There is proof that these newspapers do not always put the amounts which they collect for Christmas funds to such innocent use. A number of years ago the Transvaler placed an advertisement in which it boasted that it collected more than any other newspaper for the Christmas fund and that therefore that paper was a good advertising medium. In other words, they misused the size of the amount which they had collected to obtain advertisements from large companies. We know how the Christmas fund is boosted in some railway offices; how lists come from, say, the Vaderland and the Star, and of course the railway staff is asked—it looks beautifully independent—“do you not want to make a contribution to one or other of these?” But we know of cases where very careful note is taken of who makes a contribution to the Christmas fund of the Star and who to the Christmas fund of the Burger. It has even happened that an appeal was made from the pulpit at Lichtenburg for the Christmas fund of a Nationalist newspaper, and that the minister had to apologize afterwards.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! What have those matters to do with this Vote?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Sir, I am referring to amounts given, as admitted by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question, to the Christmas fund of Die Burger and the Christmas fund of Die Vaderland, and I am trying to prove that this is the taxpayers’ money, and that we should be very careful when making contributions to funds which possibly look sound, while that money is in fact being put to the wrong use.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! But then the hon. member must leave the churches and other bodies which have nothing to do with this, out of it.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I shall confine myself then to the Christmas funds of Die Burger and Die Vaderland. When I say that these contributions can be put to the wrong use, I have in mind only the one argument which I mentioned—I shall not go into the matter any further. I can give the hon. the Minister further information in this connection in private. [Time expired.]

*Dr. J. C. OTTO:

We have got used to the fact that when the hon. member for Orange Grove gets up to speak, he vents his spleen. Since this is the first time that we discuss the Vote of the Department of Cultural Affairs, we hoped that the debate would be introduced at a high level. Sir, I should not like to reduce the debate to the low level upon which the hon. member conducted it; I shall try to bring it onto a higher level.

The division of the former Department of Education, Arts and Science, with effect from 1st January, 1968, into two Departments, Cultural Affairs and Higher Education, both falling under the Minister of National Education, was a progressive step. In passing I should like to mention that the present Secretary for Cultural Affairs, Dr. Op’t Hof, was Secretary to the Department of Education, Arts and Science for 11 years. During his term of office more technical high schools, commercial high schools and high schools for domestic science were established than in the period of more or less 40 years preceding that. Courses were modernized and the training of technicians was also placed on a sound footing. During this period the universities also obtained better financial allocations. I think that this House is indebted to Dr. Op’t Hof for his interest and drive and for the exceptional contribution which he made during the period in which he was Secretary to the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for this positive step which he took in establishing a separate department for cultural affairs and bringing cultural affairs to the notice of the general public in a positive and prominent way. As will be seen from the Estimates, this Department embraces inter alia, the financing and general supervision of educational institutions such as libraries, art galleries and museums. It is particularly for the latter, i.e. the museums, and more specifically the National Cultural History and Open Air Museum in Pretoria, that I want to put in a good word to-day. When these institutions were still under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, they were often the cinderellas when it came to the provision of funds. Education always received top priority, and from the nature of the case this had to be so, because the needs of education were always more immediate and educational needs increased more rapidly. Accordingly funds had to be made available to meet those increasing needs. Since to-day for the first time a separate discussion is being conducted about the Department of Cultural Affairs, I should like to plead for a more generous approach in respect of financial contributions for all cultural institutions in the future under this new dispensation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express a few ideas in connection with the Cultural History and Open Air Museum in Pretoria. This museum was actually established in August, 1964, and it was the realization of a long cherished ideal, an ideal which had been nursed by various persons and quarters over a long period. With the establishment of this museum the State for the first time acknowledged that research in the human sciences, just as in the natural sciences, was entitled to have a fully-fledged institution for the preservation of collected documents and objects and also for further care, arrangement and study of material documents and objects.

I should not like to single out names and bodies when appreciation is expressed on behalf of the people and on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Cultural History and Open Air Museum, but I think it right and fitting to express our heartfelt thanks to the Ministry of National Education (previously the Ministry of Education, Arts and Science) and in particular to Minister De Klerk. Under his capable leadership rapid progress was made in this matter. He displayed great sympathy and helpfulness, and he was also the driving force behind the legislation and the financing of this idea. In the second place I should like to convey my thanks to the City Council of Pretoria, which as far back as the mid-fifties was willing to make land available for the erection and the development of such a museum.

In the third place I mention the name of the Genootskap Oud-Pretoria, which came into being in 1948 and which made it its special aim to have such a museum established.

And then I cannot omit to express my thanks and appreciation to the present director of the museum. Mrs. Kotie Rood-Coetzee, who exerted herself tirelessly for the cause. She is a person with exceptional knowledge, great faith and enthusiasm, and with her zeal she inspired all persons who came into contact and worked with her.

Then, lastly, I just want to mention Prof. Dr. P. J. Coertze, who is attached to the University of Pretoria and is the present Chairman of the Board of Directors.

I have already in the past referred in this House to the educational value of such a museum, and for lack of time I do not want to elaborate on that now. There are two important considerations which one should take into account. These are, firstly, that such an open air museum is not something that can be established and developed in the space of a day or a decade; it is something which must be developed in the course of several generations; and, secondly, that such a museum cannot be established and cannot be a success unless it has the interest and support of the general public. Although this interest does exist at the moment, we hope and believe that it will increase in the future. We also want to thank the Government very sincerely for the annual contribution of R10,000 for the establishment of this museum, and we hope that it will also be possible to increase the amount in future.

In a speech made by the hon. the Minister of National Education on the occasion of the opening of the open air section of the National Cultural History and Open Air Museum, he said the following on 20th October, 1967 (translation)—

The Open Air Museum, together with the general Cultural Museum, is the memory of any cultural community.

To this he later added:

I trust that the preparatory work done so far by the National Cultural History and Open Air Museum, has brought us to the threshold of a development which will lead to the establishment of a really complete cultural museum in the Republic of South Africa, and I hope that the site on which it will be constructed will be worthy of this grand national undertaking. Only the best is good enough for it.

The hon. the Minister here referred to a “site”. I have already said that the Pretoria City Council was prepared to make such a site available in the mid-fifties. However, there were many difficulties in connection with the choice and final provision of this site. But recently I learned through the medium of the Press, i.e. Die Transvaler and the new paper, Hoofstad, that these problems have now been solved and that the various parties concerned in the matter have now reached an agreement. It will therefore be possible now to make the site available finally. If that is correct, this undertaking can now be commenced with. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether my information is correct. Can he give us any further information in this regard?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Chairman, I have watched the hon. the Minister to see whether he was going to reply to this discussion. Is the hon. the Minister going to reply?

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

Yes.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

If that is the case, I am quite prepared to resume my seat in order to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of replying. I presume he was just too slow in getting up. There is certain information which he must furnish in his reply.

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

I naturally did not expect that the discussions on this Vote would come to an end so soon. In any case, let me begin by saying that it pleases me greatly that a new era lies ahead for us with the division of the old Department of Education, Arts and Science into two departments, i.e. the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Department of Higher Education. Ever since I have been in charge of the portfolio of Education, Arts and Science, I have always felt that a section of the activities attached to that portfolio was not receiving the necessary attention. I am referring here to cultural affairs in particular. When I speak of “receiving attention” I am thinking particularly of the provision of funds. When a portfolio has so many different subdivisions, it is inevitable that the most essential should always receive primary attention. That is why education has always received most attention. We had to ensure that there would always be a seat for every pupil, a teacher for every class and that all the other essentials connected with education were provided. Under the circumstances only the crumbs which fell from the table went to cultural affairs.

Even now, in the first year of the division of the portfolio into the two departments, we already have an increased amount provided for cultural affairs. I am grateful that we have an official such as Dr. Op’t Hof to head the Department of Cultural Affairs. He has been connected with the Department of Education, Arts and Science ever since 1929. He is one of our ablest officials and knows the subject inside out. Any nation which neglects its cultural assets is a nation which is in the process of becoming impoverished—both spiritually and otherwise. I am glad to be able to say, pursuant to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said, that we are going to spend much more money on this very important aspect of our national life in future. I must say that I look forward with great expectation to the new era which we have now entered.

The hon. member for Orange Grove put a number of questions to me, to which I should now like to reply. The first is in connection with the National Advisory Council for Adult Education. He put a question to me in connection with the R75,000 for immigrant children. He wants to know precisely what is being done with that. One of the major problems as far as immigrants are concerned, a problem for both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, is to absorb immigrants into our South African way of life. In saying this, I have in mind the different spheres in which we move. Thus, for example, it is best to begin with the youth by organizing holiday camps. We have already organized such a camp at Glenmore by means of the ad hoc amount which the hon. member for Orange Grove discussed last year. In the case of that camp we tried to choose one third of the participants from immigrants, one third from the Afrikaans-speaking section and one third from the English-speaking section. This camp was a very great success.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Were any Members of Parliament invited there?

*The MINISTER:

No. There were only organizers.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What about the hon. member for Primrose?

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member for Primrose was the organizer specifically appointed for the purpose. I do not know to how many organizations the hon. member for Orange Grove belongs in his private capacity. But that has nothing to do with the matter. In this country a man is free to belong to any organization he wishes, and if a person belongs to some organization or other, such as the Broederbond, it does not mean to say that he is only interested in that organization for a specific purpose. Whatever other organizations he wishes to promote is his affair. I think that one would be utterly amazed to learn to what organizations the hon. member for Orange Grove belongs!

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

How did you set about picking the one-third English-speaking and one-third Afrikaans-speaking youths?

*The MINISTER:

The principals of various schools were asked to recommend pupils who possessed qualities of leadership and who would be able to integrate easily. As far as adult education is concerned, we believe in leadership camps. We cannot just let pupils go there indiscriminately. Therefore we limit ourselves to those pupils displaying leadership potentialities. The report which I received on this camp was highly encouraging. This is in fact an outward movement within the borders of our country—to get these groups together in this way and to instil appreciation for one another’s cultural assets in them. This camp was a very great success. I hope that we shall be able to continue with such camps and that we shall always obtain the necessary funds for the purpose.

Another of the hon. member’s questions concerned the establishment of the arts and science organization. This organization is responsible for the publication of the periodicals Lantern, Archimedes and Spectrum. All three of these periodicals are of a high standard and are used in our schools and read by the general public.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The “Pretoriase Raad vir Volksontwikkeling”—what is that?

*The MINISTER:

It is a voluntary organization which devotes itself to the promotion of educational and other matters. It is a completely voluntary organization. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing sinister about it. There are no secrets connected with it. I do not have this body’s constitution here, but we can submit it to the hon. member for Orange Grove for perusal.

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

We are suspicious of everything which emanates from Pretoria.

*The MINISTER:

The amount was granted to the Cultural Academy to work in consultation with the Department’s organizers for the purposes of this camp at Glenmore. This is the amount which the hon. member referred to and in the case of which he wanted to see hidden motives by intimating that there were in fact ulterior motives. I just want to add for the benefit of the hon. member that my organizers cannot possibly organize camps if they do not have the co-operation of other public organizations or individuals. It would be an impossible task. It would be a theoretical camp which would be organized. There simply has to be someone who has the initiative, who inspires, before we eventually get that far.

As far as the matter of the contributions to the Christmas Fund are concerned, the hon. member for Orange Grove also really has the wrong end of the stick. The point which he made was the following: If contributions are made to the Christmas Fund of Die Burger, why not to others as well? He referred to the Christmas Fund of Die Vaderland—I just want to say that Die Vaderland has no Christmas Fund. There is a Children’s Beach Fund, which is totally divorced from the newspaper; it has nothing to do with it. But Die Burger has a Christmas Fund, and Die Burger has a holiday home. What they do in the case of the holiday home is different to what is done in the case of the children’s home of Die Vaderland at Glenmore. At Glenmore needy pupils receive education for four terms. To the beach home of Die Burger children come for week-ends, long week-ends and holidays for the purpose of recreation. But then my Department obtains the use of Die Burger beach home to give these pupils post-school training, which is the work of Adult Education. For that purpose we have now for several years been providing R800 a year for that service which they render my Department and my organizers in educating those children on the cultural level. They are taken round here in Cape Town and shown all the cultural treasures, and lectures are given in this connection. This is the only beach fund which in fact provides this service which has a bearing on my Department. The other beach funds have been established for a different purpose, for example the Star’s Seaside Fund, the Rand Daily Mail’s Fund and others. I am aware of all these funds. The Christmas Fund of Die Transvaler is simply for the benefit of indigent persons in Johannesburg. We cannot affiliate ourselves with those funds. I have nothing to do with them. At the moment only one of the beach funds qualifies for this grant, and that is the beach fund of Die Burger. If others qualify for it later, so that we can receive the same services from them, then use will be made of them. I think that answers the hon. member’s questions.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Chairman, I derived less satisfaction from the hon. the Minister’s reply than I had hoped. Firstly, in connection with the last point which he mentioned in regard to the contribution to the Christmas Fund of the Burger, the hon. the Minister said that it was for the use which was being made of the beach home of the Burger, for the organization of lectures and matters of that nature. However, it does not tally with the answers which the hon. the Minister gave to my question. When I asked him on the 15th March to what use that money was being put, he said: “The Burger’s Christmas Fund contribution towards remuneration of programme organizer.” To pay for a beach house is altogether different than paying an amount for a programme organizer. That is the salary or wage of one specific person. Is the person connected with the hon. the Minister’s Department or with the staff of the Burger? I can divulge his name to you: it is a Mr. Willem Morkel.

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

He works with the organizers of my Department.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Is he a staff member of the Burger?

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

Yes.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Then I object strongly to the fact that the taxpayers’ money is being used to pay part of a salary of an employee of a national newspaper.

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

It is only a partial remuneration.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

But I am even more concerned about another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s reply. We must remember that R1 million per year is being asked of us, the taxpayers of South Africa, for the Council for Adult Education: R880,000 for subsidies to organizations, mostly good organizations and R20,000 for the payment of the staff of the Council for Adult Education. However, what I am concerned about, is what the Minister revealed to us here this morning in connection with the organization of these immigrant camps, for which R75,000 and more is being requested on this Vote. The hon. the Minister admitted that the organization is being undertaken by the hon. member for Primrose, or that he plays a large role in the organization of those camps. The hon. member for Primrose is one of the last persons I should have chosen to present an unbiased image of South Africa and its institutions and traditions to young South Africans.

*Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Why? Is he too patriotic for you?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We know that the hon member for Primrose was secretary of the Broederbond—possibly he still is to-day—and that misuse is or can be made, of the money given to that body, with which the F. A.K. maintained the secretary of the Broederbond. We are to-day giving money to the liaison committee of the F.A.K. What I find even stranger about this matter, is the admission of the hon. the Minister Chat the R700 given to the Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees of the F.A.K., which has such a great deal to do with the Broederbond, is also being utilized in connection with the organization of those camps for immigrant Children, with which the hon. member for Primrose has something to do. In other words, that is where the tie-up is: the National Party, the F.A.K., the Broederbond and the hon. member for Primrose. If that A plus B plus C plus D does not mean brain washing, then I do not know what brain washing is.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Tell us how you were kicked out of the Broederbond.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I give the hon. member the assurance that I was never a member of the Broederbond. Perhaps he will tell us what Swellendam thinks of the Rapportryers. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Chairman, I will not allow myself to be distracted by interjections of that nature. Once again I want to express my displeasure at the fact that it has now been proved that the F.A.K. and the Borderbond, with the hon. member for Primrose as intermediary, play a large part in the indoctrination of immigrants. What we want to see in regard to the young immigrants, is that they are taught our South African way of life. It is an excellent idea to have camps for them, but I do not like the way in which these camps are being organized from higher up, and in particular I do not like a sum being paid to the Liaison Council of the F.A.K., as the hon. the Minister admitted this morning, which is consequently being used in connection with what I call the indoctrination of young immigrant children.

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to try to help the hon. member for Orange Grove out of his difficulty. I do not know if one will ever succeed in this. If the hon. member objects so strongly to the contribution of R800 to the beach fund of the Burger with a view to helping to pay people’s organizers, then to be consistent he should now object to quite a number of other groups in which we are doing precisely the same thing in paying organizers. He will have to object to the Boys’ and Girls’ Club in Johannesburg, to the Y.M.C.A., and he must also object to the contribution which we pay to the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides and to the Voortrekkers. These are only a few random examples. It is a method which is being followed. When he hears of the Burger —which, was once his first love—the hon. member really should not see red and get such a fright, and say that it is such a great sin to grant money to this fund. It has nothing to do with the political insight of the Burger and the political blindness of the hon. member for Orange Grove. This matter concerns the youth and their organization.

Secondly, I want to try to help the hon. member out of his difficulty and say to him that it is not only the hon. member for Primrose who undertakes this organization work. Many other people do it. All the hon. member for Primrose did was run the Glenmore beach camp. There are many other persons who are also helping out. This is but a small portion of the total outlay. We are constantly busy with the task of naturalizing immigrants. If the hon. member wants to be so un-South African as not to want immigrants, especially the youth, naturalized, to have them accept South Africa’s way of life, he is quite welcome to sit there in splendid isolation. The rest of us are carrying on, we are going ahead with the work because it is important that this work be done. This is all I can say to the hon. member, and I hope for his edification that this will now make him feel happier.

*Mr. W. S. J. GROBLER:

Mr. Chairman, I feel ashamed of the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove and I belong to the same language group of the people of South Africa. His entire argument this morning only boiled down to an attempt to cast suspicion on everything which is Afrikaans. I think this was the most disgraceful conduct we have ever had from any hon. member in this House. He referred to the contribution made to the Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees in Johannesburg. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, that money was to a large extent being used for the purposes of integrating immigrants in Johannesburg. What is more, this money is also being used, broadly speaking, to promote the cultural interests of particularly the Afrikaans-speaking people in a very cold and unfriendly city, the most unfriendly city in the whole of South Africa as far as the Afrikaner’s culture is concerned. This is a city where the Afrikaans-speaking people had to struggle against great odds for many years to gain cultural recognition for themselves. The hon. member, who should actually have been very appreciative of the work that has been done in this connection through the years, came along here this morning and launched this most derogatory attack on that work, instead of expressing his appreciation towards those people who have played a leading part in this struggle over the years. This is typical of the United Party; this is how we have come to know them. It is typical of them, in that they feel that they should oppose everything that is truly South African, that suspicion must be cast upon everything that has to do with promoting the development of a national identity. That is why they are becoming a mini-party, and I want to predict that full cognizance will be taken of these actions of the United Party and that fewer and fewer members of that party will be returned to this House in future elections.

I also want to associate myself with the words of appreciation expressed towards the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister concerned with this matter, for the establishment of a separate Department of Cultural Affairs. I want to say immediately that I regard as one of the most important tasks of this Department the rendering of the assistance to the people of South Africa in carrying out one of the most important duties they have been called to perform, i.e. the promotion of art and culture. At the end of my speech I want to advance a plea in regard to specific assistance which can be rendered in this connection. I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to rendering this assistance.

Before I do that, permit me to point out certain very important aspects in regard to culture. I need not on this occasion, go into the question of how art and culture originate, but what is important, in view of what I want to ask at the end of my speech, is that we should try to find an answer to the question: What does the artist, the creator of culture, strive to achieve? Now, the answer is an obvious one. The answer is, of course, that any artist strives to achieve something which is beautiful. But it is also true that absolute beauty cannot be achieved in art, since man himself is imperfect. In other words, art is in essence nothing but a longing for the sublime. But it is also true and beyond question that we in South Africa have not escaped from the fact in the past, and will to an increasing extent be unable to escape it in future, that evil forces try to use what is ostensibly beautiful to mislead the people of South Africa, and they will continue to do so in future. This is so because we already have too many artists in South Africa who, with blind self-conceit and according to their own home-made laws of art, are making their contributions, contributions which not only run counter to Christian outlook on life, but which also fail to interpret in concrete form the innermost feelings of our nation. Too many of our cultural products are no longer a portrayal of the individuality of our people. There are of course, many reasons to be found for this, but it strikes one—and the question may be asked whether this is not the most important reason—that too many works of art of too many artists are no longer rooted in a truly national soil which can nurture and impart growth and vitality to the cultural plant. The reasons for this action and this tendency displayed by our artists, must undoubtedly be sought in the example which is set by the United Party, and which they again set here this morning.

I want to leave the matter there, because time will not permit me to elaborate on it any further, and I want to ask whether, in view of this undesirable state of affairs which is arising, consideration could not be given to instituting a thorough investigation into the ways and means which may be employed to encourage and stimulate fine, positive works of art in South Africa in every respect. When one discusses this matter, there are various possibilities that may be put forward. It is not my task to make suggestions in regard to what I have asked, but I nevertheless want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister briefly to a few of the problems our artists are faced with at the moment and which prevent them from giving of their very best in this respect.

On a previous occasion we pointed out the problems our authors and our poets are faced with. They have to work under difficult circumstances, they have to work on a part-time basis with all the attendant disadvantages and under those circumstances it is simply impossible to produce the work one should produce. It is also the position that there are other groups of artists, among whom there are even some who work on a full-time basis, whose salaries are so inadequate that it leads to all sorts of malpractices. Male artists cannot afford to marry and to maintain a family, because there is not sufficient security, such as a medical fund or a pension fund, for them. Gross irregularities occur in the contracts of artists. These differ from one province to another and from one employer to another. There are no industrial agreements as far as the artist is concerned. I want to plead this morning that the time has come for some form of stability to be introduced in the profession of our artists and not only in one specific group. The time has come that really serious attention should be given to the establishment of a national aid fund for artists. Measures will have to be introduced to protect our artists in South Africa against overseas competition. Has the time not arrived that serious attention be given to the establishment of a State academy which will be able to exploit this national talent of ours in South Africa to the full? Under these circumstances, I earnestly request and plead that the hon the Minister should consider having a very thorough investigation conducted into all these matters in order to ascertain in what way we can really assist our artists in their difficult struggle.

*Captain W. J. B. SMITH:

I am sorry that I cannot follow up on what the hon. member for Springs has said. I want to take up quite a different line. This morning I want to plead the cause of a group of South Africans, several of whom I knew very well, and whom I always regarded as a separate part of the South African people. I am referring to the Dorslandtrekkers. What I am pleading for is a central museum for their museum pieces. At the moment their possessions are widely dispersed. A portion of these is in Bloemfontein; another portion is in Pretoria, and I think a third is in Otjiwarongo in South West Africa. I wondered whether it would not be possible to establish a central museum in their own part of the world and that is why I thought of Namutoni, the place where all their paths met when they were taming the country. I have been informed that at present there are about 35,000 visitors to the Etosha Pan at Namutoni annually. At present nobody is going to look at their possessions. People drive through Bloemfontein and Pretoria, and possibly Otjiwarongo, but nobody knows they are there. If there were such a place, between the police station and the main camp there at Namutoni, the people could visit it in the afternoon when they return from the Pan and find out what these people accomplished. We should realize that these people spilled their blood to tame the country. Many of us think that the Voor-trekkers merely trekked from one point to another, and do not realize how these people traversed the length and breadth of the country.

I should like to take a Voortrekker woman as an example. When one talks of the Voor-trekkers one usually thinks of Piet Retief or Gert Maritz or Pretorius, but let us now take a Voortrekker woman as an example. Ella Lombard was in the early Trek and she escaped the massacre at Blaauwkrantz. At the age of 17 she married Hans Lombard in Pietermaritzburg and we later hear from them in Potchefstroom, after that in the Lowveld and Rustenburg and back again to Potchefstroom. They had four sons in quick succession, and many years later a daughter as well. Later they went on the Dorslandtrek on to lake Ngama and Hans Lombard subsequently died of fever at the Okavango Marshes. If one takes the four sons, the first died on a lion hunt in the Lowveld near Kla-serie. The second was killed when they took action against a headman, Makapaan, in the Soutpansberg. The third trekked to Barotse-land and nothing was heard from him again. The fourth one went out on a hunting expedition at Ngami one afternoon, probably to shoot something for the pot. He did not return that evening and the following morning his father went out, accompanied by what the Germans call the “Luftpolizei”, that is, the vultures, he found the body of the young man and the lion. He had shot the lion, but with his last leap he had also got young Hans. As I said, the father later died of fever. Ella Lombard went through to Angola and she later returned to the Upingtonia Republic, where she died. Here we have one family, four boys a father and a mother and there the graves lie, thousands of miles apart. That just shows how the people tamed the land, and spilled their blood in South West Africa and in Angola in order to tame those parts of the world.

I am not asking for something very expensive, such as the Voortrekker Monument or the British Settlers’ Monument in Grahams-town. I was wondering whether it is not possible to build something similar to the Voortrekker Memorial Church standing in Pietermaritzburg. It is quite large enough to house their museum pieces. I think the precious consignment forms used when they trekked from Swartbooi’s Drift back to South West Africa are lying at a police station near the Kaokoveld. These are the consignment forms issued by the Railways for transporting each trek. The documents lying there are very valuable ones. I hope they are still there and we shall still be able to take them into safekeeping. Let these few words suffice to show how very grateful I would be if we are able to commemorate those people with something along the lines I have suggested

*Dr. J. A. COETZEE:

I should like to lend the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) my support in connection with the matter which he has now broached. I had the privilege of going as a teacher to Angola 44 years ago and there I met some of the surviving Dorslandtrekkers. I have here a few photographs which I shall show to the hon. member if he wants to look at them, seeing that he is so interested.

The Dorslandtreks are of great significance in our history. There were about five treks, one in 1874 a larger one of more than 100 waggons in 1877-1881; then there were also more treks in 1892 and in 1893, and in 1905 there was another. This corresponds to a large extent with the groups of the Great Trek. It is, as the hon. member said, quite true that they made an important contribution to the civilization in Angola. The Portuguese Empire had been experiencing great difficulty with the Natives there at that time, and the Boers who came there were a great help to them and played an important part in making Angola safe for the Portuguese Empire. To-day it is important to us again that Portugal should stand firm in Africa. It is therefore a contribution which they made at that time already towards the support that we are getting from Portugal to-day in our struggle for existence. But that is not all. In 1928 they were transferred to South West Africa. There were approximately 2,000 of them and they were a great asset, and have been up to the present day, to South Africa in reinforcing the white element in South West Africa so as to make South West Africa safer for us in future.

They were pioneers and people with very keen powers of perseverance and endurance, and are to-day an inspiration to our Afrika-nerdom in our struggle for existence. Then, too, their descendants are people who have gone far in life, who have made a success of their lives in South West Africa and elsewhere. About 10 years ago I also had the privilege of assisting in bringing to South West Africa and South Africa a further 400 of them who were still wandering about Angola. Their descendants in South West Africa and South Africa after 1928 have also done remarkably well. They have made a success of their farming there. They have also been successful in business and there are some of them who are prominent in the national life to-day. I have one in mind for example who is professor in mathematics at the University of Pretoria; then there is another who became an architect after specializing overseas. Several of them became clergymen and one of them even became a member of this House of Assembly, the hon. member for Middelland, and he even attained the position of Whip here in the House of Assembly, as we have been well aware at times! Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege to support this motion for conserving the heritage of the Dorslandtrekkers as an inspiration to posterity.

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

I am very glad that there were at least a few outstanding contributions to this debate. I am grateful for what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said in connection with the cultural-historical museum. He quoted from a speech which I made. I do not want to praise or commend my own interest in this matter, but I am grateful to be able to announce now that the committee with authority in charge of the disposal of these grounds of the Fountains, consisting of the Minister of Planning, the Administrator of the Transvaal and the chairman of the Executive Committee of the City Council of Pretoria, has decided to make this area of 60 morgen available for the establishment and development of the cultural museum. It is a fine step forward. Mrs. Kotie Rood-Coetsee, who is behind this entire organization, has undertaken extensive trips abroad in order to ascertain what has to be done. The re-establishment of fast-vanishing cultural objects at that open air museum will make an attractive contribution towards the culture of our South African people. I am grateful to have been able to make this announcement here.

I am also pleased about the hon. member for Springs’ contribution in regard to the question of assistance to artists. It is not so easy to determine, across the floor of this House and without thorough investigation, how and to what extent one can do such a thing, but I should like to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Springs that we conduct an investigation during the recess …

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Do you accept the suggestion to subsidize writers?

*The MINISTER:

No, I do not say that I accept it. I have just said that it is not so easy to decide what has to be done. The hon. member should listen more attentively; I was half-way through a sentence. I say I accept his suggestion that we institute an investigation during the recess into the practicability and the possibility of assisting artists in some way or other. Hon. members know that much is already being done with all sorts of money prizes which are being made available. My Department is even making successive money prizes available for poetry, prose and drama. But we shall have to go into the matter. One finds good artists who, as a result of problems, are often unable to continue with their work, but to my mind it is very much an open question whether the Government of the country should take the responsibility for this. That encouragement should perhaps come from somewhere else. But, in any case, I am grateful for the hon. member’s contribution.

Then I come to the last two contributions, those of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (City) and for Kempton Park. I am really grateful to them for having mentioned this important matter. The hon. member knows that legislation on South West Africa will be introduced and I hope that the hon. member will support that legislation strongly for this reason, because if the legislation is adopted then the way to collecting cultural possessions there as well will be clear to us. I do not want to say a great deal more about this; I do not want to lower the level on which this debate has been conducted, but I fully endorse what the two hon. members said about the value and significance, viewed from a cultural standpoint and from all other viewpoints, of the Dorslandtrekkers. We most definitely have an unsettled account to pay as far as they are concerned, although I want to state here again that the State is not responsible for these matters. We have already stated this here in connection with the erection of monuments for example. When the matter is of great national importance, the State makes a contribution, but it always expects the private initiative to take the lead in getting the matter under way. And when it is a matter of national importance, as in the case of the British Settlers Monument and the Voortrekker Monument, then the State makes its contribution, and the hon. member can rely on that when we ultimately get that far. I am glad, however, that this very important recommendation came from both sides of the House.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 8,—Higher Education, R38,226,000. and Loan Vote M,—Higher Education, R3,620,000.

Mr. P. A. MOORE;

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, I find myself in an unaccustomed role this morning and in an embarrassing position. I find that I have to thank the Minister. The reason is, of course, that at this stage of the Session, in the month of April, we have received two very important reports from his Department for the year 1967. We have the report of the National Advisory Education Council and the Annual Report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I think that is a very great achievement. If I may suggest what the reason is, it is, of course, because the Language Bureau—and therefore the translation department—falls under the hon. the Minister himself and I presume that his reports come first and therefore they are first served.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort paid a tribute to the former Secretary of Education, Dr. Op’t Hof, and naturally we all associate ourselves with that. We have regarded him as a most efficient servant. But what I cannot understand is this: Why was it necessary to have two departments, a Department of Cultural Affairs and a Department of Education? It seems to me that in the years gone by the two departments have operated very satisfactorily. I do not know whether there are greater claims now on the Department of Cultural Affairs that require a special Secretary. To me it does not seem necessary. We have been talking a good deal about reducing Government expenditure, but yet here we are creating separate departments with separate secretaries when they carried on very well as they were under the old system. The Minister appears to-day in a new role. To-day he is not only the Minister of Higher Education and of Cultural Affairs but is also directly responsible for a national policy on education. The legislation we passed here last year has now been promulgated with the hon. Minister in charge. He gives the tone for education in the whole of South Africa. In the circumstances, I expected that at the beginning of this debate he would give us a statement of his views on his educational policy generally. The older order has made way for a new one and we can expect the Minister now to tell us what his views are on education policy generally. So I am rather disappointed that he has not given us such a statement, especially in view of the fact that there is a great deal of confusion in our organization of education in South Africa. We have no less than four departments of education and one of these departments has now been divided into two distinct sections. Well, with four departments of education I found the position was most confusing. We never knew what minister was responsible—the Minister of Coloured Affairs, the Minister of Bantu Education or the hon. the Minister himself.

I now want to say a word or two about the report I referred to, i.e. the report of the National Advisory Education Council. The most important part of this body’s report we cannot discuss, because it deals with the training of teachers, a matter with which this House has now been seized as a result of the fact that a Bill has been introduced here in connection with this matter. The greatest part of this report deals with this matter and I am therefore sorry that we shall not be able to discuss it. However, it seems that a good deal of preliminary work was done by the National Advisory Education Council in this connection. I want to say a word or two about the new council, described on the first page of the report. The Minister may recall that when the first council was appointed I expressed misgivings about its constitution. I was not satisfied with it. We in South Africa are, I feel unfortunately, divided into English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in education. That I have always regretted, as I have felt that our educational institutions should come closer together. But since we have this separation, we have to live with it. But then, I think, we should consider both sections. Here I want to refer to the executive of this National Council. This executive consists of five members. The Chairman, Prof. C. H. Rautenbach, is a distinguished educationist. He is the principal of the University of Pretoria—there is no more distinguished educationist in South Africa. Then we have Prof. G. J. Jordaan. He was the principal of the Pretoria Training College, an Afrikaans-medium training college for teachers. Then we have Prof. H. J. J. Bingle, the principal of „die Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Nasionale Onderwys”. He too is an excellent man. Then we have a representative of the schools in the person of Miss E. C. Steijn. She was the principal of the Afrikaanse Meisies-hoёrskool at Pretoria. I suggest that the Minister should have given the English-speaking section two representatives, one of whom should have been vice-chairman and the other one an ordinary member. The chairman and the remaining two could then have been Afrikaans speaking. The English-speaking section has not had what I regard as a fair deal. This is one point I should like to make.

I now come to one or two remarks about the report itself. On page 4, paragraph 9.6, it is reported that in a Press release of the 3rd November, 1967, the Minister announced that a synopsis of the four reports would be drawn up by the executive committee, and the hope is expressed that this will be published early in the new year, subject to the Minister’s approval. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this has been published. If the Minister intends referring his new Bill to a select committee, I think the members of that committee should be in possession of these reports. Then I should like to refer to page 6, paragraph 21.1. There it is reported that the council is endeavouring to arrange a conference in co-operation with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations of South Africa. I should say it is very necessary that this council should co-operate with this federation’s representatives. It is further reported that this conference “which will be a conference of representatives of teachers’ associations” will probably not take place before 1969. That I think is very regrettable, as I think they should meet, if at all possible, this year—at least whilst the projected commission of the Minister is sitting. Then there is the question of the training of teachers which, however much I should like to, we may not of course discuss now.

I now come to the annual report of the department itself. Here I should like to deal with the Language Services Bureaux, referred to on pages 29 and 30 of that report. A language bureau is a most important institution in our bilingual country. It should be the highest authority we have on language in this country. Translations are most important in a bilingual country. In this connection, the report which we have here is rather disturbing. It says—

There has been an increase in the number of requests for the correction of both versions of translated documents or for the correction as well as the translation of texts.

Therefore, the correction as well as the translation of texts. It must be remembered that these men are experts in language, highly educated men. The report continues—

During the past 12 months the section lost the services of two chief language officers and two language officers. This severe loss has added to the burden of the already depleted experienced staff. At present 50 per cent of the posts in the grade of Chief Language Officer—the functional front-line—are vacant, with a bottleneck in the flow of work as the inevitable result. The bureau has submitted a report once again drawing attention to its unsatisfactory staff position …
The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I think the hon. member ought to have dealt with this matter under the previous Vote, namely the Vote “Cultural Affairs”. This bureau was under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but it is not there any more.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

In deference to the decision of the hon. the Minister to create two departments out of this department we decided to take these matters in this order. May I just proceed with this? I shall not refer to any other item of this nature.

The CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members had the opportunity before I put the previous Vote to ask that these two Votes should be taken together. However, they did not do so.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Thank you, Sir, I shall leave it at that. I only want to say that I think it is most essential …

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can we not, as we do with the Votes of other hon. Ministers where the Votes are more or less similar, discuss these Votes together?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I discussed with the responsible Whip before this Committee started to-day, whether these two Votes should be taken together or not, but the Whip told me that the United Party did not want the Votes to be dealt with in that way.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

In any event, Mr. Chairman, surely we may refer to this language bureau under any other Vote? It concerns every Department as a matter of fact.

The CHAIRMAN:

But the provision for this Bureau has specifically been made under the Cultural Affairs Vote.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

But surely, we are entitled to deal with the unsatisfactory translations we have in this country? Would that not be permitted?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I cannot see any connection between the two.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Very well, Sir, in deference to your wishes I will leave the matter at that. There is one other item I should like to refer to on education, and that is on page 19, namely audio-visual education. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister carries on audiovisual education for his own department only. Some time ago I asked a question on Bantu education, namely whether audio-visual education was being used either in the primary schools, the high schools or the university colleges. The answer was “no”. I think the hon. the Minister should make his department’s knowledge available to these other departments, namely the Departments of Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and Bantu Education. I think that is essential. However, we leave the subject of the two reports, and I should like to go on to another point.

I should like to refer to the supply of teachers in South Africa. It is a matter now that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister. I refer specially to English-speaking teachers in English-medium schools. There is a very great shortage at present. I have always regretted this rigid division between Afrikaans-medium schools and English-medium schools. We are told that it is necessary that the child should have his education through his home language. We all agree with that. But I think the line of demarcation is too rigid. I understand that in the early days when we were building up a strong Afrikaans education department or departments throughout the country, it was necessary to have this division. Is it necessary today? Have we not reached the stage now when we could trust the parents? They are the people responsible for the education of children; why cannot we have an opportunity for parents to send their children for a year or two to the other medium school? Supposing a child is at an English-medium school and has reached a certain stage; the parents should be able to say: Now I would like this child to speak Afrikaans better—and there are many such examples …

Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

At what stage?

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

At any stage the parents think desirable. I quite realize that is an important point. I think the parents should have all decisions in education, and not the experts, just as the parent has the decision in regard to the health and the medical attention of the child. When the parent goes to the principal of a school whom the parent knows intimately, he asks the principal for advice, and the principal advises him. But I do not want the principal to dictate to him. If I may use a simile: If a parent goes to a doctor, and the doctor says, after examining the child “you should have that child’s tonsils taken out”, who decides whether the tonsils are to come out? Is it the doctor or the parent? The same is true in education. I think experts, of whom I was supposed to be one, should advise the parents but the decision should be with them. I think the time has arrived when it should be possible to introduce something of that kind in the schools. I raise this with the Minister, because he is now responsible for all policy in education throughout the country. But if it is not possible to introduce this through the provinces at present, may I suggest to the hon. the Minister that, having carried out experiments in education as he has done through his Research Department, why not some research in this direction? Why not have certain selected schools, with the consent of the parents, of course, where this can be tried out? Call them what you wish. They can be dual-medium schools, parallel-class schools, whatever one likes, but make it possible to have experiments of this kind. People say one should not experiment with the child’s education. Let me give you an example, Mr. Chairman, that has occurred recently in English-medium schools. The hon. the Minister will be familiar with the new system of teaching reading, namely the Initial Teaching Alphabet for English-speaking children. The English language is not phonetic. English does not have phonetic spelling, as the Afrikaans language has.

They introduced the I.T.A. in the Transvaal. They did this in the following way. They brought the heads of some schools together and said that they should discuss this matter with the parents of children of the age of six years. They would tell them that they would like to try out this system which was so successful in England, the I.T.A. system, to see if it could be introduced here. They did this in five or six schools. I have been interested in this because I have seen a child being introduced to this system. What I was concerned about was how a child would take the changeover of his reading to the ordinary spelling. I understand that there is no difficulty with this. They have now reached the stage in the Transvaal where the children are changing over without any difficulty. If that experiment can be carried out, why cannot we have an experiment in the direction of language teaching? It will be a help. I know that at present parents are sending their children to clubs. The hon. the Minister has described how students are studying together. One-third of them were English-speaking, one-third Afrikaans-speaking, and one-third immigrants. Why cannot this be done in the schools? II make this suggestion for the benefit of the hon. the Minister’s research department.

