May I be allowed to make a personal explanation? Last night in the heat of the debate I uttered the following words with reference to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes): “I never said that he was a coward; nor do I say so now, but he must beware.” I now realize that these words might have been regarded by him as an insinuation that I regard him as a coward. Because I did not mean it that way and because I do not regard him as a coward, I unconditionally withdraw those words and apologize and I regret the consequent inconvenience to which he was subjected as the result of it.

On a point of personal explanation, last night I challenged the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to prove that he had certain documents in his possession which he professed to have. Since then the hon. member has shown those documents to me, and in fairness to the hon. member I want to mention that fact.

What has gone wrong with you people?

As far as to-day is concerned, we will go on with the adjourned debate on the Population Registration Amendment Bill. If we do not complete this stage, we will go over to the Estimates round about lunch time—just before or after lunch time. We will then take the Vote of the hon. Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions and, if we finish with that sufficiently early, we will go on to the Moratorium Bill, but we will not go further than that.

31 May is our national day, and it is also Ascension Day. They both fall on the same day. 30 May has been proclaimed as a statutory holiday to make up for the one which the public loses. The House will sit on 30 May, but not on 31 May. We also intend to sit on Tuesday nights from 8 May 1962. On Monday we will start with the Moratorium Bill, and after that we will take the adjourned debate, whatever stage it is, of the Population Registration Amendment Bill. After that, we will go over to the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill; then the second reading of the Fencing Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Surveyors Bill; which has come from the Senate to-day—unless hon. members want more time to consider it—and after that we will go on with the Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) for publicly accepting the statement I made last night. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I had not intended bringing this matter into the debate, because I do not think it is wise to deal with a matter affecting the whole life of a person across the floor of the House, but I was provoked into doing so by the statement that this amendment before the House makes no difference to the position and cannot affect people already classified in terms of the original Act which is now being amended. This sort of case is a perfect example of how this Bill does, in fact, affect the lives of people already classified. It is a perfect illustration of the point I made last night, that the Minister is exchanging the flexibility of the decision of society for the rigidity of a rule which takes the decision out of his hands and out of the hands of any official in his Department, because this is the case where two parents have both been classified as White, have been registered as White and have identity cards determining them as White. But, in terms of a document, a record, the child of those two White parents is classified as being Coloured, of mixed birth. Now, in terms of this amendment before the House, that person’s colour must be tested against the new rules which this amendment is introducing, and, in terms of those rules, what ultimately counts is the fact. The Minister made it quite clear that he was moving an amendment to make it so, that no matter what a person may claim or what society may determine, and no matter what a person may look like, these tests will be superseded and the overriding test will be the fact, if there is a conflict with fact. So, if the fact shows that a person has any Coloured blood whatever, even though his parents may be White, then the Minister and his Department are obliged to classify that person as Coloured. A family may have been White for generations and accepted as White, and they may have lived as Whites for four or five generations. That person may claim to be White to-day, but, in terms of the Minister’s amendment which he has now introduced, if that person should say: “I am White, but I admit that 200 years ago there was colour in my family”, then that person has admitted to having Coloured blood. Therefore, in terms of this amendment, the Minister will be forced to classify him as Coloured, although he comes from a family which for generations has been regarded as White because of his admission of mixed blood perhaps 200 years ago. Then those hon. members come with this nonsense that this Bill makes no difference, that it will not create additional hardship and that it will not affect people already classified. I repeat that this Bill substitutes the test of fact for the test of society. The Minister is discarding the test of society. He is throwing it overboard for a song. He is discarding a test which he himself accepted in the introduction of this measure as being the test which he was satisfied was the best test for this country. I called this a snooper Bill, a Singh-Song snooper Bill. This is the snooper part of the Bill, the part which introduces the test of fact which the Minister must apply. He will remember—it is common knowledge—that at one time under this Government a witchhunt was started to get people taken off the common voters’ roll on the ground that they were not White, that they were Coloured, a witch-hunt which required an investigation into the antecedents of people. That witch-hunt reached the stage of embarrassment when people were saying: “Certainly, classify me as Coloured, but then you must also classify my cousin, Mr. So-and-So, and my uncle, Mr. So-and-So.” It became a little difficult, because when they investigated those claims they found that persons whom they had never contemplated in the original investigation were involved. Now the Minister is re-introducing the machinery for that witch-hunt, which can go back into a person’s history and involve not only that person but hundreds of others as well. One clause of this Bill empowers any person to be appointed to start an investigation into the background of a person to obtain the facts required for the register. The Minister is now going to re-start a practice which his own Government was forced to put aside because of the confusion and the embarrassment it created. We already have a suicide lane in South Africa for those who stray off the road which society has laid down, the accepted pattern of life. Now the Minister is changing a suicide by-way into a suicide highway, because he can imagine what will happen when that official, who will be known, starts to knock on doors and starts to make inquiries into the antecedents of people, starts to ask among a man’s friends: Do you know this person’s mother, or his grandfather, or his great-grandfather? Once that inquiry is made, the finger of suspicion has been pointed at that person, and the Minister can work out for himself what the consequences will be of starting that sort of investigation.

The object of this Bill, clearly and unashamedly admitted by the Minister and his colleagues, is to make it more difficult for a person to become White. It is not to make it easier to classify a person. It is not designed to obtain a fairer test; it is designed to make it more difficult for a person to be classified as White. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) last night, and I think the Minister and others, said: “If I were Coloured I would be proud and admit it; there is nothing wrong with being classified as Coloured.” The hon. member for Vereeniging may not think so, but of the 3.000-odd cases where appeals have been lodged, what percentage—not even 1 per cent—of those appeals were in order to be classified from White to Coloureds? They were all appeals to be classified from Black to Coloured, or from Coloured to White. They were all appeals to be classified “upwards”. Why does society “try for White” if there is no hardship involved in being classified as a Coloured? What is it which makes all these people on the border line try to become accepted as Whites if there is no stigma and no hardship and no reason for their wanting to be classified as White? Obviously the facts make nonsense of this argument. This provision, the preventing of people from being classified as White if there is any excuse whatever for it, is the Song part of the measure, and is designed to deal with one person. Thus all the marginal cases between White and non-White must be prejudiced. The whole of that group of tens of thousands of what the late Leader of this party, General Smuts, called the “unclassifiables” must now be put into the straitjacket of the test which seeks every single possible cause for them to be declared as non-Whites. If they do not look White, they may not be declared as Whites. If they have in their history any Coloured blood, they must be declared as non-Whites. If they admit to any Coloured blood themselves, they must become non-Whites—three additional tests every one of which is against people being classified as Whites. And for what reason? Because one person was able, on purely legal grounds, to become classified as White and the Minister did not like it. Hon. members say yes, but there is a vice versa to this; there were 15 people who were classified as White and who appealed and asked to be classified as non-Whites. I challenge the hon. member for Vereeniging and the Minister who made that statement to deny that in all those cases there was a love element. Those people were trying to avoid other legislation, the Mixed Marriages Act or the Immorality Act, and because their partners could not be declared White they themselves decided to give up their White status. Those are the 15 cases. In every case which I have ever seen publicized—there may be others which the Minister knows about—of people applying to be classified as Coloureds instead of Whites—there has been a love element, as there was in the Singh case, the Singh part of this Bill, where a White person wished to be classified as an Asian, and that applies in most of the other cases. The Minister may know of one or two individual cases where because of association and because of family background a person wanted to go back into the society from which he had come, but the overriding consideration and objective of everyone is to come up into the White group. This measure is making what was initially bad even worse. I do not know whether we really are crazy in South Africa, but we deliberately create a situation where a father and mother can be White, a son can be declared an Asian, a daughter can be declared White and another sister or brother can be declared Coloured, depending merely on how they look, and on the test of any admission which they may make, merely because of this or other factors which some official is going to apply to the complex problems of humanity and genetics. [Interjection.] I think we are crazy. There is no doubt about it, when you consider this Bill, that we are giving that impression to the world, when we are able to divide a family and classify people in one family into different races because of a definition, and when we find that definition creates anomalies we come along with another definition which creates even greater anomalies. I think Lewis Carroll must have had some foresight of this Government when he said: “I will make words mean what I want them to mean.” What do words mean? What do the words “White” and “non-White” mean? The Minister had an answer. We were challenged to say what the United Party test is of a White man. The Minister himself gave our test, the test of society, which has worked for 300 years in South Africa. We do not believe that any single official or human being has a better right to judge his fellow man’s colour than the society in which that person moves. Ever since the introduction of this Bill we have said: “Let society deal with those matters which are the responsibility of society.” And the Minister agreed with us. He agreed with us in introducing this Bill, but he said that because people had abused his humanitarian approach and outlook it was necessary to close the gap. Do you abuse humanity, do you abuse justice, do you abuse what the Minister calls his generosity in regard to appeals? This Government is like the man who pushes someone into the sea and then seeing a policeman coming he dives in to try to save him, and then says, “Look how brave I am; I tried to save this person from drowning”. It is not whether you try to save the odd person; it is who pushed that person into the sea, and by its own admission this Government had pushed over 3,000 people into the position where they have had to appeal in regard to their classification.

Then finally comes the ultimate nonsense of this Bill, and that is when you come to the Chinese and the Japanese. I ask the Minister to tell this House very clearly where the Japanese come into this picture, whether they are to be tested by the pig iron in their purse or the pigment in their skin? What is to be the test for people of Japanese origin? I ask the Minister to tell us very clearly what the test will be. I do not know whether the Minister has seen reports in the Press about the position of Chinese and Japanese in South Africa as it affects their treatment in hotels. It reads like a complete farce to see the explanation of where they are going to fit into our race pattern. So I ask the Minister to give this House a clear explanation of the position of the Chinese and the Japanese and other races of dark skin. What about the South American countries, Brazilians, Mexicans and the people of the East, or Mauritians? Where are their descendants in South Africa to fall in the pattern of race classification? What is a Mexican to be declared as if he lives in South Africa? Is he to become White or Coloured? What is the Mauritian to be declared, varying from pure White down to a dark skin, and some of the Southern European races, some of the Latin races? Where are they to fall? What about the Polynesians and the Indonesians? Where are they to fall in this classification? Because if you pass a law which lays down a test, then that test applies to every person who is subject to the law of South Africa, and this Minister cannot blandly talk of Whites and Coloureds as though they were the only people affected. He must tell this House where the others fit in, and because he cannot do that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as making an impossible position even more impossible and we will oppose it to the end.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said that the Bill makes it “more difficult to become White”. Those words contain an admission that the person who applies is not White, otherwise why would “it make it more difficult to become White”? This is in fact the whole object of the Bill, to classify. This amendment before us to-day has come as the result of the Song case in Durban. The whole object of the Bill is to classify the races into different groups, and Song admitted that he was a Chinese and he therefore does not belong to the group we are discussing here, viz. the White group. He is not a White man and therefore this legislation becomes necessary.

What about the Japanese?

I do not want to discuss the Japanese now. [Laughter.] I want to ask the hon. member to show me the same courtesy I showed him and not to interrupt me. The National Party stands for the preservation of the White race in South Africa, and this legislation deals with that. I support this Bill. I should like to know from the Opposition members who talk about “hard luck” cases and borderline cases whether they will approve of these cases being allowed to be classified as Whites and their being given an identity card with a “W”. which means “White”, and one of their daughters or sons wanting to marry such a person? I ask them that question. I would definitely not like my daughter to marry such a hard luck case or borderline case, because what will be the consequences? [Interjections.]

Order!

I am sure no member of the Opposition would allow his son or daughter to marry such a person. Then why raise these objections to the Bill? It is just to imitate the liberals and to oppose the apartheid favoured by us, but in spite of that, when it comes to the point, they definitely refuse to have anything to do with such a person. I am sure the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) will be the last man to allow his children one day to marry such “hard luck” and borderline cases who are allowed in the White group. You may laugh now, but that is the truth. You will not even allow your children to associate with them.

I feel that these borderline cases should definitely not be classified as Whites. Why should my children suffer because the ancestors of one of those persons sinned? We know that the Bible tells us that the sins of the father will be visited on the children even unto the third and fourth generation. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) says there is only 1 per cent or 2 per cent of these people, and what difference does it make if they are classified in the White group? But should we not protect that other 99 per cent or 98 per cent who are pure White? [Interjections.] It is easy for the hon. member for Houghton to talk because she belongs to the Progressive Party and she is one of the persons who favour it, but I am sure she will not allow such a borderline case to enter her home or to marry one of her children. They talk very easily but they will not do it in practice. I ask why we should not protect that 98 per cent who are pure White. A farmer is proud of his thoroughbred animals and will not allow them to be crossed with inferior breeds. Why should we as Whites allow non-Whites to marry our children and to beget another non-White race? We are just as proud of our White heritage as the Coloured or the Bantu is of his. They do not want miscegenation, so why should we allow it?

I have said that I welcome this amendment because it protects my children so that they will not be able to marry borderline cases and produce children of mixed blood. Then there will really be tears and “hard luck” cases. I fully support this amendment.

I have said that the Song case made it necessary to introduce this amendment. I took the trouble to study the evidence in the Song case. Although the definition in the principal Act stated that a person must ordinarily pass as a White person, it clearly appears that all those who made statements declaring Song, who admits that he is a Chinese, to be a White man, did not regard him as a White man, but that they treated him as a White man, and there is a big difference between regarding and treating someone in that way. I may treat my servant like a White man, but I still do not regard him as such, and that is what happened here. They treated Song as a White man and made statements to the effect that they regarded him as White. Many of those statements indicate this. Therefore I say there is a big difference between treating and regarding. I am glad the Minister has now introduced this Bill to remove this ambiguity and to make it quite clear who is White and who is not.

The hon. member who spoke just before me mentioned the ridiculous case of people having been regarded as White for 200 years and whose descendants might now admit that they are not quite White, and therefore they must be classified as non-White. That is why Section 4 is now being amended. Do hon. members opposite think anyone would be so unreasonable, after having investigated the matter and found that the person’s family have been regarded as Whites for 200 years, as then to classify him in a different group? [Interjections.] If a person is so irresponsible as to say that he belongs to a race other than the one into which he was born, if he and his family have been regarded as Whites for 200 years, then the person appointed in terms of Section 4 will go into the matter, and surely nobody will be so unreasonable as to find that such a person is in fact a non-White. Surely that is ridiculous.

But 1 (b) makes him so.

Section 1 (b) deals only with Chinese.

Read 1 (b).

Yes, Section 1 (b) is quite clear: “but does not include any person who admits that he is by descent a Native or Coloured person.” In that case investigation is then made in terms of 4 (b). I do not know why hon. members do not want to accept the Minister’s word that this Bill will not be applied in the way they suggest. I welcome this Bill, and I am glad that the Act will be amended in such a way that in future we will be sure that when a person obtains an identity card on which there is a “W” (for White), he will indeed be a White person. That is in the interest of the preservation of the White race here in South Africa. I give the Bill my full support and I am glad that the Minister is now amending the Act in such a way that in future there will be no doubt at all.

I just want to answer on one point that the hon. member has raised. He raised the difficulty of a White perhaps marrying a Coloured by descent. I suggest that even without this legislation that position is covered, because any such marriage would be a mixed marriage and therefore void under the existing law. Consequently there is no need for a race classification register to achieve that.

I would like to follow to some extent the lines followed by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), and I am sorry that he is not here this morning. He said that we should devote ourselves to trying to make the best possible definition out of this one. That is an attitude that this side of the House has adopted on occasions even within my knowledge. In the Group Areas Bill that came before this House this year we made certain suggestions because we thought the Bill could be improved. In some cases I think those suggestions were accepted, and certain other improvements were made. But here we feel that very much the best help that we can give to the country and to the Government is by advancing reasons why they should rather leave the matter where it is. We would, of course, like to see the whole law repealed, but that is not possible. But we certainly feel that it should not be taken any further than it has already been taken. Hon. members opposite who again repeated this entirely unjustified and. I suggest irritating charge of sabotage against this side, should know that if we cannot persuade the Government to accept our point of view, we must try to persuade the country. And I am quite certain in this regard that we do in fact get the ear of the sort of people in the West that we want to attract. It is no good saying that our talking harms the Government abroad. The Bill itself does all the harm that can be done in that regard. They might hope, as we will continue to hope, that the Government will see the wisdom of a softer approach in these matters. We are looking for it ourselves, and so are people overseas. There are doubtless many people overseas who meet members of the Government, and who cannot believe that they will persist with this legislation and indeed with increasing the pressures of this legislation. We ourselves find it difficult, knowing friends on the Government side, to appreciate why they do bring this legislation and then, as it were, seem to give a further twist to things.

The hon. member for Ceres asked us to examine whether there are any merits in this. And I would like to see shortly if there are and, if so, to mention a few of the disadvantages too. In the first place, one of the disadvantages is that the Minister himself has not said that there is any lack of clarity in this old definition; he has said that it has worked well; the only difficulty is the application. Now indeed the application will be made more difficult, I suggest, because whereas before you can say that general acceptance was virtually the only test that the Department had to apply, now they have to apply that test and they have to apply the appearance test. This question of judging whether a person is White by appearance is a most difficult task. I suggest that it would baffle Solomon himself. Because, although we describe the people to be classified here as Whites and Coloureds, etc., previously the definition was “Europeans” as far as the English language was concerned, and that too is a most difficult thing to ascertain. Secondly this Bill clearly enlarges the scope of investigations that must be made into people’s private affairs. To that extent it adds a further burden to officials who have very rightly been acclaimed for their humanity and consideration in approaching the existing Act. But this Bill, by virtue of Clause 4, which introduces Section 12 (b), amends and takes further the principle that was laid down in the judgment of Mr. Justice Snyman in the case of M v. the Population Registration Office. In that particular case, as hon. members know, he laid down that the reports of people, perhaps officials, who have to inquire into matters that are relevant, were not appropriately to be taken into account. This new provision allows that, and clearly therefore greatly extends the scope of the inquiry and the burden of anybody who has to undertake any inquiry. I would like just on this point, since obviously there is a very grave risk that this Bill will pass into law, to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that this provision here seems to make it possible for him to appoint as investigators persons who are not within the Public Service, and therefore imbued with that tradition. It seems to make it possible to appoint incidental people to go about these investigations, because it says—

Even a private detective.