I now come to a matter which is a little more difficult to discuss in the House, because I think there is a good deal of misconception. I now come to the difference of opinion—I cannot call it a feud, because there has always been a feud—between the hon. the Minister with some members of his party and the students in the English-language institutions. The usual thing is to talk of Nusas. I should like to refer to this and say that I think it is most regrettable that we should have this criticism of these students and misunderstanding. I want to say that I have complete and absolute confidence in the youth of this country. Not only in the Afrikaans or English-speaking youth, but in all of them. I have only one regret when I think of them, and that is that I am not one of them. I have seen how the young people of South Africa have behaved at times of great crisis. I have seen them join the forces to fight for their country. I am a great admirer of them. If I compare our youth to-day with that of Germany, Italy and other countries, I think our fellows come out very well. They are a superior type.

Mr. F. J. LE ROUX:

Except for the happenings.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I was a student and I remember that when a new students’ union was opened for us, Chancellor Lord Derby brought the greatest orator of the day, Lord Rosebery, to speak on our opening day. Lord Rosebery said that he would suggest that over the portals of this union there should be inscribed “No man will be bound in after life for any expression of opinion here”. In other words, you lived through that period. I have one suggestion to make however. It is a personal one and not a party or policy one, and that is that before a young man goes to university he should do his military service. I am all for that. We talk about discipline and we should do that. Perhaps he will waste a few months, but it will be good for him. I have heard of a sergeant who said, when he had his group of men together, that he was going to have the English-sneaking fellows in one bungalow and the Afrikaans-speaking in another. What nonsense. Let them go together and live together. They should get to know one another. There has been a great deal of friction between the hon. the Minister and these students. I do not know if I should commiserate with him, but I have felt very sorry for him at times. I think he was driven to desperation when he introduced those two Bills with which he tried to put things right in the English-language universities. The title of the one Bill was—

Bill to amend the Extension of the University Education Act, 1959, in order to confine the activities of certain persons at universities to academic matters, and to make special provision in regard to the admission of certain persons to universities.

You see, the difficulty was this, from the Minister’s point of view: There was, as some of my hon. friends opposite call it, a “deurmekaar-boerdery”. There was no clear racial division. The question I want to put is this: Who is responsible for that? Is it the Witwatersrand University? Is it Natal University? Is it U.C.T.? No, they are not responsible. The hon. the Minister is responsible. I will show hon. members how.

I was a member of the select committee, which became a commission, that drafted our bill for separate universities, although we called it in the end something else. We introduced a euphemism and called it “The Extension of University Education Bill”. We sat as a commission and the minority group on that commission, consisting of hon. members on this side of the House, warned it was impracticable and could not be carried out because we could not provide the facilities for all races. Of course, that is the position, and therefore we suggested: “Let us have a ten-year interim period during which we carry on as we are until we have provided complete facilities.” That was our suggestion. It was point number 8 of our nine points of difference. We did our best to draft a bill and we were adversely criticized by people who are familiarly known as the Leftists. But they forgot that this was a Bill referred to a select committee after the second reading, and the principle had to be accepted. We drafted a bill accepting the principle. In other words, although we did not like the Bill and although we did not like the policy, we said we would make the best of this bad job. We recommended, as I said, there should be an interim period of 10 years. But the Government brushed that aside and the Act was duly passed. There are two significant sections in the Act, namely 17 and 31. Section 17 reads as follows—

No white person shall register with or attend any university college as a student.

That is agreed. Let us take section 31. I will not read the section, but it is to the effect that as from a date to be fixed by the Governor General by proclamation in the Gazette no non-white student may attend a university, except with the consent of the hon. the Minister. Which Minister? There are four Ministers involved. If an African student wishes to go to the Witwatersrand University, as young Xhosa are doing to-day, he must obtain the permission of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs. If a Coloured student wishes to go, he must obtain permission from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and so on. In other words, all our non-white students at our universities are “Ministers’ men”. They are students sent there by the Minister concerned. What should the Minister do now? He should not have these feuds with our English-language universities. He should call a student along—I believe the Minister deals with Chinese students only. Let us take the case of a Coloured student. There are many Coloured students. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs should say to the student: “Now, I am acting in loco parentis, I am giving you permission to go to this university, but you will behave yourself as I think fit,” and so on. He must speak to the student concerned as a father speaks to his son. He should tell him: “I am giving you permission to attend the university for the first year, to see how you get on, and if you do quite well I will give you another year, and so on.” In other words, this friction need not arise. But what does the Minister do? He throws the responsibility on the university council, and that is quite unjustified. He blames the white students in the universities for acting according to the policy of the university. The white students are quite justified in carrying on as they are doing. I see no fault with what NUSAS has been doing. I am not talking about individuals who have gone too far, who behaved badly. I am not talking about them. The position is this: The hon. the Minister can put this matter right without these two Bills. Thank goodness he did not proceed with them, because, so he said, the university was prepared to amend its Constitution. But that is not necessary. I would say this, however: Until we have provision under the Government’s policy, which is not a policy I like, so that all university colleges can provide the facilities the Government said nine years ago, it would provide the Minister should be patient. He should co-operate with our English-language universities, the open universities as they like to be called, because at the very height of all this discussion the Cape Town University council issued a statement to the effect that they stood by their ideal of an open university. They said they believe in it. And so do I. But that is by the way. Open universities are against the law. If it is against the law, well, I am all for obeying the law, whatever the law may be. If I do not like it, I try to have it changed, but I am for obeying the law. Therefore I say the continuation of this feud is unjustified and unnecessary. I hope the Minister will be able to approach this question now in a more sympathetic manner and to give the universities of the Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Natal and Rhodes the sympathetic consideration they should have. If he does not like it, he can tell his colleagues not to send their students to those universities. That is all. But he cannot do that; because he would let the students down, and the policy of the Nationalist Party would fail. [Time expired.]

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Mr. Chairman. I want to begin at the same place where the hon. member for Kensington began, but in a different vein. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for and congratulate him on the separation of the two Departments so that we now have cultural affairs on the one side and that for the first time in our history full justice is being done to Higher Education as a full-fledged Department. I think it is a need which we felt here in South Africa for a long time, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having taken this step. I want to wish the new Secretary for Higher Education, Mr. M. C. Erasmus, every success right at the beginning of his career in this position. We have full confidence in him in that position and we know that he will develop that Department into a great asset in the history of our people.

I only have ten minutes at my disposal, and in that time I cannot reply to everything that the hon. member said, but I do want to discuss one or two points which he mentioned. The hon. member’s attitude is that he expects the Minister to get up now and immediately make a broad statement of policy. Surely the hon. member is aware that in Act No. 39 of 1967 there are as clear as daylight the 10 points which are the 10 cornerstones within the framework of which the Minister can lay down general policy. Surely those 10 points have already been laid down and determined there. The Minister can make a statement on the particulars of each of those ten points at the appropriate time. But surely it is wrong to expect the hon. the Minister to make a statement here all of a sudden, as though there has been a change of policy. One only makes a statement when there is a change of policy. That is what the hon. the Opposition do every time as far as their colour policy is concerned. We have no change of policy; we are still pursuing the same course. Therefore the hon. member should not expect a grand statement of policy. I think he is quite wrong if he is looking for that.

In addition I want to deal briefly with the other two matters mentioned by the hon. member. The one point is the question that we should now start experimenting with the language medium of education for the youth in the future. I want to begin by saying that if the hon. member thinks the Afrikaans-speaking section fell back upon mother-tongue education because they were concerned that things would go wrong politically, he is making a very big mistake. We accepted mother-tongue education as the medium of education not on political grounds, but on purely educational grounds which are accepted by every educationist throughout the world. Therefore, whether we are a Republic or not, educationally it remains in the interests of every child to receive education through the medium of his mother tongue. It is not a political move; there are no political motives behind it. That is why I agree and persist in the view that mother-tongue education is necessary because it is in the interests of the child, also for the English-speaking child, for the Chinese child in China, or the child in whatever country it may be.

I want to add that there has been talk about experiments in connection with the medium of education. The Opposition, after all, undertook the biggest experiment ever when they came forward with dual medium education in their time, and it was one of the nails in their coffin in 1948 that they forced our children without any choice whatsoever to receive education through the medium of both languages. That made them unpopular with the Afrikaans-speaking parents and also with the English-speaking parents. It was a fruitless effort. The experiment was made and it was a big failure. Why should we make it again?

I also want to discuss the question that the two language groups should come together under one roof. But that is possible every day. Most of the schools in the Transvaal are still parallel medium schools at present. A parallel medium school means that the child receives education through his mother tongue in his classroom, but the two classrooms are under the same roof in the same school and under the same principal. They play together in the same cricket team and in the same football team. What more does the hon. member want? There is a perfect co-ordination of the two, i.e. there is mother-tongue education, which is educationally right, and the boys and girls are together on the same sportsfield to make it possible to become one South African nation.

But what is our experience? Ninety per cent of these parallel medium schools are Afrikaans. For what reason? Because the English-speaking parents in the immediate vicinity take their children away and send them to the purely English-medium schools at other places, to the “Boys’ High” and the “Girls’ High” at other places. Who are the guilty persons then, the Government, which makes available parallel medium schools where the children can realize their ideals to the full, or the parents, who out of their own choice prefer to put their children in a hostel at a purely English-medium school, or a private school. No, I do not think the Government is to blame for that at all. I had the clearest example in my home town. The high school to which I was attached was a parallel medium school for more than six years, and there was not a single English-speaking child. It was certified as a parallel medium school and all the lists of vacancies gave it as a parallel medium school, but not a single English-speaking parent ever sent his child to it, so that in practice it eventually became an Afrikaans-medium school, while there were many English-speaking people living in the same town who rather transported their children themselves to English-medium schools or sent them to hostels. I do not want to raise that old issue again. The National Party has no guilty conscience in this case. On the contrary, it acted correctly, educationally speaking, and 100 per cent South African.

I want to deal briefly with the second theme of the hon. member. It concerns the question of the mixed universities, the so-called open universities, at which there are non-white students at present, and now the Minister is blamed for the fact that those students are there now and that mixing takes place there. That is the answer of the hon. member, because his fine theory is that, at the beginning of the year, when giving permission to those non-White students to attend those universities, the Minister should say: “Look, boys, you may go, but these are my conditions: you may attend no mixed dances, you may not mix with the Whites on the campus, etc.” Then the hon. member says the Minister should again call them after a year and say to them: “You have now behaved badly for a year and I am now withdrawing the permission. That is what it amounts to. Now I ask what the hon. member’s reaction would be if such a non-White student did outstanding academic work and passed with a high percentage at the end of the year, but his social life clashed with what the Minister had laid down to him, and the Minister were then to refuse him permission to study further. And if the Minister refused it, it would mean that he had reached the end of his career, because there is no other university where he can attend that specific course; that is why he is still being given temporary permission to be there, otherwise he would not have got permission at all.

What would be the reaction of the hon. member, the Opposition and the whole world if that were to be the position and the Minister withdrew his permission? The hon. member must realize that his suggestion is quite ridiculous. That is why we are appealing to the university authorities, although they still have non-Whites temporarily until courses have been introduced at their own colleges, to see to it that the general traditional policy of South Africa is observed on their campuses and that we are not forced to introduce legislation, because in that case we have no option. We respect their autonomy, but then we ask them please to act in the interests of the country and also in the interests of their students.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Would the hon. member for Randfontein be in favour of these students being sent to Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom, the University of the Free State or Pretoria, where they could carry out the policy he wants?

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

It is the right of every university to decide whom it will admit. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Do not make such a noise. Give me a chance. The position is, in the first place, that the universities have their own right to lay down a policy in connection with their own affairs, but there is also a broader policy. Let us understand one another very clearly. The autonomy of the university is always subject to the tradition of the customs of a country. It is an inseparable part of the whole community. It cannot all of a sudden pretend not to have anything to do with the traditions and the customs of the country. It is part of the community; it is situated in a community, and that is why it is right that it will stay in the community and operate according to those customs.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. member for Kensington that the universities decide about the admission. The so-called open universities prefer to have these people with them. They admitted these people voluntarily when the others refused to admit them. The hon. member should not refer to Afrikaans universities now as having decided not to have them there out of their own accord. But I say that where they are in fact at those universities. I appeal to them, in the interests of South Africa, to act in such a way that it will not be necessary for the Government to come forward with legislation, because if this state of affairs continues the Government will be forced to act in one way or another at some time or other.

Mr. L. F. WOOD:

I trust the hon. member for Randfontein will forgive me if I do not follow his trend of thought. My time is limited and I have a matter which I regard as being of particular importance, and I have some facts I would like to place before the Minister in the time at my disposal.

I would like to refer to the staff shortages at the colleges for advanced technical education in general, and to the training of pharmacists, or chemists and druggists as they are defined in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, in particular. The question I would like to pose to the Minister is whether the best use is being made of our manpower and of our teaching resources.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the report of the Department of Education, and I wish to draw attention to certain aspects of that report, firstly in regard to serious staff shortages. I refer to page 5, where the report says this—

Colleges are still having difficulty in finding suitable lecturers, especially for the training of technicians and pharmacists. If this shortage continues, it could, in time have an adverse effect on industry. Owing to the shortage of trained staff the colleges have difficulty in meeting all needs.

Then on page 6 we find that one of the newer colleges for advanced technical education, the Vaal Triangle College, at present has a staff of 17 and there are vacancies for 12 lecturers. We continue to page 10 and we find, according to my analysis of the facts supplied, that approximately ½ per cent of the approved posts are not filled, or almost one-twelfth. We find the expression of opinion that recruiting has improved, but there are difficulties in obtaining suitable teachers for certain subjects. Then we find in the Schedule, also on page 10. reference to the appointments at technical and other colleges. Here I am dealing only with senior lecturers, lecturers and senior teachers. The total number of posts is 179, and the number filled is 132, giving a shortfall of 47, or 26 per cent. When we come to the question of the Division of Adult Education on page 33, we find also that there is reference to the aggravation of already existing staff shortages.

I want to come back to the training of pharmacists, because this is a matter which is also of grave concern. During the second reading of the Advanced Technical Education Bill last year the hon. the Minister said, in Col. 972—

These colleges will concentrate to an increasing extent on offering training courses such as pharmacy, art and teacher training.

A report, also by this Minister’s Department, drawn up by the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research, which was published in 1960, the subject being the training and employment of medical, dental and auxiliary medical personnel, said this—

It is essential for the future needs of the country for a larger number of pharmacists to qualify.

The report went on to suggest that the minimum number should be 200 per year, and in the breakdown of the various categories of pharmacists it is suggested that two of the 200 should find their way to the teaching personnel. In the light of events I suggest that this figure is completely unrealistic. What is the actual position? From 1960 to 1967 the additional number of chemists and druggists on the register is 603; out of a total of 3,639 there has been an addition of 603 chemists since 1960, an average of 86 per annum; whereas the requirements were estimated at 200 per annum. What is significant is when you look at the position regarding apprentices, because this is the source from which the chemists are derived. We find during the same period that 1,187 apprentices were added to the apprenticeship register, showing an average intake of 169 per year. This figure is still below the aim of 200 chemists and druggists a year. I must say with pleasure that there was an improvement in the last figures available, which indicate that 232 apprentices were registered with the Pharmacy Board.

I think it is fitting to ask who trains these people. The training of these people is effected in ten training institutions, for a potential output of roughly 200 chemists and druggists a year, seven of which are under the purview of this particular Minister in the form of five technical colleges, mostly colleges for advanced technical education, and two universities. There are now, of course, three university colleges for non-Whites offering training for non-White chemists and druggists. If one considers the total enrollment, one finds that for the first year—may I explain that the first year of study precedes a two-year period of apprenticeship—536 are enrolled at the various training institutions, of whom 111 are non-Whites. After the apprenticeship training period, the second year shows an enrolment of 239, of whom 26 are non-Whites, and the third year shows a total enrolment of 189, of whom eight are non-Whites. So it will be seen that there is a substantial wastage from the first year to the second and third years in both racial groups. I appreciate that there is the possibility of a four-year course being instituted, and the question of apprenticeship intervening between the academic courses is likely to disappear. But what is the staff position in regard to the training institutions under the control of the Minister? The universities—and these are figures given to me by the Minister in reply to my question—list a staff of 13, dealing specifically with the Department of Pharmacy, and the technical colleges list a staff of 50.

Some of the members of the staffs are engaged in other activities outside of the strict interpretation of pharmaceutical training. Sir, we have a total of 63 and we find that in the technical colleges there are listed nine vacancies and none in the universities. What is the reason for this? I want to give the hon. the Minister the reason, or one of the reasons. The main reason is that salaries are lower than those paid in the universities and also lower than those paid in the university colleges. I discussed this with the previous Secretary for Education. Dr. Op’t Hof. I know that he was sympathetic but to my knowledge there has been no improvement in the position, and we find that staff members are leaving to go to the university colleges, which are outside of the Minister’s control and also to the universities. I think the reasons are quite obvious. They receive better salaries, they have better working conditions and their prospects are better. The ethnic university colleges particularly, offer smaller classes, less work, more time to study, more time for research and provide them with an opportunity to qualify for positions in the universities that may lead to professorships and other high positions, ft is so had that one of our technical college heads was heard to remark—

It is going to be extremely difficult for technical colleges to provide first-class pharmaceutical education if they have to be satisfied with second-class staff who cannot obtain better appointments at universities.

Sir, this is the position and the report makes it quite clear that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister that the advanced colleges for technical education should continue with the training of chemists and druggists. I believe that this is a matter which should receive urgent and serious consideration. Sir, we could ask where the potential teaching force is to come from and we would find that it would probably be from the post-graduate students who are enrolled at the universities, the total number of which is 42 over the past five years. [Time expired.]

*Mr. J. J. ENGELBRECHT:

The hon. member for Berea will forgive me for not following up his argument. For the moment I should like to return to the hon. member for Kensington and his argument that the hon. the Minister was allegedly conducting a hate campaign or a campaign of intimidation against English-medium universities. If I were the hon. member. I would have preferred not to raise this matter, but it seems to me as though the memories of hon. members opposite are very short. It was not so long ago that an exceptionally large number of students at some of these very universities were guilty of subversive activities. The hon. member said, “You will get exceptions in every community”, but I want to suggest that these exceptions do not come from the community. Actually, one would expect a university to have its roots in its community; that the spirit which prevails in the university will reflect that which prevails in the community by which it is fed, but this definitely is not the case. Last year I participated in a symposium at one of the English-medium universities. The argument there concerned, inter alia, academic freedom, and J wanted to know what academic freedom those people did not have. One of the speakers replied that he did not have the freedom of associating with a non-White student and of marrying such a student if he wished to do so. This reply was applauded by 500 or 600 students. I want to suggest that that reply would have shocked the English-speaking community of that vicinity. It is clear that these young people are being influenced in a way which is not beneficial to the country, and that some of these people, who occupy their time with political activities, do not devote themselves to their studies, and in our country, where we have such a serious shortage of manpower, it surely is necessary for the Minister to see to it that the student, while he is attending a university to which the State makes a considerable contribution, will occupy his time with his studies and not with subversive activities.

I want to revert to another matter which has often been discussed in this House, but to which, unfortunately, a solution has not yet been found, and that is the high rate of failure amongst first-year students at universities. The rate is alarmingly high. In the year 1965 for example, no less than 4,203 students out of a total number of 10,721 first-year students, who had enrolled for degree courses, failed; this represents a rate of failure of 40 per cent. If regard is had to the fact that all these students had written the matriculation examination, i.e. the standard required by the university for selection purposes, that many of these students had obtained first class passes and that consequently the student body was a select group of people, one begins to think that something may in fact be amiss somewhere and that the rate of failure is too high. This becomes a matter of much greater importance if the position of the white man and his role as entrepreneur and leader in Southern Africa are taken into account. Our universities have to produce scientists and engineers and leaders, not only for the Republic of South Africa, but for an ever-increasing circle of states in Southern Africa. This fact makes high demands on our future leader potential and on our universities, and the fact that 40 per cent of our future leaders fail at the end of their first year at university already, causes disappointment and frustration and a loss of manpower, because many of the students subsequently discontinue their studies. The total enrolment at our residential universities for this year is 60,700 students. If, on the average, 25 per cent of them were to fail—the rate of failure amongst first-year students is considerably higher, but I take an average of 25 per cent over the period from the first to the fifth year—it would mean that 15,200 people would reach the labour market too late, or later than they could have done so, or possibly that they would reach the labour market with poorer qualifications. If the present rate of failure amongst first-year students could be reduced by one-half, i.e. to approximately 20 per cent, the State would, according to calculations, benefit R1½ million from that, because the unit cost to the State by way of subsidy alone is approximately R540 per student. Last year a total number of 14,283 first-year students attended our residential universities, and if we base our calculations on a rate of failure of 40 per cent the cost to the State in subsidies alone was approximately R2½ million. If this figure is calculated on the total rate of failure at universities, the cost to the State in subsidies alone is approximately R8 million per annum, and this does not include capital expenditure and losses to parents. Consequently this matter has very important and serious financial implications, and I am therefore of the opinion that this is a matter which requires really urgent attention. I do not want to suggest that I have a solution to the problem, but I am nevertheless of the opinion that there are two directions in which a solution may be sought. I think the first is to consider whether the standard of the matriculation examination should not be raised, but I want to reject this immediately as many possible future leaders may fall victim to that. The second alternative is to extend the academic year so as to enable those students to attend more classes and to have more time in which to prepare themselves in order to obtain their degrees. I immediately want to concede that the extension of the academic year probably is a matter for the universities and one on which they have to decide. But because the State makes a very important financial contribution to university education and consequently probably has the right to ensure that that money will be utilized in the most fruitful way, it probably is the right as well as the duty of the State, if an extension of the academic year would reduce the rate of failures and raise the standard of university education, to take the initiative in this matter in consultation with the university authorities. The present duration of the university year is approximately 35 weeks. Of this time approximately 28 weeks only represent actual teaching time, because the rest of the time is taken up by rag days, holidays, and examinations. The present duration of the school year is 40 weeks per annum, and it is difficult for me to see why the university year cannot be extended to 40 weeks per annum as well. The knowledge explosion of modern times and the increased complexity of subject matter actually make it a matter of necessity to make more time available to students, especially to undergraduates. Universities have always expected their students to expand their knowledge and to study during the long summer vacation, which lasts approximately three and a half months, but this simply is not happening any more. An authority in this field, Professor A. C. Cilliers, expressed himself as follows in this regard—

The present long vacations, particularly the vacation of more than three months at the end of the year, are used by probably over 80 per cent of our young students not to brush up or expand their knowledge but rather to forget what they have learnt during the previous academic year.

If the academic year is extended by six weeks, it will mean that an additional 18 weeks in teaching time will be available to a student over a period of three years to prepare himself for his degree. That will mean an annual increase of 22 per cent in teaching time, and if that does not have a positive influence as regards reducing the rate of failures, it will be beyond my comprehension, and will mean that my knowledge of education is very poor. [Time expired.]

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Sir, I am perturbed particularly at the shortages in the personnel in two university faculties. I refer particularly to the fields of medicine and engineering. I want to deal firstly with the position as far as medicine is concerned. We have several medical schools in the country to-day, and at each of these medical schools there is a great demand for admission. In particular I want to say that in our second oldest medical school, the Wit-watersrand medical school, the number of admissions is out of all proportion to the number of applicants for enrolment. In view of the density of the population on the Witwatersrand, I feel that the failure of the Witwatersrand medical school to admit a sufficient number of students who may want to take a medical course, must mean that greater demands are made upon the other medical schools in the country and that they in turn have become crowded. If it is found impossible to enlarge the medical school on the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, then surely the time has come for the hon. the Minister seriously to consider the establishment of another medical school in another centre. In spite of the appeal made here by the hon. member for Berea, I feel that perhaps the university of the Orange Free State should start making plans for the establishment of a medical school in Bloemfontein. If the Government’s claim is right that it is a good thing for children to be educated through the medium of their mother tongue in their early years of schooling, then I feel that when we come to higher education, particularly in South Africa, it is high time we established a bilingual medical school. The Orange Free State University should have this privilege. It is a place which lends itself to such a university and it would immediately relieve the strain on some of the medical schools in our country. Mr. Chairman, I was particularly impressed by the point made by the last speaker when he referred to the high percentage of failures at universities. Of course, this failure figure affects the students in all faculties, but I have noticed that the failure figures in medicine are not nearly as high as they are, for instance, in the arts faculties. There are more failures, I think in the faculty of arts than there are in the faculty of medicine. So it does mean that there is always a congestion of students at the universities which have a quota because of physical space available, whereas there may be some alleviation in the other faculties because of failures. I also agree with him that we must do something to lengthen the academic year. He is quite right when he says that he feels that the large number of failures in many cases may be attributed to the shortage of time spent on study. I do not know why the universities should start their academic year some time in March. It does not take from January to March to prepare for the next rag or prepare for the magazine that is going to be sold on the streets. They can do it in a shorter time than three months. I think that gap that occurs between the announcing of the Matriculation results and the start of the academic year is too long, and a lot of the students start to loaf, and they cannot get out of the habit of loafing. It takes them a couple of months to be straightened out. It is only by threats of the professors and lecturers that they make some effort to catch up with the other students. But it is very often too late, far too late by then to be successful in their examinations. I would like to see that gap closed. I would also like to see that more time be given to the students to prepare for the examinations, and I do not know why the universities have their examinations so early in the year. Some of them start in October with their final examinations? Why not in December? Why are the extra months of study not given to the students? When one comes to think of it, with the in-between holidays and the public holidays, the first academic year only consists of about seven months at the very most. I think that is far too short a time for the average student to absorb the amount of teaching that is expected from him. Talking about what is expected from the students, particularly in medicine, I think it is high time, that the curriculum in the medical schools, be seriously reconsidered. The trend to-day is specialization. I feel that, as the position is in the high schools, there will have to be introduced a two or three stream policy; one which will direct students along the channels to produce the general practitioner, one the surgeon, one the physician. They must be taught along those lines. The general practitioner must know what is expected of him, as well as the surgeon and so forth. I feel certain that far too little time to-day is spent on the study of psychiatry and psychology, because those of us who are in general practice knows that 60 per cent or even more, of the diseases that we meet to-day are due to disturbances of the nervous system. There may be mental disturbances or neurosis of some sort. Let us call them what we like, but they are basically found to extend from disturbances of the nervous system.

Psychology plays hardly any part in the students’ curriculum to-day. Psychiatry is not given enough attention. You find, for instance, that a man who is temperamentally unsuited to do surgery is expected to spend years learning the intricacies of surgery. I wonder whether that is correct. He must of course try to learn the basic principles of it, but he should not have it as a major subject to-day. It should be a major subject for those people who are going to take surgery, but not for the man who is going to go into the field of medicine, for instance. If he is going to be a physician he must be duly directed. The time that we should start to plan for the future is now. We must see whether we cannot find ways and means to have a policy laid down whereby we can alter the curriculum so as to guide students along the chosen paths.

I also want to say a few words about the shortage of engineers, and particularly about the shortage of Bantu engineers in our country. If this Government is seriously concerned about separate development it cannot possibly go forward unless we start immediately producing engineers who are either Coloured. Indian or Bantu. We have got to do it. The universities have got to be opened to these people and they must be encouraged to go there. One of the reasons why we do not have Bantu engineers is because the Bantu feels, firstly, that there is no encouragement for him to go to a university and, secondly, that the subjects that are required of him are not available at his University College.

Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

You are talking nonsense.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

The hon. member over there says that I am talking nonsense. Can he give me one example where there is an ethnic college where they make facilities for higher education for the Bantu in engineering? I want him to give me an answer to that. He must also tell me what encouragement the Government is giving. The hon. the Minister himself told me a year or two ago that the capacity for learning of the Bantu did not enable him to go to these higher classes of learning. [Time expired.]

*Mr. J. HEYSTEK:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville made quite a number of contentious statements. In general, however, he found himself in reasonably calm waters. The trouble with that hon. member is that although his speech lasted 10 minutes only, it felt to me to have lasted as long as the full course a pupil has to complete at high school.

I should like to discuss the child, parent and teacher relationship. We had a fine opportunity of doing so last year when legislation such as, inter alia, the Educational Services Act was placed on the Statute Book. In the annual report we have just received, it is stated that the year 1967 may be regarded as possibly being one of the most important in the history of education in the Republic of South Africa. While I am discussing education, I should like to read out the following, definition by Professor Chris Coetzee (translation)—

Education is in context the transference or culture and in essence a process of growth.

I think this links up very well with what I want to say in connection with the parent-child and the parent-teacher relationship. The hon. member for Kensington wanted to discuss the language bureau on the Cultural Affairs Vote, but he was ruled out of order. I wanted to do the same thing and wanted to point out that if the hon. member had said, “Bring vir my die spanner dat ek hierdie choke kan opfix”, I would have had to be satisfied that he was speaking English. If I were to say the same thing, he would have had to believe that I was speaking Afrikaans.

The fact that I have mentioned the child, parent and teacher in that order is not incidental. It is a list in the order of the relative importance of the persons concerned. As regards this child, parent, teacher group, it is unfortunately the position that if the statement by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is true, namely that as a result of a matter of policy the opportunity is being created for Dick, Tom and Harry to become members of this House, this is where they will be found—Dick, Tom and Harry being translated into Jan, Piet, Klaas and Etienne. Indeed, the hon. member for Orange Grove speaks in the air while he is swimming, and swims in the air while he is speaking. The tirade of the hon. member for Orange Grove this morning, called to mind the opportunity on which I had to remind him some years ago during the discussion of the Vote of the same hon. Minister that he reminded one of Hager in the desert when the angel appeared to her and said to her, “Thou shalt bear a son … and he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”.

And now I have said something which I may not have said on this Vote! I have swum across now, I have reached the shore. In regard to education, I think of the baptismal vow. The question to the parents is, “Do you promise that it is your intention to instruct this child, of whom you are the father and the mother, in the true and full doctrine of salvation when this child has reached the age of understanding?” Now you will probably tell me that this is the task of the home in the first place and of the church in the second place. That is so. But in private or public institutions of education we may not ignore this as though it did not exist. The education legislation which we piloted through Parliament last year, gives us, as well as the parents who are bound by the above-mentioned vow, every opportunity of carrying this into effect.

This principle must be taken into account in scholastic education, in private schools, as I have just said, or in Government schools. What is the position of the parent in our schools? The child is his most valuable possession and this treasure of the parent is also of inestimable value to the State. When he has received the necessary education at school, he is of inestimable value to the State in the economic, ethnological, military, professional and other spheres. But whether he is still at school, and the type of school is irrelevant, or has completed his schooling, we must never forget one thing: He is and will always remain of the flesh and blood of the father and the mother who conceived him and to whom he belongs next to God.

What is the position of the child? He is handed over to someone to be educated without his having much say in the matter. He is placed in the hands of a person who has to educate him, and it is his inalienable right to receive the best and only the best. What is the position of the teacher? This is the focal point of the question. The parent asks, “To whom am I handing over my child?”; the child asks, “To whom am I being entrusted?”, and the teacher asks, “What in heaven’s name is my task?” It will depend on his reply and his philosophy of life whether that child has in fact been entrusted to someone or delivered to the mercy of someone. It is the right of the parent to see to it that his child will not be delivered to the mercy of someone but will be entrusted to someone. Then, and only then, may he be easy in his mind. The parent will hesitate, the child will wonder, and the teacher will tremble at the idea of the responsibility he is accepting. This is where the parent-teacher relationship crops up with the child in between as the principal factor. The parent must get a reassuring reply to the question, “Who and what is this man, this woman, to whom my child is being entrusted?” It is absolutely essential in the light of what is eventually to become of that child in this world, that the parent and the teacher must essentially be of one mind as regards the fundamental matters relating to the purpose for which man has been created. The impersonal contact by means of the parent-teacher associations is entirely insufficient. For the parents merely to hand over their children to the school on a contractual basis, is something evil. The pride which the parent, the child and the teacher take in a first class pass, pure and simple, is unfounded happiness about something which glitters but is not gold. There are many more and much more profound results which we expect of education in this regard. The parent and the teacher must consult each other on every what and every why in order to bring that child to real greatness in the nation to which he belongs, measured in terms of the extent of his inner power, his spiritual ability and his spiritual defensibility in later life. On a certain occasion a judge of appeal delivered a plea for a renaissance as regards human thinking. He made a particularly heated attack on the contentious role played by the natural sciences which sought life in such a callous manner but eventually found death. The teacher along with the parent should feel that South Africa is not living under a sentence of death and that we and our nation are not living under a sentence of death.

If the parent and the teacher want to lament the demoralization of the youth, then we should first pay some attention to the process of moral decline amongst adults. I want to mention that if the parent and the teacher want to deliver a sermon on morals from their pedestals on the superficialization and the degeneration of the child, they, and all of us, should take the following words as a text: “We have lost our influence over the child as a result of our own moral decline”. I think that then, and only then, will we see this matter in its proper perspective. If the parent and the teacher retain their influence, they will teach the child to have respect for authority. They will show the child the way to joy and stability in his work instead of the way to adventure which leads to crime. With pride and joy in his work, the brick-layer will stop wishing that he was a teacher, and the teacher will stop wishing that he was a farmer, and the farmer that he was a minister of religion, and the minister of religion that he was an advocate, and the advocate that he was a M.P., and the M.P. that he was a pensioner! Everyone must be happy in his work.

Our gratitude goes to the body of teachers who are conscious of their task. To a large extent they have our children in their care during the years when our children are as delicate as flowers and susceptible to influences. They have shaped, developed and adorned our children and have also made them beautiful spiritually. The teachers have taught them kindness and courtesy. They have taught our children that they must have the grief of others at heart. They have taught our children that they must never humiliate themselves by grovelling before whomsoever in the world for favours, that they will never be grovellers, hypocrites or intriguers. [Time expired.]

Mr. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterberg will forgive me if I do hot react to what he said, but I want to get back to the hon. member for Algoa who started off his speech by referring to a symposium he had addressed at an English university. I just want to say this to that hon. member. He must not make the fatal mistake of equating the political opinions of people who may hold extreme opinions with those of the average, and indeed the great majority of students at any particular institution. The average student at an English-speaking university, just like the average Afrikaans student at an Afrikaans-speaking university, is a sensible, level-headed South African and intensely patriotic. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington who compared our students with some of those in overseas countries. I think if we compared the behaviour of our students with what has been going on recently in Berlin, for example, among German students, then we can be justly proud of our South African students as a whole, be they Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking. I think we must remember too, that students, being young people, do tend sometimes to be rather wild in their ideas. For instance, a Scottish university not so long elected the late Albert Luthuli as its Chancellor, and some of the students at that very university are thinking of electing Mr. Ian Smith as the next Chancellor. I merely mention this to show that students’ emotions and opinions are sometimes inclined to go one way or another—they do not necessarily follow a middle of the road course. I do not think the political views of these two men can really be reconciled.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch I was replying to the hon. member for Algoa. I said that there was not uniformity of political thought among the students at our English-language universities. Of course there are differences of opinion within the A.S.B. as well. I do not want to pursue the matter. I have here a cutting from Die Beeld of the 9th July, 1967, referring to the differences of opinion at the last A.S.B. congress, which was held last year. I want to conclude this part of my argument by saying that it is right and proper that our students should take an interest in politics. In fact, it has been their duty to do so ever since this Government extended the franchise to everybody over 18 years of age.

In the estimates provision is made for an amount of approximately R21,700,000 for aid to universities. That is, of course, being asked for in accordance with the provisions of subsidy formulae for universities for the present quinquennium, namely 1964 to 1968. It is a most important source of income for the universities. Under the old Holloway formula, this amounted to more than 66 per cent of the income of the universities in 1960-’61. Under the Cilliers formula it would have gone up to approximately 71 per cent in 1961. Since then it has declined to approximately 64 per cent in 1966. I think that the hon. the Minister has the new report for the next quinquennium at hand. I do not know whether he has completed his discussions with the universities, but there are policy decisions looming ahead for the hon. the Minister, if he has not already taken them. This discussion of his Vote would be a good opportunity for him to give us some idea of his line of thought, on some of the matters which must engage attention.

The hon. member for Algoa raised the question of the length of the academic year, as did the hon. member for Rosettenville. As far as that part of the speech of the hon. member for Algoa is concerned, I agree with much of what he said. In fact, at least one of our universities has already taken the bit between its teeth in this regard. For example, in the South African Digest of the 12th April, 1968, we read that the new Rand Afrikaans University is to lengthen its current 29 effective teaching weeks to 35 weeks a year. Addressing the Chartered Institute of Secretaries last week, the Rector, Dr. Gerrit Viljoen, said that this should prove advantageous to students and in the long run should also provide a better service to the community. The hon. member for Algoa mentioned the difference in the length of the teaching year at our universities as compared with that of our schools. He advanced this as one of the reasons for the high failure rate amongst first-year students at our universities, namely between 39 and 40 per cent. I think that there can be no doubt that a boy leaving school who goes to university, suddenly finds himself in a strange and bewildering new world where he has freedom and where he has to work on his own, and where he has actually less time to do the work he has to do then he had when he was at school. But this is not the only cause of our high failure rate at our universities. The area of selection from which our students are drawn, has been widened considerably. Today a university is no longer merely an institution for a select few. Some of our universities have perhaps grown too quickly. There may be some measure of overcrowding. There is also the question of staff shortages at our universities which has affected our student staff ratio. Let us compare our student staff ratio to that of another country. In 1965 we had a student staff ratio of approximately 13 to one, whereas in the United Kingdom the student staff ratio was approximately 7.6 to one. I think that this staff shortage is possibly the main argument which could be advanced against lengthening the teaching year at our universities. If one is to have longer terms, more of the year will inevitably be taken up by teaching, and there will be less time left for undisturbed research during the vacation. [Time expired.]

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up the argument of the previous speaker. The hon. member for Algoa dealt with this matter in detail, and I prefer to associate myself with his views on the matter. This afternoon I want to raise the question of uniform hostel fees throughout the Republic. The National Education Policy Act makes provision for these matters to be dealt with on a country-wide basis. We still have the position—I do not believe that there has as yet been time to give attention to this matter—that a system exists in Natal for the provision of hostel accommodation which is under the control of the Natal Provincial Administration. Approximately three years ago, when requests were made for assistance to be rendered in respect of the hostel fees of the children of parents earning low wages, the Natal Provincial Administration simply increased hostel fees. It was an increase of 30 per cent in respect of pupils at primary schools and an increase of 40 per cent in respect of pupils at secondary schools. The Administration collected an amount of R78,000 from those increased hostel fees. But in the same year an amount of R70,000 was granted by way of a rebate to those concerned in horse racing in Natal. Therefore it would seem as though the parents of those pupils actually had to pay up in order to make the granting of that rebate to those concerned in horse racing possible. Hostels do form an integral part of our system of education in the rural areas in particular. I want to contend that the parents of pupils who live in hostels have additional expenses which they have to bear. There are expenses in respect of additional clothing, transport, pocket money, etc. In Natal we are faced with the situation that whereas sound reasons exist in many cases for parents to apply for reduced hostel fees, we are unable to tell those people on what basis such a reduction can be granted to them. The system of rebates which still operate in Natal at the present time, is a secret kind of system. It seems to me—and I am obliged to make these deductions because I have been unable to obtain any information in regard to the matter from the Provincial Administration—that if the person earns much more than R100 per month, he is not entitled to reduced hostel fees for his children. If he owns a radio and a refrigerator and a car, irrespective of how old they are, he cannot obtain reduced hostel fees for his children irrespective of the number of children he may have at school. The result of this state of affairs usually is that the child in the highest standard has to be taken from school so as to give his younger brothers and sisters the opportunity of remaining at school. I want to contend that we cannot afford this. We cannot afford this in human potential in this country of ours. This may have the result that we may produce, in the rural areas in particular, a class of under-educated people, a class of under-trained people. I want to ask that the National Education Council should also undertake the task of carrying out a comprehensive investigation in regard to hostel accommodation for both urban and rural schools, also with a view to introducing a uniform scale of fees throughout the country.