Yes, even a private detective. One knows from one’s experience that often you get very unsatisfactory results accruing in such cases. I do therefore ask the hon. the Minister to watch that particularly in the administration of this Bill.

A third grave disadvantage is this whole question of re-classification which has been brought forward by many members on this side The hon. the Minister did give an assurance about re-classifications. I think I am correct in saying that he has said that where people have been classified there will be no re-classification. I think he meant to convey that where people had an identity card issued to them, naturally, as it follows upon classification, those people are regarded by him as having been classified. We welcome that assurance very much. But I am just a little bit afraid that he did say that it was still possible to re-classify because circumstances were always changing, and as I understood him he did not entirely close the door to the possible re-classification of people in certain circumstances.

The Act allows it.

The Act certainly allows it, and we naturally hope very much that the Minister will accept a variation of the Act, which will write his assurance into the Act. But if that cannot be obtained, then let us at any rate try and get from him a clear assurance that there will be no re-classification whatsoever of these people at any rate—to put it at its lowest—as the result of the amended definition of a White person. Of course, we would welcome an amendment to the Bill very much indeed, and it is very important to have that amendment, because, as has been said by many members, this Minister may have the very best intentions—and we accept that he has; but circumstances may change or other Ministers may take charge of this Department, and a different view may be taken. There will consequently be grave uncertainty and suspense and anxiety for all these people. On this point I am convinced that hon. members opposite, being Members of Parliament, must like ourselves be approached on many occasions to help people with the procedures to be followed for classification. I am quite certain that they must appreciate the personal heartburning and miseries, not to say tragedies, which are involved. I am sure therefore that they must be glad, having heard the Minister’s assurance, to support us in seeking to have this assurance written into the law, which will then merely go as far as he himself is prepared to go.

One little point which I should be glad if the Minister will clarify, if he has not already done so, is this: Clause 1 introducing the new definition has a proviso which reads, “but does not include any person who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person”, and then there is the further amendment that the Minister has introduced. We would just like to be certain that his intention is, and that indeed the advice of his legal advisers is that these words give effect to that intention, namely that this proviso covers both (a) and (b) of the definition. It would seem that is the case but we would like to have an assurance on that point.

So much for some of the disadvantages which have just occurred to me, over and above those which have been put before the House by other hon. members. So far as any possible pros are concerned I find it very difficult to see them. The hon. the Minister has said that this will prevent people making an ass of the law. Well, one quite agrees that it is bad to have people making an ass of the law. But I suggest that just as it is true that where is a will there is a way, so where there is a law there is a loophole; and there will doubtless be loopholes here. Indeed members from this side have pointed to many loopholes and many new difficulties which can be seized upon. I would suggest that if one was not too concerned about these few loopholes, they would not enjoy the sort of publicity that they sometimes do get, and consequently the damage that is aimed at would not in fact seem so important.

Then there is a further point that the hon. the Minister mentioned. In introducing this Bill he did name 15 cases, I think, where people, having been classified as Whites, sought to be re-classified as Coloureds. The first point I want to make here is that it seems that very few cases are really covered there. Should the law concern itself with so few cases? There is the well-known maxim of the law de minimis non curat lax: the law does not concern itself with minor matters. Here the law is coming in to introduce an amendment and it seems that the law would be wiser to remain out. Then I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister: I suggest that the very point that he makes, namely that he has had these 15 cases where people have been classified as Whites and have then had to be re-classified as Coloureds, really shows the unwisdom of having this law Act at all, because what would have been the position before the Act? You would perhaps have had people “trying for White” as the expression is, and perhaps succeeding up to a point and then something going wrong so that it was no longer possible to maintain that position, as the Minister says is the case now. Those people would then have accepted that position and there would have been no heartburning; there would have been no extra unhappiness caused by first having to go through the process of classification and then re-classification. That, I suggest, is the way in which things happen normally and did happen before.

Now I would like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who said that this side of the House standing for race federation would have to maintain this Act. He accused us of political hypocrisy in opposing it. I suggest that is not so. Before this original Act was ever thought of there were, it is true, the various customs and conventions and laws of this country which took note of the different race groups. Thus it was well known very soon after the 1936 Act, if not before, roughly who were Natives—indeed very clearly who were Natives. It was quite well known before this Act who in fact were Natives, and that would still be so for purposes of any race federation. And the same applies to the Indians. There were countless Acts; there was the Act which permitted Indians to be paid a bonus if they returned to India. That Act alone, presumably, was enough to help establish who in fact were Indians. And under the race federation policy there is no intention of classifying Coloureds. They will be treated as part of the Western group. But in fact, if for any purposes they have a group of their own, there will always be the Electoral Laws of before 1950, in terms of which Coloured people did have a special registration qualification with which they complied. I suggest therefore that there is no justification for the change of the hon. member for Heilbron in that regard. These things cannot be completely precise. We are finding now that this Act cannot work precisely either.

Surely whether you have this Act or another Act, you must have a classification?

You see, Sir, the hon. member again says that there will be classification. But the fact is that here you have a register; that is why it has been called a stud-book by some people because it is a register. These things should happen in accordance with the test which the hon. the Minister praised so much when he referred to the “openbare mening, die gemeenskapsgevoel”. These things did happen in that way. Perhaps these adjustments were effected in the pastor’s presbytery: perhaps they did sometimes happen in the office of the school principal, but these things happened gently and imperceptibly. No one can deny that up to 1950, if there was any classification, as the hon. member says, it happened with the very least possible injury to people’s feelings, so much so that I make bold to say that it was not noticed as classification.

There is a last point I want to make; I just want to leave it as a thought with the hon. the Minister. He has said, “As dit by u êrens is en as u net so trots op u Blanke vel is soos ek, sal u nie toelaat dat ander mense by die agterdeur inkom nie”. I hope I have quoted him correctly. It is conceded therefore that this is a Bill to prevent people who the legislature regards to-day as non-Whites from becoming Whites.

And vice versa.

I think it would be common cause between us that certain people who by the test to-day, by the tests from time to time, would not be or were not regarded as Whites, have become Whites. There have not been many. And, of course, this side of the House has always taken up the attitude that this is not a serious problem; indeed we adopt the attitude that the Europeans have maintained their position here and their identity, notwithstanding 300 years of contact with Africa. But the point I want to make is this. The Minister says that he is very proud of the White people, and of course the White people have tremendous achievements to their credit; we hope there will be many more and I am sure there will. But when the Minister is speaking of the Whites, as they are regarded even by him to-day, he includes many people who we are agreed had this test been adopted say, 50 years ago, would not have been included. Consequently you have the position that he is proud of everybody who is regarded by the Government as White and as I have stressed, some of them would perhaps not have been classified as White had this definition been adopted in the past. We are therefore going to use this test of public opinion at this particular point of time in our history. Now, in the very nature of things there is a change in that regard from time to time, and in the very nature of things the circumstances of individuals vary from time to time, as the Minister himself has said. I suggest therefore—and I intend to give offence to no one in saying this and it is a thought that the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite should consider—that had this classification definition been adopted, say, 100 or 50 years ago, the composition of the people would have been somewhat different. But notwithstanding what has happened in the past we are extremely proud of White South Africans for their achievements, not to mention the other races who have great achievements and who are fine people. What therefore is the great fear and need to close this tiny door, and again to re-open the wound, and for the Government to do itself injury in the eyes of so many people?

I do no want to try to reply fully to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). The hon. member addressed his remarks to the hon. the Minister and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to the questions that he put to him. I just want to express my appreciation of the calm and reasoned way in which the hon. member stated his case and the fact that in doing so he stirred up little emotion. I shall try to do the same. I just want to say that we on this side of the House also view with great sympathy this great human problem which forms the background to this discussion. We on this side of the House also have the very greatest sympathy for people who are affected by the racial set-up in South Africa, and when we move about in the streets of our cities and travel in the country and see these people in their houses, in their schools and on their playgrounds, we look at them with very great sympathy and we ask ourselves where we can fit them in in South Africa so that they can be as happy in this country as we should like everybody in our country to be. That is my approach to this matter and it is in that spirit that I should like to say a few words about it. But I want to say that since yesterday it has become clear to me in this debate that there is a deep gulf between us on the Government side and hon. members of the Opposition. There is a gulf between us which in my opinion is unbridgeable in this specific case. The Opposition is inexorably opposed to the amendment of this Act because it was inexorably opposed also to the principal Act. The attitude that the Opposition is adopting to-day is only logical; it cannot really adopt a different attitude. The Opposition strongly opposes this amending Bill because it refuses to accept the idea of race classification and seeks to bring it into discredit. The Opposition rejects this principle in toto. As I have said, from their point of view I do not really blame them, because that is only a logical consequence of their whole attitude in the past, but it does reveal once again that on this point there is a great difference between us in principle.

I want to ask the hon. member whether there was not a time when he himself wholeheartedly supported this principle that we are supporting to-day?

I would say that question would be more appropriate at a political meeting and in the atmosphere of a political meeting than in this House where we are dealing with this important matter, nor is it in consonance with the spirit in which we are trying to discuss this matter. There are many things too that I could ask the hon. member in connection with his political past. However, I am not going to allow myself to be brought off the rails by that type of question.

You are running away.

It is because there is this difference between us that the Opposition is not willing to co-operate to bring about any improvement in the existing Act of 1950 Neither is the Opposition willing to try to make the best out of a bad case, from its point of view, and that is why it is this Government’s responsibility to put through this amending Bill, just as it was the Government’s responsibility to put the principal Act on to the Statute Book. It is also the Government’s responsibility to account to the country for this amending Bill, just as it was accountable for the passing of the principal Act. We are prepared to meet the country on reasonable grounds, on grounds of which we are convinced. But because we on this side of the House and the Minister are responsible for the implementation of the principal Act, it is perfectly logical, if the Act shows defects in the course of time, that those defects be remedied, otherwise the Government would have on the Statute Book an Act which cannot be properly implemented. I have asked myself this question: In spite of everything that has been said here, is there not some measure of agreement; have we not found some point of contact with the Opposition in this matter? It seems to me that there is one point where we are on common ground to some small extent, and that is on this question of the test of acceptance, the test of public opinion. Because if I understand the Opposition correctly, it has been said repeatedly by some of their speakers that the community will be the judge; that the opinion of the community is a fair opinion; that the opinion of society is the opinion by which we should allow ourselves to be guided in these matters. I want to say that is a very good idea; that it is certainly the ideal. I suppose the ideal is that the law must correspond with the practice, and conversely, what the community has been saying throughout the years should be reflected in our legislation. I should like now to try to prove that not only the old Act of 1950 but also the amending Bill which is now before the House tries to comply with this test of public opinion. Let me read out Clause 1 (a) of this amending Bill. It says specifically—

There it is specifically stated that the person concerned must not be accepted as a Coloured. That is the test which the community applies to that person—the Coloured community and the White community. That is the test of public opinion for which the Opposition pleaded. If he is not classified as a Coloured by the community, he is accepted as a White person. No other interpretation can be attached to Clause 1 (a): A person who in appearance is a White person and who, according to the test of society, is not a Coloured person. I feel, therefore, that the test that has been accepted generally in this House, both by this side and by the Opposition, is the test that we can use in connection with Clause 1 (a). There is nothing in this clause, therefore, that worries me.

But now we come to Clause 1 (b), which adds the words, “and who is not in appearance obviously not a White person”. In connection with Clause 1 (b), I should like to distinguish between what one would call a normal case, if one can talk about normal cases in regard to this whole problem, and abnormal cases. I contend that in normal cases, the cases that we have dealt with in past years, the position remains what it has always been: A person who is generally accepted as a White person. I submit that Clause 1 (b) will apply in the future to those people in precisely the same way as in the past. But if in appearance a person is obviously not a White person, if the Minister or the Secretary or the Director thinks so, it the Appeal Board thinks so, if the Supreme Court of his province thinks so, why then should we force him into the White category? I say, therefore, that this provision has not been inserted for normal cases, for the artificial cases.

This provision has only been inserted for abnormal cases, and here I should like the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to listen. We had such a case here yesterday evening when the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) talked about the signatures of those 350 Whites in connection with the case of the Chinese. When the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) spoke subsequently he said: “Let us take a far-fetched case. Let us assume that those 350 people had declared that they accepted a Bantu, a Native, as a White person.” The hon. member for Ceres then asked the Opposition: “What would you do with the Native in such a case; would you also accept him as a White person?” At that moment I looked at the hon. member for Turffontein, and I saw and heard him say “Yes”. I declare in this House that I was watching his face and, when the hon. member for Ceres asked whether in that case they would also accept that Native as a White person, the hon. member for Turffontein said, “Yes”.

I said “Yes” in the case of the Chinese.

No, the hon. member did not add anything; he simply said “Yes”, and I am willing to put that on record in this House. I want to say at once that I do not contend that the whole of the Opposition would have given that reply. But that is the sort of abnormal case that I am dealing with here, and it is to deal with that type of abnormal case that this addition has been inserted and the loophole in the Act closed. But with the assurance that the hon. the Minister has given, and with the right of appeal for which the Act provides to the Appeal Court and to the Supreme Court, I am convinced that abnormal cases will be dealt with as in the past, on both appearance and acceptance. On that basis I support Clause 1 (b). and I give my unqualified support to the whole of this Bill.

But now the Opposition says that there will be further exclusion in respect of people who will admit that they are Natives or Coloured persons. In that regard the hon. the Minister has introduced an amendment which says: “Unless it is proved that admission is not based on facts.” That does not worry me at all, because what will be the facts that will be adduced to prove that it is a false admission? If for some reason or other I personally were to go and admit that I was a Coloured, what would be the facts that would prove that my admission is not based on facts? Those facts would be my descent, my parents, my friends, my brothers. Regard will be had not only to my parents, but to my acceptance, to my descent. These are the facts that would prove that my admission was obviously a false admission. I am quite satisfied, therefore, that this clause should be inserted in the Bill. I should just like to ask the Minister, if I may, whether he will perhaps consider meeting the difficulty which the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has also mentioned again, the difficulty which worries the Opposition, and that is the difficulty of reclassification of people who have already been classified under the old definition, because, if such people ever have to be reclassified for some reason, the legal position will be that there will only be one definition, and that is the definition presently under consideration, because the old one will have been repealed. I want to ask the Minister whether he can go into that matter and give the House an assurance that will satisfy all of us. That is all I have to say with regard to this matter, which is a delicate one, and which is the outcome of the course on which we have embarked. I feel, therefore, that we should deal with this matter in such a way that we do the least harm to ourselves as Whites and to the prestige of this House in general. For these reasons I support the Bill, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to carry out his policy in the future, as in the past, with the greatest measure of circumspection and sympathy, in the interests of all groups and in the interests of our country.

I don’t intend to answer the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) in full. I would like to say that he ended his speech in the spirit in which I want to begin mine, and that is to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I intend to be constructive and that I do not intend to use the tragedies of certain people as a political football in this debate. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that I am sincere in my appeal to him to withdraw this Bill, and to consider another type of amendment which would meet the objections which the hon. the Minister has. The hon. Minister already shakes his head. Now to talk to a Minister who is adamant is difficult enough, but I want the Minister to understand that he is using a few instances which he has brought to our notice, to bring in an amending Act which is, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition rightly said, vicious. The hon. the Minister is using a tenton tractor to level a little antheap. That is what the Minister is doing. I am going to show to the hon. the Minister how dangerous this amending Bill is, and how easily his objections could be met by a much simpler amendment to the principal Act. First of all, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that his definition of appearance is very dangerous, and in fact most of the cases which are being investigated or which were investigated, arose because the enumerators in 1951 acted on appearance. I am informed that where people gave information that they were of a certain race and the enumerator thought, judging by their appearance, that the information was wrong, he put a question-mark on their forms. He judged their appearance, and he was the cause of these people being investigated, merely because the enumerator thought that on appearance certain people should be investigated. My authority for this statement is none other than the former Minister of the Interior, Mr. Naudé, who said in 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 101, Col. 6927)—

So you see, that as a result of that question-mark on those forms, merely by appearance, hundreds and hundreds of people had to suffer the indignity of having to prove that they were White, and the danger was “judging on appearance”. If that had not taken place, if appearance had not been the crux in the matter, you would not have had so many people investigated. The hon. the Minister knows the trouble that is being experienced in the City of Cape Town, and possibly also in other towns, as a result of judging by appearance. Does the hon. the Minister know the difficulty in regard to swimming baths, swimming pools to throw out little boys because of their dark appearance? How often does it not happen that they say “but I come from a White family”. Does the hon. Minister know the difficulties experienced in parks and gardens where you have notice boards “Europeans only”, where the official in charge has to say to a little boy “You can’t come in here, because it is for Europeans only”, and then getting the reply “but I come from a White family”? Does the hon. the Minister know the amount of trouble and tragedy that results from judging on appearance? And the hon. the Minister wants this Parliament to throw overboard “acceptance by the community” in favour of appearance”! I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he realizes what he is doing? I have had a lot of experience in this matter. How many cases have I not brought to the gentleman in charge at Roeland Street, where a person’s face was on the dark side but his body was pure white? Are you going to judge by the face of a man, or are you going to strip these people to see whether a man’s body is white? What does the hon. the Minister mean by “appearance”? Is he only going to judge his face? Because if that is so, there are a lot of members in this House who will be in jeopardy of losing their seats. I am not trying to be facetious. I know of many cases where young-

Now you are talking nonsense!