Then, in pursuance of what appears on page 2 of the report of the National Advisory Education Council, I want to come to another matter, and that is the question of the political rights of teachers, in regard to which the Council took the following decision—

As education provides a special service to the community, all regulations and measures should give status to the teacher by reflecting a high regard for the profession and should not deny him all manner of rights. The teacher must uphold the dignity of the profession by keeping aloof from party politicking. The teacher must also have the right to exercise his civic rights openly in a prescribed manner that can serve as model for the rest of the community. It goes without saying that he should never exploit his position as a teacher for political ends. In exercising his rights as a citizen he must not neglect his duty as a teacher.

But at this stage we have the position in Natal that a teacher is debarred by ordinance from participating in politics. There are no further concessions or definitions. A teacher may not even be a member of a political party, especially if that teacher happens to be a Nationalist. It is fairly easy for a teacher to be a member of another political party, but in Natal he should rather refrain from being a member of the National Party. [Interjections.] We even had a case in Natal of a teacher who fought and lost an election whereupon he returned to the teaching profession, but he was a United Party candidate. I am not advocating that teachers should be allowed to participate in politics as such freely and openly, but there are different levels on which a teacher too may exercise his civic rights, such as in the municipal sphere and by participating in city council elections. I maintain that politics do form a part of the life of every human being and of his outlook on life, and I maintain that teachers are also human beings. This prohibition or invasion of what really is the way in which teachers spend their free time, is an unhealthy state of affairs. It even gives rise to a false form of discipline on the part of principals over their stff. I want to ask what right a principal of a school has to tell a teacher on his staff that she may not attend a Jeugbond function, or that she may not act as an organizer in a city council election. I maintain that that is a healthy expression of her civic rights as a citizen of this country. Let us not be misunderstood. I believe that a teacher should never exploit his position, as this resolution in fact reads, by advocating political policies in exercising his profession or in the classroom. But the prohibition has much wider implications than this. In raising this matter, I am doing so on behalf of the teaching body of this country. The implications are much wider. Politics, culture and national spirit are three things which are not far removed from one another. We notice in Natal, as a result of the education position which has been built up over the years, that teachers do not often take a hand in youth movements. As examples I mention the Voor-trekkers, the Guides, the Scouts, the Brownies, the youth associations of churches, the Staatmakers and folk dancing. As a result of the Ordinance we find the position that the very people who are pre-eminently suited for that kind of work, have become afraid to do that work if it seems to have a political complexion. The result is that we are frightening our teachers and are turning them into people who are afraid of politics and of anything which may possibly resemble an activity related to politics. Of people who ought to occupy a strong position in society, we want to make spineless creatures by preventing them from participating in politics. The result is a narrow-minded, confused, negative human being who confines himself to his daily walk to school and back home with his books under his arm. I do not believe that is the role which a teacher ought to play in our country. It is not in keeping with his calling nor with his position in society. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

I am very glad that the hon. member for Kensington has joined the fine order which is accustomed to thanking the Minister for the good work which is being done. I want to say that that is the best order he has joined since his birth. I should like to give the hon. member further information in pursuance of the word of thanks he addressed to me for not having abused the fact that the Language Services Bureau falls under me and for the Bureau having assisted in translating these two annual reports within a short time. I want to tell him for his information that these annual reports were drawn up and translated by my Department itself. They were not translated by the Language Services Bureau.

The hon. member asked me to make a statement in regard to what was actually envisaged in respect of the implementation of the national education policy and in regard to my views on the matter. In my opinion the hon. member for Randfontein replied to this very well by saying that such a statement could not be expected and was not necessary either for the simple reason that the National Education Policy Act laid down ten principles relating to policy in regard to which I plainly stated last year that all of these principles would not simply be enforced simultaneously but would be introduced in the course of time as we were dealing with tradition and what had happened in the past. As I receive the necessary advice from the appropriate bodies and others, the implementation of these principles will be brought to the attention of the Council step by step.

The hon. member also raised the objection that there should have been one additional member on the Executive Committee of the National Advisory Education Council and that such a member should have been an English-speaking person. In any event, the hon. member invalidated his own argument in this respect by another argument he advanced in his plea for dual-medium education, namely that we were allegedly segregating the two language groups to too large an extent. Now I want to tell the hon. member that I made offers to many eminent educationists, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking educationists, to become members of the executive committee, and that I did my utmost in this regard but did not succeed in achieving that. But I also told hon. members last year, when we piloted this legislation through Parliament, that we had long since passed that time where we used to inquire what the home language of a person was. We are now living in a period—I do not know whether the hon. member for Kensington is still living in the past—in which we inquire what the ability of a person is, whether he is competent to do the work. I made offers to competent Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking individuals, and I am very satisfied with those who accepted the offer and with the members I now have on the committee. I can tell the hon. member that all five members of the executive committee are fully bilingual and are able not only to understand but to express themselves in either of the official languages. Consequently I want to ask the hon. member to move forward with me and to stop using such weak arguments in an attempt to drive in a wedge between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me when we would receive the synopsis of the reports on teachers. We have had four sub-committees. I regret that there has been some delay in this report. You will understand, Sir, that it is essential for this report to be placed, in view of the proposed piloting of the Teachers’ Training Bill through Parliament, in the hands of the Select Committee in particular. This report will be available during July at the very latest. The consolidation of these four reports in one combined report, involves a tremendous amount of work, but I can assure the hon. member that I am bringing as much pressure as possible to bear in order to have this report available as soon as possible. This is a very important report and without this report being available I can hardly imagine a very fruitful discussion on the Teachers’ Training Bill. As regards the country-wide conference on education which we originally thought would have taken place at an earlier stage, possibly this year, I would definitely have arranged for it to be held this year if the Education Departments had not requested me to postpone the conference in view of the fact that they had to take certain types of education over from my old Department of Education, Arts and Science. They wanted to complete that take-over which commenced on 1st April. We therefore decided to have this conference next year.

The hon. member referred to legislation dealing with universities which I had on the Order Paper in 1966, and the congratulated me on not having proceeded with that legislation but having withdrawn it. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. I have a great deal of respect for the autonomy of the universities. I think I have proved during my term of office of seven years as Minister of Education, that I do not poke my nose into the affairs of the universities unnecessarily. I want to say, however, that this legislation was not withdrawn by me and dropped by the Government at that time because we had cold feet, but only because the University of Cape Town, to be specific, had approached me and had discussions with me and had made certain promises to me. Those promises were fulfilled and they eventually saw to it that their own house was brought into order to an extent which was satisfactory. But I want to say—and I have also said this to the new principal of the university—that I will not interfere in their affairs but that I do not regard the campus of the university as a most sacred and inviolable place where the laws of the land may be transgressed at pleasure and where students think they can do all kinds of things under the banner of academic freedom. There is a very big difference between academic freedom and licence which may be to the detriment of law and order and peace in the country. The moment the universities do not respect this authority, they must be prepared for intervention on the part of the Government at the proper time and in a way which the Government will regard as being in the best interests of the country.

The hon. member blamed us for the mixing of races at the so-called open universities, but he should surely have taken cognizance of the fact that the Government deemed this matter of so much importance that no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister himself made an announcement that if the university colleges for non-Whites could obtain full status as universities, they would no longer be under the protection of the University of South Africa but would obtain university status. From this I deduce, quite rightly, that the concession to open universities to enroll non-whites is drawing to an end, and as soon as these universities for non-Whites are able to provide all that is necessary, a decision will be taken on the matter. As a matter of fact, this was stated at the time of the establishment of the university colleges for non-Whites. This therefore constitutes a temporary concession during a transition period so as to do these people no injustice, and it does not mean that the Government is content with this mixing of races. It was stated very clearly that the Government would not allow the development of a state of affairs which would be to the detriment of the country, and that it would ensure as long as it was necessary to do so that the laws of the land would remain applicable to the campus.

The hon. member for Berea raised the question of advanced technical colleges. He made an issue of especially the shortages of staff at these colleges, and he furnished certain figures in this connection. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. He mentioned the Vaal Triangle College in particular and the serious shortage of staff at that college, but there are various reasons for that. One does not want to hide behind excuses, but there are reasons for that shortage. The first fact is that the question of housing is a major problem in the Vaal Triangle. At Vanderbijlpark there is no personal land-tenure; the company provides the housing. But I do want to give the hon. member the consolation that we have already obtained 12 houses for members of the staff and that we are at present engaged in negotiations to obtain another 20 houses. I think that this will eliminate the housing shortage in that area to a large extent. But another fact, which I have from the principal himself, is the following: When a very good teacher, one who is a master of his subject, comes to that area the private sector is very quick in noticing him and offering him a salary for similar work, i.e. training, which easily exceeds his present salary by R1,000 or R1,200 per annum. We have no defence against this. Our sole means of retaining the services of our people is to introduce gradual improvements all the time. The hon. member said that these staff shortages were attributable to the fact that the salaries at the technical colleges were too low in comparison with the salaries paid by other bodies and persons. I just want to tell the hon. member that the salaries of lecturers at technical colleges are not lower than the salaries paid to lecturers at training colleges, and if the salary scales at technical colleges were improved, all scales would have to be improved, which would produce that spiral which one simply cannot check; if one introduces changes anywhere in the structure, the salary scales at all institutions gradually become higher. Salaries at universities are somewhat higher than those at technical colleges.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the picture he presented in regard to pharmacists, was possibly drawn in darker colours than should in fact have been used. I have now obtained the figures for this year relating to pharmacy. The total enrolment at the two universities which offer degrees in pharmacy is 377 students, and the total enrolment at technical colleges is 442 students. This gives us a total enrolment of 819 students at those seven institutions. This means that 819 students are qualifying themselves in this direction at the moment. On the basis of this figure it will be possible for 181 students to complete their studies each year, a figure which comes closer to the 200 mark which the hon. member put as the figure which could be reached. We are pleased that we have achieved this position. I have already said that the diploma students in pharmacy have been doing splendid work and that the technical colleges have been doing splendid work. Although the universities want to run them down to a certain extent, I am one of those who believe that fine work is being done at the technical colleges.

The hon. member for Algoa who was followed by the hon. member for Albany, spoke of the high rate of failure amongst first-year students at universities and about the extension of the academic year. Hon. members are probably aware that Prof. A. C. Cilliers strongly recommends this in his report. I may also tell the hon. member for Albany, who spoke of the amounts to be granted to the universities, that the position, in brief, is as follows: The university principals meet next Monday. They will deal with the report and will let me have their opinion. After they have done so, the matter will naturally be referred to the Treasury and subsequently to the Government to take a decision on what recommendations of the report it was prepared to accept. At this stage it is impossible for me to express any opinion in this regard, and it would be wrong of me to do so, but the recommendations are there. Hon. members will recall, however, that I expressed myself very strongly last year in favour of an extension of the academic year. The long vacation at the end of the year is an old arrangement with universities. It dates back to the days prior to air travel when it took lecturers who went overseas for post-graduate work, 14 days to arrive overseas by boat and 14 days to make the return journey. At present that is no longer necessary, because one can now travel by air. The long vacation is no longer deemed necessary, especially not for first-year students. That was my opinion and I expressed it very frankly last year, but in view of the fact that a definite recommendation has now been made in respect of which I should first like to obtain the opinion of other people, I do not want to adopt that attitude this year. Consequently it is not possible for me to tell the hon. member for Albany what my views are in regard to the recommendation by Prof. Cilliers; I think he will understand this.

The hon. member for Rosettenville spoke of staff shortages, expecially the shortage of doctors and the shortage of engineers. According to figures at my disposal, 2,696 people applied for admission to medical faculties at our universities in 1968, whereas only 1,087 were enrolled. I am told, however, that this figure of 2,696 is very misleading, because students apply for enrolment at more than one university. One may therefore find two and possibly three or four applications from the same student. But hon. members will recall that at the end of 1967 we succeeded in producing 328 white doctors, 17 Coloured doctors, 11 Bantu doctors and 31 Asiatic doctors, which was made possible by all the steps taken by the Government, by the extension of existing medical faculties, by spending R6 million on these universities to bring about extensions so as to enable universities to produce a larger number of doctors each year. The Government has also come to the conclusion that apart from these measures which were taken for training more doctors at existing medical faculties, the time has arrived for giving consideration to the question whether an additional medical faculty should not be established, and for this reason the Scientific Advisory Council, under the leadership of the Minister of Planning, recommended an investigation into this matter. My colleague, the Minister of Planning, has already appointed a commission which will investigate the question of where such a faculty is to be established, because different universities have a claim to such a faculty. This impartial commission of inquiry will conduct the investigation and report to the Government. Therefore the immediate prospect of this is being held out. As regards engineering faculties, we shall follow the same procedure of appointing a commission to determine whether it is necessary to establish additional faculties and where such faculties are to be established. This procedure is essential because these two faculties, as hon. members know, probably are the two most expensive faculties at any university.

Mr. Chairman, a pleasant interlude was provided in this debate by the hon. member for Waterberg, who bore strong testimony to what the ideal relationship between parent and child and between teacher and child ought to be, testimony of which not only we and not only parents and teachers but also everyone outside, ought to take cognizance.

I want to conclude by referring to the request by the hon. member for Zululand for uniform hostel fees throughout the country. I may tell him that one of the principles laid down in the National Education Policy Act relates, of course, to bringing about equality of treatment for everyone, equal privileges for all children and all pupils. The Advisory Council is investigating these matters, and we shall go deeper into this matter as soon as we receive advice or have finality. This matter naturally has financial implications to which regard will have to be had.

There is also the report on the political rights of teachers. In the Transvaal, the Cape Province and the Free State, of course, this matter was settled long ago. One of the ad hoc committees of the Education Council which dealt with the conditions of service of teachers made a very comprehensive survey of this matter, and this will definitely be incorporated in the consolidated report which we are awaiting and which will be an epitome of the reports on teachers. We shall have to await that report to see what the recommendations, are and to see what we shall be able to do to bring about uniformity in this regard.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point which has been a matter of some controversy not only in my province, the Transvaal, but also in other parts of the country, and that is the present policy, which came into force a short time ago, of making the teaching of separate development or apartheid compulsory in the schools of South Africa. I raise this point with the hon. the Minister, first of all, because he has a large number of schools under his control, and he told me in reply to a question on the 15th March this year that history was a compulsory subject in the schools of the Department of Higher Education. That syllabus is followed in these schools, and I have here a copy of a circular sent out by the Department of Education, Arts and Science in which the syllabus is prescribed for the schools falling under the Minister’s control.

The part of the syllabus to which I especially object, refers to compulsory education in regard to separate development, and it reads as follows: “The Bantu—new deal after 1948 … New deal? Big deal? Square deal? What kind of deal is this? I continue: “The policy of separate development as reflected in the autonomy of the Transkei …”—that is to be taught to our children—… the Bantu in the cities, on the farms and in the reserves. The new era since 1948 … What talk is this of a “new era?” I continue: “The policy of separate development and its application, with special reference to the Transkei and with emphasis on, inter alia, important measures to assist Bantu national units to develop independently, such as the Bantu Investment Corporation, border industries, and social segregation.” This is the syllabus or part of the syllabus laid down in the Transvaal and in other provinces for schools, and it has been made compulsory in the Transvaal.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Which schools?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

It says, “… including the schools under the control of the Department of Higher Education”. As a matter of fact, history is a compulsory subject up to standard eight in the schools of the Transvaal Education Department and of the Department of Higher Education, as the hon. the Minister told me.

I protest most strongly to what appears to me to be nothing less than political indoctrination and political brainwashing of the youth of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I object to the youth of South Africa being drugged by the marihuana of politically-crazed educationists in the Nationalist Party. I have reasons for saying so. I have here in my hand one of these textbooks for standard eight by a Professor of History at the new Rand University.

Mr. P. Z. J. VAN VUUREN:

A very good chap.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Fine, but now I want to hear whether the hon. member agrees with all that is being taught to the children of South Africa. Here is one sentence in regard to the policy of separate development. He refers to the independence of certain countries in Africa and says: “Dit het ons gesterk in ons oortuiging dat die Bantoes binne die Republiek ook selfbestuur moet kry.” To translate—it has strengthened us in our conviction that the Bantu within the Republic must also get self-government. Who are these “ons”? What right has this man to speak on my behalf and on behalf of almost half the white people of South Africa, who object to this policy? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What right has he to speak on behalf of the millions of non-Whites and to say that,… gesterk in ons … oortuiging dat die Bantoes … ook selfbestuur moet kry”? That is one example. I regard this as brazen, unabashed political arrogance, not the sort of thing that should be taught our children at school. I say this is one-sided. Listen to this. I am reading from page 273 of an official text-book, approved for the children of South Africa, and we find the following—

Die antwoord op die uitdaging van die twintigste eeu is beantwoord met die beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling.

He says the reply to the challenge of the twentieth century is the policy of separate development. Do you know where I read almost similar words, Mr. Chairman? When the hon. the Minister of Defence made his ill-fated speech at Swellendam the other day, he spoke like that—and we all know what happened in, Swellendam. Let me mention another example. On page 277 apartheid or separate development is described as it should be taught to the children of South Africa.

Mr. P. Z. J. VAN VUUREN:

Who wrote that book?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Professor F. A. van Jaarsveld. He writes the following—

Met die beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling word gestreef om ’n oplossing vir Suid-Afrika se rassevraagstukke op ’n eties-regverdige grondslag te vind.

What right has this gentleman to say that the policy of the other party is to try and find a solution for South Africa’s race problem on a moral and ethical basis? I can assure you, Sir, there is much more morality in the policy of this party than in the policy of that party opposite. What morality is there in having millions of Bantu in the urban areas of South Africa without any say whatsoever in the government of the country? It also says—

Die beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling is ook gemik op die bestryding van kommunisme in Suid-Afrika.

That is a specious opinion. After all, separate development and separate, independent states can open the Transkei and its borders for thousands upon thousands of communist agents. The granting of military Dowers and their own defence forces to these independent Bantustans does not mean they will fight against Communism, they might even in fact help communism in South Africa.

*Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

That is merely your opinion.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

My opinion counts for more … if the hon. member for Jeppes will look at the reduced majority of that side in Swellendam he might well feel he will not be here with us after the next election. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. members must pay heed if the Chair calls for order.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

If one side, namely the Nationalist Party policy, is to be given to children, I do not like it, but since it is that side’s policy, why not also give the alternative policy? [Interjections.] I put this question to the Minister: I asked him whether provision is made for the study of alternative policies.

*Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is saying if …

*The CHAIRMAN:

No, the hon. member must not comment.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The Minister replied and said it is the history that is of importance. The policy of the Government since 1948 has been laid down in Acts, and is being implemented. It is, therefore, history. Granted that it is history, but what about the opposition to that policy? From the time of the opposition to the High Court of Parliament, which they now agree was right. The opposition inside and outside Parliament, is that not history too? Of course it is history. Why then is that history not taught? The Minister had an excuse. He said the various views would most certainly be dealt with by unbiased teachers. I have my doubts about the adjective “unbiased”, but if these various views are to be taught by these “unbiased” teachers, why are these views not mentioned in the official textbooks for our children? Why all these onesided views of one section of this country? If one really wants to see what is behind this indoctrination of our children, one need only no to one of the supreme mouthpieces of this Government, namely the S.A.B.C. in its Current Affairs programme …

*An HON. MEMBER:

Ah!

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

“Ah!” hon. members say. In the Current Affairs programme of the 9th February of this year, it was mentioned that the Education Department had decided to include for the first time a study of apartheid in its high school history syllabus. No nice-sounding “separate development”, but brazenly they call it “apartheid”.

Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

Call a spade a spade.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

“Apartheid represents a new and challenging departure in the wider history of human relations”, says the S.A.B.C. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

In the normal course of events one would not take very much notice of what the hon. member has said, but I do think that in this case, the bigger the nonsense, the sooner one should expose it for what it is. I want to give the hon. member this consolation, if he is so concerned about separate development now forming a definite part of the syllabus for Std. 8, that it will most certainly not be possible for a good teacher to omit dealing with his policy, because in dealing with separate development one would have to draw a comparison in order to show what a poor policy the United Party has. It goes without saying that they will do this, without mincing matters.

But I want to go into the merits of the case, It is strange that over the years the hon. member was quite satisfied with a senior certificate syllabus for Std. 10 which comprised the following. With regard to the Bantu the syllabus for Std. 10 for years comprised a study of the following—

His position and role in the present social, economic and political structure of South Africa (with reference to the reserves), urbanization and legislation in connection with the Bantu.

For years this was the Std. 10 syllabus, but he discovers this only now. Now we come to the basic syllabus which has now been drawn up for Std. 8. Please note that this is the basic syllabus; these are only the main ideas. Paragraph 2 (5) (a) and (b) of the basic syllabus for Std. 8 reads as follows:

The Bantu: New deal after 1948—the policy of separate development as reflected in the autonomy of the Transkei.

Again the hon. member, as is his speciality, dealt with separate development only, but not as it is reflected in a definite part of the life of the entire country—

The Bantu in the cities (as in the Std. 10 syllabus), on the farms and in the reserves—contribution made by the non-White population groups to the progress of our country.

Who drew up this basic syllabus? The heads of education, that is to say, all the heads of the provinces (the educationists, not the politicians including the S.G.E. of the Cape Province, the Directors of Education of the other provinces and the Director of Higher Education, appointed the Transvaal to draw up the draft basic syllabus for history, and subsequently the draft was considered, amended and cast in its present form by an inter-departmental committee of inspectors and other historians. This is the end product we received from educationists. The hon. member read to us from a book written by F. A. van Jaarsveld. I just want to tell him that this book is not prescribed for every school. This book is being used, but it is not necessary to use only this book. If teachers want to tell the children something, they will have enough knowledge of the matter. The hon. member may rest assured that this subject is no longer dynamite in our national life. It is history. What we are teaching the children is no longer dynamite. Does the hon. member want to reduce history to a subject which really is only concerned with the ancient times of the Romans and the Greeks? Is he afraid of the history of his own people? If you do not teach contemporary history as well, where would you land with your people? This matter has already become history. There have been Acts in connection with this matter ever since 1936. Every year new Acts are passed, and this is history, and not this sixpenny policy of the United Party, which is rubbish that one must pile on a heap and burn. But these Acts are history which has been made in this country and which will form a permanent part of the history of the Republic of South Africa.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister has now given us a glaring example of what may possibly be expected in the schools of South Africa once apartheid has become a compulsory subject. He referred to the wonderful policy of the Government. He referred to the policy of nearly 50 per cent of the White population in South Africa as being a heap of rubbish. What an example our children would have if the teacher should follow the example of the hon. the Minister and say, “Here is our wonderful policy of apartheid, and here is the policy of the United Party—a heap of rubbish”. This is the example the hon. Minister is giving to-day to the teachers in South Africa. I think it is scandalous.

The hon. the Minister referred me to the syllabus we had in the past. In the old syllabus, separate development or apartheid was not mentioned. In the old syllabus it was not a compulsory subject as it is now becoming in the schools of the hon. the Minister. I have here the mouthpiece of the Government, the S.A.B.C., and I shall read to you what they say about that policy and about apartheid being made compulsory in the high school syllabus. I again want to point out that the S.A.B.C. does not mince matters. They call it apartheid. As you know, Sir, there are two kinds of apartheid now. The S.A.B.C. says—

… in addition apartheid represents a new and challenging departure in the wider history of human relations … against the cause which liberalism espoused after the war, South Africa projected the idea of apartheid.

*I want to assure the hon. the Minister that this side also projects that policy against leftist liberalism, and it is not necessarily his kind of apartheid. In order to defend this policy …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not use both languages in the same speech.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I want to quote in English again, Sir. The S.A.B.C. goes on to say—

Apartheid explains actual events in South Africa, and it also explains the challenge which South Africa is making to generally held theories on human relations. And just as the merits of democracy, as a political philosophy, have been taught to countless classes of children around the world, so now will the merits of apartheid be taught to Transvaal children.

Of course I appreciate the distinction which is being drawn between democracy on the one hand and apartheid on the other. In defence of that policy the S.A.B.C. says:

Through the innovation of the Transvaal Education Department the citizen of to-morrow will be better able to choose wisely tomorrow.

What and where must he choose?

*An HON. MEMBER:

At Swellendam.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Yes, he will be able to choose at the polls. That is why they must be taught this. Mr. Chairman, you probably know a certain Mr. D. S. van der Merwe Brink, a member of the Executive Committee. I have here the words he used this year in the Provincial Council in connection with this policy. He said (translation)—

I shall again have no objection to the policy of the National Party being taught to the children of South Africa, because the policy of the National Party is the policy of South Africa, whether one wants to admit it or not.

At least he does not say that the policy of the United Party should not be taught in the schools. But then he also says this, and this is important (translation)—

I have great admiration for the teachers of the Transvaal and the Republic and I am confident that they will be true educationists. They have the support of the National Party in the Transvaal.

He says they have the support of the National Party so that they should teach the children of South Africa the politics of apartheid. Has there ever been such an example of the indoctrination of our youth in South Africa as this? The hon. the Minister is at present at the head of all education in South Africa. He says the policy has been laid down by experts and the Administrators, but he is the one who must implement the education policy in South Africa. I have here a book entitled Baanbrekers van Suid-Afrika. The Minister says it is the Administrators and the M.E.C.’s who must implement the policy. But this book Baanbrekers van Suid-Afrika is being used to teach Std. 4 pupils history. Whose photographs appear in this book? The Transvaal people know them, but the Cape people do not. They are full-page photographs of Mr. Kalie de Haar, Mr. A. E. Koen, Mr. Rob Ferreira. Who are these people? There are full-page photographs of them. A photograph of Mr. S. G. van Niekerk also appears in the book. This is a book entitled Baanbrekers van Suid-Afrika which is being used to teach Std. 4 children history. How far behind can we get when we try to create a united nation here in South Africa, and things like this happen?

Our children are being indoctrinated in a scandalous way by means of this new policy. The Minister is the head who can make a change in this. He is the man who can make education unbiased and who can make education acceptable to both the Afrikaans-and the English-speaking people in South Africa. He is the man who can do this by means of his Advisory Education Council, which, in terms of section 3 of the Act, also has the right to see to it that syllabuses are uniform throughout South Africa. Here is a challenge for the hon. the Minister to put a stop to this kind of thing. If our children have to be taught those things, let it be done in an unbiased way, so that the various aspects of the policy may be presented to our children, and so that it is not done in a terribly biased way such as this.

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove is a person who has done a great deal of damage here this afternoon to the little that remains of the image presented by the Opposition. He destroyed what little remained because he really does not know the first thing about education. He got to his feet and began shouting. He puts me in mind of a person who also had to prepare a speech, but who did not do his work. So, in order to make an impression, he merely wrote in the margin: “Shout louder here.” In any case, he does not understand the difference between history and civics. Since pioneers are being discussed, are they (the United Party) pioneers? He went on to complain about the National Party having said that it was behind the teachers. But what is wrong with that? What is wrong with a Government supporting the teachers and wanting to help them where it is possible and necessary to make a success of education in our country and to promote it, as the hon. the Minister is busy doing? When one hears such speeches in Parliament one sometimes feels, as a backbencher, that there are very strange people sitting in these benches when they say such irresponsible things.

I want to express my dissatisfaction at this. Education is the foundation on which any nation in any country is built. Consequently this is one of the main reasons why this Government is so interested in education and training. Education is the mother of all occupations and professions; that is why it is so important. It is necessary, particularly in this new world in which we are living, a world of agitation and turbulence, for us to give much more attention to education. This has been done. If we now wish to discuss the promotion of education, and if we now discuss education, I should like to mention the following facts here this afternoon. With the various steps the Minister has taken a new era in education is being ushered in. During the regime of this Minister various important things have taken place in education as initial steps in the promotion of education in South Africa. We think in the first instance of the establishment of the National Educational Advisory Council, in supplementation of which the Committee of Heads of Education (Directors) has been created, which has to implement the National Education Policy in a coordinated way. The 1967 National Education Policy Act is another landmark. It is the ideal which is being realized by this Act after 50 years of search and struggle, and it is by means of this Act with its ten points which form the cornerstone, that the promotion of the policy of national education is going to be facilitated. Then, too, there is the establishment of two universities, i.e. the R.A.U. and the University of Port Elizabeth.

In addition there is the Educational Services Act (No. 41 of 1967) in terms of which the divided administrative control of secondary education is being terminated by the transference of technical and vocational education, for administrative purposes, from the Department of Education Arts and Science to the Provinces. Another landmark is the establishment of a department exclusively for higher education, one which is divorced from cultural matters. In addition there is the Advanced Technical Education Act in terms of which provision is being made for advanced technological training of technicians at technical colleges after Std. 10. The next landmark is the Bill which has been laid upon the Table, namely the Teachers’ Training Bill. This Bill has been referred to a Select Committee. Here the Minister has once again displayed good sense in doing so. Within the framework of these steps which have been taken in regard to education in South Africa, therefore, education in South Africa can develop into an architectonic structure, if I may call it that, of which we all, even the hon. member for Orange Grove, will yet be proud.

However, I should like to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether anything can be done before the Select Committee brings out its report, and before the Teachers’ Training Bill comes into effect, but I should like to furnish this information. In 1949 the staff at the Hercules High School consisted of 19 per cent temporary staff and 20 per cent women staff members whereas in 1968 the percentage of temporary staff was 52 and the percentage of women staff members 58. The private sector, and even the Public Service, is attracting an increasing number of male staff members away from the teaching profession. I take it that the after-hour training for teachers has been terminated for very good reasons.

My plea, however, is that the Minister should have this matter re-investigated in order to see whether the Minister cannot reconsider the matter and try to make up the backlog and supply the deficiency of teachers. There again graduates who have equipped themselves academically through correspondence courses or through extra-mural studies. Many of these people would like to equip themselves for the teaching profession. These people have proved themselves to be people who have perseverance, people who can work with dedication and zeal. They are people who, if they should be allowed to enter the teaching profession, would, more than anybody else, be aware that it is a dedicated calling which they would have to fulfil. To them material matters are not all that count therefore. They have a mature experience of life. It is not necessary to make hostel facilities, which cost a great deal of money, available to them. A much stricter selection of students will also be possible because the number of students from whom a choice is possible is much larger.

I come then to my next point, namely assistance to the underprivileged. The socio-economic structure of society in certain high school feeder areas is such that very gifted pupils have to leave high school in Std. 8, Std. 9 and even during the matriculation year because of a lack of funds. Hostel bursaries are granted to rural families under certain circumstances and with certain provisos. I was wondering whether, if this principle could be extended to urban areas in the form of similar hostel bursaries in a parental home, it would not be possible for many pupils to remain at school until they have achieved their potential. Other pupils in these environments must be transferred to other environments in order to overcome the negative aspects of the parental home background. In many cases these people experience problems of adjustment. A hostel in this community for the accommodation of only those pupils who have background problems will definitely be the salvation of these children, and will be a great asset to the country. [Time expired.]

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I should like to raise a few matters with the hon. the Minister. The first is to ask him whether he can give the Committee any information on the results of the study which I presume by now has been made by the National Council on Education on the memorandum which was submitted to the Minister, presumably for this Council to study, on the question of married women teachers. I understand the hon. the Minister was in correspondence with the National Council of Women towards the end of last year and at the Minister’s request a memorandum was prepared for him, based on the correlation of replies received to a questionnaire sent out by the National Council of Women to a large number of married women teachers. I think the number of replies received was about 1,300, which I would say is a very significant statistical sample. The Minister, of course, will be aware of the contents of the memorandum, but I think the Committee would be interested to know some of the factors which were brought to the notice of the Minister by the memorandum, and to know whether in fact the Minister intends to take any steps, or whether his Education Council has recommended that any steps be taken to improve the conditions of married women teachers.

Now the first thing, of course, is that conditions vary from province to province. In Natal I believe there is no discrimination against married women teachers, who are employed on the same basis as single teachers, but in the other provinces there is discrimination, and it varies from province to province. It appears, for instance, that resignation on marriage is compulsory, except where women have not taught for a period equivalent to their training years. There is no doubt whatever that in those provinces where this obtains good candidates are deterred from entering the teaching profession. As the hon. member for Kensington has correctly pointed out, one of our great problems is the shortage of well-trained teachers, particularly those with university degrees.

There is no doubt that the fact that women know that after they marry, if they are teachers, they will find themselves in unfavourable conditions of service is one of the reasons why young women prefer to enter commerce and industry, where the prospects are better in any case financially and where they know they can return on their marriage, and after their children have reached a certain age and are at school, and they themselves are released from their duties at home and can go back and help to augment the family coffers. I might say, also that most young married women work for a few years after their marriage before they start their families, and the fact that women realize that they can continue to do this in commerce and industry, but cannot without suffering discrimination continue to teach, is another factor which deters our young women from entering the teaching profession.

The fact is, too, that the present system of employment relating to married women teachers, which does not allow them to continue teaching after marriage on the same basis as before means that there is no continuity in the staffing of our schools. This in itself I think is no aid to the improvement of the standard in the schools, and I think probably has a marked ill-effect on the students who suffer from this constant change in the teaching staff. I think the hon. the Minister in the past has expressed the opinion that one of the main reasons why the Departments have found it necessary to discriminate against married women teachers is that they are not as mobile as single women. They cannot be moved to the various towns where the vacancies occur, and the tendency of course is for most of them to want to stay in the large towns, where in any case the big concentrations of population are, and therefore statistically that is where you find the majority of married women teachers. But nevertheless these women are a very important element in the profession and a very stable element.

The fact that many of them would like to return to work after their children have reached school-going age, and they themselves have gained more experience by bringing up their children, I think is something which ought to outweigh the disadvantages to the Education Departments of not having the same mobility from married women as from single women. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulty in this regard. I do not think that married women teachers, if put back on the same basis as single women, should have any exemption from the extra-curricular duties that are demanded of single women. I think married women must realize that if they are to be reengaged on the same basis, they must be prepared to undertake at least the same extracurricular duties as single women. They should be given the choice of being kept on the temporary staff, as they are at present, and not having the additional duties laid upon them of extra-curricular activities, or being reemployed on a permanent basis, and thereafter having to take on all the responsibilities that single women have to accept.

But at present the fact that they are not on a permanent basis once they are married and are not eligible, in some cases anyway, for promotion to the very high ranks of teachers, or for pensions, that they receive, in the Cape Province, no furlough and no holiday bonus until they have taught for two years, all militate against the young woman, who is considering a career, from choosing to become a teacher. I believe it is important now, with the appointment of this National Council, that we try to get correlation of conditions in the different provinces, and I would commend to the hon. the Minister that he takes the highest common denominator of the provinces as far as married women are concerned, the best possible conditions and not the worst, if he is trying to get uniformity in this regard, and that the Council and the Minister realize that if they want to take full advantage of this vast additional force of teachers that we could have at our disposal, some changes will simply have to be made in regard to married women teachers.

The other point which of course the hon. the Minister will have to take up with his colleague is the question of taxation, the fact that married women and their husbands are taxed jointly. The P.A.Y.E. system operates very much to the disadvantage of married women. That is another factor which deters women from going back to work after they are married. This is something on which he will have to consult the Minister of Finance. That is one point I wanted to ask the Minister to discuss with the Committee this afternoon.

The other point is that I wanted to ask the Minister whether he has given any thought to this question of the financing of nursery schools, a very important part of the preschool education which is being neglected by both the State and the province. The financing of nursery schools is being neglected. Bery little is being spent on them. As the Minister knows, there are to-day, because of the increased cost of living, and despite the factor I have mentioned of the joint taxation, which does not weigh so heavily on the lower-income groups, a large percentage of married women who go back to work. They have small children and it is necessary that provision be made so that these children should be properly cared for, that proper standards for the nursery schools should be set and that better methods of financing them should be undertaken by the State. At the moment I think the responsibility is that of the city councils and not nearly enough money is being made available for these schools. In Johannesburg alone there were something like 3,450 children in the 57 nursery schools in the city and 1,310 in crêches in 1966, which are the latest figures available, but there were 3,000 children on the waiting-list for these nursery schools and crêches, and there is absolutely no hope that the large majority of them will be accommodated in the near future. The report which I have looked at estimated that one-quarter of all mothers in Johannesburg were at work, and I think there is a growing demand for properly run nursery schools and creches to take care of this very important phase of preschool education. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us his views on these two important subjects.

*Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

Before I reply to the hon. member for Houghton I should like to return to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I think the Minister dealt with him quite adequately, but I just want to add to that that this syllabus, as he asserted, is not being drawn up by politicians, but by educationists. The time is past when our pupils were educated as colourless beings. It is time we impressed upon them and taught them that they were citizens of South Africa. He asked us whether we would be prepared to state the United Party’s policy to the children as well. Personally I would say yes, let us state it to them, but on condition that we inform them that it was the same Party that was opposed to citizenship, that was opposed to our own national flag, that was opposed to our own national anthem and that was opposed to our own Republic. If he is willing to accept that, I think we would be satisfied to state their policy as well.

To return to the hon. member for Houghton. Her concern was mainly for married women in education. I think that we on this side of the House can only speak with the greatest appreciation of the service which married women are rendering to education. They are people who are holding their own in education, not only in the school, but also after school hours. But there is something I feel concerned about now. I have recently become aware that there is something afoot. The hon. member is not present here this afternoon. I am glad that he recovered to such an extent that he was able to be present here this morning, but I am sorry that he cannot be here this afternoon to take some more of his medicine. It seems to me hon. members opposite are now beginning to become the patrons of married women. I do not know whether they are trying to be sympathetic towards them or not, but the so-called discrimination against married women is consistently being discussed here. Surely this is not the case. The whole thing is a campaign which has been set in motion not only by the Opposition, but also by the English Press. They, too, are to a certain extent responsible for the shortage of teachers. Last year the English Press invited its readers to air their grievances against education. If a man tells me that education can be served in that way, surely he is wrong. But I should now like to tell the hon. member for Houghton as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, who had a lot to say in The Star about the so-called discrimination against married women, a few things. I want to state that there is no discrimination of any kind. They have the same long leave benefits as the people in the permanent service.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

What about pensions?

*Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

What is more, the concession is being made to them that the long leave which has accrued to a woman teacher before her marriage can be taken by her even after her marriage. The same applies to sick leave benefits. There is no difference whatsoever as far as that is concerned. Their salary scales are precisely the same. Another concession being made is that married women may draw their salary from 1st January even though the school begins on the 20th. If she gets married at the end of one term and begins the next term as a married woman, her salary is made consecutive and she loses nothing at all. So, where is the discrimination now? The hon. member had something to say about promotion. It is a fact that married women may even occupy senior posts. They are appointed for three years and provision is being made that 20 per cent of the staff, the women members, may be appointed for three years. The hon. member said something about permanent posts. Take a place such as Pretoria. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that in Pretoria alone there are 1,000 married women who are not teaching but who would like to. If those 1,000 women wanted to fill permanent posts there, or wanted permanent posts in the education department, does she think they would be satisfied to go and teach in Pietersburg, Piet Retief or Christiana, the remote parts of the Transvaal? Or does she want those married women to occupy only the permanent posts in Pretoria and that the young women should be satisfied to go to those other places? I do not understand the argument.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That is the position in Natal.

*Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

It seems to me the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville are saying the same thing, because he also states here—

It is to the credit of the United Party that such discrimination no longer exists in Natal, where an enlightened Administration has granted married women equal status with their unmarried colleagues.

Surely that is nonsense. I wonder, if we were to analyze the position in regard to education in these four Provinces, which one of those Provinces would have the greatest shortage, and whether it is not in point of fact Natal which is going to experience the greatest difficulty. Sir, they were also in power before 1948, and what was the position in our education then? I was one of the people who had to work under them, and now they want to shout and kick up a fuss in regard to the shortage of teachers. We are concerned about that ourselves.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. J. P. A. REYNEKE:

But we are doing so in a positive way. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are no longer attracting the best young men and the best young women to the teaching profession. This is unfortunately the case, because many of our young men leave the teaching profession or do not want to equip themselves for the teaching profession because the business world offers them greater financial possibilities. But apart from that I think it is time we investigated matters related to education ourselves. Is it not possible that there are too many minor irritations? Have the duties of the teacher not become too onerous? Apart from the fact that the teacher has to undertake the education and is also responsible for sports coaching at the school, he is also responsible for the collection of funds. He must walk around with lists collecting money for certain requirements at the school. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not time consideration was given to providing schools with those essentials in some other way so that the teacher will no longer have to be responsible for the collection of funds.

Sir, there are many other things. There is for example our inspection system. Has our inspection system not perhaps become obsolete? The schools are visited once in two or three years by inspectors. Should the inspectors not rather be professional advisers, people who will not be feared by the teachers, but who will be regarded as a real friend, as a real adviser and father? Then as regards the salaries, is it not time we had more merit posts in our education? Is it not time teachers were, to a larger extent, paid according to merit? It can be frustrating if one comes on to a scale and knows precisely that what one is going to receive in 10 years’ time, according to that scale. Let us give those young men and women, who give more than is expected of them, something extra, in the same way as this is done in the business world. We will never he able to compete with the business world, but let us have additional merit posts.

Then I want to mention another little matter. Is it not possible, just as in the Railway service and elsewhere, to grant housing loans to teachers at a low rate of interest? [Time expired.]

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I think we are making progress. I am very glad that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Boksburg touched on this subject of the employment of married women. This is not a new discussion. I attended a congress on the same subject over 20 years ago, the subject of married women in the teaching profession. To my mind there is only one simple solution, and that is that when a woman teacher marries there must be no break in her service, just as there is no break in the service of a male teacher when he marries. The only difference is that the woman changes her name. I know the argument against that. One of the arguments is that she cannot be transferred from one post to another.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is the major argument.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I do not think it is, because in the Transvaal, when a teacher has a permanent post, she is not usually transferred. It is only in rare cases that that is necessary, generally because the teacher is not efficient, or because of the abolition of the post because the school is over-staffed or something of that kind. But generally speaking there is no occasion for transfer. This subject has been debated in this House over and over again. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Houghton has said. Now for the first time married women have organized themselves and they have put their case to the Government. I think the hon. member for Houghton has stated it very mildly. A very much stronger case could be made, but in deference to the wishes of the Minister she is trying to help. Overseas at present in some countries they are actually recruiting married women for training as teachers. They go so far as to approach two married women and to say to them. “Will you take a class between you, one school session each?” In other words, the situation is desperate. This affects English-language or English-medium schools more than Afrikans-medium schools. We find that the scarcity is much greater in the case of English-medium schools, obviously because English-speaking teachers in English-medium schools are usually in the larger cities, and for that reason it is more difficult to get teachers. I think this is a very important matter, and I would ask the hon. the Minister to use all his influence—he has unbounded influence—and to say to the provinces that there must be no discrimination whatsoever and that women in the teaching profession should be treated in exactly the same way as a nurse in her profession or as a doctor in her profession.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Or an M.P.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Or an M.P. The next point I wish to raise is the one that was raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I support him wholeheartedly; I think he has made a very good case. If we are to have a syllabus and a method of teaching imposed upon our children in the schools, the time will come when people will say, as two very distinguished front-bench members of the Nationalist Party said in that famous debate in 1944 in this House, “Take your schools but give us ours”. I hope that will never happen in this country. I hope it will be possible for us to agree on what is a good syllabus. But after what I have heard from the hon. member for Orange Grove, and in view of the information I have myself, I think there is a very great deal to be said for that solution. It would be a tragedy, and one which I should very much regret, if we should think that there should be two departments of education, parallel departments and parallel school boards. That would be a tragedy in this country. We must have agreement on the syllabus.

Then I come to what the hon. the Minister said about the executive. I know they are all bilingual. We are all bilingual here. It is not a question as to whether a man is bilingual or not. A person goes to a primary school or a secondary school or a college where he receives an Afrikaans-medium or an English-medium education; he belongs to that section, and here we have distinguished educationists who belong to one section. What I have asked the hon. the Minister is to represent both sections on his executive; it is as simple as that.

I want to take the point made by hon. members who said that I was making too much of the question of parents having control of their children. Sir, in South Africa the problem is usually language and I regard language differences as not very serious. What is very serious is a difference in religion. The whole education of England for almost a century, the 19th century, was bedevilled through churches having different approaches. Now I want to go to a country which I think hon. members will accept. This is from the memoirs of Adenauer, the great Chancellor of Germany. Speaking of his period when he took over after his first great election, he said this—

The election campaign also showed clearly how great our differences were in the field of ideology and education. One of the chief bones of contention was the right of parents to choose how they wanted their children to be educated.

Then referring to his Opposition he said this—

The S.P.D. claim that this meant church domination in the schools while we explained that it meant no more than the parents’ right to choose. It also meant that the State had no right to take children away from their parents, a postulate to which we attributed particular significance after the experience of the Nationalist-Socialist era and the events in the Russian zone.

The point he makes is that dominant throughout any system of education is the right of the parent to choose; that is the important thing. The parent is the man who says how his children are to be educated; he is the man to decide.

Now, Sir, I want to go to one other point. The hon. the Minister in his reply to what I had said in the beginning, said to us that he agreed that facilities should be provided for non-Whites at their university colleges. Well, we all agreed about that nine years ago when we sat together in a Select Committee and when that Bill went through. We all agreed that that provision would be made but it has not been made. I do not know when it will be made. Where we asked would provision be made for training Zulus in medicine, in engineering, in architecture and in other subjects which are taught at our universities? It seems inevitable, if we are to give these people that education, that they will have to go to what we call the white English-language universities, the open universities. And if they have to attend those universities, then I think it is grossly unfair to say that the Minister’s students—because they are his students—must all go to English-language universities and that the Minister will dictate how these universities are to be conducted. I think that is unfair. When they are in Rome, they must do as Rome does. If they go to an English-language university, the council of that university will decide how they are to behave. If the Minister says he is going to dictate to the university, then he should dictate to a university which he knows well: he should dictate to Potchefstroom and say to them, “You must take some Bantu students” or he must say to Stellenbosch. “You must take some of them into your medical school”. Why should you say that only English-language universities must take these students? Under the Act of 1959 we all visualized that the time would come when provision would be made for these students to be educated in their own university colleges. The hon. the Minister referred us to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister who says that the colleges are now going to have university status. Well, I do not know whether that is not premature. If they have not made provision for this training, how can they accept university status? Sir, the point I wish to make is that the hon. the Minister should be more tolerant in dealing with these English-language universities. He is giving them a problem; he is handing the problem over to them. [Time expired.]

Mr. H. D. K. VAN DER MERWE:

Before I proceed to present my short argument, I should also like to refer briefly to the hon. member for Orange Grove. His conduct here this afternoon as a political figure put me in mind of a cross between a vulture and a duck, in this sense that he really has a nose for finding corruption where there is none, and on the other hand, the facts simply roll off his back. He is actually a kind of political vulture-cum-duck.

I want to return briefly to university education and state here this afternoon that during the past 20 years there has been a remarkable growth in respect of our universities. In 1947 slightly less than R1.5 million in subsidies in respect of Coloured expenditure was spent by our universities, and in 1967 it was more than R21 million. The number of students at the universities in 1947 was slightly more than 18,000 and in 1967 it was more than 60,000 students. This year is no exception and a vast sum of money, more than R21 million, has been appropriated for our universities, of which more than R9 million is intended for English-language universities, and little more than R8 million for Afrikaans-language universities. I think it is very important that we and the public outside should pay much closer attention to and have a closer look at what is happening at our universities. We get those things which are good and those things which are not so good.

One can define a university community as a community which consists of lecturers and students who are drawn together in such a way that a triple task has to be fulfilled, i.e. that of teaching or education, investigation or research, and training or human development. In this they are assisted by an executive which controls and governs as well as an administrative staff. I would like to devote particular attention to a certain sector of the university community, namely the students. We are all forced to admit to-day that when we consider the behaviour of students throughout the world to-day, it seems that within the student communities of our modern world, certain things are happening which arouse the concern of every responsible person. Throughout the world concern is being expressed by the respective leaders of the various nations of the world in regard to the actions of certain student bodies and organizations. It seems to me as if those in our present world society who are actually seeking the downfall of orderliness and who want to contribute to the decline of Christian Western civilization, are in fact the ones who are to a very large extent responsible for this. A person such as Lt.-Gen. Van den Bere writes the following, inter alia, in an article—

The real objectives of the Communist Party were even more clearly stated in a paper by the name of Assegai, which was published by a group of South African Communists in London. In the January, 1963 issue, it is declared flatly that: ‘We in South Africa see the national struggle as merely the first step towards socialism’. In addition is mentioned: ‘The highest stage of the workers’ class struggle is revolution. In South Africa we declare no other way but a violent revolution can transfer power into the hands of the people’.

So I can also quote from the U.S. News and World Report what a prominent lecturer in the U.S.A. had to say—

We have to stop the enemies of freedom at home, and, let us be blunt about it, Johnson is one of them. It is my careful and sober judgment that Johnson is one of the most dangerous men in politics to-day

He was referring here to President Johnson. If these things were simply happening in student communities overseas, then one might feel quite at ease in one’s mind, but it so happens that student organizations also maintain liaison with one another in international bodies, and we in South Africa have one student organization in particular which has been maintaining liaison for many years already with international student organizations, which, in their turn, maintain liaison with the most outspoken enemies of South Africa, the most outspoken enemies of order and orderliness in South Africa. When the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister was being discussed, the hon. member for Houghton, who is a political Jezebel, raised a plea here for a student organization such as Nusas. I want to protest most strongly here, since Nusas is active as a student organization at our university campuses, in regard to the way in which they are interfering in student politics internationally, and the way in which they are maintaining liaison. The cause of the hot-bed of intrigue within the Nusas community is the principles to which they adhere, principles which are foreign to our South African nature. They are principles foreign to the Afrikaner; they are principles foreign to the English-speaking sector; they are principles foreign to the various Bantu nations; they are principles foreign to the Coloured community, and they are principles foreign to our Indian community.

If we take an organization such as Nusas, and we take the leaders or some of its leaders which it has produced during the past 20 to 30 years, then it is astonishing to see where many of those people later found themselves, They found themselves in the company of those people throughout the length and breadth of the world where the downfall of our South African community was being sought. We think of their actions, the local proof of this. I am thinking now of the actions at a place called Botha’s Hill where a speech was made by the then leader of Nusas and where he made it very clear that he was not opposed to Communism. When he asked the specific question, he disassociated himself from those institutions in our Western society which reject Communism. I am referring here to a report in the Sunday Chronicle of 19th July, 1964. Not only the hon. Prime Minister who was at that time Minister of Justice, but also the hon. member for Yeoville had, shortly prior to that, attacked Nusas in regard to this kind of conduct. After that Nusas held a Congress, and they adopted an impudent attitude, because at the end of the Congress Mr. Jonty Driver said, inter alia, the following—

There had been no major changes of policy and the indication was that Nusas would adopt a more aggressive position when attacked.

In other words, in our South African community we have a large number of young people who are engaged in dangerous activities and whose entire mental climate is very unhealthy. They are outspoken, blatant and obstreperous in regard to any law and order One can ask oneself with who these people are maintaining liaison overseas. We find that they seek access to people such as the late Martin Luther King who in America acted as a person who, according to mass communication media, sought improvements for his own people in a supposedly peaceful manner, but whose protest marches were always associated with immorality and brutality. There is also a person such as Senator Robert Kennedy. [Time expired.]

Dr. A. RADFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the medical profession for the interest which at the moment the hon. the Minister is evidencing in that profession. Speaking as one who has had a great deal to do with the broad outlook of medicine in this country, I regret that I must say his efforts are not adequate. It is not enough to say the Cabinet has decided to establish another medical school. We have to-day a grave shortage of medical men and also of dentists. Moreover, there is also a grave shortage of staff in those professions ancillary to medicine, such as masseurs, medical technologists, the people who check the compatibility of blood, and various professions of that nature, professions which are of the greatest import to the country, and to health in particular.

The inadequacy of the dental attention available to the people of this country is flagrant. Nobody would deny that the average person sees a doctor only occasionally; he must at least see him at birth and at death. But many people go through life without otherwise seeing a medical practitioner. But a dental practitioner is always in demand. Few, if any, go through life without frequently attending the dental practitioner, if they can obtain one and if they can obtain one within their means. There are only two dental schools in the country, with a third coming into being. There are five medical schools. I doubt if the dental school students compare in numbers with those in the medical schools; so there are probably fewer dental students in the country. I am open to correction on that point.

I feel not enough notice has been taken of the damage which can be done to the existing medical schools by the present set-up. After the First World War the British Government set up a committee known as the “Good-enough Committee”. This committee went carefully into the matter of medical education and it found that the most desirable intake for a medical school was 100, leading in the course of years to the final graduation of about 70, there is a certain amount of wastage. At the request of the Government some two years back the existing European medical schools increased their intake—most of them agreed to increase their intake to 150. I wonder if it is altogether understood that the size of a medical school depends on the number of patients available. You must have human beings (not to experiment on) but to teach from, and 150 students require more patients than 100. The result is that hospitals and other institutions designed to teach 100 students are now teaching half as many again. But the teaching staff has not been increased because the number of staff on the whole is determined by the number of patients requiring attention, not by the number of students requiring teaching. The hospital staff is provided not by the Department of Education in general but by the provinces, who control their hospitals.

In the second place, the older medical schools have their laboratories and their other instrumentation designed for 100 students. The Government has not, so far as I am informed in at least one university, increased the amount of capital funds made available to the universities in order to increase their laboratory accommodation, nor to increase the needed instruments and apparatus. The result is that medical education, taken in the broad view as an education which is provided for the benefit of the people, all the people, is labouring under great difficulties. The difficulties will not be met by the provision of one medical school and no more dental schools. This is unlikely to provide an answer. The Department should look at the position with a view to decreasing the increased numbers of medical students, at the existing schools and not treating this as a permanent state of affairs, and it should look to the provision of more dental and ancillary services as regards teaching. The problem is not solved merely by an instruction to the Department of Planning to work out where this new medical school should be situated. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying: Let us do one first and then the other. He has already done harm, which was unavoidable, I accept, at the time, by increasing the intake of the existing medical schools. His remedy must be seen in a broad outlook and he should obtain adequate evidence to consider what is the true position of medical education. How satisfactory is the present set-up, with the addition, if you like, of one further medical school, which will come into being in seven year’s time at the best? If another one is decided on, another seven years must be waited before we can get a remedy. One cannot by putting up a building, create a medical school in five minutes, as one can, say, an ordinary school. The task of the Department of Education is to provide efficient medical care for all the people. It is true that many of the people cannot afford financially to pay for medical attention; that is mostly the Bantu. But there are many to-day who, under medical schemes, will be able to afford to pay for medical and for dental services. There are more people to-day who are coming within the groups which can afford it. Many, because of this Act, will leave those who formerly could not afford it. All this is going to increase the demand. As I say, it must be not only medical attention, but include dental and ancillary services, and the position should be viewed in a broad outlook. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

Mr. Chairman, I want to return for a moment, as the hon. the Prime Minister also remarked in respect of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to the hon. member for Orange Grove for the last time. It is pathetic that half truths should be used and abused here. If a person tells a full-fledged lie I have much more respect for him than when he makes use of half-truths. Hon. members were witnesses here to the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove opened a Std. IV history book here this afternoon and with great verbosity pointed to photographs of two members of the Executive Committee. “Rob Ferreira: Who is he?” That was the way he expressed it, “Kalie de Haas—Who is he? A. J. Koen: Who is he?” But the hon. member neglected to state that the history syllabus for the primary school course for Std. IV prescribes the following on page 7:

The Provincial Council—first, the Administration: His name. How appointed—His functions. Secondly—the Provincial Executive Committee: Their names and functions.

If one furnishes their names it is even more comprehensible for a child to have a photograph and under the photograph a name. It is the requirement of this syllabus. Has there ever been anything like this before: The hon. member trying to tell the uninformed, not in this House, but outside, that cheap party propaganda is now being made by means of the photographs of those persons in that book. The hon. member must go back to school, and then he will know a little bit more of what it is like teaching a Std. IV child, and how to arouse his interest. I can continue by pointing out how they must become acquainted with one department, namely the education Department: The S.G.E., the Deputy S.G.E., chief inspectors, inspectors of education, trade inspectors and school principals. The child must know these things. They are in his immediate environment. Now this hon. member wants to allow this kind of doubt to arise and he wants to pretend that this Government is teaching the youngsters politics. It is a disgraceful breach of the standards one ought to display in respect of the truth of the position.

I shall now reply point by point to what hon. members said which was worthwhile taking notice of. The hon. member for Hercules pleaded for after-hour training for teachers. All the matters mentioned here this afternoon, after-hour training of teachers, married women teachers, etc., are dealt with very thoroughly in the report on teachers. Their conditions of service, what must be done in order to improve them, etc. Now I must admit that I am not very enamoured of after hour training, except as an emergency measure, because it is very difficult for one to devote one’s full attention to intensive training while one is still occupying another position. Those people have done very good work for us when the need was very great. I am rather inclined to lean towards the standpoint of the hon. members for Houghton, Boksburg and others, who expressed great appreciation for the work being done by the married women, and suggested that they be employed as far as possible. I can only tell the hon. member for Hercules, since he furnished figures relating to the high school there which indicated how the number of women was increasing and the number of men decreasing, that the policy, of course, is to appoint temporary women teachers, particularly in the cities where they are more concentrated, and to appoint married women there as well. In this way we can supply the country areas, where people are not so numerous, and particularly our remote schools, to a greater extent with the male portion of the staff. Perhaps, too, it is attributable to that.

The hon. member for Boksburg also brought a few matters to my attention. One in regard to which he raised a plea was that the young teacher should be placed in the position where, in order to encourage him, he can be afforded more recognition for merit. Now I can simply say that a sub-committee of the Committee of Heads of Education are at present investigating the introduction of many more senior posts in the Education Department, in order to make these available to people who are able to attain them according to merit. That is the great secret. I am very wary in regard to merit. When it comes to merit awards, I am slightly inimical to merit, pure and simple, especially if it is based on subjective judgment, because later on they look to see what the colour of one’s eyes is, or whether they like your face, or whether one is friendly enough, etc. This kind of merit counts for everything. In any case, they are dealing with this matter, and I feel that the young, energetic, capable and well-qualified teachers will of course come into consideration for those posts. Since the hon. member for Boksburg discussed extra-mural activities, inspections, etc., here I can only inform the hon. member that these things will all be dealt with thoroughly in the reports on the teachers. As I have said before, it is hoped that they will be available to all of us in July.

The hon. member for Houghton knows what my feelings are in regard to married teachers. I am very sympathetic towards them. There are many reasons for that. I also realize that it is not merely a question of the Education Departments not treating everyone alike, and that they often complain about money as well. They cannot afford to grant other benefits. But the inter-departmental sub-committee of the heads of education in this case, which is known as the Kotzé Committee, is laying down uniform conditions of service in the Republic, which will be submitted to me for approval. The reports on the teacher and his conditions of service is ready. I referred those matters to them specifically, simply in order to obtain uniform conditions of service for the entire Republic, in terms of Act 39 of 1964, and married women will also fall under these uniform conditions of service. I can only say that my own Department—I can only speak on their behalf—has already accepted and obtained the go-ahead from me that teachers who have been married will suffer no disadvantages whatsoever but that they will be able to continue with their service. As regards this question of a woman teacher who is unmarried to-day and married tomorrow, and who immediately receives a lower salary and who has to retire from the permanent service, I have already issued instructions in my own Department that this will no longer happen. I am very grateful for that. Unfortunately I cannot furnish you with any information now, because I would then be committing other people with whom I shall still have to consult, but we are well under way. I must inform hon. members that I have simply forwarded the memorandum of the Women’s Council, which co-operated with me in an excellent way in regard to these matters and which gathered information for me, to the National Education Advisory Council. In the advice which will be furnished to me—and I have more or less heard what is going on—all those representations they made would have been dealt with thoroughly and approached sympathetically.

The hon. member for Houghton also discussed two other matters. She made one point in regard to the question of nursery schools, and of course primary education. Now I just want to say that it goes without saying that we cannot merely allow our nursery schools to become places where children are looked after. Then they become creches. If it is a creche, it will fall under the Department of Social Welfare. That is not my concern.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

But they serve a double purpose.

*The MINISTER:

Yes, but I want to inform the hon. member for Houghton that the preprimary education, before we begin with the primary schools, is also a matter which is at present being considered by the Committee of Heads of Education, which I mentioned just now. The National Education Advisory Council has already adopted an attitude in regard to this matter, and has recommended to me that, where it is undertaken, pre-primary, in other words, nursery school education, should be the responsibility of the authorities. We feel that we are past the time when it was left to local authorities to deal with this matter. That is the advice which I have been given, namely that the State should look after the child in his nursery school years, whether it undertakes to do so in toto, or whether it undertakes to do so on a subsidy basis, or on whatever other basis it undertakes to do so. This will all have to be settled still. This matter can definitely not be allowed to remain in the air any longer. There we agree with the hon. member.

We appreciate the hon. member for Durban (Central’s) knowledge and interest he has retained in the medical science and medical training. We take note of that, because we know that the hon. member has a very eminent status in that field. However, I differ with the hon. member on one point. That is the expansions being made to the present medical schools. They were, in my opinion, the best we could do under the circumstances, and we are now plucking the fruits of this. We would have had to establish two medical faculties in order to have yielded in ten years which this expansion is now yielding. I think that we should make an immediate start with a medical faculty and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will definitely make the allocation soon, i.e. as to where it is to be erected. This will be proceeded with immediately. As the hon. member knows, it takes approximately ten years before one actually begins to derive the benefits of such a faculty. When it comes to the colleges for advanced technical education and the training of technologists there is no problem. If the need is there, and it is stated to the technical college concerned, immediate expansions can be undertaken without delay so that the necessary facilities can be created. I want to thank all the hon. members who have participated in this debate for their constructive criticism and for their interest in this matter.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 9—Information, R4,159,000.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that such an important Vote should be taken so late on a Friday afternoon. With the time at our disposal, we shall simply have to see how far we can go. Towards the end of the previous Session the hon. the Minister and his Secretary, Mr. F. G. Barry, undertook an extensive overseas tour lasting approximately two months. I think it would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister would tell us what the extent of his investigations was and what positive steps resulted from them as far as the Department is concerned. We should also like to hear what the general impressions of the hon. the Minister were, and particularly what fruits he saw of the labours of the Department abroad. It would be too good to be true if the hon. the Minister had only gained favourable impressions. For that reason I want to ask him in a friendly way also to tell the Committee what he found that was unfavourable. Good things have a way of looking after themselves, and it is really the bad things we should try to set right. Therefore I believe that it would be much better if the hon. the Minister told us what he had found to be the mistakes, shortcomings and problems we had to cope with abroad, in order that we might see in what respect we could be of assistance to him in overcoming those problems.

As the hon. the Minister knows, I myself have had the opportunity to visit some of our offices abroad. All I wish to state here is that before my departure I obtained the best possible assistance from the hon. the Minister’s Secretary. In those places where I visited our offices, I found the greatest possible measure of co-operativeness and I was impressed by the dedication of the officials of the Department. As the hon. the Minister knows, we on this side of the House adopt the attitude that this is not the place for attacking the Government on its broad policy. The Department of Information has to do its work within the framework of the policy of the Government of the day. The limit to which we shall therefore pursue this course, is to examine how the Department is trying to overcome the existing problems.

Earlier on in this Session I put a question to the hon. the Minister, namely what rule was being followed in the distribution of Press releases of speeches made by hon. Ministers. I wanted to know from him whether it was only speeches of an official nature that were being distributed by the State Information Service. We realize that that is a very essential service, and it stands to reason that there cannot be any objection to official statements by Ministers being released in this way. However, I believe that things are going a little too far when speeches made by hon. Ministers before bodies such as the Rapportryers, and also on occasions such as Festivals of the Covenant, are distributed by the Information Service. I want to make it clear that I do not have anything against this occasion. That is not the point. However, I do not think that it is right for the taxpayer to be called upon to pay for the distribution of speeches made by Ministers in a personal or a party-political capacity. We have no objection to the official material. I think that things are going too far in this respect. Sometimes these publications contain good jokes, but often even the feeble jokes Ministers tell are quite solemnly recounted down to the last detail in the cyclo-styled material. We should like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s policy is in this regard and to obtain from him the assurance that the Department will confine itself to speeches of an official nature, i.e. speeches made by Ministers in their official capacity.

We have the report of the Department in front of us. I want to express my regret at the fact that it was not submitted sooner. It was only submitted a matter of a few days ago. I am told that there are reasons for this. I mentioned this, since it is difficult for members of Parliament to devote proper attention to a report and to convene their groups. Sometimes supplementary questions have to be placed on the Order Paper and if, therefore, one does not obtain it in good time, no matter what good reason there may be for the delay, the result is that a discussion of this nature is not as rewarding as it may have been. As regards the structure of the Department of Information, I just want to make one observation. It always seems strange to me why overseas activities—the activities of the foreign section of the Department of Information, do not really fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not say this in order to cast a reflection on the hon. the Minister or on his officials, not in the least. I am of the opinion that they themselves can be just as good at handling foreign affairs as any other can. That is not my point. My point is that everywhere where the Department of Information has overseas offices, we also have, but for a few exceptions, political missions. The handling of information differs from country to country. It goes without saying that information in Italy, for instance, is not the same as it is in Germany. It is always the case that the information officer, as I see the position, has to maintain close liaison with the political mission in the capital or the place where he has been stationed. For that reason I wondered whether it would not be better for the operation of the system, if, as a matter of principle, the information section abroad were placed under the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am willing to alter my opinion in regard to this matter if there are good reasons for the present state of affairs. However, I myself am convinced that it would be better if information activities abroad fell under the Department of Foreign Affairs. As regards the report, it strikes me that the guest programme is one of the most important activities. We think that his is one of the best methods of disseminating information, namely to bring people to South Africa. During the two years covered by the report, there were approximately 114 guests of the Department. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that my impression is that we are inviting too many people who are already favourably disposed to the South African situation. I wonder whether we should not be a little more daring by inviting to South Africa important leaders from abroad, people who are less favourably disposed than those who do come to South Africa and may perhaps be influenced for the better. The only thing that worries one in connection with this guest programme, is that the people who come here do in fact leave with an improved image, but that there is one very unfavourable impression gained by virtually all of them, and that is in regard to our petty race measures. [Time expired.]

*Mr. J. A. MARAIS:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout feels troubled about the fact that speeches made by Ministers, at Festivals of the Covenant or at Rapportryers’ meetings for instance, are being issued to the Press. He is of the opinion that this should not be done. I fail to see why one should object to that. I think that when a Minister speaks as a member of the Government, such a speech is always important. It does not matter what he is talking about and where he dees so. Issuing such a speech is a service which is being rendered for the sake of society as a whole in South Africa. The Press and the public are interested in what the Ministers have to say. As far as I can see, the only occasion on which it will not qualify for this purpose, is when a Minister makes a speech in the course of an election campaign. In this respect I shall agree with the hon. member. As far as the rest is concerned, I fail to see why one should have any objections.

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

And at ordinary party meetings?

*Mr. J. A. MARAIS:

At an ordinary party meeting, as it takes place in South Africa, where National Party Ministers speak at party rallies for instance, and where they speak about matters of policy which concern the entire country and in which the entire country and the Press are interested, I fail to see why there should be any objections to such speeches being released to the newspapers. In any case, the cost involved in doing so is minimal. If every newspaper and every person who wants the information has to be present personally during such a speech, the cost will be much higher than the cost incurred in that regard at present.

The Department of Information occupies a key role in the situation in which the world and South Africa find themselves to-day—in this psychological war which is being waged on a world-wide scale. This war is not only being waged along the usual lines of propaganda, but also with the aid of every conceivable means, such as economic, diplomatic and military means, and even in the sphere of sport. It is interesting that—in the light of events in recent times—even the use of sport has become a recognized means of making propaganda. A book entitled “International Political Communications” and written by Philips Davidson, has appeared in America. In that book he writes—

Non-military action for purposes of international propaganda have also become common. Sports have been used by both the Nazis and the Soviets and to a lesser extent by democracies as a means of conveying political ideas.

All these things are normally encountered by the Department of Information. These are problems with which they have to deal.

In such a psychological war a country such as South Africa, which is not a big country and whose means are limited, can easily be disconcerted by such major propaganda campaigns. If one just considers the important role played by films in making propaganda, and particularly in this sort of warfare, and the extent to which large countries dominate that scene, one can appreciate how difficult it is for a country such as South Africa to compete in that sphere. In 1947—and that is perhaps rather long ago—L. C. Rosten wrote that the manufacture of one full-length film was just as expensive as it was to purchase a fully equipped radio broadcasting station. He estimated that three to four months’ film production in Hollywood cost enough to buy out an entire metropolitan newspaper. That is the scale on which we had to compete in order to put South Africa’s information across, and it is not easy to compete against these means. That is why we should not, as far as information programmes are concerned, expect too much on a short-term basis, and that is why South Africa should be very selective in its choice of target areas and the means for achieving the best end results.

It does not matter whether it is South Africa which seeks to put across its information in the face of the existing hostile attitude towards South Africa: any information programme, regardless of its nature and its objects, will encounter opposition. It is not strange that South Africa encounters opposition and that other countries encounter opposition. That is a law of the information service. That is why information one wishes to put across, should be repeated in many ways and in many forms. From the nature of the case that increases the cost. Since received information creates with the person who has received such information, a natural need for a greater variety and authenticity in regard to such a matter, it also creates a cumulative factor of rising costs. The effectiveness of the information programmes depend on the cumulative impact they make over a period of time. It is too early for us to see some of the results of the Department’s work to-day, and even in a few years’ time we may still be unable to do so, but that work has unmistakably had an effect already.

The Department has been in existence for approximately eight years, and it is obviously becoming more and more effective as it gains in experience and as it is able to do the necessary long-term planning. It is a time-absorbing process to compile information material, to write books, to manufacture films and to distribute and disseminate these.

The Department may experience setbacks. We may have the sort of thing we had last year, in connection with the television film which was made by ABC and distributed in America, and which was so badly distorted that it probably had evil consequences for us in its immediate effect. I should be pleased if the Minister could tell us a few things about the repercussions caused by the film. I wish to say that I believe that I am speaking for everybody when I say that we find it a great pity that South Africa’s goodwill towards the manufacturers of this film was abused to such an extent that, although we provided the manufacturers with every facility and with assistance, they nevertheless presented this slanted image in America. I do not want to blame anybody here in South Africa for that. Apparently it was as a result of pressure that this film was cut and censored in America to such an extent that this was the result.

I just want to show you what the film looks like and what appeared in it about South Africa. Dr. W. P. de Villiers of the Christian Institute appeared in the film, as well as Mr. Alan Paton, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Mrs. Helen Suzman, once again Mr. Oppenheimer, Kaiser Matanzima, who said a few words, once again Mr. Alan Paton, Mr. Blyth Thompson, and then the Prime Minister of South Africa said a few words in Afrikaans for the benefit of American audiences. From the fact that not even one single member of the United Party was represented in that programme, one can deduce how terribly onesided it was. Alan Paton of the Liberal Party and Helen Suzman and Harry Oppenheimer of the Progressive Party were presented to excess. Such a slanted image of conditions in South Africa was created in this way that one can only call it scandalous. It is a pity that South Africa’s goodwill and hospitality were abused in that way. We must take cognizance of the fact that these things do happen. We have had experience of that before. We have learned from that.

We must take cognizance of these things, because they coincide with numerous other attempts to cloud South Africa’s image abroad and to make it more difficult for us to put our information across in the face of the forces competing for the attention of the people. These things coincide with other propaganda which has been made on a large scale in America in particular. You will in fact be aware, Sir, of the major campaign that was waged before the verdict of the International Court was given in 1965-’66, for instance. At that time numerous books on South Africa were published, books in which South Africa was presented in the worst possible light with the obvious aim of creating international hostility towards South Africa. This pattern is now being continued again.

I think that in view of what it has at its disposal and the experience it has gained, the Department has done very well in the few years it has been in existence. In a certain sense the Department is in the front line of South Africa’s defence. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister will not allow himself to be misled by the plea made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, i.e. that he should also distribute the party-political speeches of Ministers on the strength of the fact that the public is interested in them. If one has to judge by Swellendam, the public is at present much more interested in what the Opposition has to say. If that has to be the norm in terms of which speeches are distributed, we should be given the same facilities. In this respect I am thinking of the principle. What it costs, is not the point here. It is a wrong principle that party-political material should be distributed at the expense of the taxpayer.

I said that it was striking that amongst the visitors coming to South Africa we could find a thread of criticism, criticism which concerns our petty race measures in particular. It seems to me as though there is a shortcoming in connection with the information they receive in this regard. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me that when we go to the trouble and the expense of getting overseas people to visit South Africa, the opinions they express should be examined very thoroughly—not that one has to be guided in all matters by their opinions—to see to what extent we can benefit by them, to try to eliminate that measure of bad relationships which exists between us and the outside world. I am pleased to see that mention is made in the report of what is probably the greatest event in the period covered by this report, namely the achievement of Professor Chris Barnard. I find that some people abroad, and I do not want to mention names, unfortunately have the idea that Professor Barnard’s services are being enlisted by the Department of Information and that he is being used as an instrument of information. My impression has always been that he acts independently. I feel convinced that it would be best if this should remain as it is. It would perhaps be a good thing if it were made clear that he is acting independently, with requested assistance which all of us and, of course, he too, can obtain from institutions such as the State Information Service. If the case of Professor Barnard proves one thing—and I wish to emphasize this—then it is that the antagonism in the world outside is not directed against South Africa. It has become evident that through his achievements Professor Barnard as a South African has become tremendously popular abroad and that he is being worshipped there. If one considers what sort of reception he was given in Italy and in South America, then it is strange that he as a South African is being worshipped abroad, even by statesmen who would on the following day once again help U.N. to take political steps against South Africa. My point is that the most significant fact that came to light as a result of this event, is that these people are not hostile to South Africa as a country, nor to its people. The antagonism in the outside world is directed at certain situations in South Africa and not at our country and our people. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may try to deny that if they please. It is a fact. There those hon. members have the proof. There is no antagonism against South Africa. The antagonism is directed at certain situations in our country. I shall now tell you why I mention it. This is all the more reason why the Government should, by means of the State Information Service, rather present the positive aspects of South Africa, than the political concepts of the Government. It is the positive aspects that make an impression. It is the political concepts we want to advertise too much, which fail to make an impression. I think that by concentrating more on advertising the positive aspects, we can do a great deal to obviate the unfavourable aspects of these situations.

I looked at the section of the report which deals with films. I am sorry that I myself did not have the privilege of seeing all those films. Those I have seen, are good and I want to congratulate the Department on those films which were awarded prizes abroad. I am particularly sorry that I have not seen the latest films, but I am grateful for the fact that I have had an invitation from the Secretary to see them. I hope I shall still be able to see them later on. I have tried to make inquiries in our interests to see what the effect is of these films in the outside world. I have asked people whom I considered to be competent to judge, although an opinion is merely an opinion, what they thought of the films. The answer I received from people whom I questioned about them, was that we should bear in mind that overseas viewers were always inclined to look for the unfavourable aspects in regard to the South African situation, particularly in the sphere of race relations. Because this is the case …

*An HON. MEMBER:

The same applies to you.

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

I am here to criticize. I do not stand here in order to sing praises, for then we might just as well abandon the debate. Those hon. members have already become so authoritarian that they cannot stand criticism. I shall simply take no notice of that. They must hear it or else they must leave the House. When does that hon. member ever take part in a debate? He sits here like a puppet. He does not earn a tickey of his salary.

*The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must not become personal. He must confine himself to the Vote under discussion.

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

I hope it also applies to the others.

*The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that statement? Is it a reflection on the Chair?

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

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend it that way. The other hon. members became personal first. That is what I meant.

The eyes of the outside world are focused in that way. As practical people we must accept that. If one wants to overcome a problem, one has to determine one’s problem first and then try to overcome it. The eyes of the outside world are focussed in such a way that they look for the unfavourable aspects, particularly in the sphere of race relations. This observer tells me that if one looks at the films, one finds that the quality is very high, but the contrast between White and non-White is always presented in such a way that it appears to the foreigner as though one group has everything and the other does not find itself in the same position. As he put it to me: if a white woman is shown, she is always smartness personified, but when it comes to the non-Whites, what they see is more specifically the labourer. Because they are so inclined to find fault, that strengthens their view that we have here a contrast between the “haves” and the “have nots”. I merely mention this. Then the complaint was made that when a funny situation was shown in order to introduce a measure of light entertainment into the films—I repeat that I have not seen them; I merely mention this so that we may inquire into this situation to see whether the interpretation of these people is correct—where fun is made of a person in order to provide some amusement, it is mostly the non-Whites who are involved in such situations. The statement has been made that this has the very effect of reinforcing the unfavourable suspicions people already have in regard to South Africa. I merely repeat this for what it is worth. We who live in our own country are accustomed to certain situations and we may not always notice things noticed by others who are inclined to take an unfavourable view of these things and may perhaps use them against us. I mention this so that we may ascertain whether there are any real grounds for that criticism.

Furthermore, the Secretary mentions in the report that there is a steadily growing demand for information in overseas countries, especially more detailed information. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could tell me what is meant by “detailed information”, because I want to endorse it. Any person can speak from his own experience only, but my experience has always been that in overseas countries one is virtually never confronted with the more Utopian aspects of Government policy. The questions that are asked, usually concern matters such as the Immorality Act … that is one of the most important questions. [Time expired.]

*Mr. V. A. VOLKER:

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said something which probably contains more truth than he himself realizes, He said that the world was not against South Africa, and he said so pursuant to his reference to the reception Professor Chris Barnard had been accorded abroad. He and other colleagues of ours went abroad during the recess, and it is most decidedly true that the world is not against South Africa. But now we should inquire for a moment into the reason why South Africa has an unfavourable image abroad. If we inquire into that, we shall be better able to adapt our entire information system so as to improve South Africa’s image abroad as well.