The hon. member for Heilbron is again interrupting. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell him that if he ever loses his voice, he will find it in my left ear. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that he is doing a very dangerous thing to judge in South Africa by appearance. He is taking a very, very dangerous step. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that I would like to assist in closing up those loopholes which he said do exist today. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions, and I am going to prove that this Bill was brought into being because the hon. Minister wants to counteract actions by boards and courts appointed by the Government itself. In the City of Cape Town there was a board which heard appeals regarding classification. Why were they disbanded? Because they passed everybody who applied. I know that they fell foul of the authorities in Pretoria. This board in Cape Town which consisted of a magistrate and two officials was disbanded because they judged in favour of applicants to the consternation of the officials in Pretoria. And they had to go.

How do you know that?

Let the hon. the Minister tell us why they were disbanded. They heard cases and there were plenty of further cases they could have heard, but all of a sudden they were disbanded. Why? Because they granted every application.

Everyone?

Yes, they did not refuse one.

Do you think they were impartial?

But they were appointed by the Government. They passed everyone. They would even have passed the hon. member as a European if he had applied. It was a Government appointed board. They were impartial people. They heard the evidence. Now let us come to the Song case. Did I hear the hon. Minister say “Dis nie waar nie”? I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to give us the reasons why the Board was disbanded. This Bill is the result of a judgment of another Government appointed Board. I believe that Board was wrong. It should never have accepted Mr. Song as a White man. I believe that the Act made it possible for them to refuse that application, because the old Act says—

Does that include the Chinese?

No, they are Chinese. They are not accepted as White persons. The Board failed.

That is not correct.

But the Minister knows that the Board was wrong.

The Board was completely right on the basis of the definition. That is also the opinion of the best legal advisere in the country. But of course the hon. member knows better.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must not think that I am an inexperienced man in public life. I have spoken to the Minister’s officials, and they say that the Board was wrong. Go and tell your officials that they don’t know what they are talking about.

Really?

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his officials said to me: We believe that the Board was wrong.

Now I come to the third loophole which the Minister wants to close. When there is a judgment of the Supreme Court against the Government, an Act is brought in to stop that kind of judgment.

Why not?

If you want to choke the legal system with Acts every time there is a judicial decision against the Government, then you are right. You might as well do away with your Judiciary if every time a man is found not guilty, you bring in an Act to say that the court shall find him guilty.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, but it must be sensible.

I would like to ask the hon. member, as a man who knows the law, whether this is the first Act that is being amended because there were loopholes in the original Act?

If there are loopholes in the original Act, and it is found out to be so in practice, then the Act is amended, but you don’t come and amend an Act because a judgment of a court goes against you.

Of course.

The judgment of the court was not in line with the policy of the Government, because that judgment said: “You cannot investigate such a case.”

May I ask the hon. member how he can discover loopholes without taking the case to court?

My answer is: How many judgments have there been when the law as a result of such judgment was altered? It happens once in a blue moon. As a result of administrative experience Acts are amended, but very seldom are Acts amended because of a judgment of the court. It is a most dangerous and pernicious system for any government to amend an Act merely because a judgment goes against their policy. And it affected only one family. In the last case that was quoted, the court held that the Registrar could not investigate such a case, that an investigation was not permitted. So promptly the the hon. the Minister brings in a Bill and says that he can appoint an investigator. It has been pointed out already how dangerous that can be, and I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that he should withdraw the Act because I realize the danger of this amendment and the danger of permitting people, informers, to have their way. This will give the informers a wonderful opportunity. All they have to do is to go to the Department and make an affidavit that A who has been declared a White person is in fact a Coloured man by descent.

I come to the next point. The hon. the Minister has said, and I accept his bona fides despite our disagreements politically, and despite the fact that the Minister thinks I don’t know much about law, that the admission to which he referred in this Bill is not a dangerous procedure. The hon. the Minister will never convince us of that. Let me give an example to the hon. the Minister. An application is made. Now the Government must realize that people who are pure-White do not have to make an application. Only people on whose form a question mark has been placed, or in respect of whom the 1951 Census indicated “mixed”, who are investigated. Now you have a young boy or girl who was 10 years old say in 1951, and who has now reached the age of 21. Possibly he left his home years ago and lived as a White person. He is accented as White. Suddenly he finds that he or she cannot get an identification card. May I say that I acknowledge that the Government has acted humanely in these cases. But this person comes and says: “For years I have lived as a White person. I have worked in a White office, I have worked on the Railways, and I now find that there is a skeleton in my cupboard.”The question is put to him: Are you White by descent? The person says “Yes I am, I think so”. “Oh, no,” says the official, “I don’t agree. I have your 1951 Census form filled in by your father and your father states that you are of mixed descent.” To the consternation of that person he is now suddenly a Coloured man. He is confronted with that evidence. The official then says “Do you admit that your father in 1951 put you down as ‘ mixed ’ or ‘ Coloured ’?”

That is exactly what happens.

Yes, and that official must then say to that person “You are Coloured, because you have admitted that you are Coloured by descent”.

Yes.

The hon. member agrees. But that is the tragedy of this Act. People who for years have lived as White people, not knowing about the 1951 Census, to their consternation are suddenly confronted with that evidence. And they must admit it, and once they have admitted it, they are done for. The officials dare not, despite all the assurances which the Minister gives us, pass that person because of his admission that he is Coloured by descent. How can the Minister overcome that?

He has qualified that.

The Minister has not qualified it. He has made it worse. The hon. member for Heilbron is no doubt suggesting that the Minister is qualifying it by the proposed amendment. I say that the proposed amendment is making the matter a hundred times worse because this is what the position will be: That applicant is asked by the official: “Are you a White person?” The applicant says: “Yes, I am a White person” and then the official says: “Oh no, I can prove that admission is not based on fact. I have evidence in my 1951 census that you are Coloured” and that person is gone. Do you realize what you are doing, Mr. Minister?

What are the facts on which it must be based?

I am not here to prove what facts.

The facts of his descent.

What I am dealing with is descent. Descent is the most tragic thing that the Minister could have brought into this Act. Believe me, Sir, I know of cases, hundreds of them where, if they hare to admit their descent, they will be declared Coloured tomorrow. You and I know of such people. Sir, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make a sincere appeal to the Government. If the Government wants to close up the loopholes about Chinese, if it wants to try to overcome abuses, as the Minister pointed out, of people making affidavits where the applicant applies for reclassification, it is so simple. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many more people are to be classified? How many more people are to be investigated? My information is there are only about 200. And the Minister is making a law to affect only a couple of hundred people! But when it comes to the children, does the Minister realize what he is doing to the children of the future? Those children, innocent children, believing that they are White may suddenly be confronted by an official who says: “I have evidence that you are Coloured by descent.” You are going to bring tragedy into the homes of hundreds of people by this amendment. Mr. Minister. Why should you do that? Why do you not bring in a simple amendment? I suggest that where it says here “A Coloured person means a person who is not a White person or a Native” he should add “or an Asiatic or Oriental”. I do not want to make fun about the Japanese. But seriously, if the Minister added those words he would obviously be closing the loopholes as far as the Chinese are concerned. That will be simple. Why bring in a Bill which in its implication can destroy all the things that the Minister said?

A point has been made which I think it is necessary for me to emphasize. I want the Minister to believe that we think highly of the officials; I pay credit to them, but they will not always be there to administer this Act as sympathetically as they are doing to-day. You may get officials who are very officious in their handling of this Act. They can easily say: “I reject you because I have the evidence in the 1951 census.” So you see, Mr. Speaker, the word “descent” is the most tragic and dangerous word. How many of you can prove your descent?

I can.

Be careful! [Interjections.] I am not suggesting anything but I want to say this that you are opening the door wide to the most criminal abuses…

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) entitled to call me a Nazi in this House?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

I did not name the hon. member as a Nazi.

You did.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Sir, the hon. member interjected and said that he could prove his descent and I said ‘ Yes, yours will probably be from Nazis”. That does not make the hon. member a Nazi. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn the hon. member for Turffontein. He makes all sorts of strongly worded remarks. I will overlook it now, but I want to warn him.

Thank you, Sir, but it was under very strong provocation from the hon. member.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) entitled to call the hon. member for Turffontein a Coolie?

Did the hon. member for Mossel Bay say that?

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I said “You know about Coolies”. [Interjections.]

Order! These unnecessary interjections must now stop. Hon. members are wasting the valuable time of this House. I am now forbidding any further interjections. The hon. member may continue.

Even if the hon. member for Mossel Bay did say that the hon. member for Turffontein was a Coolie, it just shows you how difficult it is to go by appearance.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he freezed all applications as from yesterday afternoon. Why? Surely, Sir, people who applied months ago and whose applications are still under consideration, should not now be prejudiced because of this amendment. I think it is most unfair that people who applied months ago shoud now be prejudiced. Many of us know from personal experience the red tape there is before an application is finally considered. Some applications are before the board or before the Department for as long as 12 or 18 months. Are all those people now to be told: “You must apply in terms of the new amendment”? May I make an appeal to the hon. Minister to make this amendment, if it has to become law, effective only in regard to applications made from the date of its acceptance and not to make it retrospective. I think the Minister would be doing a service to hundreds of people if he would not make it retrospective. It would be cruel if the Minister were to make it retrospective. I emphasize that some cases have been before the Department for as long as 18 months for classification and it would be very unfair if they have to be prejudiced by this.

To sum up his objection to the present position, the Minister gave us a few cases. He relied on the fact that 15 people had applied for re-classification—from White to Coloureds. I want to ask the Minister who initiated their first application? Those people themselves initiated their applications. Nobody forced them to apply to be White. Those 15 people who asked for re-classification surely initiated their original applications. If affidavits were furnished by M.P.s or others that they knew those 15 people and that they lived amongst and were accepted as Whites, how can you bring that as evidence to amend the law? How can you justify amending the law because 15 people out of thousands—the previous Minister said in 1961 there were about 40,000 in the Cape—feel uncomfortable in their new classification? The Minister advances that as a reason why he should amend the Act. The Minister mentioned the case of the one Chinaman—I do not want to stress that unnecessarily—and he amends the law! I want to warn the Minister that despite his assurances—assurances which I accept and which the House accept—this amendment, if it becomes law, will destroy all the good work which the Department has done and to which the Minister has referred. I say that emphatically. It will destroy all that. You are tying the hands of the officials, Sir. You are making it impossbile for them to use their discretion. You are making it absolutely watertight against the applicant. You are defeating the very object you are trying to achieve. If I cannot make the Minister understand that it is unfortunate. But I want to say this: We have dealt with these applications for years and years. We know them. The hon. member for Mossel Bay does not believe it.

*Mr. Speaker, may I reply when the hon. member is telling an untruth?

I thought you said it; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you said it by way of interjection.

Finally I want to raise one point. To show how unnecessary it is to amend the law I want to deal with the figures which the Minister gave us. I believe he said that in the case of 279 cases, where there were applications for classification as Whites by people who apparently had to apply, 233 were accepted and 46 refused. That indicates that out of those 279 cases 233 people were justified. But I venture to suggest that in the case of each of those people who had to apply because there was something wrong originally, if you look at the 1951 census. Sir, you will find that by descent they all have Coloured blood in them. If this Bill were law when those people applied, every one of those 233 would have been refused. If you go into their records you will find that in the case of every one of those 233 cases there is some evidence of Coloured blood, or a mixture of blood. I wish to emphasize to the House that shows how serious this amending Bill is because had it been law probably every one of those 233 would have been rejected. And what an injustice that would have been, Sir! I say that injustice will now come about in regard to future applications, on the same evidence, on a par with these 233 successful people. As from yesterday afternoon every one will be refused.

I want to conclude on this note. As the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), the hon.the Minister and other hon. members have said, we are proud of our South African race; In what way can 300 or 400 people who may be on the borderline affect the purity of a race of over 3,000,000 people? As I said at an earlier stage, why do you use a 10-ton tractor to smooth down an antheap? Why do you bring in such a vicious amendment—it is a vicious amendment—in order to save White South Africa the doubtful fear of having 400 borderline cases in the White community? Under the existing law there is plenty of protection against people who are obviously Coloured and who want to become White. There is no reason to introduce this amending Bill to overcome the difficulties which the Minister believes he has. Simple amendments can be made to meet the cases which the Minister has mentioned. I want to ask him again in all sincerity to withdraw this Bill, come forward with something less vicious and I am sure we will try to assist to close the loopholes which obviously exist. I wish to say again to the Minister: You will destroy all the good which you have built up if you insist upon this Bill. I think the hon. the Minister will do a disservice to himself and a disservice to his Department and his officials if he persists with this amendment.

We have been listening here, I might almost say ad nauseam, to Jeremiads from the other side of the House about the bitter suffering and the injustice that this Bill will cause if it is placed on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) who has just sat down, after having done his very best to achieve the opposite of what he said in his concluding statement, said here, “We are proud of our White South African race.” And he had the temerity to say that, after he had done his level best for 40 minutes to indicate to all those who were looking for loopholes where they could find such loopholes. I want to ask him and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) pertinently whether they do not want the White nation of South Africa to remain White; whether they want miscegenation, and whether they want to do their very best in this House, where their speeches are reported in the public Press, to bring about a state of affairs in which the blood of the White man in South Africa will inevitably be mixed with that of the non-White?

Mr. Speaker, these hon. members who talk in this way know nothing about the history of South Africa. I am sure that neither of those two members is aware of the fact that Simon van der Stel, when he undertook his journey to Namaqualand, issued a proclamation against clandestine affairs between his soldiers and the Native women. They do not know that, and now they come along with these sob stories. The hon. member for Point has mentioned a case here where the parents, were registered as Whites, the one child as a Coloured and the other as an Indian. I say that the example given by him is a far-fetched one. But I shall give him a few other figures in a moment, if the hon. the Chief Whip of the Opposition will leave him alone so that he can give his attention to me. The hon. member for Boland, if I understood him correctly, has stated that parents are classified as Whites while the child is classified as “Coloured”. Yes, he did say that the parents were registered as Whites and the child as a Coloured. As a lawyer, and particularly as a representative of Coloureds in the Western Province, he ought to know that if parents, even if they have Coloured blood, are registered as Whites and they went along years ago and registered their child as a Coloured because they know that they had Coloured blood in their veins, they can apply for their child to be registered as a White person because of the fact that they are registered as Whites. The hon. member cannot deny that. He ought to know it, but he does not know it, and yet he is a representative of the Coloureds! But there are members sitting behind me who have already taken up various cases of that kind.

I said so.

No, the hon. member did not say it. His words were that was the tragedy of the situation. I wrote down his words, and what he said was, “That is the tragedy of this apartheid.” He said that it was a tragedy that parents were classified as Whites and their poor little child as a Coloured. As a representative of the Coloureds he ought to know that sort of case can be rectified, in the same way that hon. members sitting behind me have frequently rectified such classifications in the past. The hon. member did not mention that because he wanted to create an impression outside this House. If I understood him incorrectly, what then is the tragedy of this? When the two parents, although they have Coloured blood, are classified as White persons and they themselves, when the child was born, informed the Registrar of Births that he was Coloured, is it a tragedy if those parents apply for the child to be declared a White person? Is that a tragedy? You see, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends are simply putting up a smokescreen.

But I just want to say this. There are three Acts on the Statute Book of South Africa which cannot be separated. The state of affairs that we have to-day, the fact that we have to introduce this amending Bill, is the cumulative effect of these three Acts. The first is the Immorality Act of 1927, as subsequently amended when this Government came into power. The second is the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949, and the third is the Population Registration Act of 1950. These three Acts cannot be separated because the one links up with the other. Hon. members opposite who are now conversing when I am addressing them—I should like to have the attention of hon. members opposite because I am speaking to them—have overlooked one thing. When the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was introduced in 1949 in this House, the then Minister of the Interior, Dr. Dönges, mentioned certain figures to substantiate his statements, and inter alia he quoted from a commission report which appeared in 1939. It must be remembered that this is a commission which was appointed by the then United Party Government. What were the findings of that commission?

Have you finished with me now?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have finished with the hon. member for Boland, because I see he is finished; he can go. At that time the Minister said—

Hon. members on the other side pleaded for the opposite; they wanted more and more people on the other side of the White line to be allowed to enter the White group. In 1927 this House passed a measure which went further than any of the laws of our provinces when it placed the Immorality Act on the Statute Book. That Act made intercourse between Whites and Natives a punishable offence. It was confined, however, to extramarital intercourse and only to intercourse between Whites and Natives. That Act went no further than that. The hope that it would check miscegenation was not fully realized, and in 1936 the late Major Roberts, the then member for Vrededorp, introduced a Bill here to prevent mixed marriages between Whites and non-Whites. That Bill was thrown out. In 1937 General J. J. Pienaar, the then member for Marico, again introduced a Bill to prohibit mixed marriages. He and Maj. Roberts did the necessary preparatory work at that time, but the outcome was that in 1938 the Mixed Marriages Commission was appointed by the United Party Government. It was appointed by the very people who now have so much to say and who complain about the classification of people as Bantu, as Coloured and as White persons. I should like to read out what the finding of that commission was, and then you will see the hollowness of the arguments of members on the other side, to whom we have had to listen here ad nauseam. In paragraph 70 of its report the commission said—

There we have the public opinion. I am sorry that the hon. member for Boland was in such a hurry to leave because I should have liked him to listen to this. However, there are members who belong to his group. The attitude of the other races, of the Bantu, for example, is apparently definitely against mixed marriages. That is stated in paragraph 84. The commission then goes on to say this about the Coloureds—

Then we go further. According to paragraph 90 of the report even the Indians declared that they were opposed to mixed marriages. And does the hon. member for Boland who spoke here want to suggest to me that the group to which he belongs is not against mixed marriages?