Now, it is a fact that the image created elsewhere of any country, is created through the means of communication which are being used throughout the world, the news dissemination organizations. It is also a well-known fact that news organizations and means of communication throughout the world are being infiltrated by leftists, people who are bent on undermining any country or movement that is conservative and on having liberalism and the concept of integration accepted by the world instead. It is also a fact that the news organizations which are chiefly responsible for disseminating news about South Africa throughout the world, are not favourably disposed towards South Africa either. Here I am not referring specifically to SAPA, since the news disseminated about South Africa in overseas countries, is supplied only to other news organizations by SAPA. It is a fact that there is an agreement between SAPA and Reuter, and every news item about South Africa that is being supplied to overseas countries, goes through Reuter first of all and is screened by Reuter, and they only make available what they consider to be suitable to be made available. It is also a fact that organizations such as Associated Press supply news to 7,600 newspapers in 80 countries all over the world. United Press supplies news to 6,500 newspapers, radio services, etc., in 111 countries, and Reuter also supplies news services to 110 countries. Those organizations have been infiltrated sufficiently to screen the news in such a way that favourable news about South Africa will not be disseminated effectively.

That is why I want to express my sincere thanks to-day to the S.A.B.C. for the decision they took and the announcement they made, namely that their own independent domestic radio news organization would now be developed into an international radio and television news agency, and that preparatory steps had already been taken so as to devote attention to this matter. In December, while I was in Europe, I paid a visit to the editor of one of the most important television news services in Hamburg, and he actually made the plea that we should kindly make available our news about South Africa directly, and that it should not be made available through the news agencies. He specifically made the request that it should be made available through the S.A.B.C. news service, because, he said, overseas newspapers and television were not interested in Government news services; they are interested in independent news services, and the S.A.B.C. is an independent service, although it is a State-aided undertaking.

But it is not a Government news service; it is independent. He actually pleaded that the S.A.B.C. news services should be expanded so as to make provision for the dissemination of news about South Africa throughout the world. That is why I am grateful that this expansion is in progress at present. It is very clear that such a news service by the Broadcasting Corporation will co-operate with the Department of Information of the Government.

I want to touch briefly upon another aspect—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to it—i.e. the guest programme of overseas visitors to South Africa. In Europe I made contact with numerous news editors. It was gladdening to see that South Africa’s image has improved considerably over the past 18 months, chiefly as a result of this guest programme. Over the past two years quite a number of news editors of newspapers in Europe have been invited, either by the Department of Information or by other bodies and persons, to come to South Africa. It is remarkable how South Africa’s image in Europe has improved over the past 18 months, so much so that occasionally our information staff in Europe have even had to apply the brake so that the reports which appeared after these editors had been in South Africa, would not create too favourable an image of South Africa, because the difference between the previous unfavourable reports and the present more favourable reports is, in point of fact, such a marked one that it causes doubts to arise in regard to their reliability. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he gained the impression that only persons who were already favourably disposed towards South Africa, were being invited.

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

I did not say “only”.

*Mr. V. A. VOLKER:

That is definitely not the case. I met numerous people there who had previously not been favourably disposed towards South Africa and who gained an entirely different impression after they had been here. I refer to the magazine Der Spiegel, for instance. This is one of the magazines in Germany which has always been very hostile to South Africa.

It was very bitter, so much so that in one of its recent editions, i.e. that of 25th March, it once again published a filthy illustrated article about conditions in South Africa, an article arising from a book, The House of Bondage, that was written by a Coloured person, Ernest Cole. Although people in South Africa will understand these circumstances, people living abroad and thinking as they do, simply find it terrible that such a thing could be published, because they have no understanding of the situation. I was referring to a series of articles which appeared in Der Spiegel and was written by Dr. Leo Bravand, the foreign editor of Der Spiegel. The series dealt with foreign development aid which is being granted to developing countries, mainly by Germany, but also by other developed countries such as America, France and Britain. It was a shocking picture of waste of energy, money and time to see what happened to the money that had been made available by the other countries for the purpose of assisting development. But this Dr. Leo Bravand had also visited South Africa, and in this article which appeared in the edition of 16th October, he referred favourably to South Africa’s contribution towards assisting the development of the non-white areas in South Africa, which also amounts to development aid. [Time expired.]

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

I do not want to reply directly to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who has just sat down. What he dealt with was the direct news connections between the Republic and other countries. Every morning we hear over the radio what the mediums are that are used by our Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member rather amused me when he referred to the S.A.B.C. as an independent, though State-aided undertaking. I want to agree that that is true, but it is simply not objective.

I should like to deal with the Estimates and I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions before I continue with my theme. I notice that the increase on the Estimates for this year is an amount of R635,000, of which R473,000 is the increase for publicity under head “F”. Under “F” I find two items; the one is “Other”, in respect of which the increase is R125,000, but there is no indication of what “Other” is, and I should like to have a more detailed explanation from the Minister of what this is. The other is “Television and Films”. When it comes to television, as I read in the annual report of 1966. they begin by saying that television is now the most important medium used to reach the masses. Then I see in 1968, under the same heading, that television is now par excellence the medium used to reach and influence the masses. These statements are virtually word for word the same. I want to suggest that in the case of a beautiful publication such as this, we should not repeat word for word what we wrote last year and the year before; that we should produce something more original when we are dealing with a powerful medium such as television. This morning the hon. the Minister replied with such relish to a question that was put to him in connection with television. He pointed to the large masses that were reached by television and I am astonished that the hon. the Minister of Information, who is such a senior Minister in the Cabinet, has not been able to persuade his colleagues long ago to introduce television here, seeing that it is such a wonderful medium.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions in connection with television programmes of South Africa that are shown abroad. The first question is whether we buy time on any commercial channel, or whether the television films produced by us are transmitted on the ordinary channels. I know it is very expensive to make use of commercial channels; no one knows that better than I, but this is the one medium where you can put your case to any group of viewers without part of your programme being cut. If one buys time on a commercial channel, say for example 10 minutes—you present your story and the programme is transmitted unchanged. If it is the case that we buy television time in any one country, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why we do not buy time in other countries as well. In other words, why do we not buy time on the commercial channels of countries that are not sympathetic towards South Africa as well, so that we may present the true image of South Africa in that way?

Mr. Chairman, I have little time. I just want to say a few words about our information offices. If I have counted correctly, or if the Minister has informed us correctly, we now have information offices in 12 countries, all of them Western European countries. All of them are countries in which we have other offices as well. But then we find that there are many other countries where we do not have information offices and, it seems to me, where an information attache can do extremely good work. I am thinking of our offices in Brazil, Greece, Japan, Spain, and Sweden, Sweden especially, because Sweden is a country which is not sympathetic towards us. Why can we not have information offices in those countries as well to present the image of South Africa?

I now come to publicity through the medium of the Press, and in the latest annual report I find the following—

Because it was felt that the World Court judgment as well as factual information about South Africa should be disseminated as widely as possible, two illustrated articles entitled “Justice speaks on South West Africa” and “Chaos or Civilization” were prepared and published in the following publications in the United Kingdom …

These are paid advertisements, and I have two questions in this connection. Most of the publications mentioned here are known to us. I personally know many of them. Amongst others, “Medical News” and “The Tablet” are mentioned here, in which paid advertisements appeared as well. We all know that the larger the circulation of a periodical is, the more expensive it is to advertise in it; surely that goes without saying. So, if we want to spend money on advertisements, why do we not make use of fewer media, fewer periodicals with larger circulations so that we can spread our message more widely? As far as I am concerned. I would prefer to see that we make use of only five publications with very large circulations, so that we can put across our message to many more people. In other words, let us advertise in publications having the largest number of readers.

Then I come to another point, and I raise this as one who has had quite a lot to do with Press publicity all over the world. As regards the placing of paid advertisements, you must always see to it that you get favourable editorial comment in the publication you are supporting financially. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department sees to it that our advertisements are placed in newspapers and periodicals that are sympathetic towards us in their editorial comment? It has happened on occasion that a paid advertisement of South Africa appeared in a periodical and that a vicious attack was made on us in the leading article in the same periodical. To me it is very important that care should be taken that you do not get that kind of unfavourable comment when you place a paid advertisement in a newspaper or periodical.

I notice in the latest annual report that the Department took part in exhibitions in quite a number of countries. In the United Kingdom there was a South African Exhibition, in Glasgow at the Scottish Food Show, and in Belfast, Ireland, we participated in the Belfast Ideal Homes Exhibition. These are, of course, excellent places for having exhibitions. Then, also, according to the report, we participated in the following countries—

Germany: Cologne: Postage Stamp, Numismatic and Paper Money Exhibition. Salzburg: Photographic Exhibition of Church Architecture. Belgium: Antwerp Book Exchange.

Then we come to photographic exhibitions and to exhibitions of children’s art. I am no authority in this field, but when we take part in exhibitions in order to present a true image of South Africa abroad, I want to suggest that it is better to make use of static exhibitions at large international shows, or at as many shows as one can afford, than to try to cover a wider field by way of information work.

Then there is one further little matter. I know it does not fall under this Minister, but I want to express my regret at the fact that at a show such as Expo 1967, which was held in Montreal … [Time expired.]

*Mr. C. J. REINECKE:

On page 2 of this very attractive Annual Report of the Department of Information the following paragraph appears as one of the assignments of the Department—

South Africa has to do with forces which over many years and even decades have never wavered in their sustained efforts to create and emphasize false images of the Republic and its people and different nations.

I have here a little book, “Setting the Record Straight”, published by the Department of Information, which appeared in New York in 1967, in answer to one of these alleged false representations of South Africa. I just want to read out the following paragraph—

This article—like the Unesco report—is based on the premise that the only acceptable social structure is an integrated one and, after avoiding all evidence pointing to the success of South Africa’s policy, it proceeds to the untenable conclusion that separate development (apartheid) is “not only an inadmissible answer to racial and group conflicts but in itself the major cause of such conflicts.

In 1966, in the discussion of this Vote, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in regard to the Department of Information (col. 1891)—

I do not want to go as far as to say that we are following the Russian model in all respects.

Then this year the hon. member said (col. 232)—

The previous leader of the Government seized every opportunity to emphasize that South Africa’s problems were unique …

and then

this is what our representatives abroad were told to say.

I take it also our representatives of the Department of Information. And then he said—

I think that it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to rectify this matter as soon as he can. Our representatives abroad have enough on their shoulders without having to deal with such irresponsible statements as well.

The hon. member became angry with us just now when we asked him what in fact the situation was if foreign countries were not against South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout evaded the issue because he has a guilty conscience. I do not think it fitting that the United Party should even try to make a positive contribution here this afternoon under this Vote, because we know exactly where these distorted images of South Africa which are going abroad originate, and therefore I reject the hon. member’s fine views and discussions here, because it falls to insignificance when compared with the tremendously great damage which he himself is doing to this country.

Mr. Chairman, this attractive Annual Report of the Department, on which I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Secretary, bears the stamp of what is taking place at present in this indispensable Department of Information of ours, which must be maintained in order to rectify the false images that are being created by the other side. It is a very neat publication; it is journalism at its highest level; it is neatly edited; it is the work of experts who know their work and know it well, and know their country well, who are sympathetically-disposed towards their Government’s policy and who in fact give us in this report a neat exposition of the whole background against which the Department of Information operates. We who have listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House in the past few days are amazed that he has not objected to this beautiful exposition and this wealth of information. Measured against his statements which I have just quoted from Hansard, the hon. member ought to object to the many truths to be found in this Annual Report. The characteristics of our Department of Information at present are streamlining, neat work, good craftmanship and convinced officials doing that work, and I can only reiterate that it is a pity that their work is being complicated by utterances such as those made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Since reference is made here to the office of the Department in New York, I want to direct a special word of appreciation to-day to the Director of Information who recently embarked on his return journey to South Africa after a long period of service, Mr. Otto Adendorff, who through his energetic action, the initiative which he displayed in the United States, his honesty and his firm faith in our home country and his Government’s policy, took up the cudgels on our behalf, in newspaper columns and in regard to public opinion, to an extent which cannot be gauged. He recruited many lasting new friendships for South Africa, and we should like to thank him for it in this House and extend our best wishes to his successor and his staff in the United States.

We are grateful to note that the Estimates under this Vote have been increased by more than R600,000 this year and now surpasses R4 million. It immediately gives the Department the greater striking power it needs.

Mr. Chairman, this brings me immediately to one of the arguments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that he regards Professor Barnard’s achievements abroad as being of far greater value than the work done by the Department of Information. Sir, by means of this work which many hundreds of officials of the Department of Information have done here and abroad, the seedbed has carefully been prepared on which the fruitful seed of Professor Barnard’s achievement can now fall, and without that help and the background of the good work being done by the Department of Information abroad and everywhere. Professor Barnard would simply not have had access to the places to which he did have access.

I notice with great satisfaction that a larger amount has been granted to film manufacture—R33,000—and I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for portion of that film work which was done in my constituency, since a capital investment of more than R600,000 has been made, specially in the private sector, for film manufacture. I want to thank him for that support being lent to private initiative by his Department.

Lastly I notice the important new establishment of a subsection, “Data Section” in the annual report. It is an important development. It was a shortcoming in the past and it will most certainly be available as an arsenal of already processed information for immediate application by departmental officials. Our thanks to the hon. the Minister for that as well. A further sound development is the fact that the channeling of Press statements between the Department of Information and the Press, for other Government Departments, has been discontinued. I believe that the new arrangement whereby the Press can maintain direct liaison with other Government Departments, will bring about the desired closer contact between the Press and those Government Departments. However, it is nevertheless necessary for such Government Departments to keep the Department of Information in mind as far as important policy statements etc. are concerned, so that there can be the necessary co-ordination to assist this new section in doing its work.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

I hope the hon. member for Pretoria (District) won’t mind if I do not follow his line of thought, because in the short time at my disposal I wish to touch upon three points. Time and time again, when speaking to people from overseas, I have been told that our case is not getting across overseas. People in the diplomatic and business world who are friendly disposed towards us are frequently saying this to me. As against this there are very few prepared to tell me that we are in fact getting our case across. Of course one realizes that the budget available to this department is a limited one. But one cannot help feeling that we are not putting the right stuff across and that we are not getting it to the right people. It will be interesting to learn exactly what information leaflets are going out and to whom. I have seen the S.A. Digest in our offices overseas, and I have seen Panorama, and also a few others. As Members of Parliament we receive various publications of information departments from various countries overseas. For instance, we receive an information sheet from America; the German Press Review; some of us used to receive information from British sources, but this has since ceased. These publications afford us a standard with which to compare our S.A. Digest. It is possible that this particular aspect may have been discussed here before, but I am not aware of the Minister’s attitude to it. I should like to plead with the department to issue something like this German Press Review, a weekly review of the German Press. We have got to remember that rightly or wrongly—and we on this side believe wrongly for the most part—South Africa is regarded as the polecat of the world by many nations. Consequently anything with the imprint of the Department of Information is apt to be suspect. If this were to be presented in the form of a selection from our own newspapers, it could make a much better impression. It would commend itself as something independent. The choice of extracts should be done properly and could either be done by the department or by an impartial board constituted by our own newspapers. In this way one could present a good selection from South Africa. There could be leading articles, factual information—in short, a general picture of the country. Is the hon. the Minister perhaps thinking along these lines? If he is not, why not?

Let me now draw attention to the wrapper in which the S.A. Digest is distributed. I must confess that this yellow wrapper covering only part of the leaflet itself does not make a pleasing impression upon me. I have a feeling that others share my view. In contrast to that, the wrapper containing the German information pamphlet covers the entire leaflet and generally creates a more favourable impression. In the case of the S.A. Digest the print is running one way on the wrapper and the print on the magazine the other way. The yellow colour itself, I think, is rather a startling colour. One can compare this also with the colouring of the American information leaflets. They come in a complete envelope. I believe this makes a much more pleasing impression.

I should like to turn to a second matter. We are very glad indeed to have been invited to see the films of the Department of Information. I have been down several times to see these in the Colosseum Theatre here, and sometimes elsewhere. I think one has, almost without exception, felt that these are good productions. They are useful, colourful and so forth. I must confess that there may be many that I have missed; perhaps in the years before I was in this House there were several that I missed. But there is one aspect in these that I have seen that I think is overlooked too much. I cannot remember seeing much impression given in these films of the sporting activities of South Africans. It must be remembered that many of these films are directed at the immigrant, trying to attract him to this country and tell him something of our life here. I believe one of the aspects that a man in Europe or Britain would find particularly appealing about South Africa is its sunshine and its sporting facilities. This would give him the type of life which he perhaps finds more difficult at home, and it will at any rate show him that what he is doing at home in the sporting world, he can do here equally well.

I would certainly show our beaches. I believe they are second to none. But I am thinking particularly of the man who perhaps plays or watches soccer, rugby, cricket or the other games at home. If he can see that these are available to him in South Africa, I believe they will be a greater attraction to him than many other things that are shown in these films. I can remember one of these films, in which, with the beat of the music, we saw different buildings, various kinds of flats with interesting architectural constructions. There is no doubt that it was good photography and clever work in some ways, and it showed we certainly had living units for would-be immigrants. But I think he likes to see attractions of the sporting kind as well. So I hope very much that I will be told if in fact we have films of that kind, or if we do not have, I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister would give thought to possibly asking for films along these lines.

Then I turn to a third matter. From time to time I have been asked to see visiting people brought out by the department to see South Africa. I have been very glad to see these people and to tell them of South Africa and of our United Party policy. Indeed, this has been requested both by the department and by the people themselves. I should be very glad to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is finding that this activity of his department is paying dividends. I should be glad to know whether these people, on going back to their countries, are better disposed to us than when they came. My own impression is that that would be so. I should like to say, too, that very many of these people, when they come here, have got a clearly favourable impression of South Africa. I believe when they return they have even more favourable impressions. I should like to conclude by taking the point made by the hon. member for East London (City) a little further. We were delighted to hear this afternoon of the wide use the Minister is making of television material. While we cannot move the Government to introduce this medium so that we can see it here, I do ask the hon. the Minister to make certain that copies of these films, which are screened on television overseas, are retained and stored here, so that when the happy day comes that the Government opens its eyes to the value of this medium also for its own citizens, there will be a good supply ready and available for us.

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

Mr. Chairman, I think I may rightly say that we on this side of the House are beginning to get sick and tired of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Time and again, when this Vote is under discussion, he gives evidence in his speeches of being ashamed of his country. He is ashamed of the laws and the customs of this country. The same tendency was present in his argument this afternoon. I want to ask him whether the type of propaganda documents we received from the United States, such as the United States Report, do not likewise abound with American national policies. Are they not informing us by means of those documents precisely what they are doing in their own country? We are, therefore, obliged to consider those reports as propaganda. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is ashamed that something might leave South Africa which would outline the existing state of affairs here in South Africa. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We are not ashamed, for example, of the Immorality Act that was mentioned here this afternoon. There are laws in other countries, as for example the civil rights laws of the United States and England, with which we certainly will not put up in this country. The hon. member for Pinelands asked what we should get across and to whom. It is very obvious what we should get across clearly and plainly, and that is the case of South Africa. I should prefer the hon. member not getting the policy of the United Party across to other people. In addition he asked to whom we should get it across. Our task is to get it across to everyone we meet, such as overseas visitors to South Africa as well as others we meet when we travel abroad.

I want to deal with the amount of R210,000 appearing on the Vote under the sub-head “Foreign Liaison Services”. I consider this a very important item. This amount is intended to be used for receiving visitors from abroad who visit our country for a definite purpose. Many of them apply to the department for aid themselves. Many of them are referred to the department by South Africans. The department is then expected to assist these people, and to bring them into contact with matters or people in which or whom they are interested. This is a particularly rewarding, though long-term activity of the department. It affords the trained staff of the department the opportunity of putting across the correct image of South Africa to visitors. Our attitude is, in contrast to that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that we have nothing to hide. We state the position exactly as it is, and our visitors have the opportunity of judging for themselves. Without exception the experience has been, however, that these visitors usually gain a favourable impression after they have come to know the circumstances here in our country. One need not try to indoctrinate them. All we need do is put our case by giving them the true facts and statistics in a wholly unbiased way. These people thereupon return to their respective countries where they come up for us. They usually are eminent figures in their own countries. They are people who hail from the world of public media, like television and overseas press: people such as editors, and senior reporters; there are also authors, radio personalities and even academicians and politicians. On page 32 of the report we have before us, we find a summary of 114 guests who were received in South Africa in this way. This figure was quoted correctly by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I want to congratulate him on that. In addition to these 114 guests, there were three group tours from the U.S.A. and two from the United Kingdom. Then there was the windfall of the “floating campus” of the Chapman College of California which consisted of 600 students and approximately 100 lecturers. They subsequently wrote to the Department themselves and stated that as a result of this gesture, the fine reception of their ship in South Africa, South Africa had gained 700 ambassadors for herself in the U.S.A. These are people who went back and who are talking and writing, usually with good results for our country. I should like to quote Mr. Frank Crean, a member of the Labour Opposition Party in Australia, and the shadow minister of Finance in that Party. He said South Africa came up to his expectations in all respects, especially because the information service had been so good. As a result of that he could learn a great deal about South Africa before departing from Australia. Although he had not been here for very long, he was impressed by the country as a whole, and, he added laughingly, by the traffic problems. According to Mr Crean, he had regularly read brochures on South Africa before coming here. I also want to read to you what was said by the editor of the News Free Press, Lee Anderson. He is also a Rotarian. He said—

There are no friends of America that are so poorly understood or unjustly accused, as our friends in South Africa and Rhodesia.

The report continues—

Mr. Anderson told the Rotarians that many Americans would probably not approve of the South African system, but when you see the people and what they are doing, there is a better understanding of why South Africa is what it is to-day.

This is the nature of the evidence we are receiving. This is additional to the mass of evidence embodied in the report.

I am concerned, however, about the way people deal with visitors to our country. I undoubtedly want to pay tribute to the information officers who are employed in this country. I want the country to know what a debt of gratitude we owe these people. They are well-educated and most of them have degrees, with major subjects related to the information work they are doing. Subsequently to that they are departmentally screened. Then they receive training while in service with special reference to the various media employed in their work. This includes the spoken word, the written word, the picture and the radio. In addition they are trained in practical liaison work. These people indeed are specialists who render a great service to their country with great dedication. But the impression which our visitors from abroad gain and take back with them is that total impression made on them. That is what they see and hear and what people get across to them. In my opinion many of us here in South Africa—and I am now referring to the population in general—are not attuned to taking care in all cases to present the best image of our country to visitors. I believe that even amongst our well-disposed and important citizens there are some who do not always have a sufficient awareness of the importance of this matter. This applies to every situation in which we come into contact with visitors from abroad. [Time expired.]

Mr. L. F. WOOD:

Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Zululand accuse this side of the House of being ashamed of our land. I do not believe it. We may be distressed sometimes and unimpressed with certain actions of the Government but I want to assure him that most South Africans when they leave the shores of South Africa to visit overseas countries leave this country with their fists up. They are ready to defend South Africa against any unwarranted and unfair attack regardless of their political convictions. I can assure the hon member of that.

I should like to express my appreciation to the Secretary for Information and his staff for the willing co-operation he gave me as a result of a recent visit overseas. Every assistance was given in the form of pamphlets and information to be sent overseas to people whom we had met and who showed an interest in South Africa. The reaction has been most encouraging. While I know that in the initial stages one of my friends had a little difficulty with the Department of Information when he wished to spread information about South Africa overseas, I think that these circumstances have been overcome. I know from my own point of view that the co-operation could not have been better. Arising from this the suggestion I wish to make is whether more use could not be made of public representatives and of people who love South Africa and go overseas and who wish wherever possible to provide a means of telling the rest of the world some of the facts about South Africa. Could these people not use the facilities of the Department of Information to a greater extent so that by the submission of addresses, the Department can follow up with the necessary information and brochures?

Then I want to refer to the Estimates. I see that there has been an increase of R473,000 for publicity and that the allocation for television and films shows an increase of over 20 per cent. Earlier this Session I asked the hon. the Minister a question in regard to an application made for the production of a film concerning the women of South Africa, all the women of the various races. In his reply the Minister indicated that the matter had been raised by a branch of the National Council of Women. He said at that stage that there were priorities and that the available resources had to be used for more urgent targets. In view of the increase which is shown in the estimates I believe that the Minister should give favourable consideration to this suggestion. After all, the women of South Africa make up at least 50 per cent of our population. I believe that in these days of labour shortages and the high cost of living they play a very important part in South Africa in many aspects of South Africa’s activities—in the economy, factories, offices, professions, the Public Service, air travel, travel agencies, schools, the nursing profession, social services and most important of all in the home as well. I believe that this notable contribution which the women of South Africa make is something of which we can be proud and which we could use as a means of propaganda in other countries. I notice also under sub-head F—“Publicity” an amount of R210,000 is allocated for the expenses involved in visitors from abroad. I have no objection whatever to that amount being spent. I think it is being spent on a good cause. I do, however, feel that these people who come from abroad and receive entertainment in South Africa may only visit a certain section of our homes, representative perhaps of the middle and higher income groups. I am thinking not only of what they see. I see the Minister shaking his head. I am thinking also of where they may stay and make social visits and meet people. I feel that while they may get a good cross-section of the activities of South Africa and to a large extent go home favourably impressed with what they have seen, they may get the impression that in South Africa the South African housewife is surrounded by a team of domestic servants so that she is able to indulge in endless rounds of bridge, golf, tennis, bowls and other social activities. I believe that those activities are confined to a very small section of South African women. I believe that it would be wrong if that impression were to gain ground overseas. I feel that the rest of the world should be told of the part that the women of South Africa play generally. If this suggestion has come from the National Council of Women, I believe that they would be able to help to disseminate this propaganda among the 61 councils which are affiliated to the International Council of Women throughout the world. I believe that the best manner in which to propagate this information would be by means of a television film. I am told that the expense involved in the production of such a film would not be excessive. I am advised by someone who has had considerable experience in the production of this kind of film that a 15 minute colour film could be produced for under R10,000 while I believe that quotations from film companies are in the region of R20,000. This is only part of the additional R69,000 which the Minister receives in this budget. I suggest too that if the distribution were effected through various organizations such as Vis-News from London or I.T.V. the film could be distributed to many of the television stations throughout the world with the result that world wide coverage would be attained. I feel that a film entitled “The Life and Day of South African Women” would hold some interest to many people in other lands.

As a final plea I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider the institution of some kind of film festival in South Africa along the lines of film festivals which have taken place in other parts of the world. I believe that the large cities of South Africa could provide suitable facilities. I believe that the various cinemas who have the means at their disposal to project these films would willingly co-operate in such a project. I believe that it would be a means of creating popularity and greater knowledge of South Africa and that it would bring new people to South Africa. I do not believe that it will involve the Minister’s department in a great deal of expense. I hope that he will give favourable consideration to this suggestion as well as the suggestion in regard to the request of the women for a film about themselves.

*The MINISTER OF INFORMATION:

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Committee for its very positive approach to the entire Vote. I also want to thank them for the fact that whenever they had any criticism to make, their criticism was never destructive but, from their point of view, constructive. In addition, I must take the congratulations of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) and others very seriously and express my gratitude and appreciation to them also on behalf of my officials who have to perform this gigantic task. I feel perfectly at liberty to state here that the officials of the Department of Information are obliging servants who are always prepared, day and night, to offer assistance to whatever section of the public or whatever race may seek their assistance. With a sense of deep appreciation, I want to accept the expressions of thanks and appreciation to me as having been sincerely intended. The only thing I noticed during the debate was that there was a certain lack of clarity in regard to certain matters. These are small matters which I want to clear up as soon as possible in the time at my disposal. I want to give hon. members the assurance that if I should fail in this speech to deal with every suggestion and request they had addressed to me, we shall definitely contact them either personally or in writing to inform them in regard to these matters. I do not want to overlook anything or anyone.

The first matter in regard to which there is, in my opinion, some misunderstanding, is the question of the publication and distribution of speeches. Now I want to give the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Innesdal the assurance that only one kind of speech is being distributed by my Department, namely speeches containing policy statements. What is concerned in this matter is not political speeches, nor what kind of public or private organization which has been addressed, but only when a speech contains a policy statement that speech is distributed by my Department. And Ministers do not abuse this. In point of fact, very few Ministers ever think of writing out a political speech. They speak extempore as they know their jobs too well to deliver their speeches here from little bits of paper.

Another point which was mentioned and in regard to which there may be some misgivings, concerns our guest programme. The entire discussion on this programme was in general, a very favourable and constructive one. I want to give hon. members the assurance to-day that in selecting overseas guests, who visit us at great expense to the State, we have been taking a very clear stand over the past few years, and that is that nothing is achieved by bringing guests to South Africa for an enjoyable holiday. Nothing is achieved by bringing people here who are completely convinced in their own minds and who have expressed themselves in favour of South Africa. Then they will merely be coming here to see for themselves. After all, when one is convinced, one is convinced. Those people remain as friendly as before. We do not bring them here. Sometimes it is also necessary in this regard to take a few risks. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said we should also concentrate on leaders. He said we should seek the political leaders of other countries.

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

Spiritual leaders.

*The MINISTER:

That is right. We must seek leaders in different spheres, spiritual leaders, academicians, and people like that. Now I want to tell the hon. member that that is precisely what we are doing. We do not want to bring out newspapers and newspaper editors only. One of the hon. members said that with a view to getting the publicity we were seeking, we should look for newspapers with the largest circulation so that we would not merely be mentioned in insignificant newspapers. These are all matters which are taken into careful consideration. I can give the hon. members this assurance: In selecting our guests we try as far as possible to include all influential professions in our choice. The time has passed when we had to deal with guests merely for the sake of creating goodwill. Above all, we must concentrate on guests who may influence the opinions of other countries and other people. We want moulders of opinion, we want absolutely critical, objective people to visit us, people who are not content with saying yes to everything, but on whom the things they see and hear make such an impression that they will really be able to bring home our message to the people to whom thy convey that message. It is irrelevant whether such a person is a journalist, an academician or a politician. Lately we have succeeded in bringing many influential people, friendly people, to South Africa from abroad. I want to add that the criticism expressed by these visitors has been favourable throughout. We need never be put off by unfavourable criticism. This we will naturally get. We have miscalculated here and there. But this does not mean that the whole system is wrong. It hardly ever happens that a guest, after having been here and having seen what the position is—without indoctrination—is not well-disposed towards us. Guests often pay me a courtesy visit before they set out on their tours. When they have completed their tours, they pay me another visit to take their leave. On their first visit I always tell them: “This country has everything, just tell me what you want to see and you will be taken there. If you want to go here or if you want to go there, just say so. We will not present you with alternatives. We do not tell you things, have a look for yourselves, and let us have your opinion on your return, not only oral opinions but also written evidence in your own newspapers, magazines, or whatever.” What they subsequently write reveals that we come as close as possible to creating 100 per cent goodwill amongst these people.

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout laboured under a slight misapprehension as regards our films, the films on which black and white appear together, particularly films for overseas consumption. He thinks that the contrast is too great and that this gives rise to unfavourable criticism for us abroad. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others are interested, I shall make the necessary arrangements to screen these films for them. I am quite convinced that the statement made to him was completely wrong, because if close attention is paid to anything this is the very thing. Attention is paid to subduing the contrast as this does the information as regards our country no good. If we were to have the very rich and the very poor people in the same film in the same scene, this would not reflect the position we know to exist in South Africa. But I shall make arrangements for such a show, and the hon. member may make arrangements with my Department and the show will be held, if that is the wish.

The hon. member asked what we really meant by “information in depth”. I must say we are very pleased that the need for information other than factual information, is growing. Factual information constitutes only the bare facts, to get things straight, but information is depth provides not only the facts but also their causes. Why is this so? People want not only the facts about the policy but also the reasons for that policy. It is, in fact, very heartening that things have taken this turn. People do not only want to know what our policy of separate development is. They also want to know the reasons for that policy; they want to analyze it to its very roots to be able to form an objective judgement. This is a new trend which I heartily welcome.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also discussed the matter and asked why we could not incorporate the overseas information service with the Department of Foreign Affairs. During my recent visit overseas I saw for myself that this was absolutely impossible. Diplomatic activities cover a completely different field. Hon. members may inquire what the position is at all foreign missions here in South Africa, and they will learn that the departments of information of those countries are represented by an information division or officer or a separate attaché, instead of the missions of those countries doing that sort of work themselves. There are very good reasons for that. The diplomat in moving round amongst the people, really has nothing to do with all the factual news, with the problem of communicating that news, and how to present it. In every country I visited, I noticed that there was no method according to which information officers could be taught to present the news in a particular way, because the situation differs from country to country. In one country, for example, one cannot make use of films at all, while in another country it is of no avail if one does not have a television film. In another country, if we present the written word, the publication must be in a certain form and it must communicate a certain message. All these things render consolidation impossible, as this would do us great harm. I must tell hon. members that the mere communication of information, getting that information across, knowing how to process that information when it comes from South Africa, requires trained personnel. I think we would be making the biggest mistake of our lives if we were to bring about a separation in this Department as regards domestic and overseas information services. Therefore I think the hon. member should rather leave matters as they are.

I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal that he asked me a very difficult question. It is a very tall order to ask me to give an account of my entire overseas trip. I would then have to take up all the time of the Committee and would be unable to deal with anything else. I shall give him a written account of everything I did overseas. The hon. member was rather disturbed about the ABC broadcast in the U.S.A., judging from what he said. Now I can only say it is really a problem. The information we have received is that if there is one television company in the U.S.A. that has shown itself to be quite objective, it is the ABC company. They came here and we exacted all possible kinds of promises from them. They explained to us how they would approach the matter objectively. They showed us here what they were going to show abroad, and that satisfied our people completely. But when once they had gone, they made their own television film notwithstanding all these promises. Consequently their comparison between us and the rest of Africa was an unfair one. We admit everything the hon. member for Innesdal said. It was however, a blessing in disguise, as other companies approached us and offered to take the films of our Department of Information, to televise them and then to take the usual steps to present the true image of South Africa. Furthermore, received this free of charge, because the people had reacted against it, and this is the value of this Department and of all the work that is being done overseas. The people abroad are no longer so stupid as to swallow everything, and when they find out that a matter is being exaggerated and deliberately misrepresented, they react against it and take up the cudgels on our behalf without our even having to pay for it. I et us be grateful for this tremendous change that has come about: this is the experience of all who are concerned with this matter.

The hon. member for East London (City) wanted to know why we have to have an exhibition of children’s art. I want to remind him of three little words beginning with the letter “b”, and this is what attracts the people’s attention, namely, “babies, beauties and beasts”. Those three things attract the most attention. This is by the way, but I want to tell him that it is still of the greatest value to a country to show the rest of the world that even in its early youth, the child can take to art, that the child is happy in the country in which it lives, that it is well cared-for, and that everything done by that child evokes immense interest among people to study the other achievements of that country. Therefore I do not think it is something to underestimate.

The hon. member referred particularly to our television shows abroad, and he also referred to the question to which I replied this morning. Of course we are glad that we possess those wonderful media to present the message of the Republic of South Africa throughout the world. Of course we are grateful for it. Those are the best media to be found in the overseas countries. Those of us who have already been overseas, have seen them. It is wonderful to see how keen people are to obtain our television films. Any medium at our disposal is being made use of. Where we cannot make a break-through in any other way, we buy space in a newspaper, we buy the advertisements. We try to reach the people in every possible way. Where the ordinary film still plays a part, we make use of it. But this has nothing to do with television in this country. I think the hon. member was only joking, and the other members as well. Surely these two things are not comparable. If one must make use of a medium, you do so. Let us not confuse it with our own television policy in South Africa. These two things have nothing in common. An hon. member has made such a kind request that we should retain copies of our television films so that when we introduce television here one day, we would have a lot of films to show to hon. members. Let us be grateful for those media, because I must say they have helped us a great deal already.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked me to whom these publications are sent. There are probably 20 or 30 categories of influential persons to whom we send these publications. Basically those are the people who form or may influence public opinion. They are basically the persons to whom they are sent. These people are political leaders, they are government officials, businessmen, university men, cultural leaders, authors, newspaper editors, column writers, important persons in the Press, radio and television. These people are performing a very great task for us, and it is of very great importance to us. When I was abroad, the compliment was made in several countries that our magazine Panorama is the best publication from any country that is being distributed abroad. I have always felt that one may be very proud of the work that is being performed here.

An hon. member has also asked that the Department be requested to give a kind of weekly review. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that we cannot undertake this. We cannot consider it. If we were to do this, we would of course encroach on the political field. In the political reviews we would have to deal with all sides, and we do not think this is the duty of this Department. Our Digest is a very successful publication, and it gives a survey of the most important news. If we were to present a full political survey, with leaders, etc., we may go beyond our limits.

The hon. member also asked why we do not include more sport in our films, as this is one of the main attractions. We have made a film on Bantu sport, entitled “From the Assegaai to the Javelin”, and this was distributed all over the world. This film was awarded a gold medal in France. Films and television films on the previous rugby tour of the Lions were also distributed all over the world. They were shown in various countries. The cricket tests against Australia and the French rugby tour were also filmed and viewed by millions of people in other countries. We are therefore doing our share in this respect too.

The hon. member for Berea suggested that we should make more use of persons going abroad and that we must use them to present our case. He was also speaking from personal experience. I may say that at all our ports of departure the necessary pamphlets and other literature have been made available in a very prominent place for the use of persons going abroad. From the information contained in the literature, they know something about our country when they arrive overseas. We also receive very favourable comment on it. I also want to add that if someone intends going abroad from South Africa, he is always welcome to approach the Department and to take the necessary material with him. He will be furnished with the necessary literature and the necessary information.

The hon. member once again referred to the proposed film “Die Vrou van Suid-Afrika”. He has also referred to it on a previous occasion. At that time he received the reply from me that priorities had to be observed and that there was so much to be done that it was not always easy to change the priorities. I want to agree with him that all the various facets in the life of a people are of importance to indicate the standard of civilization of that people, and that the woman most definitely plays a very important part. The woman, the child, the man at work or at play, or whatever it be, are all facets to be taken into consideration. But we shall once again consider the earnest plea made by the hon. member and see what can be done.

T think I have now replied to most of the points raised here. I apologize to hon. members to whom I have not replied and I want to say that I will present them with written replies.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

MONDAY, 29TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER INTERFERENCE BILL

Committee Stage.

Clause 1:

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Sir, we on this side of the House oppose this clause, not only because it provides the machinery which puts the whole of the contents of this Bill into action, but because it is designed to divide the population of the country into certain water-tight political groups along the lines defined by the Population Register. We oppose it because by this Bill it is clear that the Government has failed to attract to itself and to its policy the support of those people who are being divided into groups. This Bill is going to have the effect of creating in South Africa a state of political isolation as between the various groups into which by the terms of the clause we are to be divided politically—the Bantu, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians, with the Chinese and other Asiatic groups. Apart from stopping all consultation between the various political groups, the effect of this is going to be to make of innocent people in South Africa criminals, subject to the penalties which are provided for later in this Bill, and for those reasons and others which we will deal with when we come to the various clauses, we on this side of the House are totally opposed to this clause.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I agree with everything the hon. member who has just sat down has said in connection with this clause and I am also of course going to oppose it, because it is the mainspring of this Bill. It is not the clause containing the principle as such, but without this definitions clause the rest of the Bill will of course fall away altogether. I am against the whole of the contents of this Bill, and I intend to oppose every single clause.