May I put a question to you?

Certainly.

I should like to hear from the hon. member what the findings of that commission were. Did they say that legislation should be introduced? And what were the numbers?

If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall come to the numbers and also to the findings of the commission. The finding of the commission was this—

The commission then mentions two reasons It came to the conclusion that public opinion would exercise sufficient pressure. That is precisely where I am going to tie up the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). In the ten years before the appointment of that commission, or before the report was brought out, namely from 1928 to 1937, we find that there was a certain number of mixed marriages. Let us compare that with the number in the ten years after the commission brought out its report, namely from 1938 to 1947. We find that the total number of mixed marriages in the ten years before the commission sat was 912, and the number of mixed marriages in the ten years after the sitting of the commission was 913. As far as numbers are concerned, therefore, there was a steady increase. Over that period of 20 years, therefore. 1,825 mixed marriages were contracted. I do not want to weary hon. members further with figures, but let us take that at an average of four children per family—and I am talking now about the position years ago. If the National Party had not introduced legislation to check this thing—and I readily admit that it has not been checked 100 per cent because illicit intercourse is still taking place between Whites and non-Whites, but mixed marriages can no longer take place—what would the position be now? One gets the cases that the Jeremiahs on the other side mentioned where White persons, in order to circumvent our laws, such as the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act, want themselves to be declared Coloured persons. But is that the Government’s fault or is it their own fault? I just want to say that if we do not tighten up the Population Registration Act as contemplated in this Bill, we can write off the ideal that is cherished by the White race in South Africa to keep our nation White for all time to come.

I made some attempt yesterday to follow the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite. They attempted to give their interpretation of the definition of a White man and of a Coloured man, and beyond that, to give their definition of the definition in the Bill. I believe it would be an interesting exercise to try to tabulate merely the definitions of the definition, side by side in each case, and to see whether it is physically possible to draw a conclusion from all those definitions. I submit that the more one listened yesterday to the definitions of the one or other racial group and the interpretations of the definitions contained in the Bill, the more difficult, if not impossible, it became to follow the arguments, and to arrive at any conclusion. The analogy which occurred to me was that it was like the attempt of certain artists nowadays, who are regarded in their own sphere as being artists, to produce a work of art in a certain fashion. You may be aware of this technique, Sir, where the so-called artist stands at a certain distance from his canvas, takes his container of paint and puts a spoon into it and just throws the paint at the canvas, and then he frames it—and it constitutes a “picture” which is shown at exhibitions in all seriousness and is even paid for by people. That resembles in artistic terms the attempt made yesterday to find a definition of a White or a Coloured person. There is another way of doing it which has come to the notice of the public quite recently, when a young man spread his canvas on the ground poured a lot of paint on to it and then got a motor-car and drove to and fro on his canvas and the result was called a painting! This “legitimate” art was somewhat illegitimate because he had taken the car without the owner’s permission—but it was still regarded as legitimate art. Ridiculous as it seems, that is the picture which emerged from the debate here and from the attempts made to be logical and reasonable in the definition of the racial groups concerned in this legislation. For example, the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) even went beyond the scope of the argument when he said in effect that the United Party could not possibly envisage its race federation policy without a race classification, which we had said was objectionable. But as was pointed out by the hon. member for Pinelands, who merely touched on the matter, the question of voting rights has nothing to do with race classification as such. I put this to the hon. member for Omaruru with great respect, because I believe he has had legal training. We have the laws and the necessary machinery to define who may in certain circumstances vote in a certain sphere, whether municipal, provincial or parliamentary, and who may not vote; and that has been the case for many years since the machinery of democracy in regard to voting rights has existed, well in advance of race classification. The hon. member need not be unduly worried about what the United Party would do in applying its policy of race federation without this sort of legislation.

So there will be no such plan.

The hon. member says there will be no plan. As you have ruled, Sir, that there should be no interjections, I leave it at that. However, we will await the day when hon. members opposite do the reasonable thing and make way for a good Government. They will then find out how to establish a race federation without race classification. Let us leave it at that.

Another point made by the hon. member for Omaruru was that he could not see any hardship in classifying someone who was obviously White as a non-White. I think he said there would be the procedure in terms of this Bill of the inspector calling, and if the person was not satisfied with his classification he could appeal to the Board, and if he was still not satisfied he could appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, that is surely an unreasonable argument. How would the hon. member like to be faced, through no fault of his own, because he has not committed an offence—he has merely committed the offence of existing behind a certain complexion—how would he like to be put through all those hoops like a performing dog, in order to prove something of which he and his immediate neighbours and the society in which he lives are already well aware of? Yet he argues that there is no particular hardship in it. I can only say that we should from time to time try, even in this debating chamber, to apply the simple precept of “doing unto others what you would like them to do unto you”, and then see how the argument comes out. He went on to say that if a person admits that he is non-White, what harm can be done? First of all, we must assume that such a person is not entirely isolated from the rest of humanity, although he may be a person about whose colour there is a doubt. No man is an island.… This man has a family; he has parents, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, and children, and vet the hon. member for Omaruru says: What harm can be done if this man, whether in a fit of aberration, or whether he is in his cups, or whether he says it under pressure or as a joke, admits that he is a non-White when he has lived as a White man all his life? Well, things may be very different in Omaruru, but outside of Omaruru it would make, as the Americans would say, one heck of a difference for that man to have made that admission. I would like the hon. member to realize that we cannot all see these matters in such splended simplicity, as is apparently possible in the wastes of Omaruru.

Now, coming to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), I must say with great respect that I tried very hard to follow his argument, but it was an exceedingly complex one. I wished at times that the hon. the Minister of Transport was present when the hon. member spoke, because he is so fond of saying: “You contradict yourself.” Throughout his argument the hon. member for Parow contradicted himself time and again, piling Pelion upon Ossa, until nobody knew what was going to come out of it at all—and all this in an attempt to define a race group. He said in effect that the investigator to be appointed in terms of Clause 4 would not go on a witchhunt. He would merely go to find out whether the evidence submitted was correct. Now, if this Bill becomes law—and one must assume that it can—it will be very reassuring to assume that whoever was sent out, by the official concerned, under this clause was not only a man of great experience and ability in regard to such matters as genetics and social customs, but also a very fair and honest man. It would be very pleasant to assume that, but unfortunately in public life, in and out of officialdom, there are too many examples of people who are neither experienced nor just, and too many examples of people who are neither fair nor honest; and I submit that it is impossible at this stage to foretell the number of people who will be exposed to the unscrupulous activities of these snoopers, as they have been called, who are not necessarily officials of the Department with a certain standard of conduct to observe, but people who may have been hired for the task and who will then go out to get the information the Minister requires. For example, it is common cause that the private detective agencies, the so-called “private eyes”, make a very lucrative practice of observing what goes on between a man and a woman when there is a possible divorce involved, and then they think nothing whatever, according to reported cases, of enriching themselves by fabricating the necessary evidence, or enriching themselves by making a certain situation possible of which they can then bring back the evidence to their principal which it suits him to obtain—and then say to the person who is found in default: If you pay me so much, I will not take this information back to my principal. In other words those who support this legislation are asking for a great increase in corruption and graft—and with that I should now like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour?

I asked for the half-hour to deal with the matters of policy under the Vote, Social Welfare and Pensions. Before doing so, I would like to say that in regard to keeping abreast with the activities and policy of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, I feel that it is important that regular reports should be submitted by that Department. For instance, during the 1960 Session a report was tabled by this Department for the period 1 April 1952 to 31 March 1959, covering a period of seven years. This report, covering all the activities of the Department, was a most comprehensive one, which has proved to be invaluable to those interested in social welfare matters. To fit in with the framework of social work between the State and the Church and welfare organizations and the community it is important that we should have at regular intervals a report from this Department. I believe that this report, which covered seven years, was naturally very comprehensive and one cannot expect to receive such a report every year. However, I ask the Minister to try to table at regular intervals a report of the activities and the policy of this important Department. The number of people affected by the amount of money to be voted here amounts to many hundreds of thousands, and when one looks at the vast activities of the Department, like Child Welfare. Social Security, Social Pensions, Civil Pensions, administration and certain research surveys that have been carried out, many thousands of people are involved. Therefore I believe that this Vote is perhaps one of the most important Votes to be dealt with, and therefore the amount of R72,700,000 which is required to be voted under this heading—more than half this amount, R37,000 000-odd, is to be voted under war veterans’ pensions, old age pensions, blind persons’ pensions and disability grants under Head “K”, and it is under this Head that I first wish to address the Minister.

The question of the old age pensions, and indeed, all social pensions, is one of vital concern to all those receiving such pensions and also to the many who hope to receive them in future. In reply to a question earlier this Session, it was revealed that there were 86,756 old age White pensioners, 25 165 White war veteran pensioners, making a total of 111.921 pensioners merely for old age pensions and war veterans’ pensions. That gives some indication of the large number of people involved, and indeed that number is increasing. Due to the advances of medical science, it has been shown in various surveys that the span of life, particularly amongst the Whites in South Africa, and throughout the world, has increased. In 1911 the number of White people over 60 years was 4 per cent, but to-day it is 10 per cent. That means that there are some 300,000 people over 60, and by the year 2,000 there will be some 700,000 such persons. A large number of these people are endeavouring to eke out an existence on a hopelessly inadequate pension. I am fully aware of the fact that during the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, proposals were made in regard to increasing these pensions. Indeed. I believe that the recipients of these pensions are grateful for the increase. However. I must say that it is a very small increase indeed, because an increase of R18 per annum means that these people will receive a bonus of R1.5 per month for the White pensioners. We must realize that, in terms of the Pensions Act, these people are able to draw a maximum pension of R24 5 per month, and that is merely for the White pensioners. In view of the fact that the policy is to pay pensions in the ratio of twelve to six to five in regard to Coloured and Asiatic pensioners, we can see that there is a very small increase for those persons. In fact, the increase for the White pensioner only amounts to 5 cents a day. Consequently we can see that it is a very small increase indeed. Before dealing with that I would like to say a few words in regard to the civil pensioners, because this matter has been the cause of a great deal of discontent among civil pensioners, in regard to persons who retired prior to October 1953. To a certain extent their requests have been met by an increase for the civil pensioners in connection with the bonus, which means that those who retired prior to October 1953 will now no longer be unfairly discriminated against. Similarly, the problem of the Coloured ex-servicemen and their war veterans’ pensions, and the ratio between the social pensioner and the war veteran pensioners, has now been put on a more realistic basis. However, various difficulties arise and difficulties are experienced by these people in trying to exist on the amount provided for them, and that is something I believe every member of this House should concern himself with. Because in a large number of urban constituencies there are many thousands of aged persons struggling to exist on an inadequate pension. And when I say that they are struggling to exist. I really mean that they are struggling to exist, because in the twilight of their lives, when these people are unable to fend for themselves, in many cases due to circumstances beyond their control, they are unable to maintain a decent standard of living and we find that they often have to live in conditions of squalor. Surveys which have been carried out have shown that a number of these people are living in very drab circumstances indeed. I would just like to mention here that a person who lives in my constituency, in Umbilo, has put forward a case which I believe should receive the consideration of the hon. the Minister, and that is in regard to the provision of more adequate housing for the aged. Many of these people, especially womenfolk, widows, etc., have great difficulty in obtaining accommodation in homes for the aged. Many of these homes for the aged have waiting lists of sometimes over 200 names. I have a letter here which illustrates what I believe is not an isolated case: it is a good illustration of the position of many people who are living under very difficult conditions, sometimes poverty-stricken conditions. This letter says—

I believe that is an example of a large number of cases where people are suffering hardships to-day in their old age. I think it is a very poor reward for these people who have contributed so much towards the development of their country to have to live the twilight of their years under such conditions. I know that the hon. the Minister is aware of these conditions and of the fact that these people, unable to obtain admission to certain homes, have to try to exist on the paltry sum that is provided for them by means of an old-age pension.

Under the Department of Education, the Bureau of Education and Sociological Research conducted a country-wide investigation into the lives of the aged. In the reply given by the Minister to this House on 20 February he stated that the report was now being considered and that considerable progress had been made in this regard. I hope that in the course of this debate the hon. the Minister will give some indication as to what progress has been made in this regard. This appears to have been a country-wide investigation into the lives of aged persons, and a very valuable report should have been submitted by the Bureau; so I do hope that the Minister will give some further information in regard to this investigation, because this investigation was carried out during 1959.

Sir, the inadequacy of the amount received by persons who qualify for pensions is one matter but the cases which I believe deserve the earnest and sympathetic attention of the Government are those cases who fail to qualify for a pension because of the application of the means test. In considering the whole question of the means test, many of us who have seen the anguish and the anxiety of persons who do not know where to turn when they are advised that they do not qualify for a pension, would like to see the means test abolished. However, we have to be practical and realize that it would not be possible to abolish the means test, because of economic reasons. However, it would be possible to abolish the means test if a contributory pension scheme was introduced, and I hope later on to refer to that, but in the first instance, pending the adoption of such a scheme, I believe it is imperative that the Central Government should take positive steps to relax the means test. I believe that the hon. the Minister would be doing a great service to the aged if he were to appoint an interdepartmental committee to investigate ways and means of relaxing the means test, because the free income that is permitted in the application of the means test and the application of the property qualifications, appear to be two important matters that require the earnest and immediate attention of the Minister. When a person applies for an old-age pension or for a disability grant—because I understand that the means test is the same—the applicant is allowed a free income of R180 per annum before any deduction is made from his pension or disability grant or any of the other social pensions. But when he reaches an income in excess of R312 per annum, in other words R26 per month, he is no longer entitled to any pension whatsoever. I believe that the level of this free income should be raised because where a person over the age of 70 is still in employment and receives pay or salary, that is not taken into account in applying the means test. I believe that the free income of R180 per annum should be raised so as to make provision for persons who have made investments and who have certain moneys coming to them, so that they will then qualify for some pension, which will not necessarily be the full pension, of course, but a pro rata pension. However, I believe that this is a matter which an inter-departmental committee should investigate, because naturally we would have to take into account how many people would be able to qualify for a pension and what the financial implications would be for the State. Secondly, the other matter which I believe such an interdepartmental committee should investigate is the question of property qualifications. I believe that is even more necessary than the question of free income, because the formula applied under the means test is based on assets worth R2,400. Although the basis of calculation allows for amounts in excess of that in regard to the unemcumbered value of his property, the whole basis of the calculation in the case of a married person is assets to the value of R2,400. We realize too that a house occupied by the applicant is taken into consideration and that the occupational value is assessed at 1½per cent on the first R800 of the unencumbered value of his property, and at 2½ per cent on the balance of the unencumbered value. In the case of the single person, there too the bascic pension is reduced by 5 per cent of the unencumbered value of such assets in excess of R1,200. I submit that the basis of this calculation is far too low, particularly when we take into consideration the fact that in a large number of municipalities properties have been revalued, and persons who are potential pensioners and future applicants for pensions will be unfairly treated under this particular provision, because they might then find that they do not qualify for the old-age pension. I believe it is only just and fair that the Minister should take cognisance of the fact that these people will now be at a distinct disadvantage when they come to apply for an old-age pension. If they do qualify for a pension, they might only qualify for a reduced amount. I believe that this is a matter of vital importance which should be investigated by any committee that is set up.

Which people are you referring to?

I am referring to the applicant for an old-age pension. I am pointing out that because of the increase in municipal valuations in a large number of municipal areas, some people will find that the increased municipal value of their property will preclude them from applying for a pension. I am not referring to the person who is already a pensioner. I understand that those persons will not be affected by any such re-valuation, but I am concerned about those people who do not qualify for a pension at the present time. There are many thousands of people who are ekeing out an existence in rooms, living with other people. I have seen old-age pensioners trying to live on a small pension, having to live in rooms in backyards in small alleys and streets in large municipal areas, and other persons who have property find that they are unable to qualify for a pension because of their thrift and the fact that they have invested in property which is not encumbered. Many of these people have been ill advised to sell their properties and to dispose of certain assets, and then they find that they still do not qualify for a pension because of the cash investment standing to their credit or any cash investment that they might have disposed of. I believe therefore that he question of setting up an inter-departmental committee to investigate the question of the relaxation of the means test is of the utmost importance at the present stage.