This particular clause defines the various population groups and it will have the effect of dropping a curtain between the different racial groups in South Africa as far as any political discussion across the colour line is concerned. I think not only is this undesirable, but it is positively dangerous, because it will prevent the different races from exchanging opinions and having peaceful discussions across the colour line about their political aims and objectives. Therefore I oppose this clause.

While I am on my feet, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister please to explain just what he means by this extraordinary terminology which appears in clause 1 (i), where it says that a population group means the persons who “from time to time” belong to any one of the following population groups: the Bantu population, the white population, the Coloured population and the Indian population and other Asiatic groups. I asked the Minister this by way of interjection during the second reading, and the impression I got from the hon. the Minister was that he thought that this strange phrase “from time to time belong to such a group” had some connection with reclassification under the Population Registration Act.

I was surprised to hear that interpretation, because I did not imagine for one moment that the definition clause of a Bill dealing with political discussions across the colour line would take into account changes in the race classification of an individual under the Population Registration Act. I find it most extraordinary to suggest a chameleon-like character for the individuals in South Africa, who from time to time, apparently, go from one group to the other, and therefore I should like to know how this phrase has come to be included in the definitions clause. But of course my main objection is one of principle. I am against the political isolation of the different colour groups in South Africa, and I, too, will oppose this clause.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

This is the definitions clause of the Bill and one would have expected in a Bill of this nature that the main and important aspects of the Bill would have been defined here. Instead we find a very vague definition of population groups. As the hon. member for Houghton has said, they are defined as belonging to a particular population group “from time to time”. One knows that in the Act itself the other Asiatic groups, etc., can be prescribed by proclamation. One knows that the Secretary for the Interior is obliged to put the Bantu and the Coloureds into various ethnic groups. One wonders, if one has a definition clause of this sort, as one ought to have in every Bill, why it is that the important aspects dealt with in the Bill are not defined also. Why is there no definition, for example, of the thing that occurs throughout the Bill, a political party? There is no definition at all of a political party, and this is the place where one would have expected to find it, and it is very important. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that the courts will interpret this Bill and that the courts will determine what a political party is.

The function of this House, of this Parliament, is to say what the law is; it is to define the law. It is not the function of our courts to make the law. Our courts have never assumed the American judges’ concept of their function, namely to make the law and decide what it is. It is our function to say what the law is so that the courts will be in a position to interpret it. There is no definition of the kernel around which this whole thing revolves, and that is a political party and political interference. There is no definition of interference, of what is “political”. There is an amendment on the Order Paper by the hon. the Minister to take out a certain word and substitute another word with “political”. What does “political” mean, what does this House, what does the hon. the Minister intend should be the meaning of the word “political”.

Then the Minister has classified in paragraph (iv) as a group of people who may talk to each other about political matters and address each other about political matters, and meet together on political matters, “the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population group”. The “Other Asiatics population group” can be specified by the Minister by proclamation. Why does the Minister, and I would like to hear what he has to say about this, feel that the Chinese group has a political affinity with the Indian and other Asiatics group? We would like to know why are they put there. Do they not perhaps have an affinity with the Coloured group or with the white group or some other group? One does not know. Do they not perhaps have an affinity with the Malays? The Minister has the power to determine where and how these sub-groups belong. We should like to know how he is going to apply this provision. What sort of proclamations is he going to make and what is the standard he is going to apply in determining which groups may meet together for political purposes and which groups may not. Specifically would he explain why the Chinese group is included in this odds and ends group that he has included in paragraph (iv)?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, this clause actually deals with the classification of the various population groups and it quite rightly follows the classification in the Population Registration Act. I do not wish to embroider now on the points introduced by the hon. member for Durban (North) under this clause, because I do not think it is necessary at this stage. All I wish to reply to, is to the question put to me by the hon. member for Houghton. She wanted to know why I said “from time to time”. I think it is a fair question, but I also think that it is a very unnecessary one, because the hon. member for Houghton, like the hon. members of the Opposition and other hon. members of this House—but they more so than other hon. members—is aware of the fact that the Population Registration Act provides that there may be appeals to the higher courts and to a board, and certain matters may even be brought to the notice of the Secretary who may feel obliged to re-classify or not to do so. If a person follows the procedure as laid down in the Population Registration Act, and he appeals against his classification as a white person, for instance, and the court rules that he is not a white person per se but falls under the Coloured race group, or under the Bantu, why then should he with his incorrect registration or classification fall, for election purposes, under a political group to which he does in point of fact not belong? The intention with this legislation is in fact to curb interference by one race group in the distinctive political activities of another race group. Now, it does after all follow logically that if a change is effected in a person’s classification, a change which separates him from the group to which he thought he belonged and puts him into another group, then he should in terms of this Bill be deemed to belong to that group to which he legally belongs. This is simply the reply to that question.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I gather from what the hon. the Minister says that if a person is reclassified, he must then fall under the new classification for the purpose of this Bill, but that he may remain under the old classification in terms of the Electoral Act because the definitions in the Electoral Act are different from those in the Population Registration Act. Is that not correct?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Then I cannot see the point of this measure at all. If that is not the case, then immediately a man is reclassified, he obviously has to be classified according to his most recent classification. The words “from time to time”, therefore, do not mean anything. I do not understand the Minister’s explanation in this regard.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, since we are in fact arguing about this matter, I just want to explain it further. We are dealing with legislation which seeks to delimit the country into 40 constituencies and through which the Coloureds, for instance, will be afforded the opportunity to elect for themselves 40 elected Coloured members to their Council. Only the names of Coloureds will appear on that voters’ list. Let us suppose that the name Isaac Jacobs appears on that voters’ list, because he has been classified as a Coloured person. Let us suppose further that that person lodged an appeal because he was dissatisfied with his qualification, and that his appeal was upheld and that he was declared to be a white person. Surely, it follows logically that his name has to be struck off that voters’ list and that he has to be registered in a white constituency as a voter for a white representative in this House. That is the logical consequence.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Mr. Chairman, I want to query the refusal of the Minister to answer my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member for Durban (North) raised a perfectly legitimate issue, namely the question of the grouping of the Chinese population with the Asiatic group. He asked whether that meant that the Government considered them for political purposes as part of the Asiatic group. He asked whether they would enjoy political rights and whether they Would be able to participate in politics with the Asiatics. He raised the question of whether there was not a closer affinity between the Chinese population group and, for example, the Coloured population group. The Minister then simply shrugged his shoulders and said that he would not answer. I do not think that that is good enough. I wonder whether perhaps the hon. the Minister is not able to answer that question. He simply takes a population group, attaches to it a certain classification and when questioned about it refuses to discuss the matter. This does not concern only one or two people; it concerns thousands of people in South Africa. These are people whose whole future is going to be affected by this legislation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to reply to the question of the hon. member for Durban (North).

At the same time the Minister could perhaps explain an interesting fact in the wording of this clause. Every population group mentioned in this clause, is spelt with a capital letter except the white population group. Does that have any particular significance?

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

Mr. Chairman, what I do not understand about the definition in this particular clause is this. The Minister seeks to divide the three population groups, Bantu Coloured and White. These groups must not interfere in one another’s affairs. Then he puts the Chinese and the Indians together. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Indians are themselves divided into two groups. There are the Moslem Indians and the Hindu Indians, who have totally different beliefs, customs, etc. They are not a single group. Furthermore I cannot understand why the Chinese population group should be permitted to mix in the politics of the Moslem Indians or the Hindu Indians. Conversely, they can participate in the political affairs of the Chinese. These are the sort of things and this is the type of conclusion, which flows from this clause in the Bill.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

What about the white Japanese?

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

Well, I am going to come to them. When the white Japanese come on to the voters roll, I should like to know whether they are going to be considered as Coloured and who is going to be permitted to talk to and listen to them.

But I want to come back to the definition of a political party.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The point about the definition of a political party should be discussed under clause 3. Hon. members may not on this clause raise a point that is not mentioned here. This is purely a definition clause.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

I accept what you say, Sir, and with respect I put it to you, that unless there is a definition in the definition clause it does not apply, because …

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member may discuss that under clause 3.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

But then we will have passed the definition. You see, Mr. Chairman, with respect, there is a deficiency in this clause. The whole backbone of this Bill depends on the definition of a political party, therefore it must be included here.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member has not moved an amendment to insert a definition of a political party, and therefore he may not discuss it.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

On a point of order, Sir, the fact that a definition of a political party is omitted from this clause, which is in fact a definition clause, is going to affect the debate on every other clause in this Bill. Under clause 2, even, where the words “political party” comes in, we are going to be at a loss to know what it means, to know what the intention of the Government is when we discuss “a political party” in terms of this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

That is not a point of order. If the hon. member wanted to discuss this matter, he should have moved an amendment defining a political party, which he did not do.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

With respect, Sir, are we not allowed …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

May I ask you a question Sir? On a point of order, are we not allowed to criticize this clause because it lacks that definition?

The CHAIRMAN:

No. The hon. member may not do so. If there is a deficiency in this clause, he should move an amendment.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Sir, may I address you on your ruling? If one is entitled to vote against this clause, is one not entitled to advance reasons why it is deficient and therefore why one would want to vote against a definition clause?

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member mentioned that in passing. He may not do anything more than that. I have given my ruling. Hon. members may not discuss a definition which is not here.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask to conclude my remarks. Will the hon. the Minister please tell the House why he is prepared to permit interference by Chinese with Hindus, Hindus with Moslems, Moslems with Chinese, and vice versa? Will he please tell us that?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Chairman, I can give the reply to the hon. member for Karoo. The hon. member is being silly. He knows what is contained in the Act. We in South Africa have repeatedly heard of a four-stream policy, which means that the four main race groups will each have its own political institutions. This is set out in the introduction in clause 1 of this Bill. The first of these groups is the white group, the second is the Bantu group, the third is the Coloured group, and, for the information of the hon. member for Durban (North), the Chinese group will not be included in this group. Then we also have the Indian group. These are the four groups which have some form of government or other to-day, although in the case of the Indians this is still on an advisory basis. This is the position as regards these four groups. The hon. member for Umlazi says he is opposed to this principle because this clause divides the people of South Africa into various race groups. Surely the hon. member ought to know better. After all, this is not the law which divides the people of South Africa into various groups; surely it is a factual and historical position. But, apart from this, we have another Act which lays down to which race group a person in this country belongs. Therefore it is not this Bill that the hon. member should criticize in this regard. The hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Houghton suggest that this clause entails the political isolation of the various race groups. Coming from the hon. member for Houghton, I can understand this, because she would naturally like to have one politically integrated structure. But the hon. member for Umlazi denies that he wants political integration. If this is the case, he should separate the various population groups from one another—not isolate, but separate. With the best will in the world I therefore cannot see what objection hon. members can have to this, the first clause in this Bill. All this clause does is to set out the various racial groups to which the future political structure will relate. I cannot understand why hon. members should come along with all kinds of minor points—such as, for example, the hon. member for Karoo, who now even wants to classify the Indians into various groups on the basis of their religious beliefs. I think the hon. member is simply making himself ridiculous.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The hon. member for Parow spoke about this being “the traditional policy” of South Africa. This is a matter which we argued in this House before and which has been rejected by us. The hon. member also mentioned a so-called traditional four-stream policy and claims that the four groups concerned are those set out in this clause. During the second-reading debate I raised a certain matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter on which he failed to reply. But, accepting the four divisions as laid down in this clause, we still have an anomaly here in the Cape Province where we have people, classified under paragraph iv who are presently registered as voters on a roll instituted for the election of Coloureds to the Coloured Council, Coloureds who, I presume, will represent people defined under paragraph (iii). How far then does the four-stream policy of the hon. member for Parow go as long as we have this anomaly? Let me pose my question to the hon. the Minister once more: What is he going to do about these people? Is he going to remove the Indians and the Chinese and other Asiatics who are at present on the Coloured voters’ roll in the Cape Province? Is he going to remove them from that roll? If so, where is he going to put them? Another point arises: What about the Indian people in Natal who are at present on the white voters’ roll? What is he going to do with them?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! What clause is the hon. member discussing?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Clause 1, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

No. The hon. member said that under a particular law Coloureds and Indians were voting together. What law was he referring to?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I did not mention a law, Sir. That was a submission I made. I said they appeared on the same voters’ roll.

The CHAIRMAN:

On what voters’ roll?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The roll for election of Coloureds to the Coloured Council.

The CHAIRMAN:

But the whole scheme of Coloured representation in this House has been repealed.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I am referring to the Coloured Council, Sir. The roll of voters for electing the Coloureds to that council is still in existence. I submit that roll is in conflict with this clause we are dealing with now.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

How are these in conflict?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I put these questions to the hon. the Minister and I think he should reply to them. What is he going to do about the fact that there are people in the Cape Province, people classified under paragraphs (iii) and (iv), who vote for one and the same representatives to the Coloured Council? What is he going to do about these? Similarly, in Natal we have people under paragraphs (iv) and (v) appearing on one voters’ roll and voting for one and the same representative. What is the hon. Minister going to do with these people?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

We have some sort of ambiguity here. On the one hand we have the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who complains that there are too few classifications …

*Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Nonsense.

*The MINISTER:

Wait a minute. He wants us to keep, inter alia, the Chinese separate as well. He says we have too few classifications and that I am lumping together people who do not belong together or that I now want to tear apart people who belong together. The hon. member for Karoo, on the other hand, goes even further. The Opposition is essentially and in principle opposed to the classification of population groups because this is not in conformity with their policy of a multi-racial parliament. But now the hon. member for Karoo comes along and pleads that there should be even more subdivisions. He asked: What about the Chinese? As a group, the Chinese have never had any political representation. Like the Indians, they belong to the Asiatic group. If I do not classify them into this group, it will mean that the Chinese will be the only population group who will be able to interfere freely in the political activities of any population group, whether it be the white. Coloured, Bantu or Indian population group, It is for this reason that they are in fact being classified into these four groups.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Will the Chinese then be able to vote for representatives on the Indian Council?

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member for Durban (Point) may think that he is being exceedingly clever, but he is playing the fool with the committee. I am not prepared to join him in doing so.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, what was said by the hon. the Minister is not good enough. It is no answer to what has been said in the debate so far, and especially to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). If we look at clause 1 of the Bill, we see that “population group” means someone who belongs to one of the following population groups: The Bantu, White, Coloured, Indian, Chinese and other Asiatic population groups. Definition (iv) of the same clause states—

“The Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatic population group” means the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950 …”

This means that a Coloured person is defined as being a person who is not a white person and not a Bantu. That is a Coloured person. They are the Coloured persons, as defined—

“and are members of the Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act”.

Under section 5 of the Population Registration Act, 1950. “the State President may by proclamation prescribe and define the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons and Bantu shall be classified in terms of subsection (1) and may in like manner”—and this is important—“amend or withdraw any such proclamation, or any proclamation purporting to have been issued in terms of that subsection”. Is that not the real answer to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton as to why the words “from time to time” exist in the Bill—I say this because the hon. the Minister has the power to change, from time to time, by proclamation what ethnic group the Coloured people belong to. He can determine whether the Griquas are going to be Bantu. Coloured, or whether they are going to belong to this separate group.

In other words, the power resides in the Minister to determine from time to time whether those persons who are neither White nor Bantu will have political activities with the Coloured people or whether they will have political activities with those Coloured people whom he has proclaimed to be a separate group of Coloured people in terms of the Act. Is that not the case? What I am asking the hon. the Minister is this: On what basis is he going to determine this? How is he going to cull off from the general Coloured community, that is to say the Coloured people as defined, being neither White nor Bantu, those Coloured people whom he will proclaim to be a separate group of Coloured people? How will he decide which ethnic groups will have their politics with other ethnic groups? Here we have the position that pro tern the Chinese are to have their politics with the Indian and other Asiatic groups. The hon. the Minister can change this at any time. He might decide at any time that they must have their politics with, say, the Malay or the Griqua group.

An HON. MEMBER:

With the Whites.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, he cannot do that. In other words, with regard to persons who are neither White nor Bantu, the Minister can determine which groups shall have their politics with whom. I want to know on what basis he is going to act because he has specifically taken this power in the words “from time to time”. “From time to time” means “from time to time according to what proclamation has been issued under section 5 of the Population Registration Act.” Will the hon. the Minister please indicate to us what he has in mind; why he wants this power and whether he anticipates that he is going to juggle around with the persons who are not White and not Bantu into various political associations and, if so, why? Will he indicate what he is going to do?

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I do not know where the hon. member for Durban (North) gets the idea that in terms of this Bill the Griquas can be declared to be Bantu. He knows just as well as I do that in terms of the Population Registration Act that is impossible. It is only the Coloured groups that can be divided into subgroups by proclamation, not the Bantu.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And the Bantu.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

No, the Bantu cannot be proclaimed to be Coloureds.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I did not say that.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The hon. member said that Griquas could be proclaimed to be Bantu. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that it is not only impossible, but also ridiculous to make such a statement in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member did use those words. I sat here and took notes. The hon. member said that the Minister should say what the basis was in terms of which he would determine the groups, and he wanted to know whether there was a possibility of Griquas being proclaimed to be Bantu.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I did not say that.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

We shall see tomorrow when the hon. member’s Hansard becomes available. I took notes, for I know that the hon. member is inclined to draw a red herring across the trail and then everybody has to run after that red herring. Of course, it is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, just to crystallize the various arguments now that the cloud of dust is lifting: The hon. member for Houghton’s objection is to the words “from time to time”. She concedes that it is possible for people to move from one population group to another, and if that is the case, the words “from time to time” are correct. That reflects in this measure the true position of other legislation, and then it is in point of fact not vague, but very clear to define “population group” as “the persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups …” There is the possibility of a small number of persons moving from Coloured to White, etc., and because such a possibility exists, it is very accurate to insert the words “from time to time” in this Bill. As regards the other hon. members, their objection is to the population groups, which are very clearly set out here as being the Bantu population group, the white population group, the Coloured population group and, finally, the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group.

But the latter group is defined as meaning “the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950, and are members of the Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act … i.e. the Population Registration Act, and not this measure. After all, the proclamation is made first under the Population Registration Act; then one has the various population groups, and these are the population groups to which reference is made in this Bill. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The whole idea of this Bill is to stop interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group, and if that is the case, then it is after all obvious that the various population groups must be defined, and they are defined in another Act. I simply fail to understand why hon. members now want to criticize “population groups” left, right and centre.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Let me explain to the hon. member for Prinshof what I meant. I did not intend to say, if I did say it, that the Griquas could be proclaimed as Bantu.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

You did say so.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

If I did, then I am sorry; I did not mean to say that. When someone suggested to me that the Chinese, for example, could be classified as a group which must have their politics with the white group, I said that they could not be so classified because there are the three groups, the Bantu, the White and those who are neither, namely, the Coloured. In terms of the Act there are those three groups.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

There are four groups.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am coming to the fourth group. There are three groups defined in the Act. There is the Bantu who is someone who is generally accepted as a Bantu; then there is the white person, in terms of the new definition of last year, and then there are the Coloureds who are defined as those who are classified neither as White nor Bantu. Those Coloured persons, in terms of this Bill, for the purposes of political activities, are described as the “Coloured population group” and the “Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group”. Let us look now at paragraph (iv)—

“The Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group” …

This is apart from the Coloured group—

… means the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950, and are members of the Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section five of the said Act, …

Section five of the Act says—

The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette prescribe and define the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons and Bantu shall be classified.

In other words, all Coloured persons fall to be classified into a special ethnic group.

An HON. MEMBER:

They can be.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

They can be and if they are specified by proclamation—and that is all that has to be done—as falling into a special ethnic group, then they can be brought under paragraph (iv) and separated politically from the rest of the Coloured people. In other words, the Minister has the power to take all the Coloured people and classify them as he wants to classify them and separate them and prevent the one lot of people, classified as Coloured, by virtue of his proclamation, from taking part in the politics in which some other member of the group classified as Coloured may participate. You see, Sir, I remember that a little while ago the hon. member for Umlazi had in his constituency some people who were Zanzibaris. They were descendants, I think, of slaves or seamen who had come from Zanzibar. They were eventually classified as a special group in terms of this provision relating to proclamation. The hon. the Minister may specify the Griquas as a specific ethnic group. I think he has. Then there are the Malays, there are the Indians, there are the Zanzibaris and there are the Mauritians. He cay say, “Very well, if they are Coloureds then they are a special ethnic group.” Then there are the St. Helenas, etc. etc. In other words, in this clause the hon. the Minister is given the power to determine, as far as the Coloured people themselves as defined by the Population Registration Act are concerned, how they are to have their politics. I agree with the hon. the Minister that in fact this is absolute nonsense. There are white people, there are Coloured people, there are Indian people and there are Bantu people. But now he takes the power to determine, in the Coloured group, including Indians, who is to associate with Indians amongst the various Coloured groups, and who is to associate with Coloureds, including people who are not Indians, like the Chinese. Here he takes the power to do this, and that is why the words “from time to time” appear in this clause, because from time to time he may change the arrangement and he may change the association. Will the hon. the Minister please get up and tell us what he has in mind? We want to know. He is getting the power to do something and he will not tell us what he has in mind. Why does he want this power to change it from time to time? Surely this Committee is entitled to an answer from the Minister in regard to matters of this sort. This is an important matter of detail and I hope he will get up and tell us what he has in mind and why he wants this power, and whether he anticipates whether there will be a change in the alignment of these persons who are now allowed to take part in the politics, one of the other, amongst the people who are classified as Coloureds in terms of the Population Registration Act.

I want to go further. I want to ask the Minister now which groups of people are to participate in Coloured politics, and which are to participate in Indian, Chinese and other Asiatic politics. This Bill does not tell us. This Bill gives the Minister the power to determine in future what that alignment is going to be. Now, what is that alignment going to be, and what does the Minister have in mind? We are entitled to an answer and I hope the Minister will get up and tell us.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for Durban (North) rose and actually commented on the reply I had given to the hon. member for Houghton. He did not say that the reply I had given her was wrong, but he said that it would have been a better reply if I had added what he had suggested, and that that would have supplemented the reply. Then it would have been a full reply. Now he gives, on my behalf, the reply I should have given to the hon. member for Houghton, and then he asks the same question again. Now, when was he sure of himself; when he commented on my reply or while he made his speech?

Somebody is confused and it has to be the hon. member for Durban (North). The intention with this Bill is not to grant more and greater powers to the Minister here in clause 1, for the Minister has, as he said, certain powers under another Act.

But this provision is here for the purpose of stating the factual position that exists as a result of regulations and powers which the Minister has under another Act. Now he talks about the words “from time to time”. Children are born and they must be classified. Later on they become enfranchised. People die. Their names must be struck off the Voters’ list. People who were classified incorrectly, are reclassified. This has to be rectified. Now the hon. member for Durban (North) wants me to state in this Bill that in terms of this legislation people will, for instance, be grouped according to their present classification—without any provision for the future supplementation of the various population groups—for the purpose of taking part in the political activities they have or may have in future; in other words, their whole future is being excluded and we are to confine ourselves to the present only. That is the first point. The second is that in the legislation relating to the new Coloured Council, which falls under another Minister and which is also under discussion now, it is provided very explicitly who will be entitled to vote for that Coloured Council. Therefore, this is simply a matter of asking questions. I think that people who do have the intelligence—regardless of whether it is much or little—the hon. member for Durban (North) has, should at least know that; it ought to be clear enough.

To my mind this is an attempt to see how much dust can be raised right at the beginning in order to oppose a matter which they would not like to see piloted through Parliament. And it will be piloted through, whether it is to-day, to-morrow, the day after or next week. But the Government has simply decided that we are going to put a stop to political interference as far as possible, not for our sake; it is the hon. member for Durban (North) who says that we want to prohibit political interference by one population group in the affairs of the others, since there is clear proof—and he is not the only one opposite who has said so—that up to now the Government has never succeeded in gaining the political support of the other population groups, particularly that of the non-Whites. If I want to argue along those lines, I might just as well say that hon. members opposite are opposed to the provision in terms of which political interference is prohibited, since they have always relied on the support they had obtained by means of their interference in the politics of the non-Whites, and that as a result they will now feel so much the poorer if we prevent them from retaining that very same support in the future. After all, that is logical. But what are we accomplishing now? Where does it lead us? After all, we are not discussing and furthering this matter. We are merely stating facts, and I have just as much right to make the statement that the United Party is opposed to this legislation because it will hamper them politically and give them less support from the non-White representatives in this House, or outside this House, as they have to say that this legislation and the prohibition of interference has been introduced because we do not have the support of the non-Whites in this country. And that does not bring us anywhere, for they know that they are wrong. When it comes to support, and especially in respect of interference, I can read out certain things here—I have already done so before—but I do not think that I ought to do so now under this clause. I have already done so during the second-reading debate. I shall not go so far as to say that the Coloureds are not divided, but I have no hesitation in saying that the vast majority of thinking Coloureds will welcome it if the Whites—irrespective of the political party to which they may belong, would leave them alone, without interfering and without exercising direct influence, without employing their political machinery for influencing the Coloureds to act in a certain way within their own political sphere—would keep out of their affairs so that they may prove themselves to be responsible people in the future.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked the Minister certain questions. He has dealt with some of them, but he has not told us for what reason or by what right he decided to allow the Chinese, for example, to interfere in the politics of the Indians. He has not told us these things, and that is what we want to know. Because in accordance with the groupings provided in this clause, this hon. Minister, if he is only going to stick to four groups of people, as seems to be the position here, must allow people to interfere in the political affairs of other people. And he says it here because he says the Chinese and the other Asiatics will interfere in the politics of the Indian people. His main reply is to say that he knows we will not support this Bill or this clause because we rely upon the support of the non-Whites and we want to interfere in their politics. But let me remind the Minister that we are discussing this Bill because his Government has failed to attract any support from these very people. That is why we have the Bill before us.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! What has that to do with the definition? The hon. member is now discussing something he may raise on clause 2, but not on clause 1.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I want a reply from the Minister to my question. I want to know. I want the Minister to reply and tell us what factors influenced him in deciding that the Chinese group should, I take it, vote for representatives on the South African Indian Council. I should like him to tell us what the reaction of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, was to this; whether he welcomes this “inmenging” by the Chinese in the affairs of the Indians, and what consultation took place in making him decide to include these people in the Indian group.

Then I want to know what the term “Other Asiatic population groups” includes. Who does the Minister visualize as “Other Asiatics”? There are a lot of other Asiatic races. Are all the Asiatic races, whether they are Indians or not, in the sense of the Indian population of South Africa, included? I want to know whether all other Asiatic races are included? I take it the Minister has the Japanese, the Chinese, the Burmese, the Ceylonese, the Siamese and so on, in mind. Are these people now going to vote, and this is pertinent, for representatives on the Indian Council? Because this is what the Minister says he is planning.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! This measure has nothing to do with whom people are going to vote for.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Are they going to meet together? Are they going to be allowed to discuss politics together? In other words, I come back to the point where I made a mistake and used the word “vote”. Are their politics going to be contained within the same water-tight compartment; are they all going to be thrown into that? Will all this fantastic mixture of people, with different thinking, different backgrounds, different traditions, different requirements, be thrown together for their political discussions and representation, and are they only going to be allowed to discuss politics with people in that particular compartment? If so, what made the Minister choose those groups and put them together? This is what I want to know.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the definition.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

This is the definition clause, Sir; I am discussing paragraph (iv).

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

*Mr. S. FRANK:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi has just made a great fuss about the possibility of Indians, Chinese and other Asiatic population groups being thrown together for the purpose of exercising political rights, and he strongly objected to that. But, on the other hand, the entire argument of the United Party is that everyone, Whites, Coloureds, everyone, should come together. But the hon. member nevertheless objects to Indians and Chinese and other Asiatic population groups exercising political rights together.

The position here is very simple. We have four groups here. One must, after all, limit the number of groups one creates, and consequently we now have the Bantu group, the white group, the Coloured group and finally, in order to form one Asiatic group, we have “the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group”. They have been placed in one group. The hon. the Minister is not being authorized, as the hon. member for Durban (North) wants to suggest, to decide what people may all belong to one particular group. That is laid down by another Act, namely the Population Registration Act.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

But that falls under the same Minister.

*Mr. S. FRANK:

That may be so. The point is: Divisions into population groups are made not only for the purposes of this measure but also for all other purposes, namely for the division of the groups in South Africa as a whole. They are not only divided into groups for the purposes of this particular Bill. When people have been grouped, this measure comes into operation and it provides that the people exercise their rights under the grouping made in terms of another measure.

The hon. member for Durban (North) wanted to know what people had been grouped together. It is clear from the clause that the Coloured population group includes the Malay or Griqua group. They are in that group. Under the Asiatics population group we have the “Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics …”. The principal objection of the Opposition is to the Chinese being classified with the Indians. Now I want to ask them: With what group do they want to classify the Chinese? Do they want to classify them with the Whites or do they want to classify them with the Bantu? Or do they want to classify them with the Coloureds? It is indeed logical, because they form a very small minority group, to include them in the Asiatic group. It is only logical to do so.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Oma-ruru. His last point was that it is logical to classify the Chinese with these people. Now I want to ask the hon. member this question. If we want to discuss Chinese affairs in this House, under which Vote do we discuss it? Are we to discuss it under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs? This is the effect of what the Minister is doing. The hon. members for Durban (Notth) and Umlazi have put these questions to the hon. the Minister, and I rise now merely to say to the Minister: Please let us have an answer to the questions we have addressed to you. Can we ask the Minister to do us at least the courtesy of standing up and replying to the questions which we have put to him.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

What questions?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence would have been able to answer the questions. Obviously his intelligence is not above that standard. I want to get back to this point for the moment and deal once more with these Chinese. Who can address a meeting of Chinese in this county in terms of this Bill? An Indian, an Asiatic can.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

What clause are you talking about?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Have you read the clause? Have you read the Bill? Here the groups are classified and further on we will discuss the question of members of one group addressing members of another group. I might as well advise the hon. member, because it is obvious he has not read the Bill, that later on in the Bill there is a provision which says that members of one of these groups shall not discuss matters of political importance with members of another group. Doesn’t the hon. member know that?

I want to come back to what the Minister said when he replied just now to what I had said. It was quite obvious that he had completely misconstrued what I had said. I credit the Minister with a degree of intelligence and I am sure I put my case in such a way that he must have understood what I said. I do not know whether he deliberately misconstrued what I had said. I pointed out to him the anomalies which exist to-day. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members on this side have pointed out the anomalies which can arise under this provision. But we have had no reply from the Minister. I appeal to the Minister again. Please, join in this debate; at least carry on a dialogue with us and let us have some reply to the questions which have been put from this side.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of joining the debate on this clause, but having listened to some of the arguments I feel I must ask the hon. the Minister to explain some of the provisions of clause 1. I think you will agree, Sir, that the principles of this Bill will be determined by the courts in due course in terms of this definition clause, because it is one of the most important provisions of this Bill. The definitions contained in clause 1 of this Bill will guide the courts in determining what the intention of Parliament was in regard to this Bill generally. In paragraph (i) of clause 1 the Minister has divided the population groups in this country into four categories. There is the Bantu population group which is defined by the Population Registration Act. I have nothing to say in regard to that because there is clarity as regards that population group. The white population group is also defined under the Act, and again one cannot complain about that definition because I think the courts will lean towards the definition of the white group as contained in the Population Registration Act. Then there is the Coloured population group, and that is where we encounter difficulties. In terms of the original Population Registration Act the Coloured population group is defined as follows—

“Coloured person” means a person who is not a white person or a Native.

That is where we start getting into difficulties in regard to the Coloured population group. Now the hon. the Minister seeks to define the Coloured population group in paragraph (iii) of clause 1 as “the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950”. I have just quoted from that Act according to which a Coloured person is “a person who is not a white person or a Native”. He then goes on and says “and are members of the Cape Coloured, Malay or Griqua group or the other Coloured group as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act, including all persons who have in terms of the said Act been classified as members of the one or the other of the said groups”. I suggest that even that provision can lead to a great deal of difficulty as to who falls into the category of the Coloured population group. But when you go further to the fourth group defined in this clause namely “the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population groups” you come into real difficulties because there the hon. the Minister has sought to bring under one group different population groups, namely the Indian population group, the Chinese population group and the Other Asiatics population group. He seeks to bring them under one category in paragraph (i) (d) of clause 1. According to Government policy we know that in due course an Indian Council will be established similar to the Coloured Representative Council which will be established by a Bill at present before this House. We should like some clarification from the hon. the Minister—and this is a simple question because there are no politics involved in it—as to whether it is his intention that the Chinese and other Asiatics who are far removed from the South African Indian population, should be entitled to talk across the colour line with members of the Indian population group. Is that the Government’s intention?

Mr. S. FRANK:

Yes.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

The hon. member for Omaruru says that it is. Is that right? I should like to hear the hon. the Minister say that. I should like a statement from the Government itself as to what is intended in this regard. Is it intended that once the representative council for Indians has been established, people who fall into the Chinese and other Asiatic population groups should be entitled to vote for this Indian Council?

Mr. S. FRANK:

No, not to vote, but to interfere.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

The hon. member says that they will not be entitled to vote—and we shall see about that—but they will certainly be entitled to interfere. In other words, they will have the right to go to Indian political meetings, voice their opinions and influence the Indians to their own point of view. This will be proper interference. Is that what the hon. the Minister envisages? I think we are entitled to proper clarification as to what the intentions of the Government are in this regard. If the Committee is aware of the Government’s intention in this regard, we may be able to help the hon. the Minister to formulate a definition in regard to the fourth category which I suggest may have to be divided into two further categories. We may be able to help the hon. the Minister to formulate a better definition. I urge that we should not rush this matter. The hon. the Minister should give it very careful consideration because this provision is obviously going to be tested at some time or other. I feel that this clause which contains the definitions is so important that we should have absolute clarity from the hon. the Minister as to what the Government’s intentions are before we decide on a definition which will be part of the Act. I urge the hon. the Minister to give the Committee the benefit of a knowledge of the Government’s intention in regard to the important fourth category of population groups.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peninsula confined himself chiefly to the Chinese community, who is grouped with the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatic population group in terms of clause 1 of this Bill. The hon. member said that to him it was quite clear what people would be included in the white group and what people would be included in the Bantu and Coloured groups, respectively. [Interjections.l As regards the Coloured group, it is clearly laid down what people will belong to that group, and that is done by clause 1 (iii), which reads—

(iii) “The Coloured population group’ means the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950, and are members of the Cape Coloured. Malay or Griqua group or the Other Coloured group as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act, including all persons who have in terms of the said Act been classified as members of the one or the other of the said groups.

I think that is clear. There was major disagreement amongst hon. members in this House when I defined the Coloured group so clearly that I even introduced the classification of someone’s parents as a determining factor in order to have clarity when someone falls within the Coloured group. Therefore I do not think that we disagree about this.

The hon. member is concerned about the Chinese group. The position is that the Chinese and Other Asiatic groups—and these may include Arabs or Japanese, because we are aware that a few of them are inhabitants of this country—are people of Asiatic origin, but people who, like the Chinese here, do not have the right to vote at political elections. But they have to be classified with some group. For the purposes of this prohibition on interference, we have to classify the Chinese, who are the only sizeable population group of this nature but who are nevertheless a very small minority group in this country, with the Indians. The Bill establishing the Indian Council clearly provides in clause 3 that no other person than an Indian shall be appointed to the Indian Council. A further provision is that he shall be resident in the Republic. Therefore he must be an Indian to be able to serve on the Indian Council. The hon. member then put this important question: In view of the fact that the Chinese are grouped with the Indians and Other Asiatic groups, does that mean that they may discuss politics with the Indians? They may not discuss politics with other groups, but they may do so with the Indians. Yes, they may do so because there is nothing in this entire measure which isolates one group from another politically to such an extent that there may be no discussion of political affairs whatsoever between one race group and another. If this is done with intent, however, it is prohibited. If it is done with the intention of promoting the position of a candidate, or one still to be nominated, or to promote the interests of a political party, the position is different. This measure is so wide that I feel inclined to agree with the statement of the hon. member for Karoo that one could drive a cart and horses through this Bill very comfortably. The provisions of this measure are very wide. They may have discussions, but Whites may also have political discussions with people of other race groups. But their discussions must be such that they will not be in contravention of these provisions. This is my first point.

Secondly, the time may arrive when I shall have to give consideration to making provision for the classification of the Chinese as a separate Asiatic population group. But we do not think it is necessary to do so now. However, the world does not stand still. It develops and moves on. Perhaps legislation which one is placing on the Statute Book today, had not even occurred to one a year ago. As circumstances present themselves, the State must be prepared to deal with problems which may arise. Therefore one is unable to say today what is going to happen in five or six years’ time. But if such a separation becomes necessary as a result of problems which may arise, I think the solution is to be found in what the hon. member almost indirectly said, and that is to proclaim and define the Chinese as a separate group.

Clause 1 of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—108: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt. J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engel-brecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—35: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L; Moolman, J H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wain wright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

Before I put clause 2, I want to point out that this clause contains the main principle of the Bill. The principle was fully discussed during the second-reading debate and then agreed to by the House. I will only allow two speakers to repeat their opposition to the principle contained in the Bill and then I think the clause should be put.

Clause 2:

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, you have indicated, correctly, that this clause contains the main principle of the Bill. As my hon. Leader indicated during the second-reading debate, this clause is incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership in South Africa. This clause provides that there shall be no dialogue in political matters between members of different race groups. No longer is it permissible for the white man to say to non-white persons in this country what line he thinks they should follow and what sort of general direction he, as a white person feels they themselves should follow, except, of course, the Government. The Government may interfere. The Government may interfere on behalf of the Nationalist Party, but no one else may address a meeting in order to persuade the people at the meeting of the wisdom of his policy. In terms of this Bill it is an offence, for example for a Bantu Commissioner or for a Commissioner-General, to address a gathering of Bantu and tell them about separate development. It is an offence in terms of this law. It is laughable, but it is true.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Where do you find that?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Paragraph (c) says that no person who belongs to one population group may “address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority”—whatever that might mean—“belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party …”

An HON. MEMBER:

For the purpose of “furthering the interests of a political party”.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

You can tell them about the Nationalist Party’s policy but you cannot tell them about the United Party’s policy. What is the Government’s policy? Surely it is the Nationalist Party’s policy. But here we have a provision that it is an offence for anyone else to go and talk to people about any other ideas that they may have, but the Government can talk to them about Government policy. I have no doubt that a person, like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, will be allowed to address them too and he is going to go as a Government spokesman.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Not on behalf of any party.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Sir, is it possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development to go and talk to a gathering of Xhosas or Zulus about separate development without his talking as a politician? Surely, we have got beyond that! If he speaks to them in the same terms as he speaks here, then he is talking as a politician and he is furthering the interests of a political party, namely the Nationalist Party. So far has this gone, in any event, that there are even people who regard the Nationalist Party as the Government. That is the first thing that this Bill does. It is incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership. No longer may a white man go and talk to these persons and guide them unless it is a person propagating Nationalist Party propaganda.

It is all right to interfere as long as you are interfering as a Government spokesman. Sub-clause 2 (b) makes it impossible for us, the alternative Government in South Africa, to put our plans into operation if this were to remain the law. It is complete anathema to us on this side. How can we have any representation of non-Whites in this Parliament by Whites if this Bill becomes law? It would be impossible; it would be unlawful.