I mentioned earlier that the abolition of the means test could only come about with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. I know, Sir, that you would rule me out of order if I were to advocate legislation, but unfortunately the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions was not present when the debate was held in this House on a motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). During the course of that debate we put forward our proposals in regard to a contributory pension scheme. I may say just briefly that with the introduction of such a scheme, we forsee the possibility of abolishing the means test and that people will be able to qualify for pensions as a right and not merely as a privilege. I feel that at this stage there is no necessity for me to outline our scheme to the hon. the Minister, because what is under review here is the Minister’s policy and we are anxious to ascertain the Minister’s reaction to a contributory pension scheme. I know that this matter has been investigated from time to time by his Department, because in the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, covering the period 1952 to 1959, reference is made on page 66 to the fact that a meeting of the International Social Security Association was held in London during May 1958 and was attended by a member of the Minister’s Department as an observer. At the same time, the report states, this observer studied a contributory social pension scheme or system of certain European countries in loco. It then states that the official concerned has also submitted a report. I hope that the Minister at this stage will be able to give us some indication of the policy and his attitude in regard to a contributory pension scheme. Because, as I said, with the introduction of such a scheme we foresee that it will be possible to abolish the means test, something which has been desired for many years. Various committees which have investigated the effects of the means test, have all come to the conclusion that it is an invidious test and that the sooner it is abolished the better. In this regard I would like to quote one passage in connection with the means test from the report of the Select Committee on Social Security of 1944. The Committee state—

Similarly a national conference that was held to study post-war planning on social welfare work in Johannesburg in September 1944, also came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest to effect a gradual abolition of the means test for old-age pensioners. Sir, this is an ideal that we must strive to achieve, because it will mean a great alleviation of the difficulties and hardships presently being suffered by people who do not qualify for a pension in terms of this means test. We know that the Government’s attitude to this whole problem is to encourage the establishment of private pension schemes. In this regard we have given our opinion on various occasions on private pension schemes and the various disadvantages that do arise. Even hon. members opposite realize those disadvantages. People resign their positions so as to obtain the benefit of funds which have accrued to them under this scheme. There are numerous other difficulties. For example, people over 45 years of age often find great difficulty in finding employment where firms have their own pension schemes and they do not qualify as contributors to those schemes. However, one aspect which I believe could go towards a relaxation of the means test, is an extension of private pension schemes. I know that is the Government’s policy, and since it is the Government’s policy, surely as more people are covered by such private pension schemes, with the extension of that scheme, so it will be possible to relax the means test in the case of people who do not fall within such schemes. Sir, this Vote that we are considering to-day involves R72,000,000, of which R37,000,000 goes towards pensions. Provision is also made for a sum of R14,000,000 as a contribution to pension and provident funds. In these circumstances I feel that we should have a statement from the Minister in regard to the success or otherwise of the extension of private pension schemes. This is a matter on which we would like to have further information to see whether the Government has in fact been able to encourage the establishment of further private pension schemes. We want to be able to gauge the degree of success in this particular regard.

Sir, these are all matters which vitally affect the person who is not presently covered by any form of insurance, who has no security in his old age. We also know that the corner-stone of any social security programme is security in old age, and it is here that I believe that a great step can be taken to cover as many persons as possible by means of insurance, private pension schemes and ultimately a contributory pension scheme.

There are certain other administrative matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Firstly, there is the question of some form of brochure, leaflet or booklet that could be provided at the regional offices and at the offices of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as a guide to applications for social pensions, This is a matter which has caused a great deal of difficulty amongst numerous applicants for old-age pensions. I realize that in this matter welfare organizations are playing a very important role, and indeed without the assistance of welfare organizations to alleviate the hardships of the aged, their position to-day would be unbearable. The distribution of such a pamphlet, which would serve as a guide to potential pensioners, would prove of immense value to persons wishing to apply for the old-age pension. I believe too that to a certain extent it would obviate what brings about a great deal of hardship to-day, and that is overpayments. Some of these people, in their ignorance, do not advise the Department of a change in their financial position. There are numerous cases where people drew unemployment benefit or received the proceeds of an endowment policy and failed to advise the Department immediately. When the Department finds out what has transpired, the pensioners are called upon to repay the amount that they have been overpaid. These overpayments amount to a considerable sum. The Minister gave the House certain figures last year, in reply to a question, in regard to overpayments. He stated that the latest available figures were for 1959-60 and that the overpayments during that financial year had amounted to R638,000. [Time limit.]

The previous speaker will forgive me if I do not deal with all the matters he mentioned; I am sure others will do so. I can only say that the record of this Government proves that it is not indifferent to the position of our pensioners, but that it has devoted attention to this matter practically every year, as other speakers who follow me will indicate.

In the short time at my disposal I want to deal particularly with two matters under this Vote, Items “L” and “V”, Child Welfare and the care of the aged and the ill. I want to point out that a large amount is devoted every year for the care of children in need of care. If we analyse this Vote carefully we will see what a large amount is spent with this praiseworthy object every year. A large number of these children in need of care are housed in institutions, and we are grateful to the State for having made it possible to have such places where these children can be cared for. But we cannot get away from the fact that as long as institutions of that nature exist, they really constitute a disguised complaint against our society, because such places are necessary. In other words, they really prove how family life has been broken up to an ever-increasing extent. With this in mind, we feel that every attempt made to combat this disillusion and every positive step taken to promote healthy family life ought to enioy the attention of this House and of this Government and should have the support of everybody who has the interests of our nation at heart and who wants to promote a healthy nation. That is why we want to refer here to-day particularly to one of the greatest positive steps taken last year, in Family Year. Family Year started on Union Day, 1960, and reached its culmination in the Family Congress which was held in Pretoria from 4 to 7 April 1961. I want to point out that in this Family Year it was our ideal to strengthen all the principles on which a sound family life is based. The State President, who on that occasion made the inaugural speech, inter alia, said this—

Those words were not exaggerated. Every sociologist will confirm that unless one has a sound family life one can have no society; then one cannot establish an orderly and sound society. The words of the State President were also confirmed on that occasion by the hon. the Minister when he stressed the importance of this Congress and pointed out that the task of this Congress should be to indicate a line of efficient action for the future. The appeal made by the Control Committee on that occasion was an earnest appeal to all bodies which have the fostering of a sound family life at heart to make a positive contribution to the promotion of sound family life, each within its own sphere. That Control Committee took the lead by means of two brochures which it distributed before the time, the first containing the announcement of Family Year and thereafter gave guidance for Family Year which resulted in the fact that people emphasized the importance of the family life of the nation from every possible platform and pulpit. That resulted in a congress being held where there was a congregation of 750 selected delegates from all over the country. When one reads what was done at that congress it strikes one how direction was given by the various persons who read important treatises. They were asked to concentrate in terms of a positive approach on the formulation of the basis on which family life can be stabilized and that they should only, if it is at all necessary, devote, additional attention to the analysis and description of the prevailing unhappy state of affairs. That is a very important fact because we are too negative in our approach to this problem. We condemn too much the negative things which assist in breaking up the family, and emphasize too little the positive steps which can be taken to make family life sound and to keep it that way. Therefore this important Congress did not try to emphasize the negative, but sought a positive approach. On that occasion, 19 treatises of outstanding value were read on ten different subjects. The matter was approached from the sociological, the psychological, the economic, the educational and the religious aspects. It is therefore clear that we are dealing here with a Congress the object of which was to emphasize one of the very real problems of our nation and to look for a possible solution for it. When we look at the results of that congress we can say that it tried to formulate a sound policy for the future. The conclusion arrived at by that congress is that it is the task of the State increasingly to initiate research in regard to this problem, which will result in the formulation of a family policy in which the efforts of all interested bodies can be co-ordinated and which will put family life on a sound basis. Sir, the task was not completed by holding that congress. That was only initial spadework. The State and the Church and all interested bodies must co-operate in formulating and propagating and sound family policy. I fear that our welfare policy is still often too negative. We are dealing with those who have fallen by the wayside, the children who have to be protected, the people who need assistance. We deal with that aspect of the matter, but we do too little in the way of formulating a positive, comprehensive policy which will get to the root cause of the disruption and the disrupted processes we find in our society. We must make it our task—and it is the task not only of the Government but of all those who deal with this work every day, welfare organizations and institutions which are specialized in this respect, and all the various welfare organizations—to think together and to garner the facts which can result in the formulation of a comprehensive policy which will keep family life stable. In the second place, I should like to refer to another matter, the care of our aged. Former speakers have already pointed out that the aged are men and women who have borne the heat of the battle. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss one point, that is one of the few remaining blots on our war pensions legislation. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister how this also is of importance in regard to our expanding Defence Force and that therefore it covers a wider field now than before. I am sure I have one man on my side in this regard, and that is the hon. the Minister of Defence, because he had the honour of opening the congress of the S.A. Legion of the B.E.S.L. at Muizenberg the other day and this difficulty was pointed out to him in no uncertain terms, and I know that he considered it important enough from the point of view of his troops to make voluminous notes during the discussion. We are the last of those countries who were wartime allies, members of the Commonwealth, to retain what are called “time limits” in regard to payment of marriage and children’s allowances. The present position is that I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter again, because it now covers a wider field of people than before. Shortly, the history of this matter is as follows. Under the War Pensions Act of 1942, as amended, if a pensioner marries more than ten years after his discharge or any of his children are born after ten years, he is precluded from receiving allowances for such wife or child. The history of this time limit question, shows how questionable the origin of the idea was. In 1942, the definition of “a child” was: “Child” means a child of a volunteer born before, during, or within 280 days after the termination of the volunteer’s service. I don’t want to use any mathematical calculations in regard to the 280 days, but I do suggest that if a man was discharged say at Cape Town and lived in Pietersburg, he would possibly have some difficulties. In 1943. this definition was changed to: “Child” means the child of a volunteer born before, during or within five years after the termination of the volunteer’s service”. In 1944 it was again amended: “Child means the child of a volunteer born at any time within the period preceding his enlistment, or the period of his service, or within the period of five years after termination of his service,. or eight years after such termination if the degree of pensionable disability was 80 per cent or above And then follow the other conditions which are not germane to my argument. In 1946 it was again amended: “Child” means a child born before or not later than ten years after the termination of the volunteer’s military service. Now this Act applies to these new boys of ours who are enlisted. There was a further amendment in 1947 in the definition of “Child”, but that does not affect the “time limit”. The same position applies in the case of widows. In 1942: A widow in relation to a volunteer means the widow of a volunteer, but does not include a woman who is married to such volunteer after the date of his discharge from military service. That was the position in 1942. That was obviously ridiculous. It was amended in 1943: “Widow” in relation to a volunteer, “means the widow of a volunteer, but does not include a woman whose marriage to such a volunteer took place more than five years after the date of the volunteer’s discharge from military service”. This was again amended in 1944 to five years after the date of discharge where the pensionable disability was under 80 per cent, and eight years after that date if the pensionable disability was more than 80 per cent. It followed the line taken in the case of a child. In 1946 there was another change: “Means a woman married to a volunteer before or not later than ten years after the termination of his military service”. Again there was a small amendment in the definition in 1947, which however does not affect this particular point, and there was another amendment which also does not affect my argument.

I would like to point out at this stage that at one time there was a fear that this question of wives of chaps who came back from the war, disabled, might lead to a social evil which was referred to as a “death-bed marriage”. The fear was that an unscrupulous woman might go and nurse some fellow who was obviously on his death-bed because of war disability, getting him to marry her at the last minute and then collect the widow’s pension. Or a man might try to help his woman friend, possibly for favours received, towards the end of his life. You know how a man may feel about his nurse. There was that fear that a man might marry his nurse, purely for the reason that she would get a pension. Now this idea has been totally abandoned and in any case can be legislated against and has been legislated against in other countries.

I want to go back a little bit. It ought to be remembered that if a war pensioner dies of his pensionable disabilities and he marries outside the time limit, after ten years, his wife and children will receive no benefits at all. I submit that is most unfair. In 1944. at the instance of the S.A. Legion of the B.E.S.L. the Brinton Committee was appointed to go into this matter and that was when the time limit was increased to ten years. In 1948, after further agitation by the S.A. Legion, the Smit Committee was appointed and then the ex-service men had two representatives on that committee. This committee found that the ten-year limit was fair, but there was a minority report from the two ex-servicemen saying that the time limit should be removed altogether.

It was not only in the Union that this matter was receiving attention, but it received attention all over the world. The position in the other countries which we regarded as our wartime friends, and who are still our friends, is as follows (I am quoting from a letter. I think most hon. members got from the B.E.S.L.):

Now this new factor that I mentioned at the beginning, has arisen. Our new Force, which please God will never have to claim pensions for disability in war, but which may in some cases receive injuries in training, will now fall under the war pensions legislation, and most of these lads will be under 20 years old when they are called up. IS it fair, I ask, to place them in a position, that if they are hurt, they cannot, unless they get married before they are 28 or 29. be entitled to such widow’s or children’s benefits. And they may be precluded from marrying earlier. You can’t get married only on your military pension, and if they are hurt in the service of their country, is it fair that they should be precluded after ten years from marrying and if dying from pensionable disability the widows losing all benefits. [Time limit.]

I was pointing out that the aged are people who have already borne the burdens of life. They have gone through difficult times and now, at the end of their lives, one is concerned about their fate. As the previous speaker pointed out, the average age of all the people in the world is increasing. One of the factors responsible for that is of course the age dispersion. When there are fewer children it is obvious that the average age will increase. But that is only- one of the factors. Another factor is the fact that people’s lives are being prolonged as a result of improved medical services, and people now attain a greater age than they did previously. That age is not always an unmixed blessing, because in the world in which we live it seems that the aged to a large extent get in other people’s way. Now we find that something must be done to make the lot of these people more pleasant, to make them feel that they are accepted and that they can still make a useful contribution to society. There are many families where the children regard it as an honour to care for their aged father and mother and to accommodate them in their homes, and the grandfather and grandmother in home life is one of the most important factors in binding together the family and in creating an atmosphere which is ideal for the children growing up in that family. It is deplorable that we increasingly see the phenomenon of a father and mother who have done everything to care for a child, being pushed aside and sent to a home for the aged when they get very old. That is one of the things which increasingly happens in our time and which should be combated. It does not redound to our honour. But now there are many cases where there is no child to care for those parents, or there are domestic circumstances or economic factors which make it impossible for that child to care for his parent, and in such cases those old people must be looked after by the State, by society. The aged do not need pensions alone; they also need suitable accommodation, as a previous speaker has pointed out. Now it redounds to the honour of this Government that whilst in 1949 there were only 25 subsidired homes for the aged, in 1961 the number has increased to 84, whilst another 19 were being considered in 1961. By now the number will probably be even higher. If we ask why it is that there is such an increase in the number of homes for the aged, we can mention various factors. Firstly there is, of course, the awakened conscience of society, where people realize their duty to those people and feel that we must protect and care for our aged. But all this would not have been possible if the Government had not paid increased subsidies to those bodies to maintain such homes. The increased subsidies granted to 3,000 persons who are being subsidired and who are at present being housed have made this possible. Furthermore, there is the per capita subsidy of R3.50 in respect of each of the persons accommodated, and, moreover, the higher subsidy of R10 per month per person for the bedridden, and the increased subsidy for furniture for these homes which has been increased from R30 to R90. That has made it possible for more and more bodies to establish such homes for the accommodation of the aged. But I think that a danger is threatening in this respect against which we must issue a warning. Sir, it is no use every little town now trying to establish a home for the aged. From the very nature of the matter one can understand that if there are such a large number of homes, each accommodating only a few people, one cannot give those aged people the facilities which one could have given them if one had rather thought in terms of large centres. One does not want to remove these aged people from the vicinity in which they grew up, but if one establishes such a centre, e.g. at Kimberley which is intended for the whole of the Northern Cape, for the old people of Douglas and Kuruman and those parts, one attains that object. The old people from those parts regularly visited Kimberley from time to time to attend to their business, they know the environment, and they will feel at home there. If one then establishes such a centre there which can serve the whole area, all the people in that area will feel happy and at home in such a centre. But then I want to point out further that we should have a new approach in respect of these centres. We should no longer build big buildings, some of them double-storeyed, where the aged can be accommodated. When the old people get to that stage they need rest, but they still want to be independent. We should adopt a new pattern, of a township laid out for the aged. It should be planned in such a way that when one enters it one can see that it is a place where the aged feel at home, where there are no dangerous steps for them to struggle to climb at the risk of falling, where the place of worship is within reach of those people, where the little shop and the café and the little park and everything else make the old people feel happy in their little township, a township with semidetached houses so that if an old couple becomes ill they can simply call the neighbours across the fence to come and help. It should be a little township laid out in such a way as to comply with all the needs of the aged. It is a recognized fact that the aged to-day constitute just as important a subject for modern psychology as the children. The old person has his own way of thinking and of acting and his own reactions, and we should concentrate more on really complying with the requirements of those people, to show the world that in this respect we are thinking progressively in respect of our aged, and that we want to do something which will contribute no only to making the lot of these people more pleasant, but to give them community life during the last days of their lives, a little town in which they can feel at home and feel that they are still wanted and that they are still able to contribute something to society.

I have personally interviewed previous Ministers on the matter I have been discussing on behalf of the B.E.S.L., that has been fighting to get these time limits cancelled. The last Minister interviewed, intimated to me that he feared the financial implications, the possible cost, and he asked whether I could arrange for the legion to go into this matter. Rhodesia had recently abolished these time limits and the time seemed ripe for the ex-servicemen to press for the same concession. The Legion went into this matter and arranged with a very eminent statistician to investigate this question of costs. His estimate was that the cost would not exceed 4½ per cent of the existing war pensions. The amount provided in the Estimates for war pension allowances, is R7,185,000 and 4½ per cent of that would be a little over R300,000. I assume that is not a ruinous amount for this country. The Legion has since made representations to the department asking it to co-operate in regard to a much wider investigation if the authorities are not satisfied with this investigation, but extraordinarily enough these representations were turned down, and quite frankly I cannot understand why. I would like to quote again from a recent letter of the Legion—

And this is going to apply to every single boy who joins our defence forces now under present conditions.

Mr. Chairman, there have been several changes of Ministers dealing with this matter in recent years, but I do plead with the present Minister to go into this matter again sympathetically. It does not apply only to those who served in previous wars, although Heaven knows their cause is good enough, but it applies to all those who join our Forces now.

One last point. I want to give this information to the hon. the Minister Under the War Pensions Act, a disability is deemed to have been caused if it arises as a result of injuries sustained within a camp where a volunteer is stationed, or within the confines of any accommodation where he is required to reside. Where a volunteer is disabled whilst proceeding on authorized leave to and from his destination, the provisions of the Act apply to him. If a boy has an accident when serving, he comes under the War Pensions Act. And there will be lots of these cases, as we all know.

In conclusion, I would like to say that these provisions have existed for many years and they are the result of many years of experience in many lands, and I think it will be a poor show if the hon. the Minister does not put the matter right. I would like to make the hon. Minister an offer. If he will instruct his department to allow us to have an actuarial investigation of the possible cost to the country (although I don’t believe that this has any bearing upon the matter whatsoever), I personally will arrange with the Legion that they will bear the cost of that actuarial valuation. That is not a challenge and I know the hon. Minister won’t say “Yes”, but that is how strongly we feel about this matter.

I just want to say a few words in regard to a few points raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He said that this Vote is a particularly important one and I agree with him. I also want to point out that the hon. the Minister and the Government agree with that statement of his, because the large sum of money made available under this Vote is evidence of it. But now the hon. member expatiated on what he called “the large number endeavouring to eke out an existence on small pensions”. We are all sympathetic towards these people who are not so well off, and we pity them, and we admit that there are many of them who have to live under very difficult circumstances, but in all fairness we cannot allow such a statement to stand uncontradicted. I do not say that the hon. member said it with any particular purpose, but we cannot allow the impression to be created that we are dealing here with a Government which is only prepared to sit and watch hundreds of thousands of people struggling to make a living on the small pension granted to them. I think we should view this matter of old age pensions in the correct perspective. I do not believe that under our present system the old age pension should be regarded as one intended to supply 100 per cent of the needs of a person. I think we should regard it as an amount provided to relieve the burdens of the aged. We should realize that the old age pension is there as an aid and that we have the right to expect the churches, the welfare organizations and particularly the children to assist their parents. If we view it in that light we will not criticize the Government unnecessarily. It is a fact that the Government is very sympathetic towards these people. But we must remember that when we are dealing with pensions we are dealing with the fact that pensions tend, like a snowball, always to increase and there is no government in the world which can afford always to increase pensions without taking into account what the eventual result will be. No government can commit itself to amounts which later might embarrass it. Although a government has the power again to reduce pensions, it still remains a fact that it would be almost impossible in practice to do so. Therefore a government must be cautious and cut its coat according to its cloth. I do not want to expatiate on the question of private pension schemes. The question of private pension schemes, as opposed to a State scheme, has repeatedly been discussed here. I was glad to hear that the hon. member also regarded a private scheme as a possible way by which the burdens of the aged can be alleviated.

If we just look for a moment at what the Government has done for our pensioners in recent years, we must come to the conclusion that we have a sympathetic Government. In these Estimates this year an increased amount of R3,000,000 is made available for increasing the various pensions. Civil pensions, or certain of them, are being increased by more than R100,000, and if we study the matter we find that the tendency there is this year to increase pensions is a tendency which we have noted for some years already. In 1952-3 concessions amounting to R4,500,000 were made to pensioners, and in 1953-4 it was R4,550,000. In 1955-6 there was also an increase of R3,800,000 granted by the Government by way of concessions. In the year 1956-7 there was also an increase of R5,400,000. So we can mention the figures year by year, but I do not want to detain the Committee by quoting figures unnecessarily. Year after year increased amounts were voted to assist these people. If we study the figures it is interesting to note that this increased expenditure was not due to an increase in the number of pensioners. On the contrary, the increased expenditure was mainly due to the concessions made. I want to quote a few figures to prove it. In 1947 the number of pensioners was about 60,000. It has now increased to 86,800. In other words, there was an increase in numbers of 34 per cent. But the expenditure increased from R6,570,000 to R23,000,000, a percentage increase of approximately 253. In other words, whereas the number of pensions increased by 34 per cent, the actual expenditure, as the result of increased pensions and allowances, increased by 253 per cent. Over the same period the maximum pension increased from R120 to R294, an increase of 145 per cent. This increase was not only intended to cover the increased cost of living. On the contrary, the increased allowances are more than the increased cost of living. If we again take the same period we find that in 1947 the figure was 139.7 and in 1962 the index figure was 230.6, an increase of 65 per cent, whereas the increase in the pension was 145 per cent. We find this tendency in regard to all other types of pensions, veterans’ pensions, disability allowances, etc., where the increased expenditure percentagewise was much higher than the increase in the number of pensioners. The hon. member also referred to the problem of the value of the dwelling-house. In that respect also concessions were made to the aged. The fact is that many people to-day do not know that the position is that a person can occupy a house valued at R7,520 and still draw an old-age pension. Another great concession is that where two aged people live in a house and the one spouse dies, the surviving spouse retains the pension, even though the value of the house, on a revaluation either by the municipality or by the trustee, is higher. For pension purposes the value of the house remains the same and the surviving spouse draws the same pension. [Time limit.]

I should like to associate myself with the remarks on the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). He appealed to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the abolition of the time limit for payment of marriage and children’s allowances. It is felt that the maintenance of this arbitrary time limit is not only entirely unreasonable in present-day circumstances, but is really out-dated legislation. Other countries have abolished it and we now accept it as a fact that family allowances form part of a pensionable attribute to a war veteran. As the hon. member pointed out, it is illogical that some widows should receive these pensions when their husbands die, while others do not qualify for this pension simply because of the time limit. I would leave the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Benoni who stated his case very well. But I do want to say that this is something which deserves immediate and earnest consideration.

Talking about matters that deserve immediate consideration, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another source of dissatisfaction as far as the War Pensions Act of 1942 is concerned. The Minister will remember that in 1942 the Act was amended to make provision for compensation for the loss of earnings by means of a supplementary allowance which was given in the form of a pension; this was in addition to the basic pension granted on the loss of amenities of life. To meet the increased cost of living a supplementary bonus was also given, and this bonus has not been paid in respect of the supplementary pension. The bonus has since been increased to 45 per cent of the basic pension which is granted to a pensioner. However, the bonus has not been made applicable to the supplementary pension. And when you remember the increase in the cost of living index, which is now approximately 230, you will see how necessary it is that this bonus should be made applicable to the supplementary pension as well. As everybody knows, the value of our currency has considerably depreciated since those years. It is totally unrealistic to keep that supplementary pension still as low as it is without allowing for the increase of the bonus to apply also to that supplementary pension. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to grant an increase in the ceiling for the supplementary pensions payable to disabled servicemen and widows of deceased military pensioners. While I fully agree that the point raised by the hon. member for Benoni is of vital importance in view of the increased number of young men who are now going to serve a nine months’ military course, I do want to say that this non-allowance of the basic increase in the supplementary pension is something which, in my opinion, is of equal importance to the point raised by the hon. member for Benoni, as it affects all pensioners.

Dealing with the disabilities under which pensioners suffer, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He drew attention to the unrealistic position of only allowing an amount of £1,200—R2,400—as the basic amount of the unencumbered value of the house which may be owned by a pensioner, as the basis for his pension. With the increase in property values which is prevalent to-day, Sir, I think that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to increasing this basic amount to at least R6,000 and then let his calculations of 2½ per cent become applicable. One of the factors, I feel, which the Minister should consider is to waive the wireless licence fees which are now payable by old-age pensioners. We must remember that as far as an old-age pensioner is concerned—many of them, I should say—the only form of entertainment and relaxation which they have to-day is that which they get from the wireless. I do want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he gives consideration, in conjunction with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, in reducing these wireless fees from R5.5 to R1 only. There are only approximately 112,000 old-age pensioners and war veterans, and this reduction in the wireless licence fee is not going to be a very severe burden to the State. But it will be greatly appreciated by these people in their old age and in the twilight of their years.

As the hon. the Minister knows, when people are confined to work colonies the maintenance grant which is received by the family ceases on the day of the discharge of the inmate from such a work colony. Considerable hardship is suffered by wives and children who find that, immediately the inmate is released from the work colony, that grant ceases immediately. It is exceedingly difficult for any such person to obtain employment immediately. He finds that he is out of employment and his family is also deprived of that maintenance grant which was previously available to them. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider whether it is not possible in circumstances such as those, to continue the grant until the end of the following month or if that is going to be too severe, to continue the grant at least till the end of the month in which such an inmate is released. In that case the family will get the benefit of the maintenance grant until a fixed period of which they are aware and for which they can make provision. I think the hon. the Minister is fully aware that this is a considerable cause of hardship to many families in the Republic and I do not think that the extension of this facility will involve us in a considerable loss of revenue. Talking about loss of revenue, one of the causes of dissatisfaction to-day, as far as pensioners are concerned, is the fact that they have to pay income tax on their pensions.

Military pensioners?

No, I am referring to ordinary pensioners. I would like to suggest that these pensions up to, say, an amount of R1,500 per annum should be free of income tax.

Order! The hon. member should have raised that under another Vote.

As this will involve additional expenditure, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will give attention to this in the future. As far as the other points which I have raised, are concerned, I do hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to consider them favourably.

Hon. members on both sides of the House will certainly not hold it against me if I congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) in particular on the excellent speech made by him in connection with the building up of family life in our country, because without moral and religious famlies and unless the character of family life is absolutely sound, every attempt at upliftment and social advancement is hopeless and fruitless. I want to thank the hon. member therefore having made a very fine positive contribution and for his suggestion in connection with an ideal settlement for the aged.

The few ideas that I want to stress relate to one of these settlements, a branch of the work undertaken by Social Welfare. I refer to settlements for the physically disabed, indigent aged. There are three such settlements in our country, one at Karatara, one at Ganspan and one at Sonop. The latter is situated in the Brits district, and it is in connection with these settlements that I want to put forward a few ideas.

As the hon. the Minister knows, certain increases were given in the recent Budget to social pensioners, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to grant these same increases to these medically unfit and needy old people on the Sonop, Ganspan and Karatara settlements. When certain increases were brought about on previous occasions, even under the previous Government, and also under this Government, this type of settler was aways overlooked as far as increases were concerned. Members of Parliament always had to make representations to the Minister of Social Welfare, and then he had to make representations again to the Treasury. Eventually their pensions were supplemented by a certain amount, but they did not receive the full increase and sometimes they only received half the amount that was given to the ordinary social pensioner. I want to tell the Minister that the effect of this was that these settlers usually felt aggrieved, and I want to ask him whether he will not go into this matter. The Department may already have done so. We ask that in this case too the sickly aged on this type of settlement should also be given this increase in their pensions. I want to say to the Minister that any Minister and any Government who look after the aged, will have their days lengthened in this country that has been given to us. I do not want the hon. the Minister to do this with ulterior motives! We can deal with this matter on its merits, and I know that hon members on both sides of the House are sympathetic towards people of this kind. We are dealing here with cases of chronic invalidity, and I want to ask the Minister to give particular attention to those cases.

In this same connection I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to introduce a different classification on those settlements. I should like to state my position very clearly. I am a great advocate of settlements of this kind for the aged. I think they were given to the aged in order to give them a sense of achievement. There they were given free housing and other facilities such as a piece of land that they could cultivate. Those people were accommodated in a rural environment and to some extent they had to be correctly adapted again. But to-day I feel that there is something wrong with the selection. We have certain classes of old persons there. There are many families where both the hubsand and wife are entitled to a pension: in other cases the husband is an old man and the wife a young woman. In some families there are many children: in other cases the parties are chronic invalids. We find different types there. My request to the hon. the Minister is that he should order an exhaustive inquiry into the position of these social welfare settlers. I am informed that the sort of development that we want at Sonop is already taking place at Ganspan. I want to ask whether there cannot be a reclassification so that some of those houses can be given to lessees, so that some of these old persons who are entitled to the oudstryders’ pension or to the ordinary old-age pension will have the right to lease those houses for a certain amount, and then the land can be let again to others who are physically able to carry on further with their small and meagre pension. I do not want to enlarge upon the system as such. I do not want to interfere with the internal working of the system at Sonop. I know that the Minister is acquainted with the system because he has already paid a brief visit to this settlement. But I think this is the psychological moment for the Minister to order this inquiry and to see that we get a better classification there. Certain people who are entitled to oudstryders’ and other pensions will then perhaps be much better off if they can hire houses there and if they can perhaps pay a small amount for the privileges that they will enjoy there.

These are the two matters that I wanted to put to the hon. the Minister. I ask in the first place that the increase which has been given to the social pensioners should also be added to their pension, and in the second place I ask that a change should be brought about at Sonop, not in the spirit that prevails there but in the classification. I want to tell the Minister that there is a fine spirit there. There is goodwill and affection between the officials, the superintendent and the settlers. But what I am pleading for is a better classification so that many of these old people who are entitled to pensions will be able to hire a small house and enjoy the other facilities there such as free medical services and the other things that will be to their advantage, without the settlement as such having to be destroyed. Because, as Dr. Venter has informed the House very clearly, it is on this very type of settlement that upliftment work can be done and the family connection retained. I do not want the change that I advocate there to lead to the destruction of these settlements, but I am advocating that something should be done to place the settlement on a sound basis so that the various types will be better off than they are at the present moment.

I also want to ask the Minister to see to it that when the inquiry take splace the superintendent and his people will consult with the people on the settlement so that there will be no strife and discord later on that may disturb the present atmosphere there, an atmosphere which is always so necessary for the promotion of a fine spirit on such a settlement. I want to invite the Minister to pay another visit to Sonop as soon as possible. It is a fine place; there is a pleasant spirit there; the Minister will enjoy his visit and the people there will appreciate it very much.

I want to deal with some matters which old-age pensioners and war veterans have to contend with in their daily lives. I realize full well that the Minister has certain difficulties in meeting the wants of the old-age pensioners. But I would suggest to him that he works in close collaboration with other Departments, such as Agriculture, Posts and Telegraphs, and sees whether or not he cannot alleviate some of the hardships with which old-age pensioners have to contend. Firstly, I would say that one of the greatest hardships that an old-age pensioner or war veteran pensioner has to contend with is loneliness. In the matter of loneliness I think the State can help to some extent. I would like the Minister to consider the possibility of making an agreement with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in order to see whether he cannot exempt all old-age and war veterans pensioners from having to pay for a radio licence. I know members may say this is the wrong Vote under which to raise it, but this is not something which I can deal with under Posts and Telegraphs. Then I will be told that I must raise it under the Pensions Vote; and when I raise it under the Pensions Vote I will be told that I must raise it under Social Welfare and so on. But I am asking the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to make some arrangement with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It is his duty to try to help in this matter.

Secondly, there is the question of malnutrition. How some of the old-age pensioners manage to exist on their pensions is a miracle to me. It is a miracle of management. How they divide their pension into amounts allowing for food, for accommodation, for transport, and for clothes, is to me one of those things which only those who have to do it are able to explain how they do it. To us, to me at any rate, it is one of the wonders of South Africa. I think it is a wonder to find that there are over 100,000 people managing on such a pension. A great many grumble about the amounts which they receive but we do know that the majority of pensioners are more than grateful for what they are getting. I say that we must try to do something to help these people who are already grateful. Here I want the Minister to discuss with the Department of Agriculture ways and means of combating malnutrition. We have all heard about the surpluses which this country is producing. Unfortunately a great amount of this food is being destroyed. In the time in which we are living with refrigeration plants and dehydration plants. I should like to see our Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions getting his own Department, if necessary, to keep excessive food either in refrigeration or by dehydration and selling it cheaply—I say sell it; I do not say give it—as cheaply as possible to the old-age pensioners, and the war veterans pensioners. It can be arranged. I do not think there will be many abuses: if there are I think they will be negligible. If an old-age pensioner goes to a store with a letter of authority or his old-age pension card he should be able to buy excess food either in a dehydrated or frozen condition. It should be sold cheaply and it will assist them to spend some of the money which they have on other essentials.

Now the matter of health. Because of malnutrition, because of old age, we find that the old-age pensioner is more liable to get ill than the young person who is well fed. The difficulty which arises is how does the old-age pensioner meet the beginning of an illness. And I say the beginning of an illness because out of the meagre pension which he receives, he has to pay for his first visit to the doctor.

Why?

I will tell the hon. member why. The second visit will probably be at the hospital. It is wrong to think that it is so easy for an old-age pensioner to get into a hospital. All sorts of difficulties arise. I know from experience that an old-age pensioner suffering from a disease of one sort or another will go to hospital on a Monday and be seen by a casualty officer who then tells him to come back a day or two later so that he can see a specialist. Those things cost money. It means travelling up and down from his home to the hospital. I do not know what the travelling facilities are at Odendaalsrus. I do not know how far the centre of the town is from the hospital or how far the outskirts of the town are from the hospital. I know in the large towns, where the majority of pensioners live, the poorest areas are usually furthest away from the hospitals and that it costs several shillings to get to the hospital and another several shillings to get back home.

Surely the district surgeon visits him.

To get the district surgeon, the pensioner must first go to the police station, or get somebody to go on his behalf, to make a report.

What about the telephone?