I go further, Sir. In terms of this Bill, the hon. member for Karoo sitting behind me, the present Coloured representative, will be committing an offence when he goes out and reports back to his constituents as to what he has done for them as a United Party man. He was elected as a United Party man; that was the platform on which he was elected. His life, in terms of another Bill, has now been extended to 1971 at the latest. He is now lawfully a Member of Parliament until 1971, but he is not entitled in terms of sub-clause (c) to go and report back what he did, according to his mandate, in Parliament, that is to say, as a United Party man and as a member of the United Party caucus. He cannot go and explain his doings in this House during this year or explain the basis on which he did it, because he would be furthering the cause of the United Party. Sir, this is the sort of nonsense for which hon. members over there are going to vote blindly when the division bells ring. Sir, we will vote against this clause.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister something else. He proposes to apply this subclause (b) to “any other law to which the State President has by proclamation in the Gazette applied the provisions of this paragraph”. What other law has the hon. the Minister in mind? What laws has he in mind other than those mentioned here? We would like to know. He takes this power and we presume that he is going to use it. We want to know in respect of what laws he is going to use it? Does he have in mind what is happening in Cape Town? Does he have in mind the election by white persons, for example in a place like Stanger, of an Indian to the Town Board? What does he have in mind? To which laws does he anticipate applying the provisions of this paragraph? I am sure that hon. members opposite would also like to know because I am sure that they would not like to vote blindly without knowing to which laws this paragraph is going to apply.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

They would.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

One hopes that they will not. One hopes that one of them would want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to use this power. Because he does not have to come back to this House and consult hon. members. He would merely do it by proclamation. Then, lastly, perhaps the hon. the Minister will answer this question: What is the “greater majority”? There is a majority and there is a minority. When do you have a “greater majority” of people of another race group at a meeting? You have a majority, I presume, when there is a majority of persons of another race group there; when 51 out of 100 people are members of a different race group. What is a “greater majority”? How on earth does the hon. the Minister expect the courts to interpret something like this? It is not an offence apparently when out of 100 people there are 51 members of another race group, but would 55 be a “greater majority”; would it then be an offence? or must there be 60 or 70 members of a different race group? This sort of mumbo-jumbo which one has in this clause is typical of the sort of mumbo-jumbo, dog’s breakfast this Bill is, and one hopes that the hon. the Minister will give us an answer to some of these things and a little better answer than the one he gave us on the last clause.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

The hon. member for Durban (North) is speaking against his better knowledge if he suggests that in terms of this legislation there may not be any dialogue among the various races in future. He said that this legislation would have the effect “that there will be no dialogue whatsoever”. According to him no dialogue whatsoever will be permitted between the various races in future. This is the type of “mumbo-jumbo” claims the hon. member is making here. He knows that that is not stated anywhere in the Bill; he knows that that is not prohibited anywhere in the Bill. The hon. member says that the situation is now being created—a temporary situation, and it must be emphasized very strongly that it is a temporary situation—in terms of which the hon. member for Karoo and other representatives of the Coloured population will not have the right to report back to their constituencies. Where is it stated in the Bill that the hon. member for Karoo may not hold report-back meetings? After all, if the hon. member for Karoo holds report-back meetings, he does not go there to further the interests of a political party or to support the candidature of a candidate of a political party. If the hon. member for Karoo wishes to report back to the Coloureds in his constituency on what has been done in this House, and if he confines himself to his work, then there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Read paragraph (c).

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I am dealing with subsection (c). In this Bill there is absolutely nothing which prevents the hon. member for Karoo from making a speech in which he may tell his voters what has happened during this session of Parliament. Of course, he must remain within bounds; he may not take advantage of his position. Suppose the hon. member for Karoo waits until the elections for the Coloured Council are in progress and then suddenly has the urge to hold report-back meetings, which he never did in the past in any case, but wants to hold now; then he will have to be careful of what he says. He will have to confine himself to a report of the business of Parliament. That he may do, but he may not interfere with the elections under the pretext that he has come to report back. Like a commissioner-general for any population group the hon. member can go there to explain what integration is. Nothing in this Bill prevents him from doing that, just as a commissioner-general is not refused the right to explain to non-Whites what separate development is. This has no bearing on the furthering of the interests of a political party or the candidature of a candidate in an election. Furthermore, the hon. member wants to know whether the audience can be regarded as a White one, if 51 per cent of those present at the meeting are White. The Bill clearly refers to “the greater majority”. It was in fact worded that way in order to make it possible to do the sort of thing which the hon. member claims we are prohibiting. I want to give him an example. Suppose Sabra holds a congress and four, five or ten non-Whites—Bantu, Coloureds or Indians—are invited, and discussions take place there in regard to the policies of the various political parties. This legislation cannot do them any harm. The Bantu may attend that meeting, and this is irrefutable proof that the first claim made by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely that this Bill renders dialogue among the various race groups absolutely impossible, is nonsense.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

What does “greater majority” mean?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

A greater majority means a greater majority. It does not mean 51 per cent. If we were to state emphatically that no Whites or no Coloureds or no Bantu may ever attend a discussion or a conference of Whites, he would be the first person in this House who would fight it tooth and nail, because that would be a prohibition of all forms of dialogue. But it was for the very purpose of making dialogue possible that this provision was inserted in the Bill. The hon. member is therefore seeing imaginary dangers. The principle of the entire Bill, the point of the Bill, is improper interference in elections, and there is a protective clause in the Bill which provides that no prosecution will be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General. That is the safeguard contained in the legislation. This entire piece of legislation is based on interference in elections, the furthering of the interests of political parties and the furthering of the candidature of a candidate for an election. As for myself, I have no illusions about the fact that people who do not take advantage of their position, have every right to enter into dialogue with any race group, without their committing an offence in terms of this Bill.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Of course this brings us back to the same old discussion as to what is meant by political interference. The hon. member for Parow has one definition and I am sure I have another one, but of course the Bill does not define this for us at all, nor does it define a political party. I think it is truly cynical to suggest that it will be perfectly all right for non-Whites to attend a gathering such as a Sabra gathering where the majority of people will be white and that non-Whites can do so without in any way infringing the terms of this Bill. But of course it will be very difficult for the non-White to determine whether he is running a risk or not. Supposing the same non-White wants to attend a meeting of the Institute of Race Relations which does not advance the cause of separate development but rather stresses the shortcomings of separate development and pleads for integration in a multi-racial society. How many non-Whites will be able, without trepidation, to attend meetings of that kind? We are told that it requires the Attorney-General to institute prosecutions, but there is never any guarantee as to what prosecutions the Attorney-General will or will not institute. Of course this whole Bill advances the Government’s political ideology and prevents the advancement of ideology which is contrary to that of the Government. If this is democracy, then it is a new definition of democracy, as far as I am concerned, because I have always understood democracy to mean that one has the full right legally to oppose all the ideologies of the regime in power and to advance other ideas in the hope of persuading the electorate to change the Government of the day. [Interjection.] Of course there is a non-White electorate as well. But anyway, as far as this is concerned, obviously people are going to run the risk as soon as they attend a multiracial political gathering, irrespective of whether it is in aid of advancing the candidature of a candidate or not, because no one defines what is meant by advancing the aims of a political party.

If I stand up at a gathering where there are Whites and non-Whites present, even if the overwhelming majority or the greater majority of the people present are Whites, that meeting may change while I am talking. I can start off on a legal basis and halfway through, since I am a very boring speaker, half the Whites might leave the meeting and I am left with a greater majority of non-Whites. What am I going to do then? At that stage I have to sit down, or otherwise I infringe the terms of this Bill. The whole thing is fraught with difficulties for anybody who wants to have any dialogue across the colour line, and of course that is the aim and objective of the whole thing. Why we pretend that it is anything else is beyond me.

I am not going to discuss the principle because you, Sir, will not allow me to do so, and I think I have made it pretty clear that I am against the principle anyway. But for hon. members like the hon. member for Parow, who has just sat down, to try to pretend that there is really no difficulty at all about continuing dialogue across the colour line, is fatuous. I do not think anyone in this Committee is under any illusions. I want to give an example of the sort of thing which has been happening before this Bill was even introduced in this House. That is where another representative of a non-White group, a Coloured Representative in the Provincial Council, who stood as a Progressive Party candidate and was elected on that platform, attempted to address a meeting in his constituency in Kimberley and found himself in all sorts of difficulties, long before this measure could become law. The hon. member for Durban (North) was worried about the position of the hon. member for Karoo, who happens to belong to his party, and what he is going to do in future when he wants to address report-back meetings. I am equally worried about the position of the two Progressive Party provincial councillors who are representing Coloured voters in South Cape and North Cape, who would also like to enjoy the rights of discussing with their constituents what went on in the Provincial Council and willy-nilly may well be advancing the aims of a political party without even wanting to do so. Because if they stand up and criticize, for instance, the fact that compulsory education has not yet been introduced for the Coloured people in the Cape, and say that compulsory education should be introduced for the Coloured children in the Cape, then they are willy-nilly advancing one of the aims of the Progressive Party, which is compulsory education for the Coloureds in the Cape, and they definitely run the risk of being prosecuted under this Act. Is that fair? Those people were fairly and squarely elected; they are there until 1971 by the grace of this Government, and they should surely be able to report back to their constituents about what went on in the Provincial Council. Mr. Van Heerden on 19th April attempted to address a meeting in Kimberley on the subject of these Bills which are now before the House, which vitally affect the Coloured voters in his constituency. What did he come across? First of all, a certain captain in the Police Force, whose name I will not mention, communicated with the chairman of the Kimberley branch of the Progressive Party and told him that in terms of the Group Areas Act, mark you, a permit would be necessary for a mixed gathering which was to be held in the church hall in Kimberley. He was then informed, quite correctly, by the chairman that a permit was not necessary, because as the hon. member for Parow will remember, political meetings are not, for very good reasons obvious to everybody, considered to be public entertainment, because most of them are very dreary. But the point is that a permit was not necessary under the Group Areas Act, under Proclamation R26, but a member of the Police Force took it upon himself to try to prevent the meeting from taking place, although it was a perfectly lawful meeting. The meeting took place and it was very poorly attended, and on investigation it was found that the police had been busy in the Coloured township informing Coloured people that if they went to the meeting they would be committing an unlawful act. There were members of the Special Branch obviously present. [Interjections.] I can bring witnesses who will say that they were approached by the police.

There were members of the Special Branch present at that meeting, as I say, quite obviously taking down names and obviously observing who was there and who was not there. Indeed, during the course of the meeting a well-known person left the hall and was approached by members of the Special Branch, who demanded to know his name and address. Such a person is prepared to come forward and give sworn evidence. If this goes on before this Bill is even on the Statute Book, one can imagine what will go on when the police are in fact armed with a law which prevents multiracial political meetings from taking place. Under this broad provision anybody who advances the aim of a political party—and that can be any aim, as I say, ranging from compulsory education to universal franchise or anything in between, like mixed trade unions—will immediately run the danger of falling foul of this Act.

As I say, I am dead against the whole principle embodied in clause 2, which contains the real nub of this Bill, but what I am also dead against is members of this Committee attempting to mislead the Committee by pretending that the Bill is virtually innocuous, that dialogue will be permitted across the colour line, and that nobody need have any fear of taking part in any multi-racial political meeting, provided they adhere to the terms of this Bill. I believe that this provision is extremely wide and, what is more, I believe it has deliberately been worded in such a way as to make it extremely wide. From now on, whether the hon. member for Karoo sits in this House or not, representing the United Party as a Coloured Representative, or whether the two provincial councillors sit in the Provincial Council representing the Progressive Party, they are going to find themselves completely hamstrung in regard to reporting back to their constituents and having any dialogue across the colour line. I believe the same applies not only to these political representatives, but also to all the so-called discussion groups like Sabra, although I doubt whether they will be prosecuted, because they will of course be advancing the right political aims of the correct political party, as against bodies like the Institute of Race Relations and other discussion groups which do not advance the aims of the Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

There is great confusion in the Minister’s mind as regards the meaning of the word “meeting”, but I believe the confusion is as great when it comes to the meaning of another word in this clause, namely “agent”. May I read to you, Sir, the wording of the particular clause which includes this word? Clause 2 says—

No person who belongs to one population group may … render assistance as agent … of a political party … of any other population group.

Few things are clear about the meaning of this word “agent”, except this, that if you do act or get somebody to act as your agent and he is a member of another population group, then you are liable to a R600 fine or a year in prison.

Another thing is clear, and that is that the word “agent” here does not have the same meaning as “agent” in the Electoral Act. The hon. the Minister will remember how terribly confused he was during the second reading when he first of all stated that it did mean an agent under the Electoral Act, and afterwards he had to withdraw his definition. But now I have his new definition of “agent” here, and this is even less clear than the previous one. While my hon. leader was speaking, the hon. the Minister interjected to explain, and he said—

I must admit that I am not sure of the definition of “agent” under the Electoral Act, but what is meant by an agent here is “agent” in the general sense of the word. One becomes an agent by someone else who pays one to be his agent. It is meant in the broader sense of the word.

Now what exactly is meant by “an agent” in the broader sense of the word? The Minister tried to define it here and qualified it by saying it is someone who is paid by somebody to be his agent. But what happens in the case of a person who is an unpaid agent? Will an unpaid agent be allowed to act as such if he belongs to a different colour group? Will the Minister answer that?

You see, Sir, we have had some strange instances, even during the past few weeks, where one political party used a person of another population group as an agent. I should like to refer you, Sir, to Die Burger of 19th April, page 6. This was during the Swellendam by-election. During that election a meeting of the Nationalist Party was advertised in Monagu by a Coloured person.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Disgraceful!

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

This Coloured person’s name was Esau Kootjies. It was quite above board; I am not blaming the Nationalist Party for doing it. Esau Kootjies’s photograph appeared in Die Burger carrying a placard, and in his left hand he had a bell which he was ringing. He is generally known as the town crier of Montagu, and he is a Coloured person.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Disgraceful!

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

He was advertising a Nationalist Party meeting. I should like to know what is going to happen to this very good old Coloured person, Esau Kootjies. Die Burger goes further and says “Hy is net bereid om vir die Nasionale Party te dra”. He must be a Nationalist then. Die Burger also says “Hy is waarskynlik die bekendste man op die dorp Montagu”. Here we have the case of the most well-known Nationalist in Montagu, being refused a job, in future, through this Bill. He is subjected to one year’s imprisonment if he continues with the work he has been doing for the Nationalist Party.

It shows one how ridiculous one can get, unless one has some sort of definition as to what the word “agent” means. Is a Coloured chauffeur who brings and goes to fetch a member of the family to the polling booth, an agent? I mentioned the case, to which the hon. the Minister gave a reply, of the express messenger service which we had in Johannesburg. This service is made use of by all parties. It is a business which is owned by a European, and he uses Coloured people and Bantu as his agents to distribute pamphlets, or anything one wishes. These messengers are often used during election times, by all parties, to distribute their ordinary political pamphlets and election material. This is what I asked the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate—

We have an organization in Johannesburg, which is called Express Messengers, and we employ Bantu to distribute pamphlets, amongst other things. This organization is used by all parties, namely the United Party, the Nationalist Party and Progressive Party and they do a good job.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior then said, by way of interjection, that—

When this Bill is accepted, you will have to have it done by Whites.

Here one can see the terrific implications of this Bill.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is nonsense.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The hon. the Minister says “nonsense”. What is nonsense? The interjection? It is serious for a person who has a good business, and for an organization which has been doing good work during election times, without, in any way, compromising the racial purity of any of the parties using it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen to that man. If any member of a political party is no longer allowed to make use of express messengers of another racial group, I want to ask whether one can use as one’s agent for distributing pamphlets and election materials the Post Office department of the Government, who have Bantu and Coloured people distributing pamphlets? Am I allowed to distribute my pamphlets in envelopes addressed “To the Householder” in my consitutency? Will any other member be permitted to do so? Is the definition of an agent, a person who is paid? It is the case with this firm Express Messengers. What is going to happen?

These are some of the problems, and it is essential that the hon. the Minister should give us some idea of what an agent is. He is not an election agent, but he must tell us whether an agent is one who is paid, and whether one can have unpaid agents. Can one have a white agent, and then have Bantu or Coloured subagents, unpaid or paid, to assist him? Can one use one’s garden boy to distribute a few pamphlets in a certain street which was overlooked when pamphlets were distributed originally? Can one have one’s Coloured maid to insert pamphlets in envelopes? Will she be acting as an agent? Will the Native girl who makes tea in an election office be an agent? I suppose it depends on what purpose the steam in the kettle is used for. Unless the hon. the Minister can give us some genuine definition of what is meant by an agent, this whole Bill is utterly ridiculous and foolish.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Mr. Chairman, I presume there is some misunderstanding. The hon. member for Houghton stated that if she were a Native she would not be allowed to attend a meeting where there were Europeans present. She said she would not know whether there might be a majority later on. But this measure does not deal with a person attending a meeting, it only applies to any person who addresses a meeting, so that point does not arise.

With regard to the reporting back by an hon. member representing Coloureds, the position is as follows. An hon. member may report back but not for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person. In the first instance, the person reporting back will not be furthering the interests of a man’s candidature because this European member will not be able in future to represent the Coloureds in Parliament. So that argument falls away, unless the person distinctly furthers the interests of a Coloured candidate, which he is not allowed to do.

With regard to furthering the interests of a party, the mistake is made in that “interests” are assumed to mean the same as “aims”. The idea is that the person should not further the interests—in Afrikaans, the “belange”—of the party. Therefore, if an hon. member reports back to his constituents and he explains the aims of the different parties, that would not land him in any trouble because he will not be furthering the interests of his party. It is difficult to see how a court would consider the interests of the United Party, for example, would be furthered by an explanation of their aim, policy and approach in this Parliament to Coloureds, where Coloured representatives will not in future be elected to this Parliament. Because the interests of a political party are served by having representatives in this Parliament. After all, that is the ultimate aim of any political party. Where this is not the aim or the purpose of the particular member reporting back, in other words, he does not try to get representatives into the highest legislative body in the country, namely Parliament, the courts will never interpret the reporting-back to the Coloureds as furthering the interests of the political party. Therefore this measure will not prevent an hon. member from reporting back to his constituents.

Another point raised was what is meant by “greater majority”. I must concede it must be very difficult for any court to decide when there was this greater majority. It would be easier to decide if the phrase read “the majority”. The hon. the Minister may perhaps consider such an amendment, which, of course, will make the law much more strict. However, it will be easier for a court to decide whether there was a majority, in contrast to a “greater majority”. However, there may be some reason why the Minister considers the words “greater majority” to be more appropriate in this Bill. I myself, none the less, cannot see why it should read “greater majority” instead of plain “majority”. It may he that an audience might be very small and the Minister felt that one or two more on the one side would not mean much. As I say, though, if the word “majority” was used, it would be easier for the Court to decide. I must point out, though, that the court is well in a position to decide what a greater majority means. The courts have had to consider similar wording, for example in the case of a “substantial amount”. There was a 1933 Appellate Division case between De Wet and the Union Government and the Court had to decide what was a substantial amount. It had to be decided whether an appeal should be allowed to be proceeded with, and according to the Magistrates’ Courts Act an appeal could only be proceeded with if a “substantial amount” was involved. The Court held that £75 was a substantial amount, in other words, not a trivial amount. In the same way, a trivial majority of say one would not be a substantial majority, depending, of course, on the size of the meeting. At a meeting consisting of ten persons, for instance, three would be quite a majority, where at a meeting of fifty persons three would not be a substantial majority. That is how I would consider it, [Interjections.] As I say, it is not impossible for a court to decide, but it is, of course, more difficult to decide. It is a tricky matter to decide. But ‘the court could decide, as it has done in the past in other respects.

Then there was the question of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Deputy Minister reporting back to a meeting of Bantu. The same applies as applies in the case of a Member of Parliament reporting back. He would not be there to further the interests of a political party or the candidature of a candidate. I concede he could incidentally further the interests of his party, but that would not be his object, and the court must decide what his purpose was in addressing the meeting in question. That is what the court has to decide. If a speaker incidentally furthered the interests of a party, he would not be contravening this measure.

The further point about an agent was also raised. I wish to point out that in regard to legislation of this kind, this legislation dealing with political interference, we have legislation which is breaking new ground. It is very difficult to frame legislation to cover every particular incident or occasion and therefore, in order to make it effective, it is necessary to draft legislation as widely as possible. In this way an effort is made to cover all possible instances. That is why the word “agent” is used here. Whether he be paid or not makes no difference. The agent must be appointed—that is essential. A person cannot assist of his own volition and then call himself an agent. An agent must be appointed by someone to act on his, the principal’s behalf. If he is appointed to act as agent, and he does what he may not do in terms of this measure, then he will be contravening it. The hon. member who sat down just now mentioned some far-fetched circumstances. Someone could perhaps be called an agent in the wider sense, but strictly in law he would not be an agent. It is exactly for that reason that this subsection 4 (2) was substituted so that “No prosecution in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except on the express direction of the Attorney-General concerned”. This is provided for because a measure of this nature cannot be worded in such a way as to cover only certain circumstances. The Attorney-General must use his discretion to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Omaruru, who incidentally is a legal gentleman, and who has had a lot more legal training than I ever had, this afternoon advanced an argument here concerning furthering the interests of a political party. During the second-reading debate this hon. member also raised the same question, but this afternoon he has come to a different conclusion. Towards the end of his speech here this afternoon he touched on what he had said during the second-reading debate. I do not have his Hansard but I have notes I made during that time. The argument he advanced at that time was this. He said if the hon. member for Karoo, or any other member of a political party, goes to address a meeting with the express purpose of furthering the interests of a political party, then he will be committing an offence in terms of this measure.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Yes.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

He went further and he said it must be proved that the accused went to the meeting with the express purpose of furthering the interests of a political party.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

He went further and gave examples and he said that if a politician went to address a meeting on any particular subject—for instance, flying to the moon or why cheese is green—and then for some reason or other, because of questions asked or because he is led astray, he was to get on to political subjects which could be construed as furthering the interests of a political party, he would not be guilty of an offence, because he did not go to that meeting with the purpose of furthering the said interests.

Mr. S. FRANK:

No, I did not say that.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

This is what the hon. member said during the second-reading debate.

Mr. S. FRANK:

No, I did not.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

At the time when he spoke. I got the impression that what he was saying was, that if a member decided to …

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is discussing the principle again. The principle was agreed to at the second reading. I must point out that the principle of this clause is not to be discussed any further.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. May I just point out that I am trying to get to the point of showing that in this House we have heard so many different interpretations. The point that I want to make, to which I am building up, is that this clause is impossible of performance at law.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

That was also discussed and agreed to at the second reading. I am not prepared to allow any further discussion on the principle contained in clause 2.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I accept your ruling, Sir, that we cannot discuss the principle any further, and I therefore go on to what the hon. member for Parow had to say. Incidentally, the hon. member for Omaruru tried to correct what he had said, and that made matters worse. That is with regard to this term “the greater majority”. I must support the hon. member for Omaruru that there is no such thing as a “greater majority”. There is a majority or there is not a majority. I want to support his plea to the hon. the Minister to drop this word “greater”. “Majority” means the greater number. It is making this provision even more impossible of interpretation by the court, namely by inserting the term “greater majority”.

While we are on the question of terminology, I also want to discuss for a while with the hon. the Minister the way this Bill has been drafted We have here one of the most shocking examples of bad drafting, namely where it is stated “no person who belongs to one population group”. I want to know what person belongs to anything. I certainly do not belong to anything. I belong to nobody. I might be a member of a population group, but I most certainly do not belong to a population group. [Interjections.] Let me say to my hon. friends who are laughing here: Do they consider that “hulle behoort aan” a population group?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes!

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Do they not believe, Sir, that a better term might have been “verbonde aan”? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at this wording. Let us get something amended here. This is shocking terminology.

I want to go further and speak to the hon. the Minister again, and just remind him of what he said when he introduced this Bill at the second reading, when he said that he admitted that the Bill is not watertight. Let me say to him that this is a masterpiece of understatement. It is not only not watertight, but it has already sprung a few leaks. It is vague, uncertain and bad in law. I feel that it is shocking to think that we as legislators should be asked to pass a Bill in the terms in which this Bill is drafted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the whole Bill again. I wish to point out that clause 2 is under consideration.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Sir, there is so much noise here that I cannot hear a word of what you are saying …

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member may discuss the details of clause 2, but nothing further.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Let us discuss then the detail of clause 2. Clause 2 (a) provides that “no person”, as it is put here, “who belongs to one population group, may be a member of any political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group, is a member”. A political party is not defined, and we have heard arguments here asking that it should be defined. But there is also the question of membership. Membership is not defined. How is the court to decide whether a person is a “member”, as it is written in this clause, “of a political party”, once they have decided what is a “political party”? Is a member a fully paid-up member, a person who has paid an annual subscription fee? Is he only a member if he is not in arrear in his subscriptions? Is he a member only if he has signed a membership card? Is he a member if he merely subscribes to the policy of that political party, or, once again, is he going to be construed as a member if he makes donations in response to an appeal for funds made by a political party? These are the questions which I am asking. This is what is going to make it absolutely impossible for the courts to interpret this law at all. The hon. the Minister himself admitted it, when he accepted the statement of the hon. member for Karoo when he said that one can drive a span of oxen with a waggon through this Bill. We are being asked, as responsible members of Parliament, to pass such legislation, which, as I say, is going to be impossible of interpretation and application by the courts.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The first difficulty he had, is that he does not know what a “member” of a political party means. A “member” means a person who belongs to a party but apparently, because the hon. member does not know what “belongs” means, he would not be able to know what “member” means. He first needs to know what “belong” means. The hon. member seems to have difficulty with the word “belong”. “Political party” is quite capable of definition by the courts. [Interjections.] I grant hon. members their little joke, and when they have finished, I shall be able to carry on. The word “political party”, just for the edification of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), means “a body of persons united in a cause or an opinion …”. This is from the Oxford dictionary. That is a party. It is “a body of persons united in a cause or an opinion”. “ ‘Political’ means appertaining to the state, government or policy.”

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Read on further from that book.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The hon. member does not expect me to read all the words in the Oxford dictionary? One must take the meaning that one is looking for, not all the meanings the word may have. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that it is quite possible for the courts to define not only “a political party”, but also a “member”.

I should now like to deal with the hon. member for Orange Grove regarding the word “agent”, and this particular argument of his, namely, that if the Post Office uses a Coloured person to carry one’s pamphlets, he is an agent. That is a fatuous argument. That would obviously be an agent of the Post Office, not your agent. [Interjection.] Now give me an opportunity of arguing this. Then the hon. member can start talking again. He has two more opportunities. The word “agent” is capable of construction, and indeed has been constructed by our courts. It has been defined by our courts in the case of Petterson versus Burnside, in 1941 in the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. Something was said about the matter which might be apposite in this particular case. It was said that—

A candidate’s liability may extend to the acts of every person who is de facto a member of the staff which is conducting the election and whose services are directly or indirectly recognized or made use of by the candidate, whether such agent be paid or unpaid.

This is the test, I think—

The crucial test is whether there has been employment or authorization of the agent by the candidate to do some election work or the adoption of his work when done.

It is clear that from that it would be possible for our courts to define the word “agent” in this particular Bill. Therefore there can be no possible argument against it.

The arguments of the hon. member for Houghton I do not think really merit any consideration at all. She came forward with the usual little sob-stories, the heartbreak stories of the Progressive Party’s political meetings, and what the members of the Security Police do there. But I do not think that that is germane to this issue at all. The only arguments I think that do merit dealing with, are the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (North), who first said that clause 2 was completely incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership. But surely the hon. member will agree with me that the maintenance of white leadership really depends on whether there are white members in Parliament, and that the policy of the party on this side of the House will be able to maintain white leadership, whereas the policy of the other side of the House will not be able to maintain white leadership. Then the hon. member said that there would be no dialogue whatsoever in terms of this clause. No white man may say to any black man what policy he should follow. Then in the next breath the hon. member asked us what is meant by a greater majority. In other words, he refutes his own argument about there being no dialogue at all because he says that he realizes that there can be a political meeting but he wants to know what the “greater majority” of the population group really means. It is quite clear that a meeting can be held as long as there is a minority of members of another population group at that meeting and not a majority. That is the very point the hon. member raised. It refuted his argument about there being no dialogue at all.

He also said that the Government may interfere on behalf of the Nationalist Party. I am going to assume in favour of the hon. member that when he referred to the Government he was actually referring to the ministerial benches and not to the officials. He and I have already had words about the officials of the Government. I was under the impression once before that he had insinuated that the officials of the Government would propagate the policy of the Nationalist Party. I say that that is a terrible suggestion to make. I cannot help it that those hon. members today occupy the position of the Opposition but a governing party is quite entitled to explain its policies. If the hon. member wants to do that, all he must do is get on to this side of the House. He must stop talking about it and do something about it. He also said that the hon. member for Karoo would not be able to report back to his constituents. That is absolute nonsense. The hon. member for Karoo will be able to report back but he will have to tell the Coloured people what he has done for them. He will not be able to make the kind of speech he normally makes, not only before the Coloured people but in this House as well. I refer to the racialistic attitude with which he always starts his speeches.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

That is censorship.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

No, it is not censorship. It is common sense and the search for peace.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also asked us what laws were referred to in clause 2 (b) of the Bill by the words “any other law”. Surely that could apply to the Indian Council which is not specifically mentioned. The Indian Council is not specifically mentioned in this Bill and this may be affected by these words. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for Durban (Point) who is mumbling behind his fist would get up and make a speech, we would be able to listen to him. At the moment we cannot hear the mumble-jumble that is going on.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asks us what a greater majority is. A simple majority is half plus one and therefore a greater majority would probably be a half plus two. I think that that answers all the arguments raised by hon. members on the other side.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. member for Prinshof has provided any more clarity on this matter than there was before he spoke. One saw the curtain fall just slightly over what in fact hon. members feel this Bill has as its aims. I hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with what the hon. member for Prinshof said. The hon. member for Prinshof said that the hon. member for Karoo would still be able to report back to his constituents but that he would not be able to make the same speeches as he makes here. What exactly does that mean? He will not be able to make the same speeches as he makes here. But he will be able to read his speeches out of Hansard. I want to say that when he reports back and tells them what he has done, what he will be telling them is what he did as a member of the United Party caucus. He will therefore be explaining what the United Party did. In doing so he will be furthering the cause of a political party.

But the hon. member for Prinshof raised another point. He said that the Government is entitled to explain its policy. But what will be the purpose of explaining its policy?

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

It is to administer its policy.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, but in terms of the wording in this clause the object of doing so is to further the interests of the cause of separate development, or whatever it may be called at that particular time. If that is so, it is furthering the cause of a political party. I want to say to that hon. member that I go so far as to say that a Commissioner-General would be doing precisely that. But he would not be prosecuted.

Now I should like to answer an argument which was raised by the hon. members for Prinshof, Parow and Omaruru, namely the fact that the Attorney-General is there and that no prosecution can take place unless the Attorney-General gives his certificate, is protection for all the odd and sad cases that might arise. But is this in fact so? Mr. Chairman, imagine yourself as the Attorney-General. Here you have a Bill which is by no means of the kind that the Attorney-General normally handles. You have to decide whether you have to prosecute. What is the purpose of this Bill? It is not necessarily aimed at the maintenance of law and order. The object of this Bill is to further the aims of the Nationalist Party’s policies. This Bill has not been introduced for any other reason. It is there to further the aims of the Nationalist Party’s policies. It is a means of forcing their policy through. The Attorney-General, a man completely outside politics, is faced with a Bill like this. He himself has to look at every single case and decide whether a prosecution should take place. It will be a prosecution in terms of a Bill intended to further the aims of a political party, the interests of the Nationalist Party’s policy. This is the position in which the Attorney-General is being placed. It is quite the opposite of what the hon. member said. I want to ask especially the hon. member for Prinshof what the Attorney-General is going to do. How can he decide whether a prosecution should take place when the object of the Bill is political? Its object is not to prevent the normal unlawful behaviour. It is a Bill to foster and further the Nationalist Party’s policies. Why should the Attorney-General be placed in that position? I want to go further. He will have a case reported to him and receive a docket from the Police. He will then have to decide whether he will prosecute. How does he decide this? There are no definitions in the Bill and he has to decide whether someone has tried to further the interests of a political party. I want to go still further. I want to cast no reflection on the Attorney-General or this hon. Minister but the decision that has to be taken by the Attorney-General is a political one, and not a legal one in the normal sense in which we understand it, nor is it within the normal use of the powers of the Attorney-General. We all know that section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that every Attorney-General “shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and directions of the Minister, who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such function”.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Is that the Minister of Justice?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

What are you suggesting?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am not suggesting anything, but the Attorney-General acts under the direct instructions of the Minister of Justice. Here we have a Bill which casts upon him the onus of deciding whether a prosecution shall take place under an Act, the purpose of which is to further the political interests of the Nationalist Party. I say that he should not be placed in a position where he has to make that decision. If a political decision has to be made, the proper person to make it is the Minister. I am sure the hon. the Minister would concede that.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The Minister will not do it.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

What is the Attorney-General going to do? In the first place, how is he to know whether he should prosecute; what sort of policy is the Attorney-General expected to adopt in terms of a Bill like this? The Attorney-General is steeped in the traditions of the law, and he is there to implement the laws, but the laws which we put on the Statute Book are put there for the common weal. The Attorney-General is concerned with the maintenance of law and order; that is his job. His job is not to fiddle around with this sort of thing and decide whether or not he should prosecute and thus further the cause of the Nationalist Party or some other political party. That is the job of a politician. But so long as that power resides in the Criminal Procedure Act, this hon. Minister and therefore the Cabinet and therefore the Nationalist Party, have the power to determine who will be prosecuted under this Act. That is my point. They will have the power to determine it.

The hon. the Minister is a man of good faith and if he says that he is not going to do it, then I accept it, but we may not be so fortunate as to have this hon. Minister. It may become necessary as a matter of Government policy to enforce this Act strictly in all cases; it may become a matter of Government policy, and the decision will therefore rest with the Minister of Justice, acting, of course, as a member of the Cabinet with collective responsibility. This is where it eventually ends up; it becomes a political decision to threaten someone. Looking at this law, it is difficult to know whether in fact you have committed an offence. The hon. member for Karoo, in my humble opinion, could have a very genuine doubt as to whether he could go back and address his constituents and tell them what he and his caucus did during the Session, because they elected him as a United Party man. Is he expected to go to the Attorney-General and say: “I am about to go and address my constituents and this is what I am going to say; do you think I will be committing an offence under the Act?” The Attorney-General, of course, would not answer; that is not his function. It is not his function to give people indemnities before the event, before they commit an offence. He has to decide afterwards.

The discretion is only exercised after the offence has been committed. The Attorney-General has to exercise his discretion and it has to be exercised having regard to something. Having regard to what? Having regard to the fact that this is bad for law and order or bad for society. How can the Attorney-General make a political decision like that? Sir, this is absolute nonsense, if I may say so, and the hon. member for Karoo is put in an impossible position—a quite impossible position. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice will indicate to us some of the difficulties that might exist in this regard and how he would interpret this provision. Sir, the hon. member for Parow said something very, very interesting. He said that the words “the greater majority” were put in because it was intended that a dialogue should not be excluded altogether, because it was intended that a dialogue should take place. I hope the hon. the Minister, when he has received the briefing which he appears to be getting from the hon. member for Prinshof, will tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Parow that the words “the greater majority” were inserted because it is intended that there should be dialogue between the different race groups in respect of political affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I am sorry to cross swords with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban (North). I rather feel a little reassured over this Bill because of an interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he said that he would not intervene with an Attorney-General in the exercise of his discretion as to whether or not there should be a prosecution.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have not done so in the past and I shall not do so in future.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I am glad to hear that. Sir, I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to accept the advice given to him by the hon. member for Prinshof and not to amend this Bill, because of the situation which I am sure is going to confront any Attorney-General who is called upon to give a decision in this matter. We have had discussions here this afternoon on clause 2, and it is clear from these discussions that many of the terms used in this clause are very vague. Many of them have no clarity whatsoever and have no meaning whatsoever in law. I think it is quite wrong for us to try to remedy that situation. The hon. member for Prinshof has indicated that in every instance this is a matter which can be interpreted by the courts and by the Attorney-General. I want to deal with some of his examples. Hon. members on this side have drawn attention to the fact that the term “member” in clause 2 (a) has not been defined. They have drawn attention to the fact that a “political party” remains undefined in this Bill. They have drawn attention to the fact that the term “agent” has not been defined. The hon. member for Prinshof has tried to introduce a definition from some dictionary, but the term is not defined in this Bill and he is hoping that the courts will interpret the word according to the definition given in the dictionary. Hon. members have drawn attention to the fact that an “election committee” of a “political party” has not been defined in this Bill. When we go on to paragraph (c) we find that there is no definition of what a “gathering” is under this clause. We find that there is no definition of “an assembly of persons” under this clause. There is no definition of the term “greater majority”. There is no definition of this at all, except the definition offered by the hon. member for Prinshof and the definition given by the hon. member for Omaruru.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

The hon. member for Omaruru says about three out of ten!

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Finally, there is no definition in this clause of what is intended in this Bill by the term “interests” of a “political party”. We are told that it does not mean the “aims” of a political party; that there is some other meaning attached to it.

It is obvious that all these terms are used in the most vague fashion. It is obvious that there is no clarity whatsoever about any of these terms. In the circumstances, therefore, I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept the advice given by the hon. member for Prinshof and not to define these terms; not to introduce any further clarification but to leave it to the Attorneys-General. I for one have great confidence in the decisions made by our Attorneys-General and by our courts. I suggest that an Attorney-General, confronted as he is going to be by these vague terms, which are meaningless in many instances, and without any definition as to what Parliament really intends in using these terms, will decline to prosecute in any of these cases. From the point of view of the liberty of our people I would prefer to see the Bill left in these terms and to leave it to the Attorneys-General to apply a legal mind as to whether there should be a prosecution. Sir, I have come to the considered conclusion that it would be impracticable to give effect to the provisions of clause 2 of this Bill. I am leaving the principle alone, but on the wording of this Bill it would be impossible to give effect to the terms of this Bill, and for that reason I propose to vote against this clause.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I want to start by crossing swords with the hon. member for Prinshof on the definitions given by him. I can accept his definition of a “party”, but he started by giving us the definition of “political” as given in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, and he did not finish it. He knows full well that it goes on to say that the meaning of the word “politics” is too wide of interpretation to be defined.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Where is the definition which the hon. member is discussing?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

There is no definition in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

As the hon. member says, there is no definition in the Bill.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

That is the very point I am talking about.

The CHAIRMAN:

The definition was dealt with on clause 1.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

There is no definition there of “political”.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! It is therefore not under discussion.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

On your own ruling, Sir …

Mr. W. V. RAW:

On a point of order, Sir, when we were discussing clause 1 the hon. members wished to deal with definitions which were not in the clause, the ruling was that they could be discussed on the subsequent clauses. That was the ruling given from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

If I remember correctly, I said that the definition of a political party could be discussed on clause 3, not clause 2.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Very well, Sir, I will abide by your ruling. We will discuss the question of a definition of “political party” under clause 3. Sir, I want to go on where the hon. member for Peninsula and the hon. member for Durban (North) left off as regards the question of the interpretation of these terms by our courts. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he intends that a conviction should be secured of a person who is allegedly a member of any political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group is a member. The common law onus of proof …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That point has been made already. The hon. member is now repeating arguments already advanced.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

With submission, Sir, I think the points which I wish to raise have not been raised.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That is for me to decide. That particular point has been made.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

May I put it to you this way then? I submit that there are two elements attached to this offence. The one is that the prosecution will have to prove that the person is a member of a political party, and secondly the prosecution will have to prove that there were members of that political party who were members of some other population group. These are the points I wish to make.