I do not know many old-age pensioners who have telephones by their bedsides. Let us be practical about this. We know where these people live; they live in backyards of homes. They often lie ill in bed without the people knowing that they are ill. They are too ill to get out to inform anybody. Often you find a bottle or two of milk outside the door of an old-age pensioner and it is only that which draws the attention of the neighbour to the fact that something is wrong in the room. Do not let us make things more difficult for these people. I want to ease their hardships. I am not condemning the present system so much, but I want to make things easier for these people who are suffering. I repeat, Sir, that when the next-door neighbour comes in and finds the pensioner ill, that person invariably phones for a doctor. The number of calls that go to the district surgeon is virtually negligible. I want to make it easier for these people to receive treatment. The first visit the old-age pensioner makes to the doctor should be paid for. The medical profession will be only too pleased to assist. The Minister must devise ways and means of discussing the possibility of getting the initial visit of the pensioner to be paid for or partially paid for by the State. From then on the patient can be referred to the hospital and can be hospitalized, but I know from experience that the illnesses which are considered minor by the hospitals are very often major illnesses to the pensioner. The old woman of 70 with an attack of bronchitis will not be hospitalized, but will be given a bottle of medicine and sent home, because they do not have a bed for her. Then the question is who will pay for the medicine? A hundred and one difficulties arise. I would like at some time to have more opportunity of discussing this whole matter of helping the pensioners to get treatment in their own homes and to have district surgeons and district nurses looking after them. I know what services are given now, but I say they are inadequate. [Time limit.]

There are just a few points that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the first place I want to say to the Minister that the aged are very happy about the increase that they received recently. Although R25 per month is very little, we appreciate that in the circumstances it cannot be increased. But I do want to suggest to the Minister that the means test should be more flexible and that it should be lowered. I do not want to plead, as other members have done, that we should do away with the means test. We had the example of free hospitalization and how it was misused; we found that well-to-do persons made more use of it than the people who really needed it. For that reason the abolition of the means test is out of the question, but what can be done is to lower it so that if a person owns a property worth R6,000 he will still qualify but will not receive more than R10 by way of pension. Two persons, for example, may own a property on which there is still a bond. They cannot live off their property: it simply provides them with a roof over their heads. They have to get something extra to be able to live, and that is where the means test hits these people. Something must be done to help them. A case was recently brought to my notice of a woman who was earning £36 per month. She and her husband own a house but the husband gets an old-age pension. They proceeded to let two rooms and their income then exceeded the limit of the means test, with the result that the husband’s pension was reduced by half. There I feel that the means test must be changed. As far as I know R40 is the maximum that a person may earn and still qualify for a pension. Bearing in mind the high prices of to-day I feel that a change must be brought about and that the maximum permissible income should be raised to at least R60. Where a person owns a property worth R6,000 on which there is still a bond of R2,000 and he only receives R10, how is he to pay the interest and still live? We know that these people did a great deal for us in the past, and now that they have reached the twilight of their lives we should try to make it possible for them to live decently during the short period that they still have left.

Then there is another point that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and here I hope that I am wrong. I refer to the case where a grandmother takes a child from one of her children, where the father has died perhaps or where the parents are unable to raise the child. That child is not considered by the Department of Welfare. There was a case where I tried to get something for such a grandmother who was raising a child, but I was unable to get anything for her. I think it is very important that the Minister should tell us whether that is correct.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has talked about medical services. I agree with him and I want to support his suggestion that there ought to be a panel of doctors for aged people so that they can choose a doctor who can treat them free of charge at home. Not only do they lack the means sometimes to be admitted to hospital but their health may be such that they cannot go to hospital. In those cases the State ought to intervene and see to it that a house doctor is appointed for those people.

Speaker after speaker has pointed out that due to the new medicines and techniques people are becoming older and that the number of people over the age of 65 is increasing year by year. It is true that there is a universal dread of old age amongst all people, even amongst those who have means and can afford to grow old. On the one hand, a man desires a long life, and on the other hand he dreads the consequences of longevity. A great writer once said that to know how to grow old is the master work of wisdom and one of the most difficult chapters in the art of living. But I want to say that it is most difficult for those people who have not the means to grow old gracefully and to support themselves. For an old person to live, three things are necessary. There should be enough money to retire on and to supply their needs. Secondly, they should have a suitable place to live in, and thirdly they should have an aim in life to replace the aims of their previous employment. When I think of the old age pensioner, I say that the first and third points I made go together; they must have enough money and they must have an aim in life, and this is where our system falls down. The old age pensions are hopelessly inadequate to maintain a decent standard of living. Here I must differ from the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer). I find it rather ironical that a man representing the richest constituency in South Africa should tell us that the old age pensioner needs nothing and that the pension should not be considered as a pension granting all the necessities of life, but that it should rather be considered as an aid to the pensioner. Surely the hon. member has heard of the means test and that if a person has an income of more than R15 a month he cannot receive the old age pension, so it is the needy person who gets the pension and not the rich person. The old age pension is hopelessly inadequate to maintain a decent standard of life. That is why I say it should go together with my third point, that they should have an aim in life to keep them busy. I believe that the means test should be there, but I do not think the means test, as it is today, is quite correct. I believe that once the means test has been applied, the old age pensioner should be allowed to go to work and to get himself a new aim in life according to his strength and his ability to work. He may be able to work one or two hours a day, but to-day he is debarred from doing that because he sacrifices his pension immediately he earns over R15 a month. I find that we are so different in South Africa from the rest of the world. In all the Western countries they are creating employment for old age pensioners. In America there are firms who take in these pensioners and the Government is encouraging them by subsidizing them. I think the Minister should also think of that and encourage firms here to do the same. I disagree with the hon. member for Kimberley-South who speaks about “villages for the aged”. Sir, there is no sadder thing than to see these people in the old age homes waiting for death, where they have no outside interests. I regularly visit an old age home and they say to me that the saddest thing of all is that they are all old people and that week by week one of them dies. I believe that the old people should live in circumstances where they can see the rest of the world, where they can see the motor-cars and the children playing and have an interest in life. They should not be isolated. They must come into contact with life and with young people in order to keep some young ideas in their old minds.

I come back to the argument that they should be allowed to earn something more. The Minister will say that is the case in regard to people over 70, but why not make it applicable to all pensioners? After all, when a teacher goes on pension to-day, nothing debars him from taking other work. He does not have to sacrifice his pension, and the State contributes towards his pension also. The same applies to the whole of the Public Service. They have their pensions plus their salaries. If we could do the same for our old age pensioners it would be a big contribution to their happiness.

Then I come to a suitable place to live. Here I find myself, like the hon. member for Langlaagte, up against the means test. I find that where a man, through his thrift, has a little house of R2,400—it is not a palace; in Cape Town it is little more than a hovel but he lives there, and the value of the property is taken into account for his pension, and the two of them, he and his wife, are allowed £160 or R320 a year and they are still entitled to the full pension. But then the one dies and the one who remains behind is credited with the full amount of £160 for the house. The circumstances have not changed; it is still the same old house, and this person, together with the grief of losing his or her partner, is now faced with the position of losing the whole old age pension.

But that is not so.

The hon. member is wrong. £160 is calculated for the two, and it is £80 for each person. They are allowed to have £30 10s. a month, so they qualify for the full pension if it is divided into two, but if the one partner dies it is £160 for the survivor and they do not get any pension at all. That is a tragedy. I think we should reconsider this. It is nine years that I have been in this hon. House and every year the Minister has heard the same plea from both sides of the House. I have looked through the speeches made in past years, and in 1960 there were fourteen speeches on this subject and twelve of them were on this subject. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus was one of the two who did not speak about it. But year after year the same plea has been made to the Minister. [Time limit.]

The hon. members for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) adopt the attitude that the State is obliged to take care of all old people and that no obligation rests on the private individual. The law provides that a parent must support his child, and that obligation is mutual; the child is also obliged to support his parent. I think the first obligation that rests on a child is to support his parents if they are unable to take care of themselves. It will be a sad day if children, churches and welfare organizations can no longer take care of the aged and if the State is obliged to do so. Can you imagine. Sir, how hard hearted the individual is going to become if the obligation no longer rests on him to take care of the aged?

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has talked about the means test. It is true that the means test causes certain difficulties. In every case where application is made for an old-age pension and the applicant has fixed property, the value of the property is taken into account. I understand that the value of the property must not exceed R7,260 not R2,400, as the hon. member for Springs has said, or R4,800 as the hon. member for Drakensberg has said. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister in connection with the plea of the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to housing for the aged. I agree with him that there are many old people who are living in small little rooms and in garages in back-streets, and that is something that should not be permitted in our country. In those cases where persons own property, the value of which is so high that they cannot get a pension, I have been wondering whether the value of such a house cannot be assessed and the life expectation of such a person taken into account and whether the value of the property cannot then be divided by the number of years that person is still expected to live; for example, if a house is worth R8,000 and a person aged 65, with a life expectation of 10 years, applies for a pension, cannot he be given a pension R800 per annum on condition that on his death that property will be transferred to the State? If that person dies sooner, the State will be the party that benefits. If he lives longer than the expected period, he will be sure of a roof over his head until he dies, and thereafter the property will belong to the State. Within a few years then we will find that the State will be the owner of numerous houses, and persons who have no home of their own can then be put in those houses, and the fact that they are housed can then be taken into consideration for pension purposes. This would solve the housing problem. I make that suggestion to the Minister and I hope he will consider it.

Then I also want to thank the Minister for having succeeded once again in getting pensions increased. Even though it is only 5 cents a day, we are grateful to him for it. I also want to thank the Minister for the housing schemes that he has established throughout the country for the aged. These schemes provide housing on a large scale, and although there is room for a certain amount of criticism, we welcome these schemes. I agree that it must not only be in certain places where old people only are housed in these schemes; I agree that they should still mix with the community and that it would be better for them to live with younger people in their old age. But if the Minister goes into my proposal in connection with the assessment of life expectation and the valuation of properties, these schemes will no longer be necessary. I want to thank the Minister once again for everything that he has done in the past for the oudstryders and the old-age pensioners.

I have three points I should like to submit to the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. The first has been dealt with so ably and so exhaustively by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) that it is hardly necessary for me to touch upon it again except to say, that the hon. member for Benoni mentioned the Special Committee that was appointed by Mr. Sturrock as Minister of Finance in 1947 to advise him on this question of the validity of the claim of the wife and children of a pensioner. I was a member of that Committee, and if I can be of any assistance to the Minister in giving consideration to the appeal of the hon. member for Benoni, I shall be very glad to do so.

My second point is one of which I again have personal experience. I am thinking of the case of the disabled soldier who has to return to hospital again because he has trouble with war wounds after the war. There are many such cases. He is treated very sympathetically when he goes to hospital. He receives a pension of 100 per cent while he is in hospital, but when he leaves hospital and returns home and is not quite ready to work, he has either to go to work in an unfit condition, or revert to his ordinary pension, say 50 per cent or 60 per cent. I make this plea that the Minister should consider these cases and, if possible, extend the period of 100 per cent payment until the man is able to resume work. I know these cases. I spent months in hospital with these people. I was in the same condition. I am sorry to touch on a personal note, but I feel very deeply about this. Fortunately I was a public servant and was treated very sympathetically by the Government of the day.

My third point I am peased to able to mention in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has come in at the right moment. A few years ago the Minister of Finance of the day, our present Minister of Foreign Affairs, introduced a pension scheme for oudstryders of the Anglo Boer War without any means test. It was most popularly received by everybody, by men on both sides. Men who actually fought for the British Forces and are now living in South Afrcia, receive that pension just as the old Boers receive it—God bless them on both sides. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should use his sympathetic influence with the hon. the Minister of Finance to extend that scheme to the veterans of World War I who are now over 70. I urge that the man who is over 70 should come in that category and receive that oudstryders pension without any means test. I think that is a fair claim. I do not wish to press it further. I think the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has the first qualification that a Minister holding that portfolio should have: his heart is in the right place. I think he receives these cases very sympathetically. We do not realize in South Africa that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in modern civilized industrial countries is regarded as one of the keymen of any Cabinet. In the British system, in the new welfare state, he is almost the keyman in the Cabinet, and some of their best men are given that portfolio. Great responsibility rests upon the hon. the Minister and in these cases I have mentioned I can assure him of the wholehearted support of this side of the House.

One of the less pleasant aspects of the capitalistic system is that during times of plenty, during times of over-production, there is, for example, a tendency to destroy food in order to increase the price. I regard it as a gruesome and deadly crime to destroy food, particularly if the object is to increase the price of that product or to keep the price high. We on this side say that during the years when we were still in Opposition we continually objected to the destruction of food in order to increase the prices of those products; we fought against it. For that reason I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to negotiate with his colleagues, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, to see to it that when there is such over-production, that food will never be destroyed in South Africa but that it will be distributed, perhaps at cost price, towards which end the Department may possibly pay a subsidy, to orphanages and other welfare institutions where necessary. That in the first place.

That brings me to a second matter and in this respect I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter). I wish to join him in paying tribute to those who were responsible for observing last year as a family year. Congresses were held on the occasion; many speeches were made; many lectures were given; a great deal of guidance was given but it would be a tragedy if it were to remain at that, if all those beautiful suggestions and plans were to remain suspended in mid-air and if nothing tangible and concrete resulted.

I wish to return to something which I raised last year in connection with the same matter but in connection with which nothing has really been done. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of asking that as an outcome of the family year consideration should be given to introducing marriage guidance as a subject in our secondary schools; that the Minister of Social Welfare should plead with the Minister of Education that a subject marriage guidance be introduced in our secondary schools. It is a well known fact that a man’s happiness lies between his home and his profession. After all everybody finds his happiness in his home and his profession. In other words, everything, therefore, depends on the profession a man chooses and the woman he marries—or perhaps does not marry and similarly in the case of a woman, the man she marries and the profession of her husband…

Are you referring to Jan Moolman?

We are dealing with serious matters; we should not become frivolous. I say, Sir, that your happiness lies between your home and your work. After all everything depends on the profession you choose and the woman you marry.

As far as your profession is concerned, guidance is given in our schools; that is being looked after, but no provision is made for marriage guidance which ultimately decides your happiness more than anything else does. That is why I wish to plead with the hon. the Minister to go into the matter and see whether it is not possible to introduce a subject in our secondary schools, namely the subject marriage guidance, under which many aspects can be dealt with, as for example, the yardstick to apply when seeking an ideal mate. A multitude of aspects can fall under such a subject. I do not wish to go into that at the moment; this is not the time or the place to do so. But I think it will be worth while giving attention to this matter, as a positive contribution to reduce the divorce figure.

In conclusion I just want to say this in respect of the pleas that have been made for the lowering of the means test. This side of the House has often pleaded for that in the past; hon. members opposite have associated themselves with us and they are still doing so as they again did to-day. Like us they plead that the means test should be lowered, particularly where people live in a little house which belong to them, so that they can qualify for the old-age pension. We know it is a very difficult problem; it is difficult to determine where to draw the line, but the one anomaly remains and that is that those who have saved, those who have perhaps sacrificed all the conveniences of life in order to save for their old age, who have saved to acquire a little home of their own for those days, are actually penalized because they have saved, because they do not receive the old-age pension. On the contrary the spendthrift, however, the person who did not save, is rewarded for having been a spendthrift, because he does in fact receive the old-age pension. I think we should in any case reflect on this and evolve some plan to remove that anomaly because I do not think it is right that it should continue to exist. That is why I want to plead once again, as I have repeatedly done in the past, that the one and only house which a person owns, without his having any other income, should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the means test.

I am very interested in the suggestion which the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) made a few moments ago in regard to the advisability—I do not think he put it any higher than that—of providing instruction in the schools in regard to the problems and responsibilities of marriage—one might say, marriage guidance in the schools. Sir, we know that “marriage guidance” has become quite the norm in South Africa, but largely because of the abnormally high incidence of divorce. We have the “proud” record of being among the countries in the Western world where the divorce rate is at its very highest, and these marriage guidance organizations, as I am sure the hon. member for Boksburg is aware, usually come into the picture when a marriage having been entered into, it begins to go on the rocks; something has happened to the one or the other or both parties, and the marriage, if not already on the rocks, is certainly heading in that direction—and then marriage instruction is given to either or both of the parties concerned! Having had something to do with this organization in Johannesburg, I can only identify myself with the hon. member in saying that this idea is a very good one, but the problem one has to face is this: When is this instruction to be given in the school, and on what basis and through which media? Because I think the hon. member will agree that in a successful marriage there are certain minimum essentials and one of them is compatibility. We have been assured by psychologists, ever since the word psychology was brought into our language, that compatibility rests in the first place on sex, on agreement on that particular aspect of marriage. I do not want to develop the subject this afternoon, because I have not raised it, but I want to say that until we clear our minds of what is undoubtedly the mental block we have in this country about giving sex instruction in schools, then I am very much afraid that we cannot…

This has nothing to do with this Vote.