The CHAIRMAN:

But they have been made.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I do not know who made them; I did not hear them made.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member should have been here throughout the debate.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I was here. Sir, and I submit that they have not been made.

The CHAIRMAN:

Those points have been made over and over again; they were made in the second-reading debate as well.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Maybe in the second-reading debate but not in Committee, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

They have been made by the hon. member for Durban (North).

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Sir, I have certainly not made this point about proving that a person is a member of a political party. With great respect, Sir, this is a new point in this debate in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member made the point that it would be impossible to convict anybody under this clause.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, Sir, but not for the reason which the hon. member is now giving. With respect, Sir, this is a new point.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may continue but I am not going to allow any further repetition.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Sir, the common law onus of proof has not been disturbed, and it will be incumbent upon the State to prove beyond any doubt any contravention of this Act. This being the case, how is the Government going to give effect to the prohibition which is being created here? As I have said, there are two elements which will have to be proved. The one is that the accused is a member of a political party, and the other is that that political party has members who are members of another population group. How is it intended that the State will adduce this evidence, evidence which is positive enough to obtain a conviction? Either the State will have to subpoena duces tecum the various responsible officers of a political party to produce their record cards and membership lists, or the Crown will have to issue search warrants.

The CHAIRMAN:

Who will have to issue it?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The State. I am afraid I am still thinking of the days when I sat on the Bench. [Interjection.] While some of those hon. members were still at school, I was sitting on the Bench in a court of law. This might shake the hon. members opposite. Just the thought of these two alternatives is abhorrent to us. But irrespective of which course is adopted, it is implicit that the State will have to use a political party to secure the conviction of one of its members. In other words, somebody must be produced who will be able to speak to the fact that he is a member of a political party and also that he is a member of a population group other than that of which the accused is a member. Now, it is trite law that nobody can be called before a court to give evidence which is calculated to implicate himself. If he gives evidence that he is a member of a political party and that he is a member of a population group different from that of the accused, then he exposes himself immediately to a possible charge under the identical provision in terms of which the accused himself is being charged. I am sure the hon. member for Prinshof follows my reasoning here, and I hope the hon. the Minister does, and that he will give us an answer, because I cannot see that it is practical that in any court of law any person can be called upon to give this evidence which, as I say, will render himself liable to prosecution under the same conditions in terms of which the accused is being prosecuted. I hope the Minister will give us an answer to this.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I do not want to spend much time on this point, but something the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof told the Committee has obscured the matter even more for me. It is in connection with what is “a majority”, and what a “greater majority”.

*The CHAIRMAN:

That point has been made 20 times.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not the point that the hon. member for Prinshof made. No reply has been given to that. The hon. member for Prinshof said a majority consisted of one-half plus one, but a greater majority consisted of one-half plus two. Let us examine the implications of that. Suppose a white person addresses a mixed meeting of 100 people. If 50 persons in the audience are Coloureds and 50 are Whites, everything is in order. If one-half plus one, in other words, 51 out of 100, are Coloured, then it is still in order. But as soon as one Coloured is added, making it 52 Coloureds and 48 Whites, there is trouble.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That point has already been made.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I do not think it has been made …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Yes, it has been. In fact, I remember the same figures having been mentioned.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

May I ask whether the point was made after the hon. member for Prinshof gave the definitions of a majority and a greater majority?

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is repeating himself.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Very well. Sir. Then I shall resume my seat and we shall accept the definition of a greater majority as being one-half plus two.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

When my time expired the last time I spoke …

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member’s time never expired. I did not tell him that his time had expired. He sat down of his own accord. But the hon. member may continue.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Parow, which was that the reason why the words “the greater majority” appear, and not “majority” was that it was intended that some dialogue should take place and that all dialogue should not disappear. This is a very interesting answer; it is the only answer we have had from the other side so far. If that is the answer, it means that you may address a meeting if there is a party of numbers or even an ordinary majority for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person. If that is the hon. member’s answer, then that is what it means. It means that you may do this, but you may not do it where there is an overwhelming majority or a greater majority. If that is so, it means—and we are waiting for the Minister to confirm it—that there will be political interference in the affairs of one group by another, provided that the majority of the audience is just a majority of the other group and not the greater majority.

The CHAIRMAN:

That point has already been made by the hon. member himself.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

This is now something new. If this is the answer of the Government, it means that you may have persons addressing a meeting where there is a majority of the other groups, for the purpose of furthering the interest of a political party or the candidature of anyone. That is the answer we got from the leading spokesman opposite. He said that we wanted the words “greater majority” because we do not want to avoid dialogue altogether. Now “dialogue” means dialogue in this context. I hope the Minister will get up and say whether he agrees with the hon. member for Parow or not, because if that is so I will go on to my next point.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member is making his points over and over again.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Then I go on to my next point. If that is so, it means that a discretion will reside with someone as to whether this should or should not be allowed, depending on what one’s interpretation of “greater majority” is.

The CHAIRMAN:

That point has also been made by another hon. member.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

My point is this. With whom does that discretion lie in the end?

The CHAIRMAN:

That point has also been made.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

In the end it rests with the Attorney-General, but in the meantime where does it rest? Surely it rests with the Police to decide whether or not to forward that docket to the Attorney-General, to decide whether or not there is a case to present.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

But that is always the case.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, in all crime cases, but this is not the ordinary sort of crime. That is my point. Here we have the situation where you can have political interference provided there is an ordinary majority which is not a greater majority. That is what the hon. member for Parow said. The Minister has not once got up. I hope the hon. the Minister will now tell us what in fact in his view the intention of the Bill is, as opposed to the explanations of those other hon. members opposite.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I shall just reply briefly to this debate about what I consider to be the basic clause of the Bill. Let us be honest now. The intention of this clause and of the legislation is to make it difficult, as far as possible, for political interference by one race group in the politics of another to take place. There are two courses open to one. You can follow the course in regard to which the hon. members are criticizing us now, namely this course of going to the extreme in defining and putting it as clearly as possible with as little latitude as possible for anyone, in other words, also with the greatest possible interference with the freedom of the individual. You can even bring in the Press and make it much more restrictive than the Bill that was before the Select Committee. What we are trying to do here is to curb that absolute freedom on the one hand which was exercised and misused on occasion during elections by political parties, without going to the other extreme. Now, I suggest that hon. members are not reading this Bill properly. Let it be vague; it is vague, but it is deliberately vague. It is vague with a purpose I agree, and I want to thank the hon. member for Peninsula for the fact that he, as a lawyer, has a higher opinion of the Minister of Justice and of the administration of justice in South Africa than the hon. member for Durban (North) has. The impression created by the hon. member for Durban (North) was that, because those powers which the Minister of Justice has under another Act and has had all these years and still has—he did not say this directly—may be abused or have been abused, and because this is an offence in connection with politics, there is naturally a greater danger that the Attorney-General may be influenced or dictated to by the Minister of Justice as to what action he must take. The hon. member could just as well have quoted examples of ideological legislation, as they call it, having been contravened, and he could have said that the Minister of Justice had influenced the Attorney-General. I am sorry that he has cast this shadow of doubt, discredit and lack of integrity on the courts and the Attorney-General, and on our administration of justice as well. But now we come to the question whether a white party may put its point of view in public when Coloureds are also present. I say: Yes, it may do that, and not only the National Party, but the Opposition and the Progressive Party may do so as well. They need not do it only by word of mouth; the newspapers may publish it in their reports of political meetings. Both non-Whites and the Whites may be kept informed of the thinking of political parties, and there is nothing to prohibit this. But why do people want to do this? When a white political party…

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

And if one is invited to do so?

*The MINISTER:

Invited or not, if a white politician decides that he wants to address non-Whites mainly, surely he must have an object; and if that object of his is to explain to those non-Whites the policy of his white political party for South Africa and its entire population, and he does this where there is no political party amongst the Coloureds or the non-Whites that is pursuing the same objectives, and he does it in an objective way, I say it will be very difficult to say this man has now interfered in Coloured politics. But there are many ways of doing something. If, for example, there is a United Party or a Progressive Party, as is indeed the case, or some other party, call it a National Party, amongst the non-Whites, and we are aware of its existence, and a Nationalist, for example, goes there and addresses a meeting under the chairmanship, on the same platform, of a leader or a candidate who is going to speak on behalf of such a political party which may perhaps subscribe to the policy of the Government, and he does not only put the facts, but also recommends that this party of the Coloureds is the right one to support, then, in terms of this legislation, he will be contravening the law. The Attorney-General need not even entertain any doubts, when he has the documents before him, as to whether an offence has in fact been committed. On the one hand the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side want much stricter measures, there must be more definitions, and on the other they want no restrictions whatsoever. They do not want any restrictions on free interference in the politics of another race group. But one is not prohibited from propagating one’s own political point of view. One may hold a meeting and interested non-Whites may come and listen. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned such an example. She mentioned the following hypothetical case. Say she is addressing a Progressive Party meeting and she is stating the policy of her party. Non-Whites attend the meeting to listen, and later on she sees from the platform that the non-Whites are apparently beginning to be in the majority. She wanted to know what she must do in such a case. She originally went there to state her party’s policy to the Whites, but the meeting changed gradually so that eventually a greater majority of non-Whites was present. Well, then the hon. member shall have to change her theme, and if she does not do so, but continues with her speech and refers, for example, to the Progressive Political Party of the Coloureds and to a candidate or some other person, and recommends him, she will be contravening this measure, and she knows it.

Since we are separating the politics of the non-Whites and the politics of the Whites, people will no longer have a direct interest in the politics of another race group. I can understand that people would like to influence those people as well in order to oppose the ideal policy of the Government and its entire policy of separation in all fields, also in the political field, and to influence the people. But I say that this influencing can be done by holding meetings in white communities, amongst your own race group and population group, and by means of the publicity that will be given to that. It was none other than the hon. member for Houghton who said once that the Coloureds were not so stupid. They read many newspapers and let me tell the Opposition I think the Coloureds generally read more English newspapers than Afrikaans ones. They need therefore have no fear that the views adopted by them will not become known amongst the Coloureds.

It is true that this measure is restrictive, but I can make it much more restrictive. However, I shall follow the advice of the hon. member for Prinshof, as well as that of the hon. member for Peninsula, not to do this. If people tell me that “political party” has not been defined, it is very easy for me to move an amendment and to describe it, for example, as any organization or party which I, the Minister, declare by regulation to be a political party. Would that satisfy the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side? No one would vote for that. No, they would say that I was becoming far too dictatorial; that I was taking too many powers. If I do not do this, I am criticized and if I should do it, I would probably be criticized more severely. This is the position we are faced with. Basically not only this clause, but the entire Bill is objectionable to the Opposition. Basically it falls within the framework of the policy of the present governing party, and that is why this measure has been introduced.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—105: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—32: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause 3:

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 attempts to provide the machinery whereby there can be control over the receipt of financial assistance from abroad into the Republic. I think I must make it clear again at the outset that we, on this side, as was indicated by my hon. Leader during the second-reading debate, accept the principle contained in this clause, and that is that it is undesirable for such money to be sent here and ways and means should be found, if possible, to prevent financial resources from coming into the country to assist in party political activities in the country. We believe that party political activities are of a domestic nature and should be free from financial or any other interference from overseas.

During the second-reading discussion of this Bill certain questions were posed to the hon. the Minister which we believe are material in determining the effectiveness or otherwise of this clause, and it was indicated to the Minister that we would raise these matters in more detail during the Committee Stage. Answers have not yet been given to these questions. We have had a discussion on some, and I will deal with that later.

The first question is this. What is intended by the Minister with the words “to combat any aim or principle of a political party”? Is that limited to the activities of a party which is actively concerned in the elections of representatives to this House, or to provincial councils, that is a combating of the aims or principles of a political party? If some organization of an educational nature were to be opposed, for instance, to certain aspects of the Government’s educational policy, or if some labour movement were to be opposed to the question of job reservation, will any funds received by those organizations be funds received for the purpose of combating an aim or principle of a political party? Sir, there have been various attempts at replying to the second question which was posed to file hon. the Minister.

The second question which was posed to him was “what is a political party”? We must face the fact that every reply which we have received in the course of the discussions in the Committee Stage, is that there is vagueness and we must leave this matter vague. But the clause as drafted contains a provision that a political party shall not receive certain funds. If a political party, in the concept in which it is understood by members of the Government, receives funds, who is to be prosecuted? Every member of that party? Who is to be prosecuted: the treasurer who finds the amount deposited to the credit of the political party’s bank account which has received funds from overseas? We believe that this receipt of money from overseas for party political activities, as we know them in this country, should be stopped, but how is it to be stopped when there is a vagueness, as we find in this clause as it is drafted?

The third question which arises is whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient means, and that there are sufficient means at the disposal of the Government, whereby they can control the movement of finance which might be directed towards these purposes. We are trying to find means for closing the gap. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient procedures available to him in order that there can be a control of the movement of money for these purposes? We on this side believe that this is an evil and we want to see it stopped, but we wonder whether the Minister is setting about it in a practical way, in the form of this clause which is before us at the present time. The hon. member for Parow has made it clear that what is intended throughout this Bill is concerned with political activities, as he put it, especially in elections; he talks about activities directed towards an election activity.

It is for that reason that I have attempted to draft an amendment to this clause which I believe gives expression to what is intended where money is received from abroad for the purposes of influencing our politics. For that reason the amendment which is on the Order Paper on page 305, is directed towards fixing a responsibility on the person who receives money from outside the Republic, or brings or causes it to be brought info the Republic, money “which is intended to be used directly or indirectly to further the interests of the candidature of himself or any other person”—in other words, is directly concerned with an election or a potential or possible election.

Thirdly, it refers to “any other person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for any election referred to in section 2 (b)”. If the intention of this clause is to deal with election activities, then this is the way in which it can be done. If it is an attempt to stop organizations which one might regard as subversive, or might be considered or be proved to be subversive in the general political sense, there are already sufficient powers to control those parties, without having to bring them into what is of essential application to political activities, that is to stop outside interference in our domestic party political activities in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

To omit subsection (1) and to substitute the following subsection:
  1. (1) No person shall from outside the Republic receive within the Republic or bring or cause to be brought into the Republic any money which is intended to be used directly or indirectly to further the interests of the candidature of himself or any other person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for any election referred to in section 2 (b).
Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I also have an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper. The purpose of my amendment is to limit the effects of this clause. As the clause stands, it is far too wide. Nobody knows the meaning of the last phrase in this particular clause, to which the hon. member for Green Point has referred, namely “to combat any aim or principle of a political party”. A lot of organizations do research work. They put out publications. They sell those publications abroad. They are not political parties, but the publications may definitely criticize certain aspects of Government policy. It seems to me that, as this clause stands, organizations like that, research organizations and others, might very well fall foul of this legislation. The penalties laid down here are not even discretionary penalties, but the discretion of the court in fact is excluded. I believe that this clause is far too wide. I do not know to which political party the hon. the Minister was referring when he inserted this clause in the Bill. He did not give us any information about this when he spoke in the second-reading debate. He certainly gave us no details about this clause.

For all I know, he might be referring to the hon. member for Innesdal, who might be getting some funds from the John Birch Society in order to advance his aims, or rather in order to combat some of the “verligte” aims of the hon. the Prime Minister. I really do not know what the hon. the Minister is intending by this particular clause. All I do know is that, as it stands, with the inclusion of this particular phrase in subsection (1), the ambit of this clause is extremely wide. It may apply not only to political parties, but to any persons, organizations, research bodies, trade unions, student organizations and, in fact to anybody at all who happens to receive money from overseas, not for the specific object of combating the Government, but as part and parcel of the ordinary objectives of such bodies, which might include publication of pamphlets, etc., which happen to counter some of the aims of the Government. The hon. the Minister could not have intended, I believe, this clause to be as wide as this. I would ask him to consider the amendment which I now move, as follows—

To omit all the words after “2 (b)” in line 25 to the end of subsection (1).
*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, but I can accept neither of these amendments. The reason for this is, briefly, the following. This clause makes it an offence if money is brought in from outside the country to further the aims of a political party by the political party itself, or by a person, any person, or by an organization, with the object of furthering the specific interests of specific political parties within the country itself. Now, it is my view, and I think the Government holds the same view, that we are certainly not one of the poorest countries in the world. I cannot see why we should allow money, even if it is given by way of a donation, and with whatever good intentions, to enter South Africa from abroad for the purpose of having the influence of other persons exerted on our domestic political life as a result of the financial resources they may have at their disposal. That is why this clause has been framed so widely. We do not want to limit it to a political party, because then money can still enter the country via a member of a party. Then it does not come to South Africa via the party, but only via a person. If a party and its members are restricted, the money can still enter the country via an organization. In terms of this clause an organization wanting to further these aims is also not allowed to receive such money. In other words, if you close the door, you must close it completely. I may add that I know of a donation offered to the National Party from abroad by someone who believes that the National Party’s policy is the right one for South Africa. But in terms of this Bill we shall have to forfeit it. There is no discrimination against one party at the expense of another. They are all treated the same. I believe that this clause will check this form of interference. The hon. member for Green Point asked me whether I was satisfied that we had sufficient effective ways and means at our disposal to stop such practices completely. This the future will show. I maintain that every piece of legislation placed on the Statute Book, no matter how watertight it is—and the Minister of Finance will also be able to attest to this as regards the flow of money from one country to another—can be circumvented, because people who want to contravene laws are always able to find loopholes. But if these persons are caught, they will be severely punished in terms of this Bill. I cannot promise you that we shall be able to trace all donations. But all who try to influence our domestic politics and determine our future by means of the money they want to send here, will be denied that right.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this matter a little further with the hon. the Minister to gain some clarity. Supposing there is an organization that does welfare work and at the same time happens to be an organization which opposes the Government. Supposing further that this organization receives a donation from overseas for welfare work. This money then goes into its coffers in the ordinary way. Then in the course of doing this welfare work the organization issues publications or its members address meetings from an anti-Government platform. Will such an organization then fall foul of this Bill because it has received a donation for welfare work from overseas? As the clause is framed at present, it is very difficult to distinguish between the purposes for which the money is received and how one actually sets aside such money for the various objectives that one organization may be following.

Secondly, supposing a member of a party happens to be living overseas, or has gone to live overseas. He is still a South African but he is residing and earning his living in London and he wants to send an annual donation to the party that he belonged to when he lived in South Africa. Would that be forbidden? Would it be forbidden even if he is only living overseas temporarily?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I think that this measure is ridiculous. I have never heard of anything so absurd. Why should, for instance, an official of the Government who happens to belong to the National Party and who has been sent to South Africa House in London or to Washington and who would like to remain a member of the National Party, be prevented from sending money to South Africa? He may wish to send a small donation to the Nationalist Party to show his ordinary affiliation with that party. I think that this is ludicrous. [Interjections.] Could I just for one minute, have the hon. the Minister’s attention instead of having that of the hon. member for Parow? I wish he would devote himself to somebody else for five minutes. Does the hon. the Minister seriously mean to tell me that in such a case the National Party would have to send that donation back to avoid breaking the law?

HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, then I think that this is the most ridiculous clause and I certainly intend to vote against it. The hon. the Minister has already replied to my second question, but would he please tell me what the position is in regard to the first example I mentioned?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, I think I owe the hon. member a reply to her first question and perhaps to the second one as well. My reply to the first question is that welfare organizations or charitable organizations must confine themselves to their welfare and charitable work. If I say they may receive money from abroad because they are welfare organizations, and that money is used for furthering the political aims of various political parties, be it the National Party or any party whatsoever; then the door will simply be opened and precedents will be created and we shall not know whether we are coming or going. If we want to prevent money coming here from abroad for political purposes, then it does not matter whether it comes from a citizen of this country temporarily residing abroad or living there permanently. I think we shall find enough money here in South Africa to keep our political affairs in order.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the Clause up to and including “2 (b)” in line 25, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—106: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J;. Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J, C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.;

Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M.J; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A,; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G. Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and G. N. Oldfield.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray, dropped.

Question put: That all the words after “2 (b)” in line 25 to the end of subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. j F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenhei* mer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. G; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, G; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, G J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and G. N. Oldfield.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived.

Clause, as printed, put.

Division called for.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should remain seated if he wants to raise a point of order during a division. (See subsequent ruling, Col. 4320).

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Very well, Mr. Chairman. The point of order which I want to raise is that the hon. member for Brits must either sit on this side of the House as he came in late, or he must withdraw from the Chamber. That hon. member only entered the Chamber after you had appointed the tellers for that side of the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member could not have come through the door, so he must have been inside the Chamber at the time.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The hon. member resumed his seat only after the tellers for that side of the House had been appointed. I therefore submit that he should sit on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I shall handle the matter myself. Where was the hon. member?

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I was just on my way to my seat when you were speaking.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Was the hon. member not on the opposite side of the House when I appointed the tellers?

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

No, Mr. Chairman, I would never sit on the United Party side.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member may remain where he is.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a further point of order. The point of order is whether or not a member must rise to take a point of order while there is a division. I submit that Standing Order 168 does not state that a member must be seated. Therefore the general rule applies and a member who wants to raise a point of order, should rise to do so.

The CHAIRMAN:

The rule was always that a member must remain seated while there is a division, and that a member must remain seated when raising a point of order. (See ruling below.)

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

That was the old Standing Order, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

When the rules were revised in 1964, S.O. 168 was amended to read:

While this House is dividing, members may speak to a point of order arising out of or during the division.

The Standing Order does not say that members must rise. I now rule that it is permissible for a member either to remain seated or to rise when raising a point of order during a division.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. G; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. G; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koonhof, P. G.

J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLach lan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C, J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—30: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name—

In line 31, to omit “less” and to substitute “more”; to omit all the words after “rand” where it occurs for the first time in line 32, to the end of paragraph (a); and to omit all the words after “not” in line 37 to the end of paragraph (b) and to substitute “more than six hundred rand or imprisonment for a period of not more than six months.”.

I do not think that I need talk at length on this amendment. I think it is self-explanatory. The idea, of course, is to restore the discretion of the courts of law and also, of course, to reduce the penalties provided for in the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Minister has not only removed the discretion of the courts in laying down minimum sentences, but that he has made the sentences excessive in the event of somebody being found guilty of infringing this law. For instance, he has gone well beyond the penalties laid down for infringing the Electoral Act and what I am trying to do more or less is to reduce the penalties to bring them into line with the penalties prescribed for infringement of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act provides for a fine not exceeding R100 or imprisonment not exceeding three months for wilfully interrupting, obstructing or disturbing proceedings in connection with the conduct of elections. Under other sections of the Electoral Act, if a person is found guilty of a corrupt practice such as treating, etc., he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R1,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years or both. In general I would say that the penalties for illegal practices in an election are in the neighbourhood of a fine not exceeding R200. I cannot see any reason why the hon. the Minister has seen fit to impose such heavy penalties in this particular bill. The penalty, in the case of a first conviction, is a fine of not less than R300 or more than R600 or imprisonment for a period of not less than six months or more than 12 months, or both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine of not less than R1,000 or more than R2,000 or imprisonment for a period of not less than one year or not more than two years, or both such fine and imprisonment. Irrespective of the fact that no prosecution can be instituted except on the express instructions of the Attorney-General concerned, I consider these penalties far too high for an infringement of this measure. And, most important of all, I take the strongest exception to yet another instance where the discretion of the courts is being removed. Sir, I want to quote the words of no less an authority than the hon. the Minister of Justice when he was addressing the Congress of the National Party in Durban only last year. Apparently some more vociferous members of the Congress were demanding that stiffer penalties be imposed for certain crimes and the hon. the Minister of Justice had some very important and, I think, sensible things to say in this regard. He said—

“The punishment for crime should be left to the discretion of the courts as far as possible. In certain cases the State already prescribes to the courts what the punishment should be and there is no need for this to be extended further” the Minister of Justice, Mr. P. C. Pelser, said here yesterday.

I am in full agreement with the very wise words uttered by the hon. the Minister of Justice about leaving matters in the hands of the courts and not extending any further those instances where the State has already seen fit to take away the discretion of the courts and to prescribe minimum punishments. For these reasons I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I rise merely to indicate that we support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. As hon. members will know, it has long been a principle of this party that the courts should have an absolute discretion when imposing penalties. This is particularly true of this Bill. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice is here. I am sorry that he is engaged in conversation at the moment …

An HON. MEMBER:

With your Whip.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I would only have hoped that the hon. the Minister of the Interior would have consulted the hon. the Minister of Justice before he came with a provision like this which goes right against the sort of direction in which the hon. the Minister of Justice is moving at the present time. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have proper regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. It does nothing more than to leave the discretion with the courts. I would like to add that in this particular and peculiar Bill—it is peculiar in the sense that it has no forerunner—offences are created which, as hon. members on the Government benches have already conceded, could arise in an unusual way. All sorts of unusual offences can be committed and under all these circumstances it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to say here what sort of punishment should be meted out when you have regard to the fact that there will be a hundred and one different circumstances in which these offences can be committed. I do not think it helps to say that the Attorney-General must first give his say-so before a prosecution can take place. The fact of the matter is that the circumstances of each case are quite different, and it is for the courts to determine what the sentence should be. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton and that he will agree to it or that he will indicate at least that he is prepared, with a view to acceding to the amendment, to redraft this clause before the Bill goes to the Other Place.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, and that I, consequently, cannot accede to the plea advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to admit that the Government does not like the idea of laying down minimum penalties. We do not like it. We are dealing here with a peculiar type of legislation, which is so vague, as hon. members opposite described it themselves, that it probably facilitates offences because it is so difficult to pin down the offender. If one did not have a strict penalty provision, I think one would greatly weaken the effect of the law. I feel that people should at least be deterred also by having this strict penalty provision in the clause. This is why we are deviating in this respect from what we should otherwise have liked to do. But we are of the opinion that contravention of this Act could have serious and far-reaching consequences in regard to disturbance of race relations among the various population groups in our country as well, whereas what we want is just the opposite, namely good co-operation and friendship.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

If the hon. the Minister wishes to say that the object of this provision is to make the courts realize that the Legislature regards this as a very serious offence, then what he should do is to increase the maximum penalty permissible and leave the matter in the discretion of the court. This is how one indicates to the court that the Legislature takes a grim view of it. In some cases one leaves to the judge the discretion to pass the death sentence, but that is the highest you can go. There is only one instance which comes from our common law where the death sentence is compulsory as far as the judge is concerned. In all the other cases it is permissive. You indicate to the court how seriously you regard the matter by saying, as you could say in this case, that the penalty will be a fine of R500, or R1,000, or a year’s imprisonment, or whatever it may be. You set the maximum to indicate to the court how seriously you regard the matter, and then you leave the matter entirely to the court. Is the attitude of the Minister not in fact tantamount to a vote of no confidence in our courts? I hope the hon. the Minister is listening. This attitude is, in effect, a contempt of the court. What the Minister is saying is that he wants the courts not only to take a serious view of this, but he is going to say what the courts must do in every single case. This does not make sense. The Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, defined a democracy as being a country in which regular elections were held and in which there was an independent court. This does a great disservice to our courts. It ties the hands of the courts. One hopes that the Minister will have second thoughts about this. What the Minister is saying in effect is this: We take this matter seriously, but we do not expect the courts to take it seriously because it is not a matter about which one can be serious. Is that not in fact what is happening? He therefore says the courts must impose a certain penalty. Let the Minister cast his mind over the clauses of this Bill and imagine some of the things that could happen. The hon. member for Houghton indicated what could happen, namely, when one is addressing a meeting which at that time has a minority of non-Whites among the audience. As one talks the white people gradually walk out, until eventually there is an overwhelming number of non-Whites. In that process one commits an offence. One might be talking so enthusiastically that one does not realize that in fact they have all disappeared and that the majority has now changed, and so one commits an offence. Someone may take a photograph showing an overwhelming majority of non-Whites, and that shows that an offence has been committed, and that person must get a compulsory fine although he began by doing something which was quite lawful. Take the case of someone who blatantly goes along with the object of offending against the provisions of this law. He has to get exactly the same punishment because there is an absolute minimum penalty for both. How can one do this? [Interjection.] He might get the maximum penalty. That is the whole point. The Minister only allows a discretion from a certain stage. There is no discretion up to a certain point, and thereafter there is a discretion. This is not the way the law works. I hope that before taking this Bill to the Other Place, the Minister will talk to his coleague, the Minister of Justice. I am sure the Minister of Justice will persuade him that this is not the way to treat our courts and that this is not the way to try to enforce a Bill, especially such as this one.

Question put: That the word “less” in line 31 stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting.)

Clause 5:

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed in my name—

In line 44 to omit “Improper” and to substitute “Political”.

I am doing so to meet the criticism of the Opposition and to bring the short title in line with the long title.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. the Minister has done this. We would rather he had amended the long title of the Bill, because it is the meaningful part of the measure. Rather than see the short title agree with the long title, we would prefer to see the long title agree with the short title. Another one of my difficulties is this. We would like to see in the long title, which is a meaningful part of an Act, the word “improper”, so that it reads, “Bill to prohibit improper interference …”, and if the Minister persists with his amendment, then we will be unable to move the amendment of which I have given notice, I believe. We will not be able properly to discuss the matter, and the Committee will not be able to give its attention to the question as to whether that word should appear in the long title. That is one of the difficulties.

The short title does not really mean a thing. Therefore I hope the Minister will not persist with this amendment. The short title means nothing at all; it is just a name. It does not matter what name is given to an Act, one can call it what one likes; it is just the short title. It can be called “Alice in Wonderland”, or “Through the Looking Glass”. It does not matter what it is called, because it has no value. If this amendment is accepted by the Committee, then, as I understand the position, we will be prevented from moving an amendment to the long title to include the word “improper”.

The long title is an important part of the measure. In this regard I wish to quote from “Die Uitleg van Wette” by Dr. L. C. Steyn, the Chief Justice of the Republic. Referring to the long title, he writes as follows—

Die lang titel bevat ’n beknopte beskrywing van die onderwerp waaroor die wet handel. Net soos die wetgewer soms in ’n voorrede verklaar wat die aanleidende oorsake tot, of sy doel met ’n wet is, so trag hy om in die lang titel die draagwydte van die wet aan te dui. Daar is geen rede om die een aan te neem en die ander te verwerp as aanwysing van die algemene doel van ’n wet nie.

Then he goes on to cite all the various authorities in this regard, and says the following—

Ons howe het dan ook tereg by meer as een geleentheid waar twyfel bestaan het, hul toevlug tot die lang titel geneem. In Sheeley v. Registrar and Taxing Master, 1911 T.P.D. 289, verwys Regter-President De Villiers na die lang titel van Transvaalse Wet No. 28 van 1907, en vervolg dan: “That was the end or the object which the Legislature had in view, and if the language in the body of the Act fairly bears out that end or object which it expressed to be its intention, the Court is bound to give effect to it … It is clear that at the least, the Court is entitled to look at the long title of the Act in order to see what end or object the Legislature had in view.”
The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I think I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude to discuss the long title under this clause.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, Sir. If I may crave your indulgence, I am about to come to the point, of what I was leading to in quoting from “Die Uitleg van Wette”.

The CHAIRMAN:

Then the hon. member must come to the point immediately.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The learned author goes on and refers to the case of Bhyat v. Commissioner for Immigration, 1932 A.D., and quotes the following portion of the judgment—

It is only where a section is ambiguous that we may refer to the title to see what the Legislature intended the actual scope of the section to be.

The author continues and says that in R. v. Magano and Madumo, 1924 T.P.D., the Court said that—

It is a well-established principle that the Court … only considers the title and preamble where the specific provisions of the statute are ambiguous or obscure.

I think it is fair to say that the provisions of this measure will be regarded as being ambiguous or obscure, and I think the discussions we have had in Committee alone would indicate that and indeed, there have been concessions by hon. and learned members of the Government benches to this effect as well.

I therefore would ask the Minister rather to make the long title agree with the short title, instead of vice versa, inasmuch as the short title makes no difference whatsoever to the contents of the Bill. I want to ask him whether he will not agree at this stage to withdraw the amendment he has moved so that we can discuss properly the amendment to the long title, which will have some effect in law, alternatively, would the minister not consider leaving the word “improper” and inserting the word “political” instead of substituting “political” for “improper”. That is another suggestion which I make which I feel would be in order. He could then accept an amendment to the long title so that it contains the word “improper”, when it will agree with the short title.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot drop this amendment. The hon. member for Durban (North) is one of the hon. members who, during the second reading already, objected very strongly to the difference in the wording of the long title and the short title. He said that there were sinister motives involved. Their objection was not that the long title only made mention of political interference, but their main objection was that the short title made mention of “improper interference”.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I was not the one; I did not say that.

*The MINISTER:

Yes, you did. More than one hon. member opposite adopted that standpoint. I then made them the wonderful concession, because it suits me better too. Let us be very frank now; I think that the only assistance which that side offered, was to say that I should bring the two titles into closer conformity and that I should nowhere speak of “improper” but only of “political interference”. As the short title will now read, I think it will also be clearer for the courts which must interpret the measure when cases come, before them which relate to crimes under this measure.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (North) has advanced some highly technical legal arguments about the interpretation of the courts depending on the manner in which the long title of this Bill is worded. Personally, I do not care two hoots how this Bill is worded, I do not think it matters at all. We have had so many examples in the past in this House, of Bills bearing names which do not remotely reflect the contents of the Bills. Therefore I do not really think it matters very much. We have had the Abolition of Passes Act which did not abolish passes at all. We had the Extension of University Education Act which certainly did not extend any university education, as far as I was concerned. In fact, it diminished university education. We have had the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, which abolished the three Native representatives in this House, inter alia. Therefore, whether we call this Bill the Improper Interference Bill or the Political Interference Bill or the Abolition of What-ever-you-are-going-to-abolish Bill, does not matter at all as far as I am concerned.

What does interest me are the motives behind the hon. the Minister’s removal of the word “improper” from the title of this Bill, because it bears out exactly what I said right at the beginning of the discussion of this Bill and at the second reading. As I said, this Bill has nothing to do with improper interference at all; in other words, it has nothing to do with the so-called irregularities which were quoted to this house ab initio when this whole long, sad story opened its first chapter. That was when the first Improper Interference Bill was introduced in this House, when the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition got together and decided to remove the Bill from this House and send it to a Select Committee, later a commission. It had nothing to do with the so-called irregularities, with cleaning up the voters’ roll, with all the terrible corruption and evil practices that are supposed to have taken place at the time when the Provincial Council elections for the Coloured Representatives took place in 1965.

The one and only sole objective of this measure is to see to it that no political party which opposes apartheid has got any lawful right of extending its political communication across the colour line. It is as simple as that, whether the so-called “inmenging” is proper or improper does not mean anything as far as the government is concerned, except that any anti-apartheid propaganda or any antiapartheid party should not be allowed to continue to advance its aims, its objects, its cause among the non-Whites of South Africa. This National Party is not worried about outside interference any more; it is not worried about the African states any more, although I do not think they ever really posed any threat at all; it is not worried about boycotts. No, the Nationalists are worried about one thing, and one thing only, namely about any sort of political co-operation across the colour line against the Government, against apartheid. That is the only remaining threat to its entrenched power that it fears.

Therefore, whether it is called “proper interference” or “improper interference”, or whatever the title of this Bill is, it has one object, and one object only, and that is to see to it that no anti-apartheid party has any ability to advance its platform, or that there are any lawful means of co-operating across the colour line in an effort to persuade the white electorate to change the Government of the country, or to have put into this Parliament further voices to attack this Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I have finished with what I wanted to say, Sir.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I have kept out of this debate right the way through, but I must admit to a sense of shock when I read the Minister’s amendment to the short title. What happens to the case which he has built up over the days? Surely the short title of a Bill means something? The use of the word “improper” has been the constant motive all the way through the debates. But now the Minister blandly removes the word from the short title, at the very end of the debate. All that is before us now is virtually the third reading and then the matter is disposed of. Here during the Committee Stage, which is the last opportunity we have of changing the measure, the Minister comes along and blandly proposes to delete the word “improper”. What is left? No substance whatever is left in the whole of the Bill as soon as the Minister says he is not interested in retaining the word “improper” in the title of the Bill, but that he is going to put in the word “political” instead, so that it will read “political interference”. It can be the most proper kind of political interference; it can be the most necessary kind of political interference, but the moment the word “improper” is removed, what is left? The whole case, all the quotations taken from the evidence before the Commission, the whole history behind that and behind all the speeches made by the Minister and the Government side, the whole lot slides into discard, completely finished and ended. There is nothing of any substance left whatever.

This is a most extraordinary situation which has developed here. I must say quite frankly I felt the Minister was floundering right from the very beginning, but he hung grimly on to the central fact that he was going to stop improper interference by one racial group in the affairs of another. That was the one point he hung on to, that was his sheet-anchor: Come what may, he was going to stop improper interference. Yet he now comes along and smashes his own sheet-anchor without a qualm, without an apology; without any kind of explanation whatever he simply destroys the whole of the case which he has been building up so assiduously right from the first reading of this Bill. I cannot understand it, I cannot fathom it at all. I do not know why the Minister does not now withdraw the whole Bill and be done with it. There is no kind of a foundation left whatever. All his own arguments are completely destroyed, not by words, not by the Opposition, but by his own proposal now to remove this word from the short title. The Minister is adopting a most inconsequential attitude, and I would say a most improper one towards Parliament and his legislation. His is a most irresponsible attitude. Either there was some substance in the Bill, in his complaint about improper interference, and all the speeches in that vein meant what they said, or else there was no substance in the whole case. The Minister proves now that there was no substance in the case, there was nothing in it at all. I appeal to the Minister now to withdraw his Bill and bring to a decisive end an issue which he has himself destroyed in so far as it ever had any moral foundation or ground whatever for being introduced here in Parliament.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, in the second-reading debate the hon. the Leader said, inter alia, the following. He referred to the fourth reason furnished in the minority report and according to Col. 3607 of Hansard of 8th April, he said the following—

Throughout its deliberations the Commission was faced with the impossibility of finding a practical and acceptable definition of “improper” interference not already covered by the Electoral Laws …

In Col. 3615 he said the following—

Lastly, we find in the long title of the Bill provision to “prohibit interference by one population group in the politics in any other population group and the receipt by political parties of financial assistance from abroad”. In the short title however, this Bill has suddenly become the “Prohibition of Improper Interference” Bill … Why is there this difference? Why does the long title provide “to prohibit interference” only whereas the short title talks about “improper interference”?

He had nothing against the long title; he was very clearly against the short title, and I am accommodating him now. The hon. member for South Coast was not here then. He does not feel very happy about his party’s standpoint as regards this matter. I do not blame him for not feeling happy about it; I am glad that there is at least one hon. member who has an appreciation of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that abuse is no argument.

the MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I did not abuse him.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Of course you did. You say the hon. member for South Coast does not agree with this party on this issue and therefore he has not taken part in the debate. That is absolute nonsense. How does the Minister read the speech of my hon. Leader on that very issue? The hon. member for Durban (Point) has already told him we intend amending the long title to make provision for the words “improper interference”, and that is what my Leader mentioned in his speech. He wanted the Bill to make it quite clear that it deals with improper interference.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.