I am quite prepared, Sir, to recognize the rulings I am getting from that side of the House if you will support them. I was going to say, just to complete the point, that unless you are prepared to incorporate sex instruction in your marriage guidance instruction in the schools, you cannot advance the project in any way whatsoever. I want to leave it on the basis that this is a matter to which all members of this House, if they see it in the way in which the hon. member for Boksburg does see it, should give very serious consideration in order to decide whether that type of education or instruction should be given in our schools and at what age, at what stage and in what way.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) said that the pensioners—possibly pensioners within his own circle of acquaintances—say that they are thankful for the extra five cents per day which they have received in terms of the Budget. Sir, I do not know whether I mix with the wrong kind of pensioners, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as recently as this week when I was in Johannesburg, I saw a number of my constituents who are old-age pensioners, because in the constituency of Hospital, which is in the very heart of Johannesburg, there are several thousands of people who qualify for and receive the old-age pension, and one knows of them and has contact with them from time to time. There is no question that they will, of course, accept the extra five cents per day, but this thankfulness to which the hon. member for Prinshof referred just now must not mislead the Minister or the Government into thinking that they have now done the right thing by the pensioners—because I want to tell the Minister that some of the pensioners are either not so old that they cannot read or not so illiterate that they are unable to read; some of them have acquired a radio or preserved it from better times and days; in other words, they hear the news and read the news, and this is the point that has been put to me as recently as this week by more than one old-age pensioner: Why is it that in these circumstances in which we hear on the radio and read in the newspapers about the burgeoning economy of South Africa; as one particularly well-spoken pensioner said: the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, when he addressed this House quite recently, gave chapter and verse not only about the soundness of our economy but the constant, in fact the almost inevitable growth of it…

The Prime Minister said so yesterday.

Yes, the Prime Minister said the same thing yesterday outside this House. Now, how is it, in view of the fact that our economy is so flourishing, in view of the fact that the gold-mining industry has once again broken its all-time record—and it is common cause even amongst the pensioners that the Government receives a considerable proportion of the revenue earned by the goldmining industry—how is it, when we are assured on all sides that although it is a considerable amount of money, the sum of R120,000,000 for Defence is one that we can easily bear and should be thankful to bear, how is it that in spite of all those facts—all that the Government can find for me, the old-age pensioner, is an extra five cents a day, which in a large city is not even a one-way bus-fare?

What is the total cost?

I am well aware of the fact that when you multiply five cents by 90,000 and then multiply that by 365 to get your annual cost, it becomes much more than five cents, but that, with due respect to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) does not alter the fact that the individual is not the nation. The individual is concerned with his own problems, just as he and I would be, and to that individual the globular cost of this increase means exactly nothing. But what does make an impact is the matter that was raised here by the hon. member for Prinshof, that the individual pensioner is now going to get five cents per day extra. All I want to say—believe me, not in a spirit of criticism of the Government, but merely in order to provide, to the extent that I personally can do so, a spur on the Government to do better than this—all I can say is that the Government must not fall into the error of thinking that throughout the land there are thousands of old-age pensioners who now fold their hands in thankfulness to the Government for the extra five cents per day. Most of them, with great respect to the Minister, are convinced—those of them who are still fit enough to think for themselves, able to hear news and to read it and to talk to other people—that the Government can and should do better in the present circumstances in which South Africa finds herself. I sincerely hope, therefore, that he will not merely fall into this postbudget lethargy of saying, “We, the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, have done our bit for the old-age pensioners, we have given them an increase”, because that increase is so small, regardless of what the total cost to the country is, that I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that in no-one’s budget can five cents a day make an appreciable difference between living even slightly below the subsistence level and living well below it.

What about the extra R10,000,000 surplus the Government has discovered?

I do not want to rub it in, but it is perfectly correct that now, after the event, when the increase of five cents a day has been shown to the country as all that we can afford, we find ourselves with an extra R10,000,000 surplus. Sir, that could have gone to this particular account; and I ask the hon. member for Somerset East to work out what the increase would be if that R10,000,000 were added to the five cents per day.

That goes to Defence.

In spite of the fact that we have made our arrangements to defend the country, as the hon. member knows, we still find ourselves with this surplus. We were told that having regard to the fact we cannot hope to compete with the world powers that control nuclear power—we cannot go in for all the armaments that the United States. Soviet Russia and one or two other countries can go in for—R120,000,000, while a large amount for us, is adequate, and then we find ourselves with a surplus. Sir, I think the hon. member for Somerset East is well disposed towards the old-age pensioners, and he should not therefore deal with the matter on the basis that he sits on that side of the House and I sit on this side of the House—because I am speaking now for people who, to my certain knowledge, in two cases of those I have seen this week, voted against me and for that side of the House; I am talking about persons, about human beings, and if he would see it in that way he would agree that the Government could well have planned their affairs better, and even now could use this new-found surplus to increase the amount given to the old-age pensioners. [Time limit.]

In the nature of things, as hon. members will understand and realize, in dealing with a Vote of this nature, there are a few main requirements that one can state generally. One of the first requirements, which I have stated year after year and with which hon. members on both sides of the House have complied, is that this matter of Social Welfare and Pensions must be approached in a spirit of goodwill. The second aspect is that in approaching it in such a spirit of goodwill, we as responsible representatives of the nation must also approach it in a spirit of sober realism and ask ourselves what lies within the realm of practical politics. It will serve no purpose to speculate about things which are unrealistic and to stir up expectations which we know perfectly well cannot be realized. And in dealing with a Department such as this, I want to say at once that I very much appreciate the fact that hon. members on both sides of the House have raised this matter in the spirit in which they have done so, and I should like them to have some idea of the nature and scope of the activities of this Department. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) began his half-hour speech by emphasizing the enormous scope of this Department and then went on to deal with the nature and character of the Department. I just want to give these details to the Committee, and I do so not only because I owe it to members of this Committee but also because I owe it to the public. The hon. member for Umbilo has stated quite correctly that this Vote affects the interests of thousands and thousands of the less-privileged section of our population. It affects their intimate interests; it affects their personal interests, and because it affects their personal interests, it affects the interests of all of us, because, after all, all of us, on whichever side we may be sitting, have been sent here to look after the welfare of the nation. I do not therefore want to curtail the debate on this Vote. In the course of these discussions, suggestions are made on various sides of the House. All those suggestions are duly recorded and we go into all these matters again. In due course when the Vote has been disposed of, the officials of my Department and I again give our specific attention to these matters. And we do so because this is a matter, both with regard to social welfare and pensions, which is never static; it is an organism which develops throughout the years, because the life, the existence of mankind is never static, and in a developing world such as that in which we live, where new demands are made every day upon every individual, whether he is rich or poor, it is our duty under this Vote to give attention to the new demands which the new times make upon those whose interests we are called upon to look after under this Vote. Let me outline the scope of it to hon. members. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions receives an average of 3,000 letters per day, and the Department answers an average of 1,500 letters per day, but these are not letters which can be replied to by way of circular letters. Every letter deals with a personal case, with the personal interests of the people whose cases are submitted to the Department. I realized, after I had been charged with this responsibility for some time, that these were not matters which could be dealt with by way of circular letters, for the very reason that here one is dealing with the intimate life and the very existence of human beings, each differing to a large extent from the other, and that is why these matters have to be dealt with so individually and intimately. Every letter that comes in therefore must be gone into properly and every letter that goes out must have regard to the particular interests of the person concerned. Let me just add this. Something like 400,000 files are in daily circulation in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and in those files there is a record of the history of the individual persons whose interests have to be looked after. I want to say this to the credit of the officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions: We have an agreement that we do not simply dispose of cases in general, that every case must be studied on its merits, and it is because every case is studied on its merits and thoroughly studied that we have this enormous number of files circulating daily. It goes without saying that mistakes are sometimes made. In a vast organization such as this one cannot possibly expect that no mistakes will be made. Mistakes are made sometimes. Delays which could have been avoided are often caused by mistakes which are made, and we are always very sorry when delays do take place. I have asked my Department to give me some sort of estimate as to the percentage of mistakes that are made in such a vast organization that has to deal with so many details, and they tell me that they have worked it out at 5 per cent at most. In such an extensive organization, which has such a great variety of functions, this is indeed an achievement on the part of the officials of the Department, and I want to thank them for it.

I have said that I should not like to curtail the opportunities to discuss this Vote, and the reason why I do not want to do so is because I think that these are matters in which we have a particular interest. They are matters in which not only we have a particular interest, but they are matters in which thousands and thousands of people outside share that interest with us. I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact again that not only does this matter of social welfare, and to a large extent also the question of the destinies of social pensioners and others, receive the attention of the State but they also receive attention daily from a host of organizations and people in the private sector and from Church bodies. I would be failing in my duty if I did not once again, after the experience that I have had in the past year and in previous years, express my greatest appreciation of the contribution that has been made by the private sector, including Church bodies of all the various denominations and by the more than 2,000 registered welfare organizations and the hundreds of organizations which are affiliated with them, assisted by the private initiative of people in our community who take a loving interest in those members of the community who are less favourably endowed and who are struggling. I know from my experience from time to time what it means to have such an interwoven organization consisting of the State, the Church and the community, and that it is essential that in such an interwoven organization we should always concentrate on promoting a spirit of goodwill between the various branches of that organization. It is necessary in this organization to have State channels through which the closest contact can be maintained with the organizations in the private sector. Those channels have been created and are kept functioning smoothly so that the contacts built up over the years will not be broken down. We have our field services, we have our regional offices, we have our district offices. Apart from our district offices we have links with every magistrate’s office, and specific instructions have been given to the officials of the regional offices—and every regional office is headed by a well-trained, capable official, assisted by the best men we can give him—to acquaint themselves with the difficulties that arise in connection with old-age pensioners and to keep in constant touch with all branches of social services which are included in this organization. They have to keep in touch with them and send out their officials, each in his own region. I then convene a meeting of all the regional heads in Pretoria once a year; we hold a regional conference which lasts approximately a week, and there every regional official has to submit a written report on the position as he found it, the difficulties that arose and the hitches that he discovered in the region that he represents. We then discuss the various problems there. I open the conference myself and we then get a full report of the difficulties that have arisen in the course of the year so that we can take systematic steps in this connection.

Whenever this Vote has come under discussion I have extended an invitation to members of this Committee and I have said that as far as I am concerned, as far as the Department and the regional offices, the district offices and the branch offices are concerned, our doors are always open to hon. members of this House and to members of the public, during the recess as well, to bring cases to our notice. Since appreciation has been expressed by hon. members, amongst others by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), of the spirit in which we approach this matter, I too want to express my appreciation to hon. members. But I want to ask them to have no hesitation at all in bringing to our notice difficult cases which may occur, where it looks as though difficulties may be caused. It is our duty to give attention to those cases as far as we can.

I want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) that we may only come at a later stage to the details that he discussed here to-day, because I have said already that we would not like to curtail the discussion, but at this stage I want to reply in connection with some of the specific matters raised by him. In the first place he referred to the annual report of the Department. It is true that the last report is the 1959 report. We are considering the question as to whether annual reports can be issued at shorter intervals. An annual report will be issued again next year. We are working on the report at present. As hon. members are aware, this House passed the Children’s Act some time ago and we are now going into the practical implementation of the Children’s Act. That is one of the matters that we would like to deal with in the next report, and that is one of the reasons why the report has been delayed. It goes without saying that we would like to make available as much information as possible to people who are interested in the work of the Department of Social Welfare.

The hon. member talked about the possibility of issuing booklets or brochures containing details that will be of value to interested parties. I can only say to the hon. member that it will, of course, be an impossible task to send full details to everybody, without knowing whether or not the person concerned is interested.

At the offices.

The question of making available information at the various offices such as the magistrates’ courts or the regional offices or the district offices, is a different matter, of course. We shall ascertain where inquiries have been made and in what connection, and on the basis of that information we shall decide to what extent we are going to make such information available.

The hon. member touched upon another matter of exceptional interest. Hon. members will recall that both here and in the Other Place I frankly stated my attitude on a few successive occasions with regard to this question of co-operation between the Church, the State and the community, and I stated in connection with the care of children and the care of the aged that it was my honest conviction that it would be a sad day for South Africa if the care of children and the care of the aged were to be entrusted solely to the State and if the State alone were to look after them. If we did leave it entirely to the State, we would be doing harm to what is an essential requirement in dealing with these cases, the requirement of love and a sympathetic approach. What these people need is not only money for them to spend. I do not say that we should not do what we can in this respect, but what is also necessary is to give these people a certain amount of love. What they need is a little sunshine and the knowledge that their fellowmen in the community are interested in them. If we simply accept such a plea and say that we are going to abolish the means test entirely as far as social pensioners are concerned, we shall be breaking down that stronghold, because we will then be making it possible for everybody, for the irresponsible people to say, “As far as social services are concerned we can leave everything in the hands of the State now; it does not matter in what way this is done and in what spirit it is done”. If it is necessary to do so, I shall go into this matter further. I do not want to make any comparisons here this afternoon. In the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill I mentioned what improvements had been brought about from time to time since 1947 up to the present moment in connection with social pensions and other grants under the Department. But it is of no avail to mention all the figures here and then to come along to-morrow or the next day and to say that we have now abolished the means test entirely and that we have placed the responsibility for the care of the aged entirely on the State if we then find that the aged have to face life without any love. To my mind the fine feature of our system is that we cooperate in such a way that we get the attention and the contribution and the labour and the love and the co-operation of the public, of the welfare organizations and of the Church bodies. Let me mention an example to illustrate what I mean. About five months ago I personally went to Johannesburg at the invitation of a committee to go and investigate the position of the blind in Johannesburg. I spent the whole day in Johannesburg, and together with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Ramsay, and Mrs. Dr. van der Merwe, members of the committee and the welfare worker I visited the workshops; we met these people, and from the workshops we went to the places where they live and investigated the circumstances. But the committee dealing with the care of the blind asked me to give them a little advice. I then said to them. “My advice to you is that we should all co-operate to see whether we can improve the position of these people”. I do not want to detain this Committee with a description of the conditions that I saw there. I outlined a target to them and said that the committee, in co-operation with the public of Johannesburg, should try to collect a certain amount for this specific purpose. They then asked me what I thought their target should be. I said that I thought about £10,000. Just two days later the committee reported that land had been donated to them in Johannesburg for the erection of better accommodation for these people. Last week they asked me again to come to Johannesburg for the preview of a film shown by African Theatres where the fund-raising effort reached its culmination. After four or five months the public of Johannesburg collected R20,000 through that organisation. I mention that here as an example. There are numerous cases of this kind throughout the whole country, but the public is just waiting to be organized to make their contribution and to assist in caring for the aged and in developing children’s institutions, etc. There are many people who are prepared to take the necessary interest and to give the warm love that is so necessary in this matter. I want to point out to the hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members who referred to this matter that it is very easy to say, “Abolish the means test”. It is very easy to say that the means test should be relaxed. This matter has been gone into very thoroughly by Government after Government but it is very difficult just to abolish the means test.

That is why we asked for a commission of inquiry.

This matter has been investigated by commission after commission and by committee after committee. But I want to say to the hon. member that if a commission were to investigate this matter and find that we must say farewell to the system that we have to-day in connection with social pensions for the aged, for example, and that the State should accept the full responsibility for it, I would not be prepared to accent such a recommendation Decause of the defects that I have already mentioned. Changes will be brought about from time to time, just as there have been changes in the past. The hon. member for Umbilo also asked what the position was with regard to the inquiry by the Bureau of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This inquiry is nearing completion and we hone to make the report available in the near future. Then the hon. member for Umbilo as well as other hon. members referred to the problem of the value of the pensioner’s house in calculating social pensions and allowances. My Department and I have been giving attention to this question of housing since the previous session of Parliament last year. We have instituted a very thorough and intensive investigation to see to what extent relief can be provided in those cases where people own and occupy their own houses. We have devoted a great deal of time to this matter, and perhaps I should just say this on this occasion: The inquiry that we ordered into this matter through our regional offices and through our district offices, throughout the country, has revealed that there are something like 125,000 White persons receiving social pensions, It is estimated, according to the data at our disposal, that of the 125,000, 105,000 are already receiving the maximum pension, and it is estimated that of the remaining 20,000 only about one-half, about 10,000, are people occupying their own houses. What is the position going to be? If we do something for the pensioners who own their own houses, in addition to what is being done already, only 10,000 out of the 125,000 will benefit from it, but these 10,000 will be from the upper stratum of pensioners and not from the ranks of the less privileged. I do not blame people for bringing to the notice of the Minister or of the Department matters which they regard as being of importance and in connection with which they feel that an improvement can be brought about. The position is that R2,400 is allowed as far as the value of a house is concerned. An unencumbered value of R2,400 is exempted. Let us assume that the amount is increased to R3,400. The estimated expenditure in respect of that concession would then be R340,000 per annum, and this would benefit only one section of our social pensioners. But there is also this important aspect that we must not lose sight of, that out of the 125,000, the 10,000 pensioners who would benefit as the result of this, constitute only 8 per cent of the pensioners. Furthermore, it must not be overlooked that we would then be making a concession to the most privileged section, in other words, those who own their own house. The rest, many of whom are living in rooms and struggling hard, would not benefit. Many of them are people who have to pay rental. What are we to do in connection with those who pay rental? The suggestion put forward would benefit a section of the more privileged pensioners while the remainder would receive no benefit. I mention this to indicate clearly that every possible inquiry is instituted where we receive suggestions to bring about improvements. And this is not a process which comes to an end, it is a continuing process.

The hon. member for Benoni raised the question of war pensioners. I shall deal with the details in this connection later on. I have already informed the hon. member privately that this matter has again been brought to my notice and that we are continually in touch with the B.E.S.L., and I have already given instructions that this matter must be fully investigated again, because if there is anything at all that can be done we should like to do it. It is true, as the hon. member has said, that in other Commonwealth countries this 10-year limit has been abolished, whereas we still retain it, but it is also true that in many of these countries the position as a whole as far as total benefits are concerned, is not as good as it is in this country. But this matter will be gone into thoroughly again. I shall give and deal with the further details later on. I now move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 5.24 p.m